A Call for
Coexistence
Episode 10
In the name of Allah,
The All-Merciful, The Ever-Merciful. Peace and blessings of Allah be upon
Prophet Muhammad (SAWS).
Today, we continue to learn how to coexist with each other.
Coexistence does not mean giving up your identity on the contrary; we want to
preserve our religion and our history.
In fact, I like to begin this episode with a saying by the
Prophet (SAWS) who was heard to have said that the Muslims are one
ummah (Muslim
nation). They all come to help the most underprivileged of them.
Although this is a wonderful and beautiful image, we are shocked when we compare
it to the current reality of the entire Arab world.
Today’s episode addresses four points or principles of
co-existence. I recommend that you consider them even when dealing with any one
you differ with; your husband/wife, children, boss, neighbors, relatives,
friends, parents, the different jurist schools, Muslims and Christians.
The first principle indicates that difference is a
universal fact that needs to be respected. You have to respect that variation is
a part of our existence. The second principle shows that variation complements
us; it is an advantage and not a drawback. You have to look at this as an
enriching advantage. The third principle is that at the moment of dispute, calm
and honest dialogue helps you see the truth from all perspectives. Truth is
one, but it has many aspects and paradigms. The fourth and final principle is
that at the moment of conflict; never forget the proper manners of dialogue.
You must believe in those four principles as the basis of coexistence.
In regard to the first principle, do you remember the
Battle of Bani Quraydha against the Jews? After the Prophet (SAWS) had
finished the Battle of the Trench, the companions were exhausted and wanted to
rest. Jibril (AS)
(Gabriel) told the Prophet that the Angels have not yet put down their weapons.
The Prophet thus called upon his companions and said that whoever believes in
Allah and the Hereafter should not pray the asr (afternoon) prayer until
they reached Bani Quraydha. The companions did not know what to do. Some said
they should not pray the asr prayer until they reach there. Others said
that the Prophet meant to speed up. So, the Prophet, Peace be upon him, said
that both were right. He must have meant one of those two options but his
answer means that difference is part of human nature and that it is actually
acceptable.
I take this opportunity to give an advice to the West. If
you believe that difference is a universal fact, do not force your culture upon
us.
The second principle indicates that diversity means that we
in fact complement one another. I would like to give the example of Abu-Bakr
and Omar (RA).
On the day of the Battle of Badr, Muslims wanted to know what to do with the war
prisoners. Abu-Bakr told the Prophet (SAWS) they are your people and
relatives, so pardon them. While Omar said, they disbelieved and hurt you, so
kill them. The Prophet (SAWS) addressed Abu-Bakr saying that Allah made
some men who are kind hearted; like Abu-Bakr. Allah also made some who are
harder than iron; like Omar. Both of them are good for Islam.
The third principle asserts that calm and honest dialogue
helps us see the truth from all perspectives. A group of blind people put their
hands on an elephant. One of them said that the elephant was only a trunk, the
second one said it was a sharp ivory tooth, the third said it was a huge leg and
the fourth said that it was a huge body. An elephant is indeed all of those
things, so they were all right.
The fourth principle is to never forget your manners when
disagreeing with someone. Today we will focus on the encounter between the two
great imams: Imam Malik and Imam Abu-Hanifa.
Before Malik and Abu-Hanifa’s encounter, Imam Malik used to
say, "Beware of the people of opinion.” Abu-Hanifa’s school was called the
“school of opinion.” Before their meeting, there was a lot of talk and exchange
of letters but they only met during the rituals of the Hajj.
When they finally met, they chose to address three issues
which were viewed differently by each party. The first jurisprudential issue
was about how to address hypothetical questions; things that had not taken place
yet. In Imam Malik’s juristic school of thought, we should not imagine
situations and ask about things that have not happened, as this distracts people
from already existing issues and lead to controversy. Imam Malik brought his
evidence from various ayahs
and ahadith. He stated the ayah where Allah (SWT)
says what can be translated as, “They ask you concerning the new moons
(Literally: crescents).” (TMQ, 2:189).
Such questions are meaningless. Allah (SWT) replies in the ayah, that
can be translated as, “Say, “They are fixed times for mankind, and (for) the
Pilgrimage.” (TMQ, 2:189)
His other evidence was that Omar
Ibnul-Khattab (RA) cursed the one who asked about situations that have
not happened and used to say, “Do not engage us with things that have not
happened, keep people busy with the truth instead.”
People used to come to Imam
Malik and ask him hypothetical questions and he used to get angry and tell them
not to ask about things that have not happened yet. Those people were usually
from Iraq where Imam Abu-Hanifa was, who supported this kind of questions.
As for Imam Abu-Hanifa, his
approach was based on inventing situations that have not happened. He invented
60, 000 such situations.
In their meeting Imam Malik disapproved Imam Abu Hanifa’s
view. Abu-Hanifa replied that the circumstances in Iraq are different from
Madinah. Iraq is the capital of the Caliphate and everyday there are new things
being introduced and they should be prepared, while in Madinah problems are
fixed and limited.
Then, he gave an example when he discussed with his
students a situation of a woman whose husband traveled and was absent for so
long that she thought he was dead and hence she married another man. Suddenly,
the man returned. What should be done then? Imam Malik wondered why they would
ask about things that have not happened, but Abu-Hanifa said that in Iraq, where
soldiers went on conquests, this might occur and they should be ready for such
situation. Imam Malik was silent.
Imam Abu-Hanifa reminded him of what the Prophet (SAWS)
said when a man came to him saying, “Imagine if a man comes to take my money,
what shall I do?” The Prophet (SAWS) told him not to give it to him.
The man asked again, “Imagine if he fights me?” The Prophet (SAWS) urged
him to fight him too. The man asked, “Imagine if he killed me? The Prophet (SAWS)
said that he would be a martyr. The man asked once more “Imagine if I killed
him?” The Prophet (SAWS) said that the man killed would go to the
hellfire.
Abu-Hanifa said that the Prophet (SAWS) was asked by
about a hypothetical situation four times. When Malik said that this was for a
purpose, Abu-Hanifa replied, “In Iraq we do it for a purpose too.” Then,
Al-Layth Ibn-Sa’ad said, “Glory to Allah. By Allah, you are enriching Islam.”
Imam Malik kept people away from indulging in trivial issues and Imam Abu-Hanifa
was questioning the future to protect people. That was what the Prophet (SAWS)
did. He forbad asking about things that are hypothetical and replied to an
important situation that could happen in the future.
Both Imams reached a conclusion of holding on to what they
were doing, but to then integrate both approaches for the benefit of Islam.
The four principles previously mentioned certainly to this
debate. Their difference of opinion is a natural phenomenon because the minds
and environment of Iraq are unlike those of Madinah. Their difference of
opinion resulted in an environment that enriched Islam. The calm and honest
dialogue helped in presenting the various opinions and truths from all aspects.
Meanwhile, the manner of conversation between both men was civilized, polite and
outstanding.
The issues they discussed were not petty. Nowadays some
people leave the obligatory issues related to the unity of the Muslims and
dispute over trivial matters. Both Imams differed on core issues, but there was
love and understanding between them.
The second issue which the imams disagreed on was that of
the consensuses. In Islam, in order to reach a solution for any question is
look it up in the Qur’an. If you did not find it, to look it up in ahadith,
if not; then apply the rule of the consensus of the scholars.
Imam Malik believed that the consensus should be that
agreed by the people of Madinah only because the companions of the Prophet (SAWS)
lived and died there and so did his nine wives who saw all his actions and
witnessed all his deeds. They are about 10,000 companions.
A man came to Imam Malik and asked him about disputed
matters. The Imam said, “Search for the opinion of the people of Madinah. When
you find it, be sure that it is the truth.” He said to another one, “You can
find knowledge in Madinah, as Qur’an was not revealed in Euphrates (meaning Iraq
and Abu Hanifa’s school).”
Imam Abu Hanifa was 13 years older than Imam Malik, yet he
respected him. He replied, “Malik, the conquests during the reign of Omar
Ibnul-Khattab distributed the Companions (RA) all over the world. You
say that in Madinah there are 10,000 companions. In the last battle of the
Prophet (SAWS) there were about 120,000 companions, so where are the
rest? You cannot deny that Omar Ibnul-Khattab sent the companions particularly
to teach people in different countries.”
He started to numerate some companions such as Mo’az
Ibn-Jabal whom the Prophet (SAWS) described to be the most knowledgeable
and sent him to Yemen. Also, he mentioned Abdullah Ibn-Mas’od whose way of
reciting Qur’an was recommended by the Prophet (SAWS) for the people. He
added the names of Abu-Dthar, Zobair Ibnul-A’wam, and Sa’ad Ibn-Abu-Waqqas in
Egypt, Hudthayfa Ibnul-Yaman, Abdullah Ibn-Mas’od, and Ali Ibn-Abu-Talib in
Iraq, Abu-Ubayda Ibnul-Jaraah, Bilal and Abul-Dardaa’ in Syria, etc.
Then, he narrated the hadith of the Prophet (SAWS)
where he said that his companions are like the stars any of which can guide
people. Imam Abu-Hanifa went on to say that the brilliance of Omar
Ibnul-Khattab is what led him to send the companions all over world and kept
some in Madinah to keep a balance. Thus, Imam Abu-Hanifa showed Imam Malik that
the distribution of the companions was for the sake of the integration of the
ummah.
Al-Layth Ibn-Sa’ad said, “By
Allah, this also, is an integration of the ummah.”
When you look from another angle you can see another aspect
of the truth. This is the virtue of difference; to help you see the truth from
all its aspects. If all people think alike, they will see only one side of the
truth, but Allah (TWT)
whose name is the Truth wants you to see all the sides.
The third issue tackled in the meeting was about the school
of opinion and hadith. Imam Abu-Hanifa expands the explanation of the
ahadith to the extent that he concluded 100 lessons from one hadith. Imam
Malik saw that it as an exaggeration and overloading the hadith which the
Prophet (SAWS) did not want.
Imam Abu-Hanifa replied that in Iraq, Greek, Roman and
Persian philosophies and sciences are invading them, so he needs to keep people
fixed on the path of the Prophet (SAWS). That is why he was searching in
ahadith to counter the new ideas. On the other hand in Madinah, there
are none but the companions and their followers, so there is no need for
expansion in elaborating ahadith. Al-Layth Ibn-Sa’ad said, “This too is
integration” Both Imams complement one another in keeping Islam.
If you discuss your problems calmly and honestly with your
wife of husband, many problems will be solved. Similarly, if the politicians in
Iraq, Darfur, and Lebanon, the religious scholars and the scientists do the
same, many problems will be solved.
After the two Imams left the meeting, Al-Layth Ibn-Sa’ad,
an Egyptian Imam whose juristic school of thought was just as superior as the
other four Imams but had no students to spread it, was keen on knowing the
impression of both sides.
He went to Imam Malik and asked him. Malik wiped his sweat
and said, “By Allah, Abu-Hanifa made me sweat. By Allah, he is a true jurist.
I’ve never seen a man debating like that. By Allah, if he told you that this
iron rod is made out of gold, he would convince you.”
Al-Layth went to Imam Abu-Hanifa
who said, “I debated hundreds of men, but have never seen a man accept the truth
as fast as him.”
We need to teach the coming generations these manners.
This is important for everyone; journalists, politicians, people working in the
media, scholars, husbands and wives, parents and children.
What happened after that? First, Imam Abu-Hanifa sent his
son Hammaad to Madinah to learn the jurisprudential approach of Malik and his
book ‘Al-Mu’ata’. Then, Imam Malik asked for the books of Abu-Hnifa to benefit
from them.
Meanwhile, Muhammad Ibnul-Hassan, a student of
Abu-Hanifa’s, held a session in Iraq to present the approach of Malik.
Once, Imam Abu-Hanifa sent to Imam Malik consulting him on
an issue before announcing his opinion to the public. Abu-Hanifa did not agree
about naming a sinful person a disbeliever. Imam Malik agreed, so Abu Hanifa
announced it. This did not arise from one meeting only, but there were numerous
correspondences which contributed more to their integration.
The Abbassid Caliph Al-Mansour once came to Imam Malik
offering him to cancel all other jurisprudential approaches, making Malik’s
approach prevail, and also writing his book in gold and keeping it inside the
Ka’ba.
Imam Malik who once rejected all other approaches and
asserted on the opinion of the people of Madinah told him not to do so because
the companions of the Prophet (SAWS) are spread all over the world. Those
were Abu-Hanifa’s words from their encounter.
We are learning the superb manners and morals of
differentiating with someone as well as handling the truth. Today we learnt this
valuable lesson from Imam Malik and Imam Abu-Hanifa. I am really proud that
such men lived in our ummah. Remember the four principles we discussed in
today’s episode and please begin applying them to your lives.
SWT = Suhanahu wa Ta'ala [Glorified and Exalted Be He]
