Introducing Anthropology

The word ‘anthropology’ derives from the Greek and literally means ‘the study of man’ or ‘the science of man’. But the ‘man’ of anthropology was a special kind of ‘man’. Historically, anthropology was known as the ‘study of primitive man’.

In The Mind of Primitive Man (1938), Franz Boas, the founder of American Cultural Anthropology, delineated that primitive people are people whose forms of life are simple and uniform, and the contents and form of whose culture are meagre and intellectually inconsistent.

Anthropologists study people, individuals in the society. They study how people live, human society past and present. Anthropology is also about how we think about people thinking about people, now and in history. And sometimes it is about power relations between people, cultures and societies, colonialism and globalization. In brief, anthropology is: 1) the study of man from biological, cultural and social viewpoints; 2) the study of human cultural difference; 3) the search for generalizations about human culture and human nature; and 4) the comparative analysis of similarities and differences between cultures.

Today, anthropology is defined as the systematic study of the ‘other’ while all other social sciences are in some sense the study of the ‘self’. But who is the ‘other’? The ‘other’ is anyone perceived as different and used to ‘inter-define’ one’s own identity; or simply say people of non-Western cultures. Nevertheless, in Reinventing Anthropology (1969), Dell Hymes argued: “the very existence of an autonomous discipline that specializes in the study of ‘others’ has always been somewhat problematic.”

There are two things need to be highlighted. First, the ‘other’ has changed. Non-Western societies have undergone rapid social change. And second, anthropology has come home. It no longer exclusively studies non-Western cultures. Now anthropologists also study marginal cultures in the Western societies as well as institutional and organizational cultures, such as business and corporate organizations, scientists, health organizations, and the police.

Anthropology, as a modern discipline and a professional career, begins with the establishment of university’s departments teaching anthropology as a course. In America, Boas began lecturing at Columbia University in 1896. While in Britain, a new diploma in anthropology was introduced at Oxford in 1906. In Britain, the term ‘anthropology’ loosely designates a number of different branches of study which are more or less closely associated. Yet, sometimes the association derives rather from the historical fact that they developed as socio-cultural evolutionary studies of man. Thus physical anthropology, prehistoric archaeology, primitive technology, ethnology and ethnography are usually subsumed with social anthropology under the name of anthropology. Nevertheless, it is not true to say that they are not related to sociology because its problems and methods overlap with those of social anthropology in a considerable degree. Therefore, it is not surprising that the term ‘anthropology’ connotes different things to different people, even when it is assigned with the adjective ‘social’. As a consequence, social anthropology may mean an interest in bones and head measurements, a concern with prehistoric man and his works and also it may mean an obsessive interest in exotic, preferably sexual, customs.

Alan Barnard in History and Theory of Anthropology names the French philosopher Charles Montesquieu (1669-1755) as the common ancestor of all modern anthropology. Anthropology marks its inauguration in 1748 with the publication of his The Spirits of the Laws. It is a product of the enlightenment. Then the Darwinian horizon flourished in the 1860s when great names, such as Sir Henry Sumner Maine, Lewis Henry Morgan, Sir Edward Burnett Tylor, and Sir James Frazer, define the intellectual tradition that leads to modern anthropology. When Franz Boas, Bronislaw Malinowski and A.R. Radcliffe-Brown established the practice of ethnography, the extended study of how people live and where they live, modern anthropology is underway.

Kampung Di Tengah Kota....

Setiap kali menyelusuri bahagian tengah Kuala Lumpur pastinya kita tidak dapat mengelak dari melalui kawasan penempatan orang Melayu yang sangat signifikan bagi warga kota iaitu Kampung Baru. Bagi warga kota, terutamanya orang Melayu, Kampung Baru sangat dekat di hati mereka. Ini kerana sukar bagi kita untuk melihat suasana dan pemandangan kehidupan "orang kampung" di tengah- tengah hiruk pikuk kehidupan bandar. Di bandar-bandar lain negara ini kehidupan kampung dengan pengekalan identiti dan budaya yang biasa diamalkan merupakan satu pemandangan biasa.

Namun berbeza dengan Kampung Baru yang dihimpit dengan rentak kemajuan dan arus pemodenan serta pelbagai bangunan pencakar langit dan mercu tanda moden seperti KLCC dan sebagainya. Suasana sebeginilah yang menambahkan lagi keunikannya sebagai sebuah kampung yang tebal dengan budaya dan tradisi Melayu di ibu kota. Sedikit sebanyak arus pemodenan tidak mampu diketepikan oleh penduduk di Kampung Baru. Namun dengan binaan dan kedudukan rumah yang biasa kita lihat di kampung, apatah lagi masih terdapat rumah-rumah yang tetap utuh dengan ciri-ciri tradisional sememangnya sebagai orang Melayu kita patut berbangga dengan semua tradisi yang masih dipertahankan sehingga kini.

Jika kita menyelongkar tentang kehidupan seharian penduduk di kampung ini sememangnya jalinan perhubungan dan semangat kerjasama masih menebal seperti yang biasa kita lihat di kampung-kampung. Soal-soal kemasyarakatan dan perhubungan penduduk setempat seperti kenduri kendara, kematian, hal-ehwal kejiranan dari yang paling remeh sehingga membabitkan soal-soal yang rumit seperti soal tanah dan sebagainya masih lagi menuntut permuafakatan yang jitu antara penduduk. Keperluan bagi penduduknya untuk terus mengikuti aktiviti dan program keagamaan yang berlangsung di masjid dan surau di sini masih tetap menjadi keutamaan penduduknya. Lebih membanggakan setelah tiga atau empat generasi anak Kampung Baru menetap di sini semua mereka masih tetap mengambil berat antara satu sama lain serta sangat sepakat dalam soal-soal membabitkan kampung kesayangan mereka ini.

Kampung Baru sebuah perkampungan rizab Melayu tunggal di tengah-tengah metropolitan Kuala Lumpur adalah seluas 225.89 ekar dan dibentuk oleh tujuh buah kampung iaitu Kampung Periuk, Kampung Pindah, Kampung Hujung Pasir, Kampung Paya, Kampung Masjid, Kampung Atas A dan Kampung Atas B. Terdapat tiga kategori tanah milik Melayu wujud di Kampung Baru iaitu Tanah Simpanan Melayu, Tanah Simpanan Pertanian Melayu dan Tanah Melayu Diberi Milik. Kampung Baru mula dibuka pada tahun 1899 dan digazetkan setahun kemudian. Sebuah lembaga pentadbir khusus untuk Kampung Baru ditubuhkan serentak dengan pembukaannya sebagai Penempatan Tanah Pertanian Melayu atau Malay Agriculture Settlement (MAS) serta bertanggungjawab kepada Residen British ketika itu dalam menguruskan perkara mengenai pentadbiran kampung.

Kampung ini pada awalnya terbentuk apabila sekumpulan orang Melayu yang tinggal di kawasan Sungai Gombak dan Sungai Kelang terpaksa berpindah untuk memberi ruang kepada pembangunan Kuala Lumpur. Bandar ini ketika itu sedang pesat membangun apabila beberapa projek yang kini menjadi ikon sejarah dan seni bina seperti Kelab Diraja Selangor, Bangunan Pejabat Pos Utama, Victoria Institution dan Bangunan Sultan Abdul Samad sedang dalam pembinaan. Oleh itu Sultan Selangor ketika itu, Sultan Sulaiman atau Sultan Alauddin Sulaiman Syah bin Raja Muda Musa telah memperuntuk sebuah kawasan di tepi Sungai Kelang untuk orang Melayu berpindah dan MAS diwartakan pada 1 Jan 1900.

Menurut Setiausaha Kehormat Lembaga MAS, Shamsuri Suradi, MAS diwujudkan untuk memindahkan orang Melayu yang menghuni pinggir Sungai Gombak dan Sungai Kelang walaupun ketika itu mereka aktif dalam kegiatan perniagaan dan perlombongan. Ini kerana British berpendapat orang Melayu wajar bergiat dalam sektor pertanian dan dengan menempatkan orang Melayu di sebuah kampung khas akan memudahkan anak-anak Melayu menerima pendidikan dan mengambil bahagian dalam pentadbiran. Ini sekali gus memberi peluang kepada penduduk Melayu untuk menikmati sebahagian daripada kemakmuran Kuala Lumpur ketika itu yang kaya dengan bijih timah.

MAS telah dipertanggungjawabkan untuk mentadbir kampung ini dengan kuasa yang luas antaranya melulus dan menetapkan perjanjian pemberian lot rumah dan pelan bangunan, menyimpan butiran pertukaran serta mengawalselia keselamatan dan kegiatan penduduk. Selain itu MAS turut mempunyai kuasa untuk memberi kebenaran hanya kepada orang Melayu untuk tinggal di sini dengan luas kawasan kediaman tidak melebihi setengah ekar seorang. MAS turut berkuasa mengusir penduduk yang tidak patuh dengan peraturan serta mereka yang mampu memberi ancaman dan dianggap berbahaya kepada penduduk. Menurut Shamsuri, anggota lembaga MAS pada peringkat awal terdiri dari kalangan pegawai tinggi penjajah dan kerabat diraja (Raja Muda Selangor pada asalnya menjadi Yang Dipertua) sehinggalah selepas Perang Dunia Kedua. Di bawah pemerintahan Jepun barulah beberapa orang penduduk Kampung Baru dilantik menganggotai lembaga itu.

Pada masa sekarang, tujuh orang wakil yang dipanggil ahli jemaah dari tujuh buah kampung di sini telah dilantik untuk menganggotai lembaga MAS. Ahli jemaah ini boleh dianggap sebagai penghulu di setiap kampung berkenaan. Beberapa buah kampung kecil seperti Kampung Manggis dan Kampung Sungai Baru turut digabungkan ke dalam Kampung Baru selain beberapa kampung setinggan, iaitu Kampung Limau, Kampung Cendana dan Kampung Paya Baru. Namun disebabkan semua urusan pentadbiran tanah adalah hak lembaga tadbir MAS, ia tidak dapat memenuhi harapan tuan tanah yang berhasrat membangunkan kawasan ini kerana mereka tidak memegang apa-apa surat hak milik yang boleh diurusniagakan hinggalah pada tahun 1960-an.

Bagaimanapun Menteri Besar Selangor ketika itu, Datuk Harun Idris yang menjadi pengerusi MAS telah berjaya mengusahakan geran hak milik tanah bagi penduduk kampung ini. Sejarah Kampung Baru ini jika ingin dihuraikan mungkin terlalu panjang apatah lagi pelbagai peristiwa dan cacatan yang amat bersejarah telah berlaku sejak dari awal penubuhannya. Pada peringkat awal kebanyakan jalan-jalan yang terdapat di sini dinamakan dengan nama Inggeris dan pastinya ia dianggap sebagai pelik pada ketika itu apatah lagi Kampung Baru sendiri merupakan penempatan terbesar orang Melayu.

Sebagai contoh Jalan Raja Alang yang sangat terkenal dengan Bazar Ramadan sebelum ini dikenali sebagai Perkins Road. Hale Road yang dinamakan sempena seorang pentadbir British di zaman penjajah kini bernama Jalan Raja Abdullah, Jalan Raja Muda Abdul Aziz di tengah-tengah Kampung Baru dikenali sebagai Princess Road manakala Jalan Dewan Sultan Sulaiman pula pernah dikenali sebagai Stony Road.

Kelab Sultan Sulaiman yang terletak di Kampung Baru merupakan kelab orang Melayu tertua di Malaysia dan semenjak penubuhannya pada 1909, ia telah menyaksikan pelbagai catatan dan peristiwa penting negara. Pada peringkat awalnya penduduk Kampung Baru sering mengadakan perjumpaan di sebuah pondok di sini yang dibina secara gotong-royong. Bangunan baru yang dinamakan Dewan Sultan Sulaiman kemudian didirikan dengan kerja sama antara Kerajaan Persekutuan dan Kerajaan Negeri Selangor. Ia dirasmikan oleh Timbalan Perdana Menteri Tun Abdul Razak pada 30 April 1969.

Bangunan ini telah menyaksikan pelbagai rakaman dan peristiwa bersejarah yang penting untuk orang antaranya Kongres Melayu Pertama pada 1 hingga 4 Mac 1946 yang membawa kepada penubuhan Pertubuhan Kebangsaan Melayu Bersatu (UMNO) yang akhirnya telah mencetuskan gerakan menuntut kemerdekaan. Walaupun sesak dengan pelbagai kepesatan dan bangunan pencakar langit serta lebih dikenali sebagai syurga pusat makanan berbanding keunikannya sebagai sebuah perkampungan Melayu, namun ini tidak menghalang penduduk Kampung Baru dari terus ditenggelami pembangunan.

Secara umumnya penduduk Kampung Baru tidak menolak pembangunan kerana mereka menyedari pembanguan itu adalah sesuatu yang perlu pada era moden sekarang. Namun apa yang dikesali mereka dalam keghairahan mengejar pemodenan, mereka terasa dipinggirkan dan teraniaya dengan tindakan beberapa pihak yang dilihat tamak dalam mengusai kekayaan di sini.

Apatah lagi dengan beberapa insiden penipuan yang pernah berlaku sehingga menganiaya kehidupan mereka telah mengakibatkan mereka berasa serik dengan semua ini. Memang benar terdapat banyak jalan dan kaedah penyelesaian dalam menguruskan tanah yang bernilai lebih RM4 bilion ini namun yang ditakuti mereka ialah adakah semua kaedah ikhlas dan benar-benar menguntungkan mereka? Atau apakah ia akhirnya akan menjadi seperti kampung-kampung Melayu lain di Kuala Lumpur yang akhirnya tergadai hanya atas nama pembangunan.

Apa yang perlu ialah kesungguhan dan keikhlasan dalam membantu penduduk Kampung Baru ini sebagai pemilik asal tanah di tengah kota metropolitan. Jika tidak mungkin lebih baik ia dikekalkan sahaja seperti sekarang sekurang-kurangnya sebagai satu penanda sejarah bahawa satu ketika dahulu nenek moyang kita merupakan pemilik asal semua tanah di ibu kota ini.

Are We Human?

Before we can speak of human responsibilities or rights, one must answer the basic religious and philosophical question, “What does it mean to be human?” In today’s world everyone speaks of human rights and the sacred character of human life, and many secularists even claim that they are the true champions of human rights as against those who accept various religious worldviews. But strangely enough, often those same champions of humanity believe that human beings are nothing more than evolved apes, who in turn evolved from lower life forms and ultimately from various compounds of molecules. If the human being is nothing but the result of ‘blind forces’ acting upon the original cosmic soup of molecules, then is not the very statement of the sacredness of human life intellectually meaningless and nothing but a hollow sentimental expression? Is not human dignity nothing more than a conveniently contrived notion without basis in reality? And if we are nothing but highly organized inanimate particles, what is the basis for claims to “human rights?” These basic questions know no geographic boundaries and are asked by thinking people everywhere.

Christianity in the West has sought to answer them on the firm theological basis that “human beings were created in the image of God” and it is the immortal soul and the spark of the Spirit within men and women that constitutes the basis for human dignity, the sacredness of human life, and ultimately human rights. In fact, many Christian thinkers, both Catholic and Protestant, as well as Jewish thinkers insist that human dignity is based on the Divine Imprint upon the human soul and that historically in the West the idea of human rights, even in its secularized version, is derived from the religious conception of the human state.

For Islam, likewise, human beings are defined in their relation to God, and both their responsibilities and rights derive from that relationship. As we all know, Islam believes that God breathed His Spirit into Adam and according to the famous hadith, “God created Adam in His form.” The word ‘form’ means the reflection of God’s Names and Qualities. Human being, therefore, reflect the Divine Attributes like a mirror, which reflect the light of the Sun. By the virtue of being created as this central being in the terrestrial realm, the human being was chosen by God as His vicegerent (khalīfat Allāh) as well as His servant (‘abd Allāh). As servants human beings must remain in total obedience to God and in perfect receptivity before what their Creator wills for them. As vicegerent they must be active in the world to do God’s Will here on earth.

The Islamic conception of insān, or man, as the anthropos encompassing both male and female sates, can be summed up as the wedding of these two qualities in him. But God has also given human beings free will, in which it means that they can rebel against their own primordial nature and become active against Heaven and passive to their own lower nature and the world of senses, so that not all human beings remain God’s servants and vicegerents. In fact, the perfection of these passive and active modes belongs to the prophets and saints alone. Nevertheless all human beings possess dignity, and their lives are sacred because of that primordial nature, which all the progeny of Adam and Eve carry deep within themselves.

Throughout Islamic history many philosophical, theological and mystical discussions have taken place about this issue, but one basic element with which all schools of Islamic thought and ordinary believers agree is the truth that God is our Creator, or, philosophically speaking, the ontological cause of our existence. It is therefore we who owe everything to Him and our rights derive from fulfilling our responsibilities towards Him and obeying His Will.

To understand our relation to God, we must first ask what God wants of us. The Quran makes this demand clear when it states, “I have not created the jinn and humanity except to worship Me” (51: 56); also “Verily I, I am God. There is no God save Me. So worship Me and establish prayers for My remembrance” (20: 14). The word “worship” (‘ibādah) in Arabic also means ‘service.’ To worship God is also to serve Him. Many interpretations have been given of the term ‘ibādah by commentators; its meaning ranges from ordinary acts of worship to loving and knowing God. The purpose of human existence is considered by Islam to be the worship and service of God, and only in carrying out the aim and purpose of our existence are we fully human. Otherwise, although we carry the human reality within ourselves, we fall short of it and live beneath the fully human state.

Shopping!!!

Tengah hari tadi aku bergegas ke Pavilion setelah menyiapkan kerja-kerjaku di universiti. Tujuan aku berkunjung ke sana adalah untuk menemui teman-temanku. Tiada agenda yang spesifik, hanya sekadar untuk minum-minum ataupun dalam bahasa hari ini ‘yam char.’

Ketika kami berbual-bual, secara tiba-tiba salah seorang diantara kami melontarkan persoalan yang mana kami sudah agak lama tidak mengadakan diskusi ‘ilmu – suatu perkara yang lazimnya akan kami lakukan sekali dalam sebulan. Menyedari hakikat itu, lantas kami bergegas ke Times Bookstore untuk mencari koleksi buku yang ingin kami perdebatkan. Dan kesudahannya kami membeli buku-buku ini:

Jinnah, Pakistan and Islamic Identity: The Search for Saladin
Every generation needs to reinterpret its great men of the past. Akbar Ahmed, by revealing Jinnah’s human face alongside his heroic achievement, both makes this statesman accessible to the current age and renders his greatness even clearer than before.

Four men shaped the end of British rule in India: Nehru, Gandhi, Mountbatten and Jinnah. We know a great deal about the first three, but Mohammed Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan, has mostly either been ignored or, in the case of Richard Attenborough’s hugely successful film about Gandhi, portrayed as a cold megalomaniac, bent on the bloody partition of India. Akbar Ahmed’s major study redresses the balance.

Drawing on history, semiotics and cultural anthropology as well as more conventional biographical techniques, Akbar S. Ahmad presents a rounded picture of the man and shows his relevance as contemporary Islam debates alternative forms of political leadership in a world dominated (at least in the Western media) by figures like Colonel Gadaffi and Saddam Hussein.

Journey into Islam: The Crisis of Globalization
Globalization, the war on terror, and Islamic fundamentalis, followed closely by a rise in Islamophobia, has escalated tensions between Western nations and the Muslim world. Yet internationally renowned Islamic scholar Akbar Ahmed believes that through dialogue and understanding, these cultures can coexist peacefully and respectfully. That hope and belief result in an extraordinary journey. To learn what Muslims think and how they really view America, Ahmed traveled to the three major regions of the Muslim world - the Middle East, South Asia, and East Asia.

Journey into Islam: The Crisis of Globalization is the riveting story of his search for common ground. His absorbing narrative and personal photos bring the reader on a tour of Islam and its peoples. Ahmed sought to understand the experiences and perceptions of ordinary Muslims. Visiting mosques, madrassahs, and universities, he met with people ranging from Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf to prime ministers, princes, sheikhs, professors, and students. He observed, listened, and asked them questions. For example, who inspires them? What are they reading? How do the Internet and international media impact their lives? How do they view America, the West, and changes in society? Ahmed’s anthropological expedition enjoyed extensive access to women and youths, revealing unique information on large yet often misunderstood populations. Lamentably, he found high levels of anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism and a widespread perception that Islam is under attack from the West. But he also brought back reason for hope. He returned from his groundbreaking travels both impressed with the concerned, kind nature of the individuals he encountered and invigorated with the vitality and passion they displayed. Journey into Islam makes a powerful plea for forming friendships across religion, race, and tradition to create lasting peace between Islam and the West.

Social Justice in Islam
Social Justice in Islam is perhaps the best known work of Sayyid Qutb, a leading figure in the Muslim Brethren of Egypt who was executed by the regime of Abd al-Nasir in 1966. Despite the years that have passed since Sayyid Qutb’s death, the imprint of his thought on the contemporary Islamic movements of the Arab world remains profound. The Arabic original of “Social Justice in Islam” was first published in 1949, but this book in particular retains its relevance in many respects: the persistence of gross socio-economic inequality in most Muslim societies; the need for viewing Islam as a totality, imperatively demanding comprehensive implementation; and the depiction of the West as a neo-Crusading force.

Modernization of the Arab World

In Western accounts of the Middle East since 1789, Islam is often treated as a primary impediment to the spread of technology, science, and modern democratic values in the region. As a review of the historical record demonstrates, nothing could be further from the truth, for Islam encourages, and even demands, that Muslims acquire knowledge and reform society.

In this respect, the modern Middle Eastern experience stands in stark contrast to that of medieval Europe, where Christianity was indeed a real obstacle to intellectual progress. In Europe, where it first arose, the ideology of ‘secularism’ gave direction to a lengthy effort to emancipate humans from the hold of a corrupt religious institution. When the same ideology was belatedly introduced into the Middle East late in the nineteenth century, it became a tool of domination used to weaken local religious institutions as part of an effort to consolidate the cultural and social power of despotic authorities.

There was nothing inevitable about this development, as the record will show. In the first half of the nineteenth century, a variety of Muslim intellectuals responded warmly to the prospect of spreading technology, science, and democratic values into the Middle East, believing that modernization did not conflict with the established values and principles of Islamic law (Shariah). It was only later, and under the influence of a small group of Christian Arab intellectuals, that secularism was cast as the enemy of Islam, and turned into a tool of domination.

As a result of this unhappy experience with ‘secularism,’ the Middle East today is at a historic crossroads. A resurgent Islam at home with modernization promises a revival of free inquiry and technological progress. But it has been impeded by local despotic regimes that cling to the ideology of secularism, and by an American regime that feels threatened by any signs of a Muslim renaissance.

The first efforts to modernize the Middle East were a by-product of European involvement in the region. Napoleon Bonaparte’s invasion of Egypt between 1798 and 1801 dealt a humiliating blow to the Muslim Ummah, rather reminiscent of the Crusades more than five centuries earlier. Though it was brief, the French ‘incursion’ into the heart of the Arab world, the very centre of darul-Islam, exposed the weakness of the Ottoman Empire and her scandalous retardation behind Europe.

The task of regaining Egypt and expelling the French expedition was assigned by the Ottoman sultan to an Albanian task force led by a former cigarette seller named Muhammad Ali (1769-1849). Egyptians greeted Ali as a liberator not only from the French but also from the tyrannical Ottoman governor, Khurshid Pasha. Thanks to his military successes, first against the French at Abu Qir in 1799 and then against the Fraser led English expedition in 1807, Ali emerged as Egypt’s new governor. He promptly proceeded to establish a dynastic autocracy, one of the first in the Middle East to explicitly devote itself to ‘modernization.’

Perhaps because he was European himself, or perhaps because he had vanquished two European armies, Muhammad Ali became obsessed with the pursuit of science, technology and political power. Like two more recent Arab leaders, Jamal Abd al-Nassir of Egypt and Saddam Hussein of Iraq, Ali embarked on a variety of ambitious industrialization projects. He dug irrigation canals, promoted cotton as a cash crop for export, centralized taxes, and established monopolies in industry and foreign trade. He hired European experts and professionals who helped him set up special schools and training facilities to educate and train army officers, state officials, and technicians.

In the meantime, on behalf of the Ottoman sultan in Istanbul, Ali sent his son Ibrahim to crush the expanding Wahhabi movement in Arabia between 1811 and 1819. He conquered the Sudan and quelled a rebellion in Greece. Emboldened by these successes, he seized Palestine and Syria. Alarmed by his growing power, French and British forces returned to the Middle East. In exchange for the hereditary governorship of Egypt for his line, Ali agreed to pare down his army.

At the same time, something similar was taking place on the eastern wing of what is today the Middle East. The second Qajar Shah Fath Ali, who ruled Iran from 1797 to 1834, found himself courted by the French and the British, who both wanted Iran to side with them against the Russians. His Azerbaijan crown prince, Abbas Mirza, sought Western training for Iranian forces and, as Muhammad Ali did, sent students abroad to improve the military. But the modernization of the military in Iran proved even more difficult than in Egypt, and under the Qajars, Iran lost more territory to the Russians.

The setbacks suffered in Iran and Egypt inevitably provoked debate over their causes. In both regions, the erratic and whimsical policies of despots made the systematic pursuit of technological capabilities difficult, if not impossible. At the same time, despots like Muhammad Ali lashed out at the power of the ulama (Muslim scholars), fearing it posed a potential threat to their plans for modernization and also to their political authority.

It was in this context that intellectuals in the Arab world began to debate the causes of the difficulties Muslim countries were having with modernization. Religion was of interest to such intellectuals but not, oddly enough, as a barrier to progress.

Take the case of an Al-Azhar scholar by the name of Rifa’ah al-Tahtawi (180l-1873). His preoccupation with the question of modernization grew out of a stay in France, where he served as a religious guide for a group of Egyptian army cadets who were studying science and modern military technologies. The scion of a scholarly family, Tahtawi threw himself into the study of European culture with enthusiasm. He acquired a precise knowledge of the French language and read books on ancient history, Greek philosophy and mythology, geography, mathematics, logic, and, most importantly, the French thought of the eighteenth century - Voltaire, Rousseau’s Social Contract, and other works.

Returning home after five years, Tahtawi made no secret of his admiration for what post-revolution France had accomplished. He advocated introducing democracy into the Middle East. And he criticized those who opposed the idea of taking knowledge from Europe, saying: “Such people are deluded; for civilizations are turns and phases. These sciences were once Islamic when we were at the apex of our civilization. Europe took them from us and developed them further. It is now our duty to learn from them just as they learned from our ancestors.”

Still, as a religious scholar, Tahtawi insisted that Muslims should only borrow elements of European culture that did not conflict with the established values and principles of Shariah. In 1834, shortly after his return to Cairo from Paris, Tahtawi published his first book, Takhlis al-Ibriz Ila Talkhis Bariz. This summarized his observations of the manners and customs of the modern French, and praised the concept of democracy as he saw it in France and as he witnessed its defence and reassertion through the 1830 revolution against King Charles X.

Trying to show that democracy was compatible with the laws of Islam, he compared political pluralism to forms of ideological and jurisprudential pluralism that existed in Islam itself: “Religious freedom,” he wrote, “is the freedom of belief, of opinion and of sect, provided it does not contradict the fundamentals of religion.” An example would be the theological opinions of the al-Asha’irah and the al-Matiridiyah; another would be the opinions of leading jurists within the doctrine of the branches. For by following any one of these schools, human feels secure. The same would apply to the freedom of political practice and opinion by leading administrators, who endeavor to interpret and apply rules and provisions in accordance with the laws of their own countries. Kings and ministers are licensed in the realm of politics to pursue various routes that in the end serve one purpose: good administration and justice. Tahtawi was not an isolated figure. Other nineteenth-century Islamic reformists including Khairuddin Al-Tunisi (1810-1899), Jamal Al-Din Al-Afghani (1838-1897), Abdel Rahman Al-Kawakibi (1854-1902), and Muhammad Abduh (1849-1905) were often referred to as ‘Muslim modernists’ and followed Tahtawi in stressing that Muslims could benefit from European successes without undermining Islamic values or culture. Typical of this generation of Muslim modernizers was Al-Tunisi, leader of the nineteenth-century reform movement in Tunisia. In 1867, he formulated a general plan for political and administrative reform in the Arab world in a book entitled Aqwam al-Masalik fi Taqwim al-Mamalik (The Straight Path to Reformation of Governments). He appealed to politicians and scholars to explore all possible means to improve the status of the community and develop its civility, and cautioned the general Muslim public against shunning the experiences of other nations on the misconceived basis that all the writings, inventions, experiences, and attitudes of non-Muslims should simply be rejected. He further called for an end to absolutist rule: “Kindling the Ummah’s potential liberty through the adoption of sound administrative procedures and enabling it to have a say in political affairs,” he argued, “would put it on a faster track toward civilization, would limit the rule of despotism, and would stop the influx of European civilization that is sweeping everything along its path.”

Another of the Muslim modernizers, Al-Afghani, called for adherence to Islamic fundamentals combined with a repudiation of despotism. In his view, a key cause of the decline in the Muslim world was the absence of ‘adl (justice) and shura (council). The remedy, he believed, was republican government: the people of the Arab world ought to be allowed to assume a larger political and social role by participating through shura and elections. “For those governed by a republican form of government,” argued Al-Afghani, “it is a source of happiness and pride. Those governed by it alone deserve to be called human; for a true human being is only subdued by a true law that is based on the foundations of justice and that is designed to govern man’s moves, actions, transactions, and relations with others in a manner that elevates him to the pinnacle of true happiness.”

From Tahtawi to Al-Afghani, Muslim scholars of the nineteenth century seemed to have had no doubt that the failure of the Muslims to modernize had more to do with a lack of freedom than a lack of technology. The latter was seen as a fruit of the former, and in any case Islam was not responsible for the absence of either.

In the later years of the nineteenth century, a quite different analysis of how to modernize the Middle East was elaborated by a smaller but quite influential group of Christian modernists. Among them were such important figures as Shibli Shumayyil (1850-1917), Farah Antun (1874-1922), Georgie Zaidan (1861-1914), Ya’qub Suruf (1852-1917), Salama Musa (1887-1958), and Nicola Haddad (1878-1954). The real problem with the Arab world, they argued, was its culture and, specifically, its dominant religion. Most of these men had been educated at the Syrian Protestant College and then settled in Egypt, which was the cultural hub of the Arab world. Their ideas were propagated through Al-Muqtataf and Al-Hilal, Arabic publications founded respectively in 1876 and 1892. These journals promoted a brand of aggressive nationalism, in which love of country and fellow countrymen would transcend all other social ties, even those of religion.

Through their copious writings, these thinkers laid the foundations of an indigenous brand of secularism in the Arab world. Praising the liberal thought of France and England during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and condemning the hegemony of tradition over the human mind, they stressed that reason should set the standard for human conduct. For modernization to take place, they demanded that only traditions that were compatible with this objective should remain. The main aim of these intellectuals was to lay the basis of a secular state in which Muslims and Christians could participate on a footing of complete equality.

After graduating from the Syrian Protestant College, the oldest member of the group, Shibli Shumayyil, went to Paris to study medicine. He is reputed to have first introduced the theories of Darwin to the Arab world through his writings in Al-Muqtataf. He belonged to the late nineteenth-century movement that saw science as the key to unlocking the secrets of the universe, even as a form of worship. He believed that the religion of science necessitated a declaration of war on older religions. For him, social unity was essential for a general will to exist and involved the separation of religion from political life, since religion was a cause of division. He insisted that nations grew stronger only as religion grew weaker, and pointed out that this was true of Europe, which had only become powerful and truly civilized once the Reformation and the French Revolution had broken the hold of religious leaders on society. He criticized both shuyukh (Islamic scholars) and Christian priests for resisting progress and development.

Farah Antun, who migrated from Tripoli to Cairo in 1897, claimed that the conflict between science and religion could be solved but only by assigning each to its proper sphere. He dedicated his book to “those men of sense in every community and every religion of the east who have seen the danger of mingling the world with religion in an age like ours, and have come to demand that their religion should be placed on one side in a sacred and honoured place, so that they will be able really to unite, and to flow with the tide of the new European civilisation, in order to be able to compete with those who belong to it, for otherwise it will sweep them all away and make them the subjects of others.” Antun laid special emphasis on the separation of temporal and spiritual authorities. If European countries were now more tolerant than Arab, he argued, it was not because they were Christian, but rather because science and philosophy had driven out religious fanaticism and a separation of religion and politics had taken place.

By the end of the nineteenth century, a growing number of Muslim intellectuals fell under the influence of the Christian modernizers. For example, Qasim Amin (1865-1908) argued that the problem with the Muslims was their backwardness and resistance to social change. “Perfection,” he wrote, “is not to be found in the past, even the Islamic past; it can only be found, if at all, in the distant future. The path to perfection is science, and in the present age it is Europe which is most advanced in the sciences and therefore also on the path to social perfection.”

Europe is ahead of us in every way, and it is not true that while they are materially better than us we are morally better. The Europeans are morally more advanced; their upper and lower classes, it is true, are rather lacking in sexual virtue, but the middle class has high morals in every sense, and all classes alike have social virtues. Educated in law in France and a judge by profession, Amin became famous for his campaign for the emancipation of women. His call on women, in his 1899 book entitled Tahrir al-Mar’ah (The Emancipation of Women), to take off the traditional Islamic head cover, which he believed obscured their intellectual as well as physical abilities, invited angry response from the ulama of late-nineteenth-century Egypt. He responded to his critics in 1906 with a book entitled Al-Mar’ah al-Jadidah (The Modern Woman). Amin’s contemporary Ahmad Lutfi Al-Sayyid (1872-1963) was similarly eager to leave Islam behind. Religion, Islamic or not, was relevant to his thought only as one of the constituent factors of society. Seen as a leading figure in the national movement in Egypt, Al-Sayyid made a significant impact on the agendas of social and educational institutions in modern Egypt. A lawyer and a judge by profession, he served in successive Egyptian governments in various positions, and his ideas first found a platform when he became chief editor of Al-Jaridah in 1906. In 1925, he was appointed dean of Egyptian University and, three years later, education minister. Moving back and forth between the government and the university, he was appointed minister of foreign affairs in 1946 and, immediately afterward, deputy prime minister.

But the most important of the indigenous Muslim secularists, by far, was Ali Abdel Raziq (1888-1966), a graduate of Al-Azhar and Oxford whose key work appeared one year after the abolition of the caliphate in 1924. This work Al-Islam wa Usul al-Hukm: Bahth fil-Khilafah wal-Hukumah fil-Islam (Islam and the Fundamentals of Governance: A Thesis on Caliphate and Government in Islam) turned out to be one of the most controversial works in modern Islamic history. In it, Raziq denied the existence of a political order in Islam and claimed that the Prophet had never established one, that it had not been part of his mission to found a state. In turn, Raziq’s work became a main source of ammunition in the vigorous campaign, launched by ‘secularists’ in later times, against the validity of Shariah. The book pioneered the idea of rejecting conventional interpretations and replacing them with innovations based mostly on Orientalists’ opinions and writings on Islam.

But the pioneers of Arab secularism founded the principles of their thought on a number of incorrect assumptions. They likened Islam to Christianity and assumed it to be just another religion that could, or even should, be restricted to the spiritual sphere of human life. They assumed Islam’s spiritual authority hindered progress and prohibited freedom of thought, and should therefore be prevented from interfering in temporal matters. But these assumptions about Islam’s conflicts with logic or science were merely extrapolations from the Euro-Christian context. The presupposition that Islam and Christianity held identical positions on the freedom of thought and the emancipation of the mind led to the conclusion that, just as Europe had rid itself of the influence of religion as a prelude to progress, the Arabs needed to constrain Islam. And Westernization was said to be the sole means of modernization, which further blurred the distinction between secularization and modernization.

What the secularists have advocated has been pursued with varying intensity across the Muslim world since the start of the twentieth century. Secular nationalist elites took over from the colonial authorities and claimed to embark on a quest for progress, development, and industrialization. In territorial states created within artificial borders, mostly by colonial power at the turn of the twentieth century, Islam has been nationalized, marginalized, and suppressed in the name of reaching out to modernity and catching up with the advanced world. If anyone is in doubt, consider the achievements of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk of Turkey (1881-1938), Ahmad Sukarno (1902-1970) and then Suharto of Indonesia (1921-2007), Habib Bourguiba of Tunisia (1903-2000), Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt (1918-1970), Houari Boumedienne of Algeria (1925-1978), Hafiz al-Asad of Syria (1930-2000), and Saddam Hussein of Iraq (1937-2006).

What do they share in common? They are secularist dictators who succeeded in building huge corrupt bureaucracies and failed miserably in their fiscal and industrial policies.

Throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, Arab writers, who could see salvation in nothing short of espousing European modernity, failed to recognize that Islam is a religion that continues to shape and influence the lives of its adherents, who believe its values and principles are aimed at liberating mankind, establishing justice and equality, encouraging research and innovation, and guaranteeing freedom of thought, expression, and worship.

Like their nineteenth-century Muslim forebears, many contemporary Arab intellectuals believe that Islam is not incompatible with modernization. We argue that the scientific and technological underpinnings of modern civilization are reducible to categories of knowledge and practice that Muslims can learn and benefit from without having to give up their cultural identity. We also believe that Islam is consistent with republican and democratic forms of self-rule.

Indeed, today Arab secularists routinely try to justify the suppression of democratic trends. Their attitude toward the aborted Algerian legislative elections is illustrative. The victory of the Islamic Salvation Front was a clear indication that the majority of the Algerian people sought a change after three decades of enforced secularization. Free democratic elections have proved secularization to be unpopular with the masses.

Fearing defeat, contemporary secularists appealed to the army to intervene. They cheered as tanks crushed the ballot boxes and as thousands of citizens were apprehended and jailed in detention camps set up in the desert. They claimed they were protecting democracy from the majority, because according to them the majority could not be trusted.

Islam is a divinely ordained set of commandments, values, and directives. Its claims are not incompatible with those of science, technology, and democratic self-government. Its appeal is profound and profoundly popular. And it is not liable to be vanquished anytime soon by a form of secularism that has been foisted by colonizers and despots on Muslims in order to weaken, if not destroy, the basis of our social order, and render us colonisable and controllable.

Faith and Reason: A Qur’anic Perspective

The basic harmony of faith and reason is also manifested in the Qur’an through a series of exclusions which seek to clarify the correct from the misleading means and avenues of knowledge. These are manifested in at least four contexts, which may be summarized as follows:

(a) Rejection of conjecture (al-zann) vis-a-vis certitude (al-yaqin)

This is a basic guideline that the Qur’an advocates not only in religious disputation but also in the context of learning, testimony and adjudication, and indeed in most other areas of human relations. Although certainty remains the ideal standard of knowledge, conjecture that inclines toward probability is nevertheless accepted as a basis of judgment in practical human affairs (mu’amalat), such as in court decisions that are often based on zann, for want of certainty, in order to facilitate resolution of disputes among people.

The Qur’an precludes conjecture and probability as a basis of belief, as faith must be based in conviction, which precludes zann. To this effect the text takes its deniers to task, for their blind faith in what is no more than conjecture: “... they follow not aught but conjecture, and surely conjecture avails nothing against the truth” (al-Qur’an 53: 28). Conjecture in this verse, as in many other verses of the Qur’an (al-Qur’an 10: 36; 6:116), is used in contradistinction to knowledge (‘ilm, yaqin), and it is ‘ilm acquired through hearing, seeing and reason that command acceptance. This is what the believers are instructed in another verse to “...follow not that of which you have no knowledge ('ilm). Surely the hearing and the sight and the heart are all accountable” (al-Qur’an 17: 36).

(b) Rejection of passion and untrammelled desire (hawa’)

Qur’anic references to hawab occur in contradistinction to correct guidance and truth. Thus it is provided in an address to the Prophet-King David: “O David! We made you a vicegerent in the earth so that you judge among people with truth, and follow not the passion that sways you away from the path of God” (al-Qur’an 38: 26).

Confusion that can be caused by passion, whether consisting of love, hatred or anger etc., can be so powerful as to obfuscate rational judgment. The basic message of this verse is that the best qualified of judges, even prophets, are not immune to the influence of hawa’. Equally clear is also the point that knowledge and truth must be pursued and vindicated through reasonable methods that are not influenced by personal sentiment and passion. The extensive influence of hawa’ is elsewhere indicated in the Qur’an, which provided in an address to Prophet Muhammad: “Have you seen (the predicament of) one who chooses for his god his own passion? Would you then be a guardian over him?” (al-Qur’an 25: 43).

Passion can dominate a person’s outlook totally in which case truth and reason can have but little place in his order of priorities. The Prophet Muhammad has been repeatedly warned as to the little or no impact his teachings could make on such persons. This evidence sustains the conclusion that rationality is a means to knowledge, discovery of truth, and justice only when it is not tainted by the vagaries of hawa’.

(c) Rejection of blind imitation

Islam’s outlook on reason is also based on its intrinsic merit that is inspired by nothing less than conviction, as opposed to blind imitation of the custom and legacy of the past. The objectivity of reason is to be ensured by its independence from conventional practice which does not necessarily provide correct knowledge and guidance. The past must be judged in the light of reason and rejected if it is found misleading. To this effect, the Qur’an has recounted the attitude of its deniers and the typical response they have given to the Prophet Muhammad: “Nay, we follow the way of our ancestors- even if their ancestors did not know nor were they rightly guided” (al-Qur’an 5:104; also 2:170). This was also the response that Prophet Abraham and many other prophets received from idol-worshipers but the text retorted it in such terms: both you and your ancestors were clearly misguided (al-Qur’an 21:52; 7:70; 11:87). These references to past events and prophets are made with a view to underline certain continuity of values, and in this instance, also to confirm that knowledge and truth stand on their own merit independently of custom and convention of the past.

(d) Rejection of oppressive dictatorship

The Qur’an takes to task those who indiscriminately obey arrogant dictators who are themselves averse to enlightenment and truth. Thus it is provided that the plea of those who say on the Day of Judgment: “O our Lord! Surely we obeyed our princes and great men, but they misled us” (al-Qur’an 33: 66) will have no merit. This is because, as the text explains, they rejected the correct guidance when it was conveyed to them. In another verse, the text refers to the Pharaoh who misled his people: “We sent Moses with our signs and clear evidence unto Pharaoh and his chiefs, but they followed Pharaoh’s command which failed to give the right guidance” (al-Qur’an 11: 96). In another verse it is stated that the Pharaoh persuaded his people to make light (of Moses), and they obeyed him. They were none other but a wanton folk (al-Qur’an 43: 54).

People are thus advised to use their own judgment and distinguish between guidance and misguidance in the light of reason. This is because they themselves, and not their self-styled leaders, would ultimately be held responsible. The intrinsic value of truth and knowledge must therefore remain unaffected by the indulgent claims of oppressive men who often seek to subjugate others for their own selfish interests.

Muhammad ‘Abduh (d.1905) held that there is no necessary conflict between religion and science. Both are founded in reason, and both study natural phenomena, albeit from different angles. Since the Qur’an encourages the Muslims to study and investigate the universe, Islam should be considered as a friend, not the enemy, of science. ‘Abduh also observed that there was nothing against true Islam in modern civilization and science, provided that Islam was rightly understood and rightly expressed.

In saying this ‘Abduh emphasized those Islamic tenets and principles which are fundamental to Islam and are not meant to be of local and temporary application.

Crisis in the Muslim World

To understand our current crisis accurately, we need to return to the revelation of the Qur’an and its basic concepts of tawhid, istikhlaf, individual and communal responsibility, ‘umran, and pursuit of knowledge. This supreme and civilized message to humanity transformed the early Arab Muslims into a great people, the bearers of a great religion, and the creators of great civilizations and history. They sought guidance from the Qur’an and developed their means through reason and knowledge of Allah’s natural laws (sunan). For the first time in history they developed the foundations of scientific and experimental methods – the same foundations that gave contemporary materialistic civilization its power of science and technology.

However, Islamic civilization was not materialistic, for it was cantered on istikhlaf, responsibility, and action to create a balanced way of life: spiritually, morally, and materially. Islam and the early generations of Muslims represented a distinguished and dynamic power in the Ummah’s history. This powerful Islamic guidance remains responsible for preserving the Ummah and most of the goodness in Muslims’ lives and consciousness. Unfortunately, the Ummah has retained remnants of old traditions, philosophies, and racial and tribal practices that continue to impact the lives of its people. Over time, this caused the Ummah’s degeneration and influenced new Muslims, as they did before Islam, thus weakening the religious enlightenment. Over the centuries, separation and confrontation within the Ummah’s intellectual leadership developed – a truly disastrous result. In other words, Muslim scholars and the political and intellectual ruling elites confronted each other.

This development weakened both sides and caused serious harm to their social roles and to the Ummah. Thinkers and scholars were isolated from the everyday lives of ordinary people, and their dynamics and concerns became increasingly theoretical. This situation prevented the growth of the social sciences and gradually drove scholars (ulama) to pure imitation and memorization. Students of ancient and alien philosophies did not truly benefit from the early scientific, experimental, and action-oriented Islamic principles and methods, but continued to follow the theoretical path. This added further harm and confusion to the Ummah’s intellectual life. In their isolation, the ulama developed a distorted view of Islam’s universal vision, one that was no longer ummatic and positive. They were no longer concerned with the Ummah’s life, and its public institutions were no longer part of their agenda. This led to the marked deterioration of the Ummah and its public institutions. The ulama concentrated on Islam’s ritual (private) aspects (e.g., salah, siyam, and Qur’anic recitation), which they called ‘ibadat, although the Qur’anic terminology refers to them as dhikr. They called the jihad of life to pursue a halal lifestyle, the jihad to seek knowledge, the jihad to spread da’wah, and the jihad to defend the Ummah. They focused on mu’amalat, mere dealings and contracts almost devoid of spiritual value.

This distortion of Islam’s universal vision was largely responsible for distorting Islamic life and institutions and giving Muslims a negative attitude toward life and civilization. The Muslim masses and societies were no longer the strong muwahidin and mustakhlafin, but weak and submissive. In short, the average Muslim was transformed into a person that concentrated on survival and thus showed little interest in pursuing an important civilizational role in history. The isolation of intellectuals and scholars fragmented the sources of Islamic knowledge. The knowledge was either religious or therefore based on the Qur’an and Sunnah and supported with linguistic tools in a historical context. Or it was human knowledge, and therefore related to foreign cultures and civilizations, and alien to the Islamic worldview, values, and Muslim psychology and culture.

The opposition and confrontation between Islamic scholars and the corrupt political, tribal, and aristocratic elites weakened the rulers’ position in two ways. First, it continually raised doubts about the legitimacy of their rule. Second, they were deprived and alienated from the intellectual base that could provide the intellectual support and ability to deal with Ummah’s changing circumstances. As a result, due to the weakened state of the Ummah and the rulers, both the ulama and the rulers turned to the “lesser evil” of oppression and violence to control the people in order to avoid political and social chaos. The rulers and the political elites imprisoned or executed their opponents, while the ulama threatened spiritual and eternal punishment to suppress intellectual dissatisfaction and revolt against their arbitrary authority and interpretations of religious text. The crushing of intellectual expression and the oppression of corrupt rulers polluted the national culture and created a negative and superstitious mentality that finally influenced the development of the Muslims’ “slave mentality.” It is, therefore, not surprising that Muslims appear to be fearful, negative, and lacking in initiative and creativity. The end result was a distorted universal Muslim vision, deficient knowledge, a corrupt public life, a superstitious mentality, and a damaging slave mentality. After losing their scientific and creative mentality, Muslim scientists turned to memorizing scientific procedures or imitating and importing scientific and technological tools and systems. In so doing, they hoped to achieve the ability to carry out research and development that would help the Ummah to catch up with the developed nations.

But we must do more than this – we need to correct our mental, cultural, and psychological distortions; adjust our world vision in order to regain our ummatic outlook; rectify our epistemological view in order to reunite religious and human knowledge; cleanse our culture from all distortions and superstitions in order to restore our Islamic scientific mentality and methodology; and reform our parental and educational methods.

We need to return to the Prophet’s methods of child development and education. The Prophet used love, care, respect, patience, wise guidance, effective communication, and supervision when dealing with children. For example, when he spoke to children (such as Ibn ‘Abbas), he did not address them in the same way that the Qur’an addresses its enemies, nor did he threaten or frighten them. Instead, he created an atmosphere of love and mutual support between the children and God, and taught them courage. For example, he told Ibn ‘Abbas:

“Now, boy, care about God, for God cares about you. Remember God in your good times, for God remembers you in your hard times of need. If everyone wants to harm you with something that God has not decided would happen to you, they cannot harm you. Likewise, if they want to benefit you with something that God has not decided for you, they cannot benefit you. The pens have been dried, and the records have been closed.”

The Prophet used such words to teach Ibn ‘Abbas courage, because courage is the real basis of a strong character and all virtues. On another occasion, the Prophet addressed the mind and reason while replying to a man who asked him if he could leave his camel untethered and trust in God to protect it while he prayed. The Prophet told him to tether the camel and then trust in God.

The Prophet was very careful and thoughtful in dealing with his grandson, al-Hussain, who once climbed on his back while he was leading the prayers in the mosque. The Prophet made an unusually long sujud, which caused his companions to wonder if it was a revelation. He told them that he did not want to rise (from sujud) hastily, for that would not allow his grandson enough time to enjoy his ride. The lesson here was not that he loved his grandson, but that he was the grandfather of a small child who knew nothing about salah, sujud, or iman. All he could understand was that his grandfather was on the ground, so he climbed on his back to play. The Prophet had two choices: put him down in a hurry without saying a word to him because he was praying, or give him some time to play and enjoy himself and then put him down carefully and continue the prayer. His constant thoughtful and careful nature, which precluded his hitting a child, enabled him to succeed as a father and a grandfather.

Rethinking Anthropology and Islam

Anthropology has much for which to thank bin Laden. After decades of criticism, anthropology was on the ropes not long ago. Its founding father and mother were discredited: Bronislaw Malinowski for lusting after young natives and Margaret Mead for cooking up ethnographic accounts. Its own practitioners despaired and predicted “The End of Anthropology” (Worsley, 1966; Banaji, 1970). When the field appeared at its weakest, the powerful new voice of Edward Said emerged to denounce it as tainted by the dreaded word ‘Orientalism’ (Said, 1978). Perhaps the unkindest cut was that anthropology was not even seen as a bulldog in the service of the Western imperialists but rather as a mere puppy. Students of anthropology wandered aimlessly – sometimes into postmodernist literary conceit and sometimes into autobiographical excess. Like John Keats’s knight in ‘La Belle Dame Sans Merci’ anthropology appeared to be ‘ailing’. It appeared ‘alone and palely loitering.’

September 11 changed all that. The main interests of anthropology – ideas of ethnicity, group loyalty, honour, revenge, suicide, tribal code, the conflict between what anthropologists call the Great Tradition of world religions and their local practice or the Little Tradition – were being discussed everywhere. Perhaps people were not even aware that they were discussing these issues as they were identified with traditional, even ‘primitive’ societies, and therefore discredited; now they were front-page news. What was clear was the sense of hyper-asabiyya and the accompanying paranoia and uncertainty.

Ironically, most religions and communities across the globe felt they were under siege. American television broadcast its news and discussion under the title ‘America Under Siege’; Israelis felt that the Arad had besieged them; and Indian complains of being hemmed in by aggressive Muslim neighbours. The United States, Israel and India appeared paralyzed in the face of Muslim suicide bombers. They had no answer to the violence except more violence.

With each killing the siege mentality spread. State strategy appeared to be to use more brute power and inflict more pain on the opposite side. Where vision and compassion were required, the state was seen to kill and hurt people and destroy property. Its representatives did not even spare the mosque, the House of Allah.

The United States, Israel and India were compromising hard-won ideas of modern, thriving democracy. There were cases of illegal detention, suspension of civil liberties and unauthorized surveillance. The victim was invariably a Muslim.

Muslims, whether living as a majority or a minority felt especially vulnerable after September 11. The fact that all 19 of the hijackers were Muslim appeared to condemn by association every Muslim on the planet. Any expression of Muslim identity would risk the fear of being suspected as ‘terrorist’ activity. Muslims felt that their religion Islam was under siege…….

Identiti, Sang Kodok dan Pengenalan Sosiologi

Kebelakangan ini aku banyak menulis dalam Bahasa Malaysia. Seorang teman lalu bertanya melalui khidmat pesanan ringkas (SMS):

“Menulis dalam Bahasa Malaysia untuk menyatakan sokongan terhadap pemansuhan PPSMI ke?”

Aku hanya mampu tergelak, sebagai reaksi awal terhadap pertanyaan tersebut. Dek kerana kami membesar bersama-sama, teman itu sangat memahami setiap perlakuan aku, baik yang tersurat mahupun yang tersirat. Namun jawapan aku adalah tidak. Sebab penulisan aku banyak menggunakan Bahasa Malaysia kebelakangan ini hanyalah sekadar untuk ‘melayan mood.’ Tidak lebih dari itu.

Rumah yang aku duduki sekarang ini terletak bersebelahan dengan sekolah; Sekolah Menengah Kebangsaan Seksyen 10. Setiap pagi selepas solat Fajar, satu perkara yang gemar aku lakukan lewat kebelakangan ini ialah berjalan-jalan sambil beriadah kecil di hadapan kawasan rumah yang aku duduki ini. Tapi bukan setiap pagilah :P Sambil pada waktu yang sama aku suka meninjau-ninjau pelajar-pelajar sekolah menengah tersebut datang ke sekolah. Bukanlah bermaksud untuk meng‘usha’ mereka (ahakzz!!). Tapi perkara yang aku suka perhatikan adalah pengangkutan mereka ke sekolah. Rata-rata mereka dihantar oleh keluarga, samada ibu ataupun bapa. Bagi aku itu fenomena biasa. Namun yang menarik perhatian aku adalah jenis kenderaan yang digunakan. Kebanyakannya kenderaan mewah, yang berharga paling kurang seratus ribu. Mercedes, BMW, Volkswagen, Volvo (my favourite car!!), Toyota Lexus etc. Pun begitu ada jua yang bermotosikal, dan hanya berjalan kaki sahaja. Kalau nak dilihat, status sosio-ekonomi masyarakat kawasan yang aku duduki sekarang ini tidaklah seimbang. Ada yang berada dan mewah (upper class and upper middle class), ada yang berada di kelas pertengahan (middle class), ada yang tergolong dalam golongan pekerja dan kelas pertengahan dan bawahan (lower middle and lower class). Di minda ku acapkali berfikir, pasti mereka-mereka ini golongan anak-anak sekolah menengah yang mampu menguasai Bahasa Inggeris dengan baik. Harapnya begitulah…..

Lantas minda ku terfikir kepada mereka yang bersekolah di desa, bagaimana pula dengan mereka yang bersekolah di ceruk hujung dunia. Yang terpaksa menaiki bot dan sampan berjam-jam untuk sampai ke sekolah. Adakah penguasaan Bahasa Inggeris mereka baik, semantap mereka di bandar? Tidak pula dapat ku pastikan. Mungkin rakan-rakan ku di Fakulti Pendidikan (Naemah, sila jawab :P) dapat memberikan jawapan yang lebih jelas.

Namun perkara yang ‘menggelikan’ minda ku adalah berkenaan pengajaran Sains dan Matematik dalam Bahasa Inggeris. Kononnya pejuang-pejuang Bahasa Melayu mengatakan ianya bersifat tidak patriotik kerana membelakangkan bahasa ibunda. Malahan mereka mempertahankan bawah Bahasa Melayu telah lama menjadi ‘lingua franca’ untuk pembangunan dan penyebaran ‘ilmu. Yang menggelikan aku ialah bilamana mereka memperkatakan bahawa ‘identiti’ Melayu akan terhakis bilamana pengajaran dua subjek itu dilakukan dalam Bahasa Inggeris.

Kasihan. Mungkin para pejuang bahasa ini perlu masuk kelas ‘ilmu anthropologi agaknya. Identiti adalah bahasa yang dipinjam dari bidang antropologi. Malahan ianya mula dibicarakan secara ekstensif oleh para antropologis sosial seperti Edmund R. Leach dalam karyanya Political System of Highland Burma dan E.E. Evans-Pritchard dalam karya agungnya The Nuer. Identiti dari perspektif antropologi akan hanya terjelma melalui proses interaksi. Meminjam kata-kata Jay Clyde Mitchell:

“Identity does not occur in vacuum, it occurs through the process of interaction.”

Bahasa hanyalah ‘simbol’ kepada identiti etnik Melayu. Tidak bermakna bilamana kita berbicara menggunakan Bahasa Inggeris, identiti kita atau sifat ‘keMelayuan’ kita terhakis. Contoh, kalau kita tinggal di negara Arab, pastinya kita terpaksa berbicara menggunakan Bahasa Arab ataupun Bahasa Inggeris hampir keseluruhan waktu, maka adakah itu bermakna kita sudah hilang ‘identiti’ Melayu kita? Maka samalah jua pengajaran subjek Sains dan Matematik. Kalau ianya diajar didalam Bahasa Inggeris, adakah ianya akan melemahkan, melunturkan dan lantas menghakis identiti etnik Melayu kita? Tun Dr. Mahathir dan mereka yang sezaman dengannya telah belajar Sains dan Matematik didalam Bahasa Inggeris. Namun tidak pula sifat keMelayuan mereka itu terhakis. Fikir-fikirkanlah…….

Ketika pulang dari solat ‘Isya kelmarin, aku dapat mendengar sang kodok membuat bising memanggil sang hujan. Hasilnya, malam kelmarin hujan turun agak lebat di kawasan rumah ku. Nyaman dan enak tidur ku. Satu sifat sang kodok yang senantiasa menarik perhatian ku dari dahulu hingga dewasa ini ialah sifatnya yang mampu melompat dengan jarak yang jauh. Inilah bukti kekuasaan Allah. Tuhan yang menciptakan ‘alam ini. Namun sifat melompat tidak hanya ada si kodok. Manusia pun ‘bijak’ untuk melompat. Dan lompatan mereka lagi hebat. Hingga mampu meranapkan sebuah kerajaan negeri. Hebat kan…..

Bagi ku, sang kodok yang perlu diberi ‘penghormatan’ adalah kodok Bota (erk… sape duk dekat Bote yer :P). Aku tidak bermaksud untuk menghina, apatah lagi merendahkan martabat sesiapapun. Cuma ianya agak menarik untuk diceritakan. Itu sahaja. Kodok ini telah melompat untuk mencari ‘rumah’ yang baru. Telah berjumpa ‘rumah’ yang baru, hanya selesa sekadar sebelas hari sahaja. Mula difikirkan dan dirasa ‘rumah’ yang lama sudah ‘usang’. Maka ‘rumah’ baru ini lebih baru, sesuai untuk ‘dunia yang serba-serbi baru ini.’ Namun sayang setelah sebelas hari, ‘rumah’ baru dirasakan ‘usang’ dan ingin kembali ke ‘rumah’ lamanya. Dan kembalilah ia ke ‘rumah’ lamanya. Sayang…… Komen ku sama dengan ‘Sang Bentara Luar’:

“Orang ini tiada ‘political conscience’…….”

Jam sudah hampir 10 pagi. Aku perlu bergegas bertemu dengan penyelia tesis sarjana ku. Dan aku perlu bersegera, dengan kadar yang pantas, untuk menyelesaikan tesis sarjana ku. Kerana semester pendek ini aku diminta untuk mengajar. Tidak perlu menunggu semester satu nanti. Satu subjek dan satu kelas sahaja. Subjek ‘Pengenalan Sosiologi’. Dengan harga RM 1300. Inilah dinamakan rahmat Allah……

General Characteristics of Islamic Civilization

Islam was destined to become a world religion and to create a civilization which stretched from one end of the globe to the other. Already during the early Muslim caliphates, first the Arabs, then the Persians and later the Turks set about to create classical Islamic civilization. Later, in the 13th century, both Africa and India became great centres of Islamic civilization and soon thereafter Muslim kingdoms were established in the Malay-Indonesian world while Chinese Muslims flourished throughout China.

Global Religion

Islam is a religion for all people from whatever race or background they might be. That is why Islamic civilization is based on a unity which stands completely against any racial or ethnic discrimination. Such major racial and ethnic groups as the Arabs, Persians, Turks, Africans, Indians, Chinese and Malays in addition to numerous smaller units embraced Islam and contributed to the building of Islamic civilization. Moreover, Islam was not opposed to learning from the earlier civilizations and incorporating their science, learning, and culture into its own world view, as long as they did not oppose the principles of Islam. Each ethnic and racial group which embraced Islam made its contribution to the one Islamic civilization to which everyone belonged. The sense of brotherhood and sisterhood was so much emphasized that it overcame all local attachments to a particular tribe, race, or language – all of which became subservient to the universal brotherhood and sisterhood of Islam. The global civilization thus created by Islam permitted people of diverse ethnic backgrounds to work together in cultivating various arts and sciences. Although the civilization was profoundly Islamic, even non-Muslim “people of the book” participated in the intellectual activity whose fruits belonged to everyone. The scientific climate was reminiscent of the present situation in America where scientists and men and women of learning from all over the world are active in the advancement of knowledge which belongs to everyone. The global civilization created by Islam also succeeded in activating the mind and thought of the people who entered its fold. As a result of Islam, the nomadic Arabs became torch-bearers of science and learning. The Persians who had created a great civilization before the rise of Islam nevertheless produced much more science and learning in the Islamic period than before. The same can be said of the Turks and other peoples who embraced Islam. The religion of Islam was itself responsible not only for the creation of a world civilization in which people of many different ethnic backgrounds participated, but it played a central role in developing intellectual and cultural life on a scale not seen before. For some eight hundred years Arabic remained the major intellectual and scientific language of the world. During the centuries following the rise of Islam, Muslim dynasties ruling in various parts of the Islamic world bore witness to the flowering of Islamic culture and thought. In fact this tradition of intellectual activity was eclipsed only at the beginning of modern times as a result of the weakening of faith among Muslims combined with external domination. And today this activity has begun anew in many parts of the Islamic world now that the Muslims have regained their political independence.

A Brief History of Islam: The Rightly Guided Caliphs

Upon the death of the Prophet, Abu Bakr, the friend of the Prophet and the first adult male to embrace Islam, became caliph. Abu Bakr ruled for two years to be succeeded by ‘Umar who was caliph for a decade and during whose rule Islam spread extensively east and west conquering the Persian empire, Syria and Egypt. It was ‘Umar who marched on foot at the end of the Muslim army into Jerusalem and ordered the protection of Christian sites. ‘Umar also established the first public treasury and a sophisticated financial administration. He established many of the basic practices of Islamic government. ‘Umar was succeeded by Uthman who ruled for some twelve years during which time the Islamic expansion continued. He is also known as the caliph who had the definitive text of the Noble Quran copied and sent to the four corners of the Islamic world. He was in turn succeeded by ‘Ali who is known to this day for his eloquent sermons and letters, and also for his bravery. With his death the rule of the “rightly guided” caliphs, who hold a special place of respect in the hearts of Muslims, came to an end.

The Caliphates: Umayyad

The Umayyad caliphate established in 661 was to last for about a century. During this time Damascus became the capital of an Islamic world which stretched from the western borders of China to southern France. Not only did the Islamic conquests continue during this period through North Africa to Spain and France in the West and to Sind, Central Asia and Transoxiana in the East, but the basic social and legal institutions of the newly founded Islamic world were established.

Abbasids

The Abbasids, who succeeded the Umayyad, shifted the capital to Baghdad which soon developed into an incomparable centre of learning and culture as well as the administrative and political heart of a vast world. They ruled for over 500 years but gradually their power waned and they remained only symbolic rulers bestowing legitimacy upon various sultans and princes who wielded actual military power. The Abbasid caliphate was finally abolished when Hulagu, the Mongol ruler, captured Baghdad in 1258, destroying much of the city including its incomparable libraries. While the Abbasids ruled in Baghdad, a number of powerful dynasties such as the Fatimids, Ayyubids and Mamluks held power in Egypt, Syria and Palestine. The most important event in this area as far as the relation between Islam and the Western world was concerned was the series of Crusades declared by the Pope and espoused by various European kings. The purpose, although political, was outwardly to recapture the Holy Land and especially Jerusalem for Christianity. Although there was at the beginning some success and local European rule was set up in parts of Syria and Palestine, Muslims finally prevailed and in 1187 Saladin, the great Muslim leader, recaptured Jerusalem and defeated the Crusaders.

North Africa and Spain

When the Abbasids captured Damascus, one of the Umayyad princes escaped and made the long journey from there to Spain to found Umayyad rule there, thus beginning the golden age of Islam in Spain. Cordoba was established as the capital and soon became Europe’s greatest city not only in population but from the point of view of its cultural and intellectual life. The Umayyads ruled over two centuries until they weakened and were replaced by local rulers. Meanwhile in North Africa, various local dynasties held sway until two powerful Berber dynasties succeeded in uniting much of North Africa and also Spain in the 12th and 13th centuries. After them this area was ruled once again by local dynasties such as the Sharifids of Morocco who still rule in that country. As for Spain itself, Muslim power continued to wane until the last Muslim dynasty was defeated in Granada in 1492 thus bringing nearly eight hundred years of Muslim rule in Spain to an end.

Islamic History after the Mongol Invasion

The Mongols devastated the eastern lands of Islam and ruled from the Sinai Desert to India for a century. But they soon converted to Islam and became known as the Il-Khanids. They were in turn succeeded by Timur and his descendents who made Samarqand their capital and ruled from 1369 to 1500. The sudden rise of Timur delayed the formation and expansion of the Ottoman Empire but soon the Ottomans became the dominant power in the Islamic world.

Ottoman Empire

From humble origins the Turks rose to dominate over the whole of Anatolia and even parts of Europe. In 1453 Mehmet the Conqueror captured Constantinople and put an end to the Byzantine Empire. The Ottomans conquered much of Eastern Europe and nearly the whole of the Arab world, only Morocco and Mauritania in the West and Yemen, Hadramaut and parts of the Arabian Peninsula remaining beyond their control. They reached their zenith of power with Suleyman the Magnificent whose armies reached Hungary and Austria. From the 17th century onward with the rise of Western European powers and later Russia, the power of the Ottomans began to wane. But they nevertheless remained a force to be reckoned with until the First World War when they were defeated by the Western nations. Soon thereafter Kamal Ataturk gained power in Turkey and abolished the six centuries of rule of the Ottomans in 1924.

Persia

While the Ottomans were concerned mostly with the western front of their empire, to the east in Persia a new dynasty called the Safavids came to power in 1502. The Safavids established a powerful state of their own which flourished for over two centuries and became known for the flowering of the arts. Their capital, Isfahan, became one of the most beautiful cities with its blue tiled mosques and exquisite houses. The Afghan invasion of 1736 put an end to Safavid rule and prepared the independence of Afghanistan which occurred formally in the 19th century. Persia itself fell into turmoil until Nader Shah, the last Oriental conqueror, reunited the country and even conquered India. But the rule of the dynasty established by him was short-lived. The Zand dynasty soon took over to be overthrown by the Qajars in 1779 that made Tehran their capital and ruled until 1921 when they were in turn replaced by the Pahlavis.

India

As for India, Islam entered into the land east of the Indus River peacefully. Gradually Muslims gained political power beginning in the early 13th century. But this period which marked the expansion of both Islam and Islamic culture came to an end with the conquest of much of India in 1526 by Babur, one of the Timurid princes. He established the powerful Mogul empire which produced such famous rulers as Akbar, Jahangir, and Shah Jahan and which lasted, despite the gradual rise of British power in India, until 1857 when it was officially abolished.

Malaysia and Indonesia

Farther east in the Malay world, Islam began to spread in the 12th century in northern Sumatra and soon Muslim kingdoms were established in Java, Sumatra and mainland Malaysia. Despite the colonization of the Malay world, Islam spread in that area covering present day Indonesia, Malaysia, the southern Philippines and southern Thailand, and is still continuing in islands farther east.

Africa

As far as Africa is concerned, Islam entered into East Africa at the very beginning of the Islamic period but remained confined to the coast for some time, only the Sudan and Somaliland becoming gradually both Arabized and Islamized. West Africa felt the presence of Islam through North African traders who travelled with their camel caravans south of the Sahara. By the 14th century there were already Muslim sultanates in such areas as Mali, and Timbuctu in West Africa and Harar in East Africa had become seats of Islamic learning. Gradually Islam penetrated both inland and southward. There also appeared major charismatic figures who inspired intense resistance against European domination. The process of the Islamization of Africa did not cease during the colonial period and continues even today with the result that most Africans are now Muslims carrying on a tradition which has had practically as long a history in certain areas of sub-Saharan Africa as Islam itself.

The Rightly Guided Caliph

The word ‘Caliph’ is the English form of the Arabic word ‘Khalifa,’ which is short for Khalifatu Rasulil-lah. The latter expression means Successor to the Messenger of God, the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be on him). The title ‘Khalifatu Rasulil-lah’ was first used for Abu Bakr, who was elected head of the Muslim community after the death of the Prophet.

The Significance of the Caliphate

The mission of Prophet Muhammad (peace be on him), like that of the earlier messengers of God, was to call people to the worship of and submission to the One True God. In practice, submission to God means to obey His injunctions as given in the Holy Quran and as exemplified by Sunnah (the practice of the Prophet). As successor to the Prophet, the Caliph was the head of the Muslim community and his primary responsibility was to continue in the path of the Prophet. Since religion was perfected and the door of Divine revelation was closed at the death of the Prophet, the Caliph was to make all laws in accordance with the Quran and the Sunnah. He was a ruler over Muslims but not their sovereign since sovereignty belongs to God alone. He was to be obeyed as long as he obeyed God. He was responsible for creating and maintaining conditions under which it would be easy for Muslims to live according to Islamic principles, and to see that justice was done to all. Abu Bakr, at the time he accepted the caliphate, stated his position:

“The weak among you shall be strong with me until their rights have been vindicated; and the strong among you shall he weak with me until, if the Lord wills, I have taken what is due from them... Obey me as long as I obey God and His Messenger. When I disobey Him and His Prophet, and then obey me not.”

The Rightly-Guided Caliphs (Al-Khulafa-ur-Rashidun)

Those Caliphs who truly followed in the Prophet’s footsteps are called ‘The Rightly-Guided Caliphs’ (Al-Khulafa-ur-Rashidun in Arabic). They are the first four Caliphs: Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, Uthman and Ali. All four were among the earliest and closest companions of the Prophet (peace be on him). They lived simple and righteous lives and strove hard for the religion of God. Their justice was impartial, their treatment of others was kind and merciful, and they were one with the people - the first among equals. After these four, the later Caliphs assumed the manners of kings and emperors and the true spirit of equality of ruler and ruled diminished to a considerable extent in the political life of Muslims.

It should be clearly understood that the mission of Prophet Muhammad (peace be on him), and hence that of the Rightly-Guided Caliphs, was not political, social or economic reform, although such reforms were a logical consequence of the success of this mission, nor the unity of a nation and the establishment of an empire, although the nation did unite and vast areas came under one administration, nor the spread of a civilization or culture, although many civilizations and cultures developed, but only to deliver the message of God to all the people of the world and to invite them to submit to Him, while being the foremost among those who submitted.

The primary responsibility of an Islamic government is still the same as it was in the days of the early Caliphs: to make all laws in accordance with the Quran and the Sunnah, to make positive efforts to create and maintain conditions under which it will be possible and easy for Muslims to live an Islamic life, to secure impartial and speedy justice for all, and to strive hard in the path of God. Any government which is committed to such a policy is truly following the message delivered by the Prophet (peace be on him).

The First Caliph, Abu Bakr (632-634 A.C)

"If I were to take a friend other than my Lord, I would take Abu Bakr as a friend." (Hadith)

Election to the Caliphate

The Prophet’s closest companion, Abu Bakr, was not present when the Holy Prophet (peace be on him) breathed his last in the apartment of his beloved wife of later years, Aisha, Abu Bakr’s daughter. When he came to know of the Prophet’s passing, Abu Bakr hurried to the house of sorrow.

“How blessed was your life and how beatific is your death,” he whispered as he kissed the cheek of his beloved friend and master. When Abu Bakr came out of the Prophet’s apartment and broke the news, disbelief and dismay gripped the community of Muslims in Medina. Muhammad (peace be on him) had been the leader, the guide and the bearer of Divine revelation through whom they had been brought from idolatry and barbarism into the way of God. How could he die? Even Umar, one of the bravest and strongest of the Prophet’s companions, lost his composure and drew his sword and threatened to kill anyone who said that the Prophet was dead. Abu Bakr gently pushed him aside, ascended the steps of the lectern in the mosque and addressed the people, saying:

“O people, verily whoever worshipped Muhammad, behold! Muhammad is indeed dead. But whoever worships God, behold! God is alive and will never die.”

And then he concluded with a verse from the Quran:

“And Muhammad is but a Messenger. Many Messengers have gone before him; if then he dies or is killed, will you turn back upon your heels?” [3:144]

On hearing these words, the people were consoled. Despondency gave place to confidence and tranquillity. This critical moment had passed. But the Muslim community was now faced with an extremely serious problem: that of choosing a leader. After some discussion among the companions of the Prophet who had assembled in order to select a leader, it became apparent that no one was better suited for this responsibility than Abu Bakr. A portion of the speech the first Caliph gave after his election has already been quoted in the introduction.

Abu Bakr’s Life

Abu Bakr (The Owner of Camels) was not his real name. He acquired this name later in life because of his great interest in raising camels. His real name was Abdul Ka’aba (Slave of Ka’aba), which Muhammad (peace be on him) later changed to Abdullah (Slave of God). The Prophet also gave him the title of Siddiq - The Testifier to the Truth.

Abu Bakr was a fairly wealthy merchant, and before he embraced Islam, was a respected citizen of Mecca. He was three years younger than Muhammad (peace be on him) and some natural affinity drew them together from earliest childhood. He remained the closest companion of the Prophet all through the Prophet’s life. When Muhammad first invited his closest friends and relatives to Islam, Abu Bakr was among the earliest to accept it. He also persuaded Uthman and Bilal to accept Islam. In the early days of the Prophet’s mission, when the handful of Muslims was subjected to relentless persecution and torture, Abu Bakr bore his full share of hardship. Finally when God’s permission came to emigrate from Mecca, he was the one chosen by the Prophet to accompany him on the dangerous journey to Medina. In the numerous battles which took place during the life of the Prophet, Abu Bakr was always by his side. Once, he brought all his belongings to the Prophet, who was raising money for the defence of Medina. The Prophet asked “Abu Bakr, what did you leave for your family?” The reply came: “God and His Prophet.”

Even before Islam, Abu Bakr was known to be a man of upright character and amiable and compassionate nature. All through his life he was sensitive to human suffering and kind to the poor and helpless. Even though he was wealthy, he lived very simply and spent his money for charity, for freeing slaves and for the cause of Islam. He often spent part of the night in supplication and prayer. He shared with his family a cheerful and affectionate home life.

Abu-Bakr’s Caliphate

Such, then, was the man upon whom the burden of leadership fell at the most sensitive period in the history of the Muslims.

As the news of the Prophet’s death spread, a number of tribes rebelled and refused to pay Zakat (poor-due), saying that this was due only to the Prophet (peace be on him). At the same time a number of impostors claimed that the prophethood had passed to them after Muhammad and they raised the standard of revolt. To add to all this, two powerful empires, the Eastern Roman and the Persian also threatened the new-born Islamic state at Medina.

Under these circumstances, many companions of the Prophet, including Umar, advised Abu Bakr to make concessions to the Zakat evaders, at least for a time. The new Caliph disagreed. He insisted that the Divine Law cannot be divided, that there is no distinction between the obligations of Zakat and Salat (prayer), and that any compromise with the injunctions of God would eventually erode the foundations of Islam. Umar and others were quick to realize their error of judgment. The revolting tribes attacked Medina but the Muslims were prepared. Abu Bakr himself led the charge, forcing them to retreat. He then made a relentless war on the false claimants to prophethood, most of who submitted and again professed Islam.

The threat from the Roman Empire had actually arisen earlier, during the Prophet’s lifetime. The Prophet had organized an army under the command of Usama, the son of a freed slave. The army had not gone far when the Prophet had fallen ill so they stopped. After the death of the Prophet the question was raised whether the army should be sent again or should remain for the defence of Medina. Again Abu Bakr showed a firm determination. He said, “I shall send Usama’s army on its way as ordered by the Prophet, even if I am left alone.”

The final instructions he gave to Usama prescribed a code of conduct in war which remains unsurpassed to this day. Part of his instructions to the Muslim army was:

“Do not be deserters, nor be guilty of disobedience. Do not kill an old man, a woman or a child. Do not injure date palms and do not cut down fruit trees. Do not slaughter any sheep or cows or camels except for food. You will encounter persons who spend their lives in monasteries. Leave them alone and do not molest them.”

Khalid bin Waleed had been chosen by the Prophet (peace be on him) on several occasions to lead Muslim armies. A man of supreme courage and a born leader, his military genius came to full flower during the Caliphate of Abu Bakr. Throughout Abu Bakr’s reign Khalid led his troops from one victory to another against the attacking Romans.

Another contribution of Abu Bakr to the cause of Islam was the collection and compilation of the verses of the Quran.

Abu Bakr died on 21 Jamadi-al Akhir, 13 A.H. (23 August 634 A.C.), at the age of sixty-three, and was buried by the side of the Holy Prophet (peace be on him). His caliphate had been of mere twenty-seven months duration. In this brief span, however, Abu Bakr had managed, by the Grace of God, to strengthen and consolidate his community and the state, and to secure the Muslims against the perils which had threatened their existence.

The Second Caliph, Umar (634-644 A.C)

“God has placed truth upon Umar’s tongue and heart.” (Hadith)

Umar’s Life

During his last illness Abu Bakr had conferred with his people, particularly the more eminent among them. After this meeting they chose Umar as his successor. Umar was born into a respected Quraysh family thirteen years after the birth of Muhammad (peace be on him). Umar’s family was known for its extensive knowledge of genealogy. When he grew up, Umar was proficient in this branch of knowledge as well as in swordsmanship, wrestling and the art of speaking. He also learned to read and write while still a child, a very rare thing in Mecca at that time. Umar earned his living as a merchant. His trade took him to many foreign lands and he met all kinds of people. This experience gave him an insight into the affairs and problems of men. Umar’s personality was dynamic, self-assertive, frank and straightforward. He always spoke whatever was in his mind even if it displeased others.

Umar was twenty-seven when the Prophet (peace be on him) proclaimed his mission. The ideas Muhammad was preaching enraged him as much as they did the other notables of Mecca. He was just as bitter against anyone accepting Islam as others among the Quraysh. When his slave-girl accepted Islam he beat her until he himself was exhausted and told her, “I have stopped because I am tired, not out of pity for you.” The story of his embracing Islam is an interesting one. One day, full of anger against the Prophet, he drew his sword and set out to kill him. A friend met him on the way. When Umar told him what he planned to do, his friend informed him that Umar’s own sister, Fatima, and her husband had also accepted Islam. Umar went straight to his sister’s house where he found her reading from pages of the Quran. He fell upon her and beat her mercilessly. Bruised and bleeding, she told her brother, “Umar, you can do what you like, but you cannot turn our hearts away from Islam.” These words produced a strange effect upon Umar. What was this faith that made even weak women so strong of heart? He asked his sister to show him what she had been reading; he was at once moved to the core by the words of the Quran and immediately grasped their truth. He went straight to the house where the Prophet was staying and vowed allegiance to him.

Umar made no secret of his acceptance of Islam. He gathered the Muslims and offered prayers at the Ka'aba. This boldness and devotion of an influential citizen of Mecca raised the morale of the small community of Muslims. Nonetheless Umar was also subjected to privations, and when permission for emigration to Medina came, he also left Mecca. The soundness of Umar’s judgment, his devotion to the Prophet (peace be on him), his outspokenness and uprightness won for him a trust and confidence from the Prophet which was second only to that given to Abu Bakr. The Prophet gave him the title ‘Farooq’ which means the ‘Separator of Truth from Falsehood.’ During the Caliphate of Abu Bakr, Umar was his closest assistant and adviser. When Abu Bakr died, all the people of Medina swore allegiance to Umar, and on 23 Jamadi-al-Akhir, 13 A.H., he was proclaimed Caliph.

Umar’s Caliphate

After taking charge of his office, Umar spoke to the Muslims of Medina:

“...O people, you have some rights on me which you can always claim. One of your rights is that if anyone of you comes to me with a claim, he should leave satisfied. Another of your rights is that you can demand that I take nothing unjustly from the revenues of the state. You can also demand that... I fortify your frontiers and do not put you into danger. It is also your right that if you go to battle I should look after your families as a father would while you are away. O people, remain conscious of God, forgive me my faults and help me in my task. Assist me in enforcing what is good and forbidding what is evil. Advise me regarding the obligations that have been imposed upon me by God...”

The most notable feature of Umar’s caliphate was the vast expansion of Islam. Apart from Arabia, Egypt, Iraq, Palestine and Iran also came under the protection of the Islamic government. But the greatness of Umar himself lies in the quality of his rule. He gave a practical meaning to the Quranic injunction:

“O you who believe, stand out firmly for justice as witnesses to God, even as against yourselves, or your parents, or your kin, and whether it concerns rich or poor, for God can best protect both.” [4:135]

Once a woman brought a claim against the Caliph Umar. When Umar appeared on trial before the judge, the judge stood up as a sign of respect toward him. Umar reprimanded him, saying, “This is the first act of injustice you did to this woman!”

He insisted that his appointed governors live simple lives, keep no guard at their doors and be accessible to the people at all times, and he himself set the example for them. Many times foreign envoys and messengers sent to him by his generals found him resting under a palm tree or praying in the mosque among the people, and it was difficult for them to distinguish which man was the Caliph. He spent many a watchful night going about the streets of Medina to see whether anyone needed help or assistance. The general social and moral tone of the Muslim society at that time is well-illustrated by the words of an Egyptian who was sent to spy on the Muslims during their Egyptian campaign. He reported:

“I have seen a people, every one of whom loves death more than he loves life. They cultivate humility rather than pride. None is given to material ambitions. Their mode of living is simple... Their commander is their equal. They make no distinction between superior and inferior, between master and slave. When the time of prayer approaches, none remains behind...”

Umar gave his government an administrative structure. Departments of treasury, army and public revenues were established. Regular salaries were set up for soldiers. A population census was held. Elaborate land surveys were conducted to assess equitable taxes. New cities were founded. The areas which came under his rule were divided into provinces and governors were appointed. New roads were laid, canals were lug and wayside hotels were built. Provision was made for his support of the poor and the needy from public funds. He defined, by precept and by example, the rights and privileges of non-Muslims, an example of which is the following contract with the Christians of Jerusalem:

“This is the protection which the servant of God, Umar, the Ruler of the Believers has granted to the people of Eiliya [Jerusalem]. The protection is for their lives and properties, their churches and crosses, their sick and healthy and for all their coreligionists. Their churches shall not be used for habitation, nor shall they be demolished, nor shall any injury be done to them or to their compounds, or to their crosses, nor shall their properties be injured in any way. There shall be no compulsion for these people in the matter of religion, nor shall any of them suffer any injury on account of religion... Whatever is written herein is under the covenant of God and the responsibility of His Messenger, of the Caliphs and of the believers, and shall hold good as long as they pay Jizya [the tax for their defence] imposed on them.”

Those non-Muslims who took part in defence together with the Muslims were exempted from paying Jizya, and when the Muslims had to retreat from a city whose non-Muslim citizens had paid this tax for their defence, the tax was returned to the non-Muslims. The old, the poor and the disabled of Muslims and non-Muslims alike were provided for from the public treasury and from the Zakat funds.

Umar’s Death

In 23 A.H., when Umar returned to Medina from Hajj, he raised his hands and prayed:

“O God! I am advanced in years, my bones are weary, my powers are declining, and the people for whom I am responsible have spread far and wide. Summon me back to thyself, my Lord!”

Some time later, when Umar went to the mosque to lead a prayer, a Magian named Abu Lulu Feroze, who had a grudge against Umar on a personal matter, attacked him with a dagger and stabbed him several times. Umar reeled and fell to the ground. When he learned that the assassin was a Magian, he said, “Thank God he is not a Muslim.”

Umar died in the first week of Muharram, 24 A.H., and was buried by the side of the Holy Prophet (peace be on him).

The Third Caliph, Uthman (644-656 A.C)

“Every Prophet has an assistant, and my assistant will be Uthman.” (Hadith)

Uthman’s Election

When Umar fell under the assassin’s dagger, before he died the people asked him to nominate his successor. Umar appointed a committee consisting of six of the ten companions of the Prophet (peace be on him) about whom the Prophet had said, “They are the people of Heaven” - Ali, Uthman, Abdul Rahman, Sa’ad, Al-Zubayr and Talha - to select the next Caliph from among themselves. He also outlined the procedure to be followed if any differences of opinion should arise. Abdul Rahman withdrew his name. He was then authorized by the committee to nominate the Caliph. After two days of discussion among the candidates and after the opinions of the Muslims in Medina had been ascertained, the choice was finally limited to Uthman and Ali. Abdul Rahman came to the mosque together with other Muslims, and after a brief speech and questioning of the two men, swore allegiance to Uthman. All those present did the same, and Uthman became the third Caliph of Islam in the month of Muharram, 24 A.H.

Uthman’s Life

Uthman bin Affan was born seven years after the Holy Prophet (peace be on him). He belonged to the Umayyad branch of the Quraysh tribe. He learned to read and write at an early age, and as a young man became a successful merchant. Even before Islam Uthman had been noted for his truthfulness and integrity. He and Abu Bakr were close friends, and it was Abu Bakr who brought him to Islam when he was thirty-four years of age. Some years later he married the Prophet’s second daughter, Ruqayya. In spite of his wealth and position, his relatives subjected him to torture because he had embraced Islam, and he was forced to immigrate to Abyssinia. Some time later he returned to Mecca but soon migrated to Medina with the other Muslims. In Medina his business again began to flourish and he regained his former prosperity. Uthman’s generosity had no limits. On various occasions he spent a great portion of his wealth for the welfare of the Muslims, for charity and for equipping the Muslim armies. That is why he came to be known as ‘Ghani’ meaning ‘Generous.’

Uthman’s wife, Ruqayya was seriously ill just before the Battle of Badr and he was excused by the Prophet (peace be on him) from participating in the battle. The illness Ruqayya proved fatal, leaving Uthman deeply grieved. The Prophet was moved and offered Uthman the hand of another of his daughters, Kulthum. Because he had the high privilege of having two daughters of the Prophet as wives Uthman was known as ‘The Possessor of the Two Lights.’

Uthman participated in the Battles of Uhud and the Trench. After the encounter of the Trench, the Prophet (peace be on him) determined to perform Hajj and sent Uthman as his emissary to the Quraysh in Mecca, who detained him. The episode ended in a treaty with the Meccans known as the Treaty of Hudaibiya.

The portrait we have of Uthman is of an unassuming, honest, mild, generous and very kindly man, noted especially for his modesty and his piety. He often spent part of the night in prayer; fast every second or third day, performed hajj every year, and looked after the needy of the whole community. In spite of his wealth, he lived very simply and slept on bare sand in the courtyard of the Prophet’s mosque. Uthman knew the Quran from memory and had an intimate knowledge of the context and circumstances relating to each verse.

Uthman’s Caliphate

During Uthman’s rule the characteristics of Abu Bakr’s and Umar’s caliphates - impartial justice for all, mild and humane policies, striving in the path of God, and the expansion of Islam - continued. Uthman’s realm extended in the west to Morocco, in the east to Afghanistan, and in the north to Armenia and Azerbaijan. During his caliphate a navy was organized, administrative divisions of the state were revised, and many public projects were expanded and completed. Uthman sent prominent companions of the Prophet (peace be on him) as his personal deputies to various provinces to scrutinize the conduct of officials and the condition of the people.

Uthman’s most notable contribution to the religion of God was the compilation of a complete and authoritative text of the Quran. A large number of copies of this text were made and distributed all over the Muslim world.

Uthman ruled for twelve years. The first six years were marked by internal peace and tranquillity, but during the second half of his caliphate a rebellion arose. The Jews and the Magians, taking advantage of dissatisfaction among the people, began conspiring against Uthman, and by publicly airing their complaints and grievances, gained so much sympathy that it became difficult to distinguish friend from foe.

It may seem surprising that a ruler of such vast territories, whose armies were matchless, was unable to deal with these rebels. If Uthman had wished, the rebellion could have been crushed at the very moment it began. But he was reluctant to be the first to shed the blood of Muslims, however rebellious they might be. He preferred to reason with them, to persuade them with kindness and generosity. He well remembered hearing the Prophet (peace be on him) say, “Once the sword is unsheathed among my followers, it will not be sheathed until the Last Day.”

The rebels demanded that he abdicate and some of the companions advised him to do so. He would gladly have followed this course of action, but again he was bound by a solemn pledge he had given to the Prophet. “Perhaps God will clothe you with a shirt, Uthman” the Prophet had told him once, “and if the people want you to take it off, do not take it off for them.” Uthman said to a well-wisher on a day when his house was surrounded by the rebels, “God’s Messenger made a covenant with me and I shall show endurance in adhering to it.”

After a long siege, the rebels broke into Uthman’s house and murdered him. When the first assassin’s sword struck Uthman, he was reciting the verse,

“Verily, God suffice thee; He is the All-Hearing, the All-Knowing” [2:137]

Uthman breathed his last on the afternoon of Friday, 17 Dhul Hijja, 35 A.H. (June 656 A.C.). He was eighty-four years old. The power of the rebels was so great that Uthman’s body lay unburied until Saturday night when he was buried in his blood-stained clothes, the shroud which befits all martyrs in the cause of God.

The Fourth Caliph, Ali (656-661 A.C)

“You [Ali] are my brother in this world and the next.” (Hadith)

Ali’s Election

After Uthman’s martyrdom, the office of the caliphate remained unfilled for two or three days. Many people insisted that Ali should take up the office, but he was embarrassed by the fact that the people who pressed him hardest were the rebels, and he therefore declined at first. When the notable companions of the Prophet (peace be on him) urged him, however, he finally agreed.

Ali’s Life

Ali bin Abi Talib was the first cousin of the Prophet (peace be on him). More than that, he had grown up in the Prophet’s own household, later married his youngest daughter, Fatima, and remained in closest association with him for nearly thirty years.

Ali was ten years old when the Divine Message came to Muhammad (peace be on him). One night he saw the Prophet and his wife Khadijah bowing and prostrating. He asked the Prophet about the meaning of their actions. The Prophet told him that they were praying to God Most High and that Ali too should accept Islam. Ali said that he would first like to ask his father about it. He spent a sleepless night, and in the morning he went to the Prophet and said, “When God created me He did not consult my father, so why should I consult my father in order to serve God?” and he accepted the truth of Muhammad’s message.

When the Divine command came, “And warn thy nearest relatives” [26:214], Muhammad (peace be on him) invited his relatives for a meal. After it was finished, he addressed them and asked, “Who will join me in the cause of God?” There was utter silence for a while, and then Ali stood up. “I am the youngest of all present here,” he said, “My eyes trouble me because they are sore and my legs are thin and weak, but I shall join you and help you in whatever way I can.” The assembly broke up in derisive laughter. But during the difficult wars in Mecca, Ali stood by these words and faced all the hardships to which the Muslims were subjected. He slept in the bed of the Prophet when the Quraysh planned to murder Muhammad. It was he to whom the Prophet entrusted, when he left Mecca, the valuables which had been given to him for safekeeping, to be returned to their owners.

Apart from the expedition of Tabuk, Ali fought in all the early battles of Islam with great distinction, particularly in the expedition of Khaybar. It is said that in the Battle of Uhud he received more than sixteen wounds.

The Prophet (peace be on him) loved Ali dearly and called him by many fond names. Once the Prophet found him sleeping in the dust. He brushed off Ali’s clothes and said fondly, “Wake up, Abu Turab (Father of Dust).” The Prophet also gave him the title of ‘Asadullah’ (Lion of God).

Ali’s humility, austerity, piety, deep knowledge of the Quran and his sagacity gave him great distinction among the Prophet’s companions. Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman consulted him frequently during their caliphates. Many times Umar had made him his vice-regent at Medina when he was away. Ali was also a great scholar of Arabic literature and pioneered in the field of grammar and rhetoric. His speeches, sermons and letters served for generations afterward as models of literary expression. Many of his wise and epigrammatic sayings have been preserved. Ali thus had a rich and versatile personality. In spite of these attainments he remained a modest and humble man. Once during his caliphate when he was going about the marketplace, a man stood up in respect and followed him. “Do not do it,” said Ali. “Such manners are a temptation for a ruler and a disgrace for the ruled.”

Ali and his household lived extremely simple and austere lives. Sometimes they even went hungry themselves because of Ali’s great generosity, and none who asked for help was ever turned away from his door. His plain, austere style of living did not change even when he was ruler over a vast domain.

Ali’s Caliphate

As mentioned previously, Ali accepted the caliphate very reluctantly. Uthman’s murder and the events surrounding it were a symptom, and also became a cause, of civil strife on a large scale. Ali felt that the tragic situation was mainly due to incompetent governors. He therefore dismissed all the governors who had been appointed by Uthman and appointed new ones. All the governors excepting Muawiya, the governor of Syria, submitted to his orders. Muawiya declined to obey until Uthman’s blood was avenged. The Prophet’s widow Aisha also took the position that Ali should first bring the murderers to trial. Due to the chaotic conditions during the last days of Uthman it was very difficult to establish the identity of the murderers, and Ali refused to punish anyone whose guilt was not lawfully proved. Thus a battle between the army of Ali and the supporters of Aisha took place. Aisha later realized her error of judgment and never forgave herself for it.

The situation in Hijaz (thc part of Arabia in which Mecca and Medina are located) became so troubled that Ali moved his capital to Iraq. Muawiya now openly rebelled against Ali and a fierce battle was fought between their armies. This battle was inconclusive, and Ali had to accept the de facto government of Muawiya in Syria.

However, even though the era of Ali’s caliphate was marred by civil strife, he nevertheless introduced a number of reforms, particularly in the levying and collecting of revenues.

It was the fortieth year of Hijra. A fanatical group called Kharijites, consisting of people who had broken away from Ali due to his compromise with Muawiya, claimed that neither Ali, the Caliph, nor Muawiya, the ruler of Syria, nor Amr bin al-‘Aas, the ruler of Egypt, were worthy of rule. In fact, they went so far as to say that the true caliphate came to an end with Umar and that Muslims should live without any ruler over them except God. They vowed to kill all three rulers, and assassins were dispatched in three directions.

The assassins who were deputed to kill Muawiya and Amr did not succeed and were captured and executed, but Ibn-e-Muljim, the assassin who was commissioned to kill Ali, accomplished his task. One morning when Ali was absorbed in prayer in a mosque, Ibn-e-Muljim stabbed him with a poisoned sword. On the 20th of Ramadan, 40 A.H. died the last of the Rightly Guided Caliphs of Islam. May God Most High be pleased with them and grant to them His eternal reward.

Conclusion

With the death of Ali, the first and most notable phase in the history of Muslim people came to an end. All through this period it had been the Book of God and the practices of His Messenger - that is, the Quran and the Sunnah - which had guided the leaders and the led, set the standards of their moral conduct and inspired their actions. It was the time when the ruler and the ruled, the rich and the poor, the powerful and the weak, were uniformly subject to the Divine Law. It was an epoch of freedom and equality, of God-consciousness and humility, of social justice which recognized no privileges, and of an impartial law which accepted no pressure groups or vested interests. After Ali, Muawiya assumed the caliphate and thereafter the caliphate became hereditary, passing from one king to another.