Al Ghazali used to say that the
Muslims are very good at division. By
that, he made it look as if he was talking about one of four most basic arithmetic
functions. The other being summation,
subtraction and multiplication. But then
he continued: if you see two Muslims arguing, probably they belong to three
groups.
People during his time loved to differ. But this love for polemics seems to be human
nature. It affects not only the Muslims,
but others as well. For instance, the
Christians are said to have about 33,800 denominations, as reported in the Newsweek
Magazine some years back.
Against that huge number, we the
Muslims can take pride in ourselves, because we only have two sects: Sunni and
Shiite. In Sunni, we only have four
schools of thoughts (mazaahib). The Shiites too have about as much.
Malays and their Muslim brothers in
South East Asia belong to the mazhab of
Shafie (mazhab being singular of mazaahib). The Indians, Pakistanis and the Turks are
Hanafites; the Africans, except for the Egyptians, are mostly Malikites; and
the Saudis are Hanbalites.
Our Shiite brothers in Iran, Iraq and
Bahrain, meanwhile, are Imamiyah; in Sana’a Yemen, the Zaydiyah; in parts of
Syria and Lebanon, the Alawiyah and the Druze, both of which are the variations
of Ismailiyah.
So, we can take comfort in not having
too many variations and denominations. But
can we?
The reality, of course, is not that
neat. What was prevalent in Al Ghazali’s
time is also prevalent in ours. It is an
established fact that we love to argue and to differ. We like to take a fight not only with others
of different faiths, but also among ourselves.
We say the Hanbalites are fine, but
not the Wahabis. If we ask, who are the
Wahabis, the answer given is that they are the Saudis. But the Saudis would rather consider
themselves simply as Muslims, or at most Hanbalites, not Wahabis. The name Wahabi is what we label them, not
how they look at themselves.
In Malaysia, Indonesia and Brunei, we
pride ourselves of being the followers of Shafie’s Mazhab. But if Imam Shafie
were to come and mingle with us, he would be surprised at how his name is being
used or abused by us. When Shafie
formulated and put forward his opinion, he also accepted the opinion of
others. But when we “follow” Shafie, we
reject what others say, including those who are also the followers of Shafie’s mazhab.
If we are to include politics into the equation, the differences get
compounded.
Yet the Prophet said that differences
are blessings to his Ummah. On our part,
however, we often take these differences to be curses instead.
In fact, we go one step further. We always call for unity, for tolerating
differences. In spite of the call for
unity, ironically, the number of diverging groups keeps increasing. When we have differences with the group that
we belong, we get out of the group and form the new one. Yet, we have the audacity calling for unity.
I always find this issue—the issue of
unity, of agreement and disagreement, of similarities and differences—fascinating. It is an age old issue; primordial, in fact.
Before Adam was created, the angels
were already asking Allah as to why He wanted to create a creature who will certainly
indulge in mischief, fighting against one another. Allah simply answered in His characteristic
way: I know what you know not.
It did not take long before the
angels’ prophesy came to be realized. As
soon as Adam had children, the older son, Cain (Qabil), killed his younger
brother, Abel (Habil), over some disagreement.
We need not bother ourselves with the
source of the disagreement between Cain and Abel, or who is right and who is
wrong. This story is well known. It is told both in the Quran and the Bible. The fact remains that even the first
generation of mankind were already engaged in what we are engaging now.
Relatedly, one of my readers, a good
friend of mine, sent this email to me.
Allow me to quote him verbatim:
Can you tell us a story about unity in Islam. From my knowledge, right from the start of Saidina Osman, we already divided into faction. Why we never unified into one. In Malaysia we have 2 parties which are UMNO and PAS. Can ISLAM be one? No more faction, i.e., wahabi, druz, syiah…no more Saudi, Syria, Libya….
Frankly, I have no answer to his question. For the
moment, however, I have a story somewhat relevant to the theme we are
discussing.
After Syaidina Ali bin Abu Talib was
assassinated and the caliphate went to Muawiyah, people sometimes criticized
the late caliph. One day, sitting in a
mosque, one of the leading companions of the Prophet, Saeed bin Zayd, overhead
a man abused Ali. Irritated, he got up
and said:
"I bear witness to the Apostle of Allah (SAWS) that I heard him say: "Ten persons will go to Paradise: "Abu Bakr will go to Paradise, Umar will go to Paradise, Uthman will go to Paradise, Ali will go to Paradise, Talha will go to Paradise: Zubair bin Al-Awwam will go to Paradise, Sa'd bin Abi Waqqas will go to Paradise and Abdur-Rahman bin Awf will go to Paradise. If I wish, I can mention the tenth." The People asked: "Who is he?" so he kept silence. They again asked: "Who is he?" He replied: "He is Saeed ibn Zayd." [Abu Dawood]
Now, you may have heard of the above
hadith before. It is called the Hadith
of the Ten Promised Paradise. If you are
not familiar with that hadith, google it and you will find many entries about
it.
I googled it myself and found many
entries. In spite of the many entries about the
above hadith (Google found 896,000 entries for that search), none satisfactorily
explains the background as to why it was narrated in the first place. To fill that gap, I shall try to offer my
perspective on it.
The first thing to note is that the
narrator himself is relatively an obscure figure to the non specialist, although
he was one of the leading companions, and included in the Ten Promised Paradise
which in itself is a great honor. We are familiar with the names Abu Hurayrah,
Aisha, Ibnu Abbas, Abu Darda, Ibnu Umar, etc., but we rarely hear the name
Saeed bin Zayd.
I have mentioned him in passing in The Story of Hunafa Part 3. He is the son of the hanif, Zayd bin Amr, and the brother in law of Umar Al
Khattab. He appeared in the famous story
of Umar’s conversion as the brother in law who got beaten by Umar. But it was Umar who got famous, not Saeed.
Saeed bin Zayd was probably among the
least known leading companions, although he always participated in every major
event that took place either during the Prophet’s time, or after his
death. He was always foreshadowed by his
celebrated brother in law, Umar Al Khattab.
On his part, he never aspired to be in the leadership position and
always shunned limelight.
Although he was among those qualified
to be considered for Umar’s successor as a caliph, the latter did not nominate
him on account of their blood relationship.
Even supposed he was chosen, he would have given way to his more
illustrious colleagues.
He supported and pledged his
allegiance to the first three caliphs after the Prophet died. But when Ali assumed the caliphate and fought
against Muawiyah over the issue of retaliation over the assassination of Uthman
bin Affan, he chose to remain neutral.
He neither sided with Ali, nor with Muawiyah, believing that the two
shouldn’t engage in the civil war.
But when Ali was assassinated, and
Muawiyah took over the reign as the caliph, it became a habit for some to
criticize and abuse Ali. Muawiyah
himself respected Ali and considered the latter to be his worthy opponent. Alas, it is always the case that the
followers tend to be more extreme than the leader. As we have earlier noted, the followers of
the mazhab of Shafie tend to be more “Shafiite”
than Shafie himself.
To further clarify the matter, do note
that the above quoted hadith appears in the Book 40, Number 4632 of Abu Dawood.
This version does not give much
background as to why the generally taciturn Saeed made that kind of remark. The clearer version appears in the subsequent
hadith by the same compiler. For
readability, I shall not reproduce the hadith verbatim but rather narrate it in
a story form.
One day, Saeed entered the Mosque of
Kufah and was greeted by one of his friends there. A moment later, one man started to speak
abusively. Saeed then asked his friend
whose name was Rabah bin Al Harith whom this man was abusing. Upon being told it was Ali, he scolded his
friend for not doing anything about it.
Saeed then stood up and narrated the hadith as quoted above. He then added:
The company of one of their man whose face has been covered with dust by the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) is better than the actions of one of you for a whole life time even if he is granted the life-span of Noah.
Now, you need to pay particular
attention to this phrase: [a] man
whose face has been covered with dust by the Apostle of Allah.
Who is he?
He is none other than Ali. If we
read the seerah of Ali, then we would know that he is known by two nicknames (kunyah).
The first is Abul Hassan, for he was the father of Al Hassan, the
grandson of the Prophet; and the second is Abu Turap, the Father of Dust. Saeed
was essentially saying that “you, the abuser of Ali, are not even an iota of
what Ali was. A day of Ali is better
than your actions for your life time, even if you live as long as Noah did.”
As we know, Noah lived for one thousand years minus 50, as Quran puts it
in Chapter 29 verse 14. Or, in our plain
language, 950 years.
But the significance of this hadith
lies not in the way it was narrated, although that is quite interesting in
itself. Neither is the significance lies
in the fact that these companions had been promised Paradise even before their
death, although that in itself is indeed a great honor. After all, what can be a greater honor than
being promised a Paradise while one is still alive, thereby explicitly giving a
guarantee that no matter what he does, he won’t go wrong.
So, what is the significance of this
hadith? We shall answer that question in
the next part, insyaAllah. Stay tune.
End
of Part 1
only allah yang menantukan
ReplyDeleteSir,
ReplyDeleteDeducing from your articles and elsewhere, it appears we are blessed with varied Succession Plans
1. Saidina Abu Bakr (r.a.) was elected via consensus - Guided Democracy?
2. Saidina Umar (r.a.) was handpicked by his predecessor - Heir Apparent?
3. Saidina Othman (r.a.) was elected by Council of Emminence Sahabah
4. Saidina Ali (r.a.) was elected via Exclusive Consensus
5. Saidina Hassan (r.a.) was made apparent choice by Hereditary
Yes, Islam does not choose or decide there shall be only one method in appointing/electing the supreme leader. Even the modern election process would be acceptable.
Delete