Chapter Thirteen

The Problem of the Jurisprudence (Fiqh) of Individual Religiousness and That of the State’s Religiousness

One of the religious problems of the performance of our civilization and our own performance in life is that of the confusion of concepts some of our young men have in regards to the responsibilities of individual religiousness and the religiousness of the state, or in regards to the Jurisprudence (Fiqh) of each of these kinds of religiousness.  Unfortunately, some of our scholars are also confused about this.  To begin with, I say:

The Jurisprudence of individual religiousness is most often based on precaution and resolution (Abandon what you have doubts about to what you have no doubts about).  The Jurisprudence of the state’s religiousness, on the other hand, is based on realizing general interests and taking into consideration the conditions of the whole nation (Walk at the pace of your weakest).  Therefore, in the Jurisprudence of individual religiousness the dominant trend is to emphasize resolution and strong will, while the trend of the Jurisprudence of the state’s religiousness is to follow the licenses allowed and the easiest way.  In the battlefield, the Jurisprudence of individual religiousness tends towards self-sacrifice, while the Jurisprudence of the state’s religiousness is based on taking measures of safety and saving lives.

Let me cite an example from the Prophet’s biography.  This example concerns how Omar Ibn Al-Khattab (who was later to be the Prince of the Faithful) behaved concerning the Hudaibiyah peace treaty, and how he addressed Abu Bakr, denouncing the terns of the treaty, which was signed by God’s Messenger, peace and blessings be upon him, and Quraish’s negotiator Sahl Ibn Omar.

Omar Ibn Al-Khattab says, “Are we not Muslims?  Is he not God’s Messenger?  Why should we allow ourselves to be humiliated?”

The Faithful Abu Bakr replies “Hold it, Omar.  I know he is a prophet.”

Omar feels then that he has to address the Messenger himself, peace and blessings be upon him, directly.  He says, “Are you not God’s Messenger?  Are we not Muslims?  Why should we allow ourselves to be humiliated?”

God’s Messenger turns his face away from Omar, indicating to the latter his rejection of the way he, may God be pleased with him, interpreted that peace treaty.  God’s Messenger has concluded the treaty with the other party, according to terms well-known by learned people.  On the way back to Bright Medina, God, the Most Sublime, reveals to his Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, the sura of Al-Fattah (Victory), in support of the proceeding of the Hudaibiyah peace treaty.  Omar keeps saying, “Is this a victory.”

The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, keeps teasing Omar and replies, “Yes, it is victory, whether Omar likes it or not.”

This makes Omar, may God be pleased with him, repent how he acted on the day of the Hudaibiyah peace treaty.  He keeps saying through the rest of his life, “Two days keep Omar worried at nighttime.”  He means the day of Al-Hudaibiyah, and the second day is when he tries to take advantage of a Jewish woman who has approached him, complaining that her son is sick and she is too poor and cannot have him treated.  Omar is moved and was nice and generous towards her.  When gratitude shows on her face, Omar is tempted by her feeling of satisfaction and joy and invites her to embrace Islam, and she declines.  Omar reconsiders his behavior and feels sorry for what he has done, fearing that his behavior with the woman is a sort of coercion in religion.  May God be pleased with you and please you, Omar.  You always repented and returned to the truth the same way you used to declare it.  The devil himself feared you, so that whenever you followed a track, the devil followed another.

The case of Omar with God’s Messenger, peace and blessings be upon him, reflects the difference between the Jurisprudence (Fiqh) of individual religiousness and that of the religiousness of the leadership or the state.  The case probably represents, as well, the gap that may arise between the two types of Jurisprudence.  Efforts must be made to end the discrepancy between the Jurisprudence of individual religiousness and that of the state’s religiousness.  The boundaries should be drawn, and the nature of the relationship between the Jurisprudence of individual responsibilities and that of the state’s responsibilities must be defined, in order that the nation will have a rational interpretation of the Jurisprudence of the state and international relations in the great Islamic approach.  Otherwise, if the problem continues, it will lead to strife through the incongruity of the attitudes of the state and the subjects in regards to the question of allegiance and obedience to the ruler and to questions of the state’s regional and international security and stability.

The problem also involves the question of treaties and covenant between the nation and other nations.  Some of this has already been suggested in the above-cited story about the trouble which Omar, may God be pleased with him, and other Companions had on the day of the Hudaibiyah peace treaty.  The position of Omar and the other Companions was to go ahead with the pledge of Al-Radhwan and fight Quraish, whose people kept Muslims for entering Makkah to perform 'Umra.  They wanted to   break the might of Quraish and raise high the word of God and His Messenger.  This was contrary to the signing of a treaty with Quraish by God’s Messenger, peace and blessings be upon him.  The companions considered the treaty a humiliating act of surrender, and Omar led a rejection movement among them in an opposition to that peace treaty and an effort to have it canceled.  This rejection went so far that Omar and the other Companions – with the exception of the Faithful Abu Bakr, may God be pleased with him – refused to listen to the order of God’s Messenger, peace and blessings be upon him, and change their ihram (ritual consecra­tion clothes, thus aborting their 'Umra, when the messenger decided that they should return to Medina, in accordance with the stipulations of the treaty with Quraish.  These Muslims almost exposed themselves to God’s anger by disobeying His Messenger, peace and blessings be upon him.  However, through God’s grace and favor, an intelligent woman – namely Um Salama, one of the Messenger’s wives – was inspired by God, and she advised God’s Messenger to go out to his followers and end the 'Umra himself by having his hair cut before all of them.  Seeing him, she advised, would make Muslims realize how serious the issue was, follow his example, and end their 'Umra.  Things went as she expected, and Muslims listened to the order of their Messenger and leader, thus ending the most serious crisis for Muslims in the lifetime of God’s Messenger, peace and blessings be upon him.

How about Muslims today?  They have a lot of confusion of opinions, concepts, and attitudes.  In the absence of an example to follow which is recognized for its leadership, they have too many religious leaders and too many considered opinions (fatwas).  They suffer from uncertainty.  Compared with the situation of Muslims on the Day of Hudaibiyah, the situation today is certainly more intricate and more serious, and there is a more urgent need for efforts to deal with it and eliminate reasons for its reoccurrence in such regional and international circumstances, which are more intricate, severe, and dangerous.  I believe that the cases of rebellion against people of authority, and violations of the pledges of allegiance and obedience to them, which we are facing today – together with the great confusion, deficiency, and discrepancy in the considered opinions of Muslim scholars and thinkers – is due either to the imbalance between the jurisprudence (Fiqh) of the state’s religiousness and that of individual religiousness or to the confusion between the jurisprudence of  the distinctiveness of the nation in its faith and ideology and the jurisprudence of the constructional and cultural common ground between it and the other.

I have already discussed the latter point earlier in this study within the framework of the allegiance and renunciation problem.  Still, I want to emphasize here that the Islamic nation is like other nations: it has its own religious faith, which it is distinct from other religious and spiritual creeds, and it also has its cultural distinction within the framework of multiple human cultures.  One aspect of this distinction is the Islamic belief that the whole of human life is a worship of God (“I only created Jinn and human beings to worship Me” – Al-Zariyaat LI: 56).

Earlier in the study, I have mentioned that worship in Islam is of two types:

·        Spiritual worship, which covers the basic ritual acts of worship, namely the worship of God, the Most Sublime, alone; the performance of prayers; fasting in Ramadan; payment of zakat; and making the pilgrimage to God’s Sacred House, which is a once-in-a-lifetime obligation.  These acts of worship are complemented by another type which I have called:

·        Constructional or civilization worship.

Thus, we have two worship types in Islam, one spiritual and the other constructional.  The latter is concerned with carrying out the task of vicegerency on earth.  Since this is a task for all human beings, then we are all partners in carrying it out, and since carrying it out is an obligation imposed by God, whoever carries it out in obedience to God and compliance with His command is engaged in an act of worship.  This act of worship is like any other; it is rewarded in the Hereafter, and it has its reward and benefits in this life.  In accordance with their intentions and beliefs, people fall in two ranks in regards to this worship.

·              Those in the first rank receive reward in the Hereafter together with the worldly benefits.

·              People in the second rank get the full benefits of this life, with no deduction or omission, but have no share in the reward of the Hereafter if their intention and belief do not meet with God’s satisfaction.

On the basis of this interpretation, the problem of ideological distinction is solved within the framework of the constructional common ground shared by all human beings.  On the other hand, the notions that some of us entertain disappear; these are the notions of imaginary contradiction between the distinction of religion and belief, on the one hand, and the responsibilities of performing the tasks of the constructional common ground, on the other.  These tasks aim to accomplish the purpose of God, the Most Sublime, in having the earth settled and maintaining justice among people.

Now, having reviewed various concepts and notions, I believe the need for cooperation between members of the nation, whether individuals or communities, is highly pressing, so that we may end the problem of religious and cultural performance and align it with the real objectives of the message of Islam.  Also urgent is the need to cooperate with others in order to formulate a framework for a joint international culture that will serve as the foundation of a joint international civilization performance that allows better for an attitude of respect for human life, dignity, and freedom, and for environmental safety.  That performance will also be worthy of achieving the just and secure coexistence of human societies.

Prof. Dr. Hamid bin Ahmad Al-Rifaie

President, International Islamic Forum For Dialogue

    Assistant Secretary General, Muslim World League

From His Book (Partners ... not Guardians)  Part Four / Chapter Thirteen

All Rights Reserved For The Author Prof. Dr. Hamid Al-Rifaie