|
Islam’s Attitude toward the Non-Muslim Countries and their Citizens
By: Ayatullah Muhammad Taqi Misbah Yazdi
The issue of attraction and repulsion with respect to those who are beyond the frontiers of the Islamic country requires a detailed and relatively long discussion, which cannot be covered in the remaining time, but since we want to start discussing a new issue from the next session, in a bid to complete the discussion we shall concisely deal with some relevant subjects here.
Those who are outside the territory of the Islamic government are of two types; they are either those who intend to render a blow and hatch conspiracy against the Islamic government and to undermine and overthrow it, or those who do not have such an intention. In other words, either those who have evil intentions and want to give trouble to the Islamic country and its people, or those who are not like so. If they do not have a plot to create trouble, and undermine and overthrow the Islamic government, Muslims have no right to commit aggression against them, and justice and kindness must be observed in dealing with them: Allah does not forbid you in regard to those who did not make war against you on account of religion and did not expel you from you homes that you deal with them with kindness and justice. (60:8)
So long as they are not inimical and have no conspiracy, they must be treated with kindness and magnanimity, and sometimes, they must even be dealt with more kindness compared to individuals inside the country so as for them to be attracted to Islam. One of the individuals to whom the zakat may be given are the so-called “those hearts are to be reconciled (al-mu'allafatu-qulubuhum)” namely, non-Muslims living in the neighborhood of the Islamic country. In order to foster feelings of friendship and love toward Islam and Muslims in their hearts, they will be offered shares of the zakat. So, with respect to this group of non-Muslims, not only should they not be treated harshly and repulsively, but they must also be attracted.
However, if they are inimical and they hatch a plot, they must be confronted decisively: Allah forbids you only in regard to those who made war against you on account of religion and expelled you from your homes and supported [others] in your expulsion, that you make friends with them. (60:9)
You should have attraction with respect to the first group, but with regards to this group which is inimical to Islam and Muslims, you should have total repulsion, and suppress and not give them any chance.
We again emphasize that the use of repulsion is only related to those who officially and openly act against Islam and Muslims, and there is no such ruling in relation to other than this group. The Qur’an even says that if it is the scene of battle and the army of infidels and polytheists is on one side while that of Muslims is on the other busy fighting in battle array, if one of the polytheists, for example, raises a white flag or through any other way conveys to you thus, “I have an academic question and the issue has become ambiguous for me is Islam the truth or not? Is my war against your rightful and justified, or wrong and false?”
In this case, Islam says that Muslims are duty-bound to go and bring this person to the camp of Islam while providing him with escorts and guards, and to engage him in a conversation. They must answer his questions and try to convince him through proof and argumentation. And then if he wants to return, while providing him with escorts and guards and without the least annoyance committed against him, again he must be sent to his original station and place away from the danger of being attacked by the army of Islam. Thereafter, if he decides to fight, they have to fight with him, and if not, he must be released so that he can go wherever he wants: If any of the polytheists seeks asylum from you, grant him asylum until he hears the Word of Allah. Then convey him to his place of safety. (9:6)
In which legal system you know there is such a thing? Islam says that Muslim student has his own place even if an inimical infidel, who has a sword in his hand and in a state of war against you, has a question, you have to answer him. We are followers of that school. Who says that the Islamic government and system cannot tolerate a questioner and gives the reply at the point of a sword? Islam which behaves in such a manner to an infidel with a sword in his hand will never be such (as alleged) in dealing with the “insiders” and Muslims. The initial policy of Islam is anchored in proof (wisdom), good advice, and polite argumentation, but if it ends up in animosity and conspiracy and the one who cannot argue in an academic dispute is busy undermining and plotting against the Islamic system, he should not be given mercy and the least chance. Rather, he should be faced with utmost force and decisiveness.
The View of Islam on Violent Actions and the Power of Repulsion
Hence, Islam has given the order to act violently and to employ the power of repulsion in two instances; one is when a Muslim or a non-Muslim within the Islamic society has violated the rights of others and committed oppression and treachery against them, and the other is when a person outside the jurisdiction of the Islamic government engages in opposition and conspiracy against Islam and the Islamic countries. Of course, in many cases, penalties and types of punishment to be implemented with respect to the violators of law and the infringers of the rights of others cannot be discerned by reason and they have been directly specified by God the Exalted Himself, the Legislator of Law. Yet, after determining the punishment, it must be implemented as decisive as possible against the violators. Regarding those who have spread corruption and committed debauchery, the Holy Qur’an says: As for the fornicatress and the fornicator, strike each of them a hundred lashes, and let not pity for them overcome you in Allah’s law, if you believe in Allah and the Last Day, and let their punishment be witnessed by a group of the faithful. (24:2)
Such a violator must be suppressed as forcefully as possible and no Muslim, if he really believes in God and the Day of Resurrection, should have even an iota of pity and compassion toward him. The severity and hardness of such a punishment is enhanced once we realize that these lashes should be made in the presence of people who witness the punishment to be meted out by the two fornicators. Naturally, in such a condition, apart from enduring the heavy punishment, their reputation will also be tarnished. They must be punished in such a manner that no one would dare to commit the same act.
Summary of the Discussion on Attraction and Repulsion in Islam
The limitation of attraction and repulsion in Islam means that in case a person in the Islamic society directly or indirectly violates the spiritual and material rights of others or a person outside the jurisdiction of the Islamic state rises up in opposition to Islam and the Islamic country and hatches conspiracy, in both cases force must be utilized while in other cases, either only attraction is to be employed, or repulsion accompanied by attraction and mild and kind expression which at least reduces the degree of repulsion. In the case where there is force and repulsion, God has explicitly defined its limit and boundary in many cases or stated its general ruling. In whatever situation, we should not go beyond the limit and boundary at the time of resorting to force and violence: These are Allah’s bounds, so do not transgress them, and whoever transgresses the bounds of Allah it is they who are the wrongdoers. (2:229)
In conclusion, let us review again the subjects of the previous meeting. If you remember, I said that the topic of attraction and repulsion in Islam can be approached in three dimensions and forms:
(1) Does the set of Islamic teachings and laws attract some elements for the followers, or does it only repulse some elements, or both the two?
(2) Is the set of Islamic teachings and laws attractive to all human beings, or is it repulsive to all of them?
(3) In attracting non-Muslims to Islam as well as in relation to its followers, does Islam employ attractive methods only, or repulsive methods only, or both the two kinds of methods?
On this topic, we focused more on answering the third question and dealing with that aspect, and with respect to the other two questions, a considerable discussion was not made, and since in view of the importance of other topics, we decide to deal with a new subject, we conclude here the topic on attraction and repulsion, and I hope that in the future programs we can complete this discussion.
Question and Answer
Question: Indisputably, in Islam there is both attraction and repulsion, but regarding the word “harshness,” the question is that the use of this concept can be examined from two perspectives. The first perspective is this: Is this concept a religious terminology and has it been mentioned in the Qur’an and traditions? The answer is seemingly negative, because in the Qur’an this word is never used and more or less, we do not have it in the traditions. That is, it has been used very rarely. In sum, it is not the case that in the parlance of the Qur’an and traditions, harshness has been advanced as a virtue. In Persian also, this concept is not positively value-laden, used as the equivalent of ruthlessness and is different from “hardship” and “decisiveness”. And it should not be regarded as synonymous with decisiveness, which is positively value-laden. A war commander may sometimes be “decisive” and may also be “harsh”, and these two are not identical. Man may also perform harshly even an emotional act (such as kissing).
The other point regarding this word is that assuming that such a terminology exists in the Qur’an, traditions and Islamic lexicography and that we accept that it is equivalent to the concept of decisiveness which has a positive connotation, yet by observing the existing conditions and issues, both in the rational and textual terms with respect to the use of this terminology, there is a hindrance and one must use a different term. But the rational perspective, reason dictates that once it is spoken in a society and place that this word has a negative connotation and it is understood to mean ruthlessness, by using this word, it is not without reason that repulsion is fostered. This is while by using a different word which connotes the same concept, the problem can easily be solved. From the textual perspective, however, the Qur’an says: O you who have faith, do not say ra‘ina, but say unzurna. (2:104)1
Since the enemy is misusing the meaning of ra‘ina, shatter the same implication within the framework of other terms and say, unzurna so as to put a stop to this misuse by the enemy.
In other words, it can be said that the discussion on harshness is applied to the goodness or badness of an act while at other times, it is applied to the goodness or badness of the actor or doer. For example, sometimes there is talk about killing. Killing is an action which is essentially harsh. Slaughtering a chicken or a lamb is essentially a harsh action. Meanwhile, there are times when the discussion is related to the actor or doer, viz. the one who wants to slaughter the chicken or lamb. The actor or doer can perform this act harshly and ruthlessly. He can also do the same without such harshness.
The discussion is about the harshness of the actor and not the harshness of the action. That is, in implementing the laws of Islam, we should not associate the harshness to ourselves. It is like the Prophet (S) who is “the mercy to the worlds” and has an excellent moral conduct. It is true that in facing the infidels he was hard and decisive, but harshness could not be seen in his action.
In a nutshell, the question is: Why although in all dictionaries the word khushunat is synonymous with ruthlessness which has a negative connotation, without any reason we persist in using this word and thus foster repulsion and pave the way to the misuse of the enemy while by changing the term the problem can be easily solved?
Answer: Of course, I have already mentioned some of the subjects which must be raised in reply to this question in a television debate about the topic of khushunat, and the colleagues may refer to the subjects published in the Partu Weekly.2 Nevertheless, what I can explain here is this: Sometimes, the discussion is about the meaning of khushunat in our culture and at times, the discussion is about the meaning of the word in the different customs and cultures.
If someone says, “In our culture, the word harshness is used to mean mercilessness,” we first of all have to clarify the meaning of “mercy” so as to make clear its opposite word which is mercilessness or harshness. Of course, we have to say that although in our culture the concept of harshness may be associated with mercilessness, it is not so in other customs and cultures. For example, in the legal and political parlance, harshness does not have such a meaning. This word is basically Arabic, and in no Arabic dictionary has this word been defined as mercilessness. The adjective of this word; i.e. khashin, rather means rough or coarse and the noun means roughness or coarseness while its antonym is layyin which means soft, and the noun linah means softness.
Therefore, according to Arabic lexicography, khushunah is not the antonym of rahmah [mercy] let alone to mean mercilessness; rather, it means roughness and coarseness while its opposite is softness. Of course, it is such that when a concept from the realm of natural and physical sciences is transferred to the realm of social sciences and humanities, it will acquire a new manifestation, but the root of the lexicographic meaning is preserved.
Regarding the point mentioned in the question that this word has never been mentioned in the Qur’an, also mentioned very rarely in traditions and is not treated as a virtue in our current culture, we have to say that this claim is not correct. Of course, in the Qur’an the root-word “kh-sh-n” and the word khushunah do not appear but its synonym is mentioned. And according to the grammatical and literary rules, we have also the right to put one of two synonymous words in place of the other or vice versa. Hence, if the synonym of the word khushunah really appears in the Qur’an, this claim that the concept of khushunah is not used in the Qur’an will not be correct. Its synonym which is mentioned in the Qur’an is the word ghilzah from the root-word “gh-l-z”: ..And let them find severity [ghilzah] in you. ..(9:123)
In another place, it says: Wage jihad against the faithless and the hypocrites, and be severe [wa’ghluz] with them. Their refuge shall be hell. (66:9)
This verse is repeated two times in the Qur’an in Surah at-Tahrim and Surah at-Tawbah (or, Bara‘ah). Elsewhere, it also says thus: It is by Allah’s mercy that you are gentle to them; and had you been harsh and hardhearted, surely they would have scattered from around you. (3:159)
There is also this verse: Over which are [assigned] angels, severe and mighty. (66:6)
All in all, the root-word “gh-l-z” has been repeated eleven times in the Qur’an and as I have said, ghilzah and khushunah are synonymous and have basically identical meanings. Therefore, given the use of the word ghilzah in the Qur’an, it cannot be said that the concept of khushunah has not been mentioned therein. Similarly, in one instance the concept of rahmah “mercy” has also been mentioned in opposition to the concept of “hardness” or “severity” [shiddah]: Muhammad, the Apostle of Allah, and those who are with him are hard against the faithless and merciful among themselves. (48:29)
Talking about the traditions, we have to say that the root-word kh-sh-n has appeared in the traditions and in some cases it has been treated as a virtue. For example, the Commander of the Faithful Imam ‘Ali (‘a) has been reported to have said: “He was severe for the sake of Allah.”3
All this is according to the lexical examination and that of the Qur’an and traditions through which it became clear that what had been claimed in the question related to this section does not hold war.
Now, concerning the lexical discussion and the uses of the term, does khushunah really mean birahmi? I am asking you: If, as existing in the penal laws of Islam, because of committing of sin and crime, the right hand and left foot of a person are to be amputated while the community ostracize him and nobody respect him, is it mercy or mercilessness? If, as also existing in the penal laws of Islam, a fire is kindled and a person is to be thrown there, or his hands and feet are tied and he is to be thrown down from the top of a mountain, or because of stealing a golden coin, his four fingers are to be amputated before the people, are these acts a sign of mercy or ruthlessness?
In the question, there had been a correct distinction between harshness of the action and harshness of the actor, and the goodness or badness of the act and the goodness or badness of the actor. Also, decisiveness had been correctly distinguished from harshness. If a person passes by the red light and the traffic officer asks him to stop and after greeting and salutation, tells him cheerfully and politely, “Since you made a violation, you shall have a fine of five thousand tumans,” there is decisiveness here while there is no harshness. But the discussion is that harshness in Islam we are referring to is not solely decisiveness.
Some acts are essentially harsh and the decisiveness in doing so is always accompanied by a kind of harshness. When the executioner comes, beheads someone with a sword, the nature of this act cannot be done with a smile and cheerfulness. Many people have no endurance to witness such a scene; their faces will get pale; and they will even forget to smile. Even some of them will become unconscious in witnessing it. As such, how can it be said that the agent of such an act performs the beheading only “decisively” but with kindness and a smile?! This act is essentially harsh and, naturally, the one doing so is also harsh and is regarded as a proponent of harshness. To distinguish between harshness of the action and harshness of the actor has no room in such actions.
Furthermore, in essence, those who raise this criticism to us do not refer to the harshness of the actor; rather, their criticism exactly pertains to the harshness of the act. They say, “These things you are doing are harsh and they should not be done.” Even if we do these acts with kindness and a smile, the problem will not be solved. The discussion is not on our decisiveness but non-harshness; rather, all criticisms are related to the punishments themselves.
The origin of this issue can be traced from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. One of its articles states that all harsh punishments should be absolutely abolished.4 The very obvious manifestations of such punishments which they highlight are execution and some others like amputation of hands, lashes, and any punishment which is accompanied by physical torture. Today, whenever there is a speech about human rights, and the countries in the world, America at the head of which, condemn us for alleged human rights violations, their criticism is not “Why do you frown and not smile at the time of executing or giving lashes to the criminals?” Instead, the focus is on the very existence of such punishments: “Why such punishments are implemented?”
They say, “These punishments are related to the age when the human race did not have such a level of culture and civilization, and the people of the different tribes and countries were in constant war, killing and pillaging each other. But now, the human race has become civilized and all become polite, respecting one another, and even if they, for example, want to drop an atomic bomb on a city, they will drop their bomb politely, calmly and silently, and go!! In such a period, the harsh punishments in the form of execution and lashing should no longer exist.” The wave of this propaganda is so strong and effective that unfortunately, even some clerics and turbaned men are influenced by it and are explicitly writing in their newspapers that these punishments are inhuman and cruel and must be abolished.
Of course, this expression of opinions is not new, for I can also remember that during the first years of the Revolution, the lawyers of the National Front issued a declaration that the Islamic law of retaliation is inhuman and cruel and must be removed. At the time, the eminent Imam (may Allah the Exalted be pleased with him) stood firmly in facing them and issued a decree on their apostasy. As they were browbeaten by the Imam, for many years they crawled toward their hiding places, but today they again openly and freely raise their impudent and presumptuous voices in the public gatherings and newspapers.
Thus, it is not a talk about the person and actor as to why he does not smile and is not polite. The criticism is on the actions and punishments themselves, which, they say, are cruel and inhuman. The question is this: Should these acts which they regard as harsh be there or not? They say, “There should be no harshness” and by harshness they refer to such punishments like execution, lashes and retaliation. We also want to negate their contention; therefore, we have no option but to use the same word and say, “In our opinion, harshness should be there and of course, what we mean by harshness is the decree on execution and lashing.”
We do not have any motive to use this word, but since it is mentioned in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and that we also want to refute the Declaration’s contention and confront it, we have no option but to put forth the word khushunat. We say, “These acts that are harsh according to you must be there. The reason for this is that they have been categorically stated in the text of the Qur’an, and we either have to reject the Qur’an God forbid or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and a Muslim will never condemn and discard the Qur’an merely for the sake of the Declaration.
The Qur’an states: As for the fornicatress and the fornicator, strike each of them a hundred lashes, and let not pity for them overcome you in Allah’s law, if you believe in Allah and the Last Day, and let their punishment be witnessed by a group of the faithful. (24:2)
The explicit manifestation of this noble verse, the true faith in God and the Last Day, is that not a speck of pity should be found in the heart of a person for the fornicating man and woman who are receiving lashes. It is natural that once there is no mercy, there will be ruthlessness. The Qur’an says that the faithful is he who shall have no pity in this context. Of course, it should not be an unjust ruthlessness. In any case, a Muslim should either accept the Qur’an and this verse and act upon it, or follow the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and defend it.
Again, the Qur’an states: As for the thief, man and woman, cut off their hands as a requital for what they have earned. (5:38)
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights says that this decree is cruel and inhuman. At this juncture, a Muslim should choose either the Qur’an or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
In the same vein, the view of the Qur’an is this: There is life for you in retribution, O you who possess intellects! Maybe you will be God-wary! (2:179)
According to the Qur’an, the life and wellbeing of society will be ensured when the punishment of murder is execution, but the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says that execution as a punishment is inhuman and it must be abolished.
This is a cultural conspiracy. Through this hullabaloo and widespread propaganda, they want to put us in a passive position that our religious authorities will not dare to say, “We have such laws.” On the contrary, we have to stand firmly and decisively and say, “Yes, there are execution, amputation of hands and burning in fire in Islam, and if you call them harsh, we say: Of course, there is harshness in Islam and we are not afraid of being accused of harshness.” We do not show ceremonial courtesies to anyone and we do not like to play with words. If we really follow the Qur’an, then it has permitted these things which the Universal Declaration of Human Rights regards as cruel. In fact, the Qur’an has considered them necessary and obligatory. While addressing the Muslims, the Qur’an says that they should be like this with respect to the infidels: And let them find severity in you. (9:123)
It does not say, “And let them find severity in your action.” It rather says, “…in you.” That is, the violators should feel severity in your beings, and your behavior with them should make them realize that we will not be affected by our feelings and emotions “If I do something wrong, they will not pity me.” But if we really accept the Qur’an and that we are Muslims, we have to say that these things exist in Islam and the Qur’an, and with respect to them, we are not afraid of anybody: Such as deliver the messages of Allah and fear Him, and fear no one except Allah. (33:39)
Even if we are afraid of stating the decree of God and the Qur’an, at least we should not affirm their statements, write articles and deliver speeches here and there in negating it. Of course, not everybody has the courage to engage in this venture. Those who can take a step along this way are the ones who are not afraid of the reproaches and censures of both the friends and foes: They wage jihad in the way of Allah, not fearing the blame of any blamer. (5:54)
For us to say that there is decisiveness in Islam does not answer in any way the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Declaration says, “The punishments of Islam are harsh and they must be abolished.” In reply, we have to say, “These harsh punishments exist in Islam and they must remain in force.” Just for the sake of pleasing others, we cannot accept some of the laws and decrees of Islam and the Qur’an and reject some others. To have faith in some while denying some others is true unbelief: Those who… say, ‘We believe in some and disbelieve in some’ and seek to take a way in between it is they who are truly faithless. (4:150-151)
A true Muslim who believes in the Qur’an must not be heedless of the unambiguous decree of God just because of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and sacrifice his religion before the altar of the Declaration. If an act which people are not pleased with was not supposed to be done, the Holy Prophet (S) would neither abuse Lat and ‘Uzza5 nor break the idols of people. The order of the Qur’an is for you to categorically declare disavowal of the enemies of God and His religion, and also to be repulsive of them both in words and deeds. In this regard, the Qur’an says that the action of Prophet Abraham (‘a) should be a pattern of behavior: There is certainly a good exemplar for you in Abraham and those who are with him. (60:4)
What is the act of Ibrahim (‘a) and his followers because of which we have to cling to them? The reply is mentioned in the continuation of the verse: When they said to their people, ‘Indeed we repudiate you and whatever you worship besides Allah. We disavow you. (60:4)
The Qur’an says, “You have to emulate Ibrahim for standing in front of people and saying very explicitly, ‘I repudiate you as well as that which you worship’.” This is the order of the Qur’an, and not for us to say, “We should have tolerance, respect the traditions of people, and go in front of their idol and pay homage to it because it is venerable for them!” The Qur’an does not permit such a thing to anybody. A true Muslim should decisively say, “No way for the idol!” The verse continues to say that you should not suffice yourselves with it; rather, you should enhance your reaction and the severity of your statement and say thus: And between you and us there has appeared enmity and hate forever, unless you come to have faith in Allah alone. (60:4)
You have to say, “So long as you have such practices and ideas, we are inimical to you and our enmity will never come to an end.” You have to say, “Death to you and your idols!”“Fie on you and what you worship. (21:67)” These words and views are not mine; this is the categorical word of the Qur’an which commands, “Tell them, ‘We are inimical to you forever and have rancor and spite in our hearts unless you return to God’.” The issue will become more interesting if we pay attention to the continuation of the verse. It states that you have to follow Ibrahim and emulate his works with one exemption. Ibrahim did something that you are not supposed to emulate: Except for Abraham’s saying to his [step]father, ‘I will surely plead forgiveness for you. (60:4)
Ibrahim (‘a), with all the decisiveness he had, in his statement to Azar, who was his stepfather, showed a bit of courtesy, saying, “I will plead forgiveness for you.” The Qur’an says, “Do not imitate this act from Ibrahim and do not promise any polytheist to pray to God for his forgiveness.” If we really accept the Qur’an, so be it! This is the order of the Qur’an and a teaching it gives to its followers.
The meaning of the verse is completely explicit and clear, and it has no other interpretation. Its only alternative interpretation is that either we have to distort the Qur’an, or thrust it aside and trample it down for the sake of pleasing the world and the international community. We have to clarify our stance are we followers of the Qur’an or proponents of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? We have to accept whatever is stated in the Qur’an, and not only the cases which are consistent with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. There are verses in the Qur’an about amputation of the thief’s hand, lashing of the fornicator and execution of the murderer.
Thus, notwithstanding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, we have to accept those verses. If there is this verse in the Qur’an, “Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good advice, (16:125)”
There is also this verse in the Qur’an: “Fight them until faithlessness is no more (8:39)”
And we have to act upon both these injunctions. If a person recognizes God to be “the Most Merciful of all the merciful,” he should also recognize Him to be “severe in punishment.” We cannot say, “Approve!” where the Qur’an says that God is the Most merciful of all the merciful, while we say, “This is harshness and I do not accept it,” where it says, “He is severe in punishment. (5:2)”
God is “the Most Merciful in disposition of forgiveness and mercy”6 and “very exacting at the time of giving exemplary punishment and chastisement.”7
One of the points of our weaknesses is that we conceal the truths of Islam and do not have the courage to state them as they are mentioned in the text of the Qur’an. Why are we afraid of expressing these truths? When the late Imam said, “Do not be afraid of being accused of harshness and retrogression,” he was referring to these cases. Islam to which we want to invite people is a totality in which everything is knitted together, among which are these punishments which the Universal Declaration of Human Rights negates, and we cannot invite people to ten verses, hundred verses, or six thousand verses minus one verse of the Qur’an.
Another Question and Answer
We know that the Qur’an and [the precepts of] Islam were not revealed overnight. Instead, they were sent down gradually and consistent with the understanding and progress of the people and society who were the Prophet’s addressees. Similarly, there is no dispute that in view of the fact that we live in an Islamic country and that more than ninety or so percent of our people are Muslims, we are obliged to accept the totality of Islam without any omission and not to believe in some and deny some others.
The issue at stake is that we have today staged a revolution and as the impact of our revolution, Islam which was then about to be obliterated, has been revived again and now, we want to present it to the world and invite people toward it. On one hand, we know that through the propaganda campaign they launched, the Western and imperialist media have presented Islam as a cruel and retrogressive religion and Muslims of Iran in particular as terrorists, illogical and harsh people.
Under this condition, if we implement such laws like the amputation of the thief’s hand and stoning to death of the adulterer, it will definitely have a very negative impact on the world’s public opinion, and by taking a film footage of those scenes and showing the same, the Western media will portray a very hideous and repulsive image of Islam and Muslims. It is obvious that if Islam is presented to the world in such a manner, we will never succeed in conveying the message of Islam and the Qur’an to the people of the world, and nobody will be inclined to Islam.
The question is: Will this issue being expressed not prompt us to bring about a change in some of the laws of Islam for the sake of keeping loftier interests such as the preservation, propagation and spread of Islam? For example, in the case of murder, the initial decree is to give a hundred camels as blood-money, but now we have made an equivalent and we say that seven million tumans worth of money should be given. By coining some equivalents, can’t we do anything to prevent the hideous image of Islam and let people turn toward Islam?
Of course, the answer to this question requires us to discuss each of the phrases of the question. Anyway, to the extent which is possible here, we shall discuss some issues.
Now, in our own country, we have conveyed (the message of) Islam that more than ninety or so percent of our people have also accepted it, and that there is no deviation and cause for concern, I have to say that unfortunately, the truth is something else. Today, while nothing has already passed from the Revolution and the speeches of the Imam are broadcast daily over the radio and television, yet we can witness by ourselves that in some writings and speeches, the words of the Imam are distorted and quoted out of context. Today, you can observe in a newspaper whose proprietor is also a cleric that subjects which are against the explicit text of the Qur’an are published. In sum, through different factors, they influence the youth and create doubts and skepticisms in their hearts. Therefore, even in our country, there are serious concerns with respect to the presentation of Islam.
As to what has been said that the West has not yet heard and does not know anything about Islam and we have been trying to introduce Islam to the world, we have to say that this claim is not correct. Today, the Qur’an has been translated into almost all the living and important languages of the world and given the extent of the mass media, radio, television, satellite, and the Internet, actually everything is at the disposal of everyone, and we cannot say that the people of the world are not aware of Islam, especially given the widespread propaganda launched today by the news media particularly by the International Zionism against Islam.
Today, wherever you go around the world, Islam is known as a religion that does not recognize the rights of women and discriminates between the two sexes. I personally have visited many countries of the world and gone as far as the southern part of Chile and the same issues I have mentioned were raised, and I had live radio and television interviews regarding those issues. In short, for us to say that today there are people in the world who do not know anything about Islam and that we are just trying to introduce Islam is not true.
Anyway, even if there are such people, it is obvious that in introducing Islam to them, at the outset we will not come to state the fact that Islam amputates the thief’s hand, gives lashes to the fornicator and sometimes stones him to death, and the like. Instead, one has to begin with the fundamentals and principles of the religion of Islam such as monotheism, prophethood and the Day of Resurrection so that the foundation of their faith will little by little be strengthened and gradually the other issues will be explained to them. In the beginning, we should content ourselves in making them ready to recite the testimony of faith [shahadatayn] and become Muslims, and of all the laws of Islam, to be willing to perform the daily obligatory prayers.
In sum, at the beginning we have to try to make them closer to Islam only to that extent and thereafter, to gradually inform them of other issues to such an extent that they can act upon. Of course, the policy of gradual conveyance, which is related to every community and country, is definitely not for the people of Tehran, Isfahan and Shiraz.
Concisely, given such hypothetical manifestations, the general ruling is that if under a certain condition of time and place to implement a decree has irreparable great blows to Islam and the Islamic society, the Supreme Religious Authority has the right to exercise his guardianship authority [wilayah], and in accordance with the secondary authorities, which also exist in the text of Islamic laws, to order for the temporary suspension of the decree’s implementation.
Of course, such a thing is among the prerogatives of the jurist-guardian [wali al-faqih] only and nobody else has the right to do so. But the other point which must be noted is that there is difference between temporarily postponement of the implementation of a law in accordance with certain greater interests, and denial of the basis of the law and say that such a law does not exist in Islam or to say that in spite of the existence of this law in Islam, we do hereby declare that from now on, it is no longer part of Islam.
These two are very different from each other. To temporarily postpone the implementation of a decree is not confined to the penal laws of Islam. For instance, we ourselves witnessed that the eminent Imam (r), in accordance with greater interests, postponed the going to Hajj pilgrimage, which is one of the important forms of worship in Islam, of the Iranians for some years. To temporarily suspend the implementation of a decree is one thing and to deny the same is another story. In accordance with greater interests, it can be said that this decree is not to be implemented for the meantime, but to say, for example, that Islam has no decree on stoning to death and that the decree was only for the uncivilized and barbaric people at the time in the Arabian Peninsula is denial and abrogation of a definitive decree of Islam, something which nobody, not even the Holy Prophet (S), had the right to do.
In order to better clarify this fact, let us cite a historical example. During the early period of Islam when Muslims lived in extreme hardship, the people of Ta’if8 came and gave a proposal to the Prophet (S), saying, “We are willing to become Muslims and forge alliance with you, but we have one condition. We are willing to recite the formula of faith [shahadatayn], not to worship the idols, and even to pay the zakat. Exempt us from only one thing and that is to perform prostration [sajdah]. We cannot do what you are doing—to prostrate down on earth. If you exempt us from doing prostration, we are ready to set aside the practice of idol-worship, to abandon other practices which you deemed abominable and to conclude treaty of alliance of siding with you in times of war.”
Imagine the circumstances. The Muslims then had a small population and were in need of forces. Their economic power was weak and they were in need of financial assistance while the people of Ta’if were relatively wealthy. In sum, a group of people were willing, out of their own volition, to take not a single step, but a hundred steps closer to Islam, and they did not like to accept only one thing which was apparently simple. In this regard, the Qur’an says that the Prophet (S) of Islam, notwithstanding all excellences he had, was about to have a bit of doubt in declining their proposal; not that he would accept it, rather he wanted to decline it but in the bottom of his heart a very small amount of inclination was about to appear: Had We not fortified you, certainly you might have inclined toward them a bit. (17:74)
Had he inclined toward them, what would have happened? The reply is very severe in tone: Then We would have surely made you taste a double [punishment] in this life and a double [punishment] after death, and then you would not have found for yourself any helper against Us. (17:75)
That is to say, “Had you inclined toward them even a bit, We would have punished you twice that of others in this world and the Hereafter and no one could have helped you.”
You and I have our own respective stations. The issue of denial of religion and not acting faithfully upon its laws is something impossible even for the Prophet (S) himself, and even assuming that it is possible for him to do so, he would definitely be called to account, and God the Exalted is not joking with anyone in this case.
Meanwhile, concerning the issue of paying blood-money mentioned in the question, we have to say that it is not something that we ourselves have to coin. In fact, this issue has been mentioned in the traditions and existed from the very beginning, and even during that time, not only camels (as blood-money) were specified; rather, instead of camels, gold and silver which were monetary units at that time could also be given as blood-money.
1. The Jews in ridiculing the Prophet (S) would say ra‘ina [meaning, ‘have regard for us’] with a change of accent turning it into another word which made it a term of reproach. The Muslims are told to say unzurna [meaning, ‘give us a little respite] instead while addressing the Prophet (S), as there is no room in this term for such a distortion. [Qara’i]
2. The Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) is supposed to print and publish soon this debate in the form of a book.
3. Bihar al-Anwar, vol. 21, p. 385, section [bab] 36, hadith 10.
4. 1948 UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 5: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” [Trans.]
5. Lat and ‘Uzza: idols mentioned in Sūrah an-Najm 53:19. [Trans.]
6. Mafatih al-Jinan, Dū‘a al-Iftitah.
7. Ibid.
8. Ta’if: a city in the southern part of Hijaz (modern Saudi Arabia), 40 miles east of Mecca. [Trans.]
|
