The Four Quls: The Value of Surah al Ikhlas (1/3)

Surah al Kafirun, the first of the Four Quls, denounces the objects of worship by the disbelievers, while at the same time affirms the “One” worshipped by the believers.

What might this “object” be, the One worshipped by the believers?

The answer comes in the second of the Four Quls, Surah al Ikhlas.

“Say, He is Allah, the One and Only,” the Surah opens.  The Surah then elaborates this One and Only God with three other short verses.  And that completes it, making it one of the shortest chapters in the Quran.

Yet, its standing in the Quran is “valued” as if it is a third of the whole Quran, as authentic Hadith (Tradition) by al Bukhari indicates. 

Now, consider this point.  The standardized Uthmani copy of the Quran contains 604 pages, with 15 lines every page, and, excluding the normal Bismillah which is not part of the Surah, this Surah barely occupies two lines.  Two lines out of 604 pages of 15 lines per page, and yet its value is a third of the whole Quran!  That alone indicates the importance of this Surah.

Surah al Ikhlas is considered a Makki surah, but, as Maudoodi has observed, there seem to be some dispute about this fact, because some scholars seem to think that it was revealed in Madinah.

The reason for the dispute is because some Traditions indicate that it was revealed during the Makkah period, while others point to its revelation during the Madinah period. 

In one tradition, for instance, Abdullah bin Mas'ud has reported that the Quraysh said to the Holy Prophet (upon whom be peace): "Tell us of the ancestry of your Lord." Thereupon this Surah was sent down.

Jabir bin Abdullah has also stated that a Bedouin said to the Holy Prophet: "Tell us of your Lord's ancestry." Thereupon Allah sent down this Surah.

Both of the above Traditions clearly point to the Makkah period.

One the other hand, there is also a tradition from Ibn Abbas, saying that a group of the Jews came to the Holy Prophet and said: "O Muhammad, tell us of the attributes of your Lord, who has sent you as a Prophet." Thereupon Allah sent down this Surah.

Ibn Abbas has also related that a deputation of the Christians of Najran along with seven priests visited the Holy Prophet, and they said: "O Muhammad, tell us what is your Lord like and of what substance He is made."  The Holy Prophet replied, "My Lord is not made from any substance. He is unique and exalted above everything." Thereupon Allah sent down this Surah.

Yet in other Tradition, Dahhak, Qatadah and Muqatil have stated that some Jewish rabbis came before the Holy Prophet, and they said: "O Muhammad, tell us what is your Lord like, so that we may believe in you. Allah in the Torah has sent down His description. Kindly tell us of what He is made, what is His sex, whether He is made of gold, copper, brass, iron, or silver, and whether He eats and drinks. Also tell us from whom He has inherited the world, and who will inherit it after Him." Thereupon Allah sent down this Surah.

Those three Traditions clearly point to Madinah period.

Why are there so many contradictions, not only regarding the periods, but also the “reasons” for its revelation? 

In actual fact, there are no contradictions.  All those apparently contradictory reports do not actually point to the reasons for its revelation, but rather the responses made by the Prophet regarding the questions put to him.   

As we know, Quranic verses were revealed little by little in stages, addressing specific event, question, challenge, problem, dilemma, accusation, etc..  Some were revealed to console the Prophet, such as Surah ad Dhuha, others were revealed to console the whole Islamic community under distress, such as Surah Yusuf, many others to respond to the challenge made by the enemies, such as Surah al Kahfi. 

Verses were also revealed to address specific dilemma faced by the Prophet, such as his marriage with Zaynab bint Jash, who was then the wife of his adopted son, Zayd bin Haritha.  A few verses were also revealed to clear the good name of his young wife, Ayesha, who was being accused of infidelity.

Now, it is known that repeated revelations of the same verses are unnecessary, because once revealed, the Prophet would remember these by heart.  His companions would in turn put these into writing, and many would also memorize by hearts. 

Likewise with Surah al Ikhlas.  It was revealed but once, although the above Traditions appear to suggest that it was revealed many times.  All these apparent contradictions, however, can be resolved with a very simple solution.  Take the phrase “therefore Allah sent down this Surah” in those Traditions, and replaces it with “therefore the Prophet recited this Surah.”  Do that and the whole contradictions are vanished into the thin air. 

Just because the narrators of the Traditions say “therefore this Surah was revealed” does not mean that it was “actually” revealed at that moment, or because of that particular event.  It was merely their way of recording the events that they had witnessed.  And they had witnessed that, after those questions were put to the Prophet, the latter responded by reciting Surah al Ikhlas.  

In short, therefore, all those contradictions do not exist in the first place.  On the contrary, those various ahadith only point to the weight of this Surah, which was used many times to address many different questions asked in different occasions, unlike other verses or Surah which are used only once or twice.

Looking from that light, it is not surprising that the Prophet put a greater value on this short Surah as compared to others. 

Of far greater value, of course, must have come from its meaning.  Taking the above quoted Traditions as the backgrounds, we shall try to look into some of its meanings in the next instalments, insyaAllah, but to conclude this first part, let’s see whether it is a Makki or a Madani Surah.

That this is a Makki Surah is well established.  In all likelihood, it is also among the earliest surahs being revealed to the Prophet.  As Maudoodi puts it, “another proof of this Surah's being one of the earliest surahs to be revealed is that when in Makkah Umayyah bin Khalaf, the master of Hadrat Bilal, made him lie down on burning sand and placed a heavy stone on his chest, Bilal used to cry "Ahad, Ahad!" This word was derived from this very Surah.” 

Maudoodi’s keen observation is of some validity here.  Although the word “Ahad” was already in the Arabic vocabulary, it is highly unlikely that Bilal would utter that word to mean “Allah” when being tortured had the Surah not been revealed.  He would have uttered “Allah, Allah” instead.

Since Bilal was tortured during the fourth year of Muhammad’s prophethood (or thereabout), this Surah must have been revealed earlier. 

End of Part 1

The Four Quls: Surah al Kafirun Is About Non-Compromised, Not Tolerance (2/2)

In Part 1, we have seen that, taken out of context, the Quranic teachings can be portrayed in their total opposite.

Likewise with Surah al Kafirun, one of the Four Quls. 

Numerous ahadith (Traditions) are pointing to the reason of its revelation, with a simple background.  Namely, after all their efforts to silence Muhammad had failed, the leaders of the Quraysh had come to Muhammad the Prophet and offered a compromised.  Their proposal was simple: they suggested that Muhammad and his followers worship the idols of the Quraysh for one year, and for another year, the Quraysh would worship the God of Muhammad.¹

As a response to that proposal, Allah Himself gave the answer through the revelation of Surah al Kafirun.  Muhammad was commanded to proclaim: “Say, O disbelievers, I do not worship that which you worship, nor do you worship the One whom I worship. And neither I am going to worship that which you have worshipped, nor will you worship the One whom I worship.  For you is your religion, and for me is my religion.” [al Kafirun: 1-6, i.e., the translation of the whole Surah]

With that background, does this Surah sound like a proclamation on religious tolerance, as some allege?  Or, more pointedly, does it sound like a recognition of religious pluralism, the notion that all religions are true and therefore equally good, as others claim?

Quite the opposite, one must admit. 

In fact, this Surah unequivocally states that, as far as faith and worship are concerned, Islam and its counterparts are the complete opposite of each other, and the two cannot and will not meet, nor  can the two will ever mix. 

In the nutshell, Surah al Kafirun is about putting the clear line of separation between belief and unbelief, and the Muslims’ attitude as well as their approach towards unbelief, their objects of worship, as well as their religious rituals. 

This is the position of the classical commentators such as Ibnu Kathir, as well as the position of contemporary commentators like Abu Ala Maudoodi, Sayyid Qutb and Mufti Shafi’ Uthmani.  Those who take the opposite position are displaying intellectual dishonesty, if they are scholars, or ignorance, if they are laymen.

Irrespective of the intention, quoting Quranic verses out of context to fit the preconceived ideas is deplorable.  This practice can confuse the ignorant folks.  As the popular saying goes, many calamities are built upon good intentions.

Furthermore, quoting Surah al Kafirun to signify religious tolerance in Islam does not do justice to this Surah; neither does it do justice to the concept of religious tolerance in Islam.  If quoted to signify the recognition of Islam to religious pluralism, I am afraid that it is already bordering on heresy, for the idea itself is heretic, since Allah does not recognize the true religion other than Islam. 

The only acceptable “pluralism” in Islam is with regard to multiple interpretations or differences in rulings upon certain matters, whereby each different opinion is considered true or valid.  As I wrote in other entries, there are more than one ways to slice a cat.²

In the likewise manner, one can say that there are multiple ways to skin a cow, but for the meat to be consumed lawfully, it must first be slaughtered.  And the meat itself must be from lawful animal to begin with.  It cannot be a pig.  Irrespective whether it is properly slaughtered, and subsequently skinned neatly, a pig is never lawful for consumption, except during emergency, and taken only so that one can continue surviving.

Thus, when Professor Kamali put forward the argument that Islam recognizes Religious Pluralism because various Quranic verses point to the fact that there have been various “religions” sent to the Prophets before Muhammad, and that all were considered true, Professor El-Muhammady quickly pointed out that these were the Prophets sent before Muhammad.  With the advent of Muhammad as the Last Messenger, all these were abrogated. 

Moreover, we know that Muhammad has said even if Moses were still alive, Moses has no choice but to follow Muhammad, as the following Tradition puts it clearly:

“Narrated Jabir Ibn Abdullah :

Umar ibn al-Khattab brought to Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) a copy of the Torah and said: ‘Allah’s Messenger, this is a copy of the Torah’. He (Allah’s Messenger) kept quiet and he (Umar) began to read it. The colour of the face of Allah’s Messenger (pbuh) underwent a change, whereupon Abu Bakr said: “Would that your mother mourn you, don’t you see the face of Allah’s Messenger?’ Umar saw the face of Allah’s Messenger (pbuh) and said: ‘I seek refuge with Allah from the wrath of Allah and the wrath of His Messenger. We are well pleased with Allah as Lord, with Islam as religion, and with Muhammad as Prophet’. Whereupon Allah’s Messenger (pbuh) said : ‘By Him in Whose hand is the life of Muhammad, even if Moses were to appear before you and you were to follow him, leaving me aside, you would certainly stray into error; for if (Moses) were alive (now), and he found my prophetical ministry, he would have definitely followed me’. (Sunan Ad-Darimi, Vol. 1, Hadith No. 435)

  

To his credit, Professor Kamali did not make it unequivocal that Islam recognizes Religious Pluralism as commonly defined.  He went at great length, and with great pain, to theorize what he meant by Pluralism.³  

It appears that he tries to be as diplomatic as he could, although in the end, I am not sure whether he really understands what he wrote, much less whether he really believes it.  He would have done better if he follows the mainstream thinking and risk being called “conservative” rather than taking the “progressive line” and risk being called muddle headed.

A simple folk like me would put the whole matter much more simply.

For the last few years, I have been living in a neighbourhood filled with people of multiple religious persuasions.  Living in a terrace house, on the right side, I share common fence with my Chinese neighbours, who are devoted Buddhists.  They place their altar just next to the door of my house and would burn incense daily.  Having suffered from sinusitis, the burning incense troubles me every time I inhale it, but I never complain about it.  They have the right to exercise their religion.

To my left, also sharing common fence, is Indian family.  They are devoted Hindus.  Aside from having many idols in their house, they would chant their prayers, rather loudly, from time to time.  Since the idols and the sound have nothing to do with sinusitis, I am basically oblivious with their activities. 

Right in front of my house is a devoted Chinese Christian family.  From time to time, they would sing hymns very loudly.  Occasionally they would have congregations and put their speeches on loud speaker.  Their activities generally disturb my reading, but I never complain.  They too have their right to exercise their religion.

On their part, they too never complain about the fact that the road gets congested when the Muslims perform Friday Prayer in our community mosque, just like we never complain of the same when the Hindus, Buddhists and the Christians perform whatever religious ceremony in their respective temples and church in our community.

That, to me, is religious tolerance, of respecting each other to exercise each religion.  It also means that we accept “plurality” in religions, as opposed to Religious Pluralism, which has a specific connotation.

But neither I, nor my other Muslim neighbours, ever participate or partake in their religious ceremonies.  We don’t worship what they worship; neither do they worship what we worship.  We don’t get involved in their religious rituals; neither do they get involved in our religious rituals.  We meet and mix only when non religious activities are involved.

Now, I myself do not hang the Four Quls, but many of my Muslim neighbours do.  I have not seen, however, any Muslim who hangs the Four Quls alongside with Shiva’s Idol, Christian’s Cross, or Buddha’s Statue. 

If truly Islam recognizes “Religious Pluralism,” in the sense that all religions are true and after the same truth, then a Muslim in a multi-religious country like Malaysia should try putting his Four Quls with icons of other religions.  After all, these religions are all the same.  To signify what religion one belongs to, a Muslim can put the Four Quls at the top while the rest of the idols below; a Hindu can put whatever their leading idol top, with the rest below; and so on and so forth.

Since this does not happen, then it is better to declare that Islam is different, and that we should not mix Islamic rituals with the rituals of other religions, as Surah al Kafirun clearly proclaims.  At the same time, we have to accept the fact that people of other religions have the right to exercise theirs, as numerous Quranic verses and Prophetic Traditions allude to.

Notes:

1.     Said bin Mina (the freed slave of Abul Bakhtari) has related that Walid bin Mughirah, Aas bin Wail, Aswad bin al-Muttalib and Umayyah bin Khalaf met the Holy Prophet (upon whom be peace) and said to him: "O Muhammad, let us agree that we would worship your God and you would worship our gods, and we would make you a partner in all our works. If what you have brought was better than what we possess, we would be partners in it with you, and have our share in it, and if what we possess is better than what you have brought, you would be partner in it with us and have your share of it."At this Allah sent down: Qul ya-ayyuhal-kafirun (Ibn Jarir, Ibn Abi Hatim, Ibn Hisham also has related this incident in the Sirah) [from Ala Maudoodi’s Tafhim al Quran].

2.     Those interested may go to this “Slice Cat” Series: Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3.

3.     Go herefor Professor Kamali’s “clearly vague” discourse on Quranic Perspective of Diversity and Pluralism.

The Four Quls: Surah al Kafirun Is About Non-Compromised, Not Tolerance (1/2)

It is amazing how one can look at something and see the total opposite.

It is not amazing if “this something” is the picture designed for optical illusion.  Many of us would have seen a picture that, depending on our focus, depicts both an old lady and a young woman.  In this regard, one particular picture that I like is the one whereby, if we look at close range, it shows Albert Einstein, and if we look from a farther distance, it shows Marilyn Monroe.

But when one looks at a certain verse or chapter in the Quran, which clearly tries to convey something, and yet interprets the message in its complete opposite, I am at a loss at how this illusion is called.  Perhaps this is some kind of mental illusion, whereby one’s mind appears to be deluded by some preconceived ideas.

One particular case is Surah al Kafirun, the first of the Four Quls.

This Surah, as mentioned in the Introductory Remarks, is among the last chapters in the Quran.  As Quran has 114 chapters, this Surah, numbered 109, is placed as the last sixth.  Also as mentioned in the same entry above, al Kafirun is among the short Surah, like the other Four Quls.

Reading this short Surah, one would notice the repetitious proclamation of a certain idea.  The idea is that the believers and the disbelievers do not share similar “object” of worship.  The Muslims are asked to proclaim to the disbelievers that they do not worship what the disbelievers worship, vice versa; and the Muslims are not going to worship what the disbelievers worship, vice versa.  The Surah concludes with a verse: “For you is your religion, and for me, my religion.”

In six short sentences, the unequivocal idea is put forward that the believers and the disbelievers are not on the same path as far as faith or the “object” of worship is concerned, and that each is threading on a different way of life (which is what Deen, the exact word used in the last verse, means).

Amazingly, taking the last verse, “for you is your religion, and for me, my religion,” many people, both Muslims and their counterparts, say that this verse points to Islamic religious tolerance.  More amazingly, some, in particular Professor Hashim Kamali, go as far as saying that this Surah proves the validity of Religious Pluralism, the idea that all religions are true, all are seeking salvation,  and that all are leading to the Truth¹. 

That Islam recognizes the right of others to exercise their own religions is well known.  Numerous Quranic verses and ahadith (Traditions) point to this fact. And that Islam also forbids forced conversion to Islam is also well known, for the Quran declares that “there shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion (2:256).”

But to surmise that Surah al Kafirun is about religious tolerance, and to use it as a basis to prove Islam’s recognition of Religious Pluralism is, at best, out of place, and, at worst, suggests a sinister motive.

The concept that all religions are true, and that all are leading to the Truth, in itself, is unIslamic.  Quran already states it unequivocally that: “indeed, the religion in the sight of Allah is Islam” (3:19); and that “whoever seeks other than Islam as a religion, it will not be accepted from Him” (3:85)”; and that “this day I perfected your religion for you, completed My favour to you, and have approved for you Islam as Religion” (5:3).

Most amazingly, Kamali also quoted those three verses to commence his piece on Religious Pluralism, but end up with a completely opposite conclusion.

I make no pretence of being an equal to Professor Kamali, for he is an erudite scholar, while I am but a learner.  Yet, even a soft spoken and mild scholar, known for his moderate views, such as Professor Uthman El-Muhammady, finds Kamali’s thesis distasteful.²  A scholar noted for his more stringent view such as al Maudoodi would have taken Kamali to task.  To use Surah al Kafirun even as the basis for religious tolerance is already distasteful to him³, what more to use it as a basis for Islam’s recognition of Religious Pluralism.⁴

It is imperative that Quranic verses have to be understood within their contexts.  Taking a particular verse in isolation and proceeding with “too liberal” an interpretation is dangerous.  Such is generally the route taken by the enemies of Islam, of which Professor Kamali is not. 

For instance, in order to claim that Islam promotes terrorism, the enemies of Islam are fond of quoting the following verses: “Slay the unbelievers wherever you find them (2:191); “Make war on the infidels living in your neighbourhood” (9:123); “When the sacred months have passed, kill the infidels wherever you catch them” (9:5); “Maim and crucify the infidels if they criticise Islam” (5:33); “Punish the unbelievers with garments of fire, hooked iron rods, boiling water...and melt their skin and bellies”  (22:19); “Do not hanker for peace with the infidels... behead them when you catch them” (47:4).

None of those represents Islamic teachings, but taking the Quranic verses out of contexts, the enemies of Islam would quote these, and many other verses, to prove their point that Islam is a religion that promotes terrorism, and that there is no such thing as Islam being a moderate Religion, for Quran itself teaches killing the infidels.

It is not the place here to talk about the nitty gritty of Religious Pluralism, nor about Islam vs Terrorism.  The point is simply to note the danger of taking something out of context.

Likewise with Surah al Kafirun.  It has to be understood within its context.  We shall cover that in the next instalment, insyaAllah.

Stay tuned.

Notes:

1. Professor Kamali’s article appears in the New Straits Time (NST) on 8 February 2011 and may be accessed below, but as far as I can recall, this is only a portion of what he wrote in the NST:

http://xinniralubayna.blogspot.com/2011/02/pluralisme-agama-episod-2-islams.html

2.  Professor El-Muhammady’s rebuttal may be accessed below.  This soft spoken and extremely polite scholar, a well known figure in Malaysia, is at pain to conceal his distaste to Kamali’s thesis (at least that is the impression I gather):

http://traditionalislamblog.wordpress.com/2011/08/11/prof-hashim-kamali%E2%80%99s-religious-pluralism-reconsidered/

3.  In case one is interested, this is what al Maudoodi says concerning using Surah al Kafirun as the argument for religious tolerance:

“If the Surah is read with this background in mind, one finds that it was not revealed to preach religious tolerance as some people of today seem to think, but it was revealed in order to exonerate the Muslims from the disbelievers religion, their rites of worship, and their gods, and to express their total disgust and unconcern with them and to tell them that Islam and kufr (unbelief) had nothing in common and there was no possibility of their being combined and mixed into one entity.”

http://www.englishtafsir.com/Quran/109/index.html

4. Religious Pluralism is commonly defined as the idea that all religions are true, all are seeking salvation and all are leading to the Truth, but Kamali makes it rather complicated.  Perhaps to make the concept palatable to his arguments.  Those interested with what he says may go to:

http://karamah.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Diversity-and-Pluralism1.pdf

  

The Four Quls: Introductory Remarks

Many houses in Malaysia hang the “Four Quls.” 

Qul is Arabic for “say.”  The Four Quls, however, are not the four sayings, but rather the four surahs (chapters) in the Quran starting with the word “qul.”  They are, in the order of chapters in the Quran: (1) al Kafirun; (2) al Ikhlas; (3) al Alaq; and (4) an Naas.

Three of them are the last chapters in the Quran, with an Naas being the last, al Alaq the second last, and al Ikhlas the third last.  Al Kafirun is not much further, being the sixth last chapter.

They are also among the most oft-recited verses or chapters by the Muslims in their salah (prayer).  Two of them, al Kafirun and al Ikhlas, most certainly are.  When the Muslims pray alone, or when they pray Sunnah prayers (as opposed to the five obligatory prayers), these are the optional recitations they often recite after the obligatory al Fatihah.

All the chapters are short, but their virtues and standings are great.  Two of these are most prominent: al Ikhlas is considered one third of the Quran while al Kafirun is one quarter.  This does not mean, however, that if one were to read these two chapters, one is already reading 7/12, or more than half, of the Quran. 

Their virtues are not arithmetic.   What it means is that they constitute the core of the Quran, whereas other verses are detail explanations to this core.

Or, as someone asked Abû al-Abbâs b. Surayj about the meaning of the Prophet’s saying that Surah al Ikhlas equals a third of the Qur’ân, he replied:

The meaning of this is that Allah sent the Qur’ân in three parts: a third of it is comprised of legal rulings, a third is comprised of exhortations of promises and warnings, and a third is comprised of discussing Allah’s names and attributes. This chapter [al Ikhlas] brings together within it those names and attributes.  [Majmû` al-Fatâwâ (17/103)]

Whatever explanation may be given, the virtues of these two chapters are great, for the Prophet himself has stated them in authentic ahadith (Traditions).  It is no wonder, therefore, that these two are oft-recited chapters, second only to al Fatihah, whose recitation is obligatory in prayers, without which one’s prayer is invalid.

While the first two of these Four Quls are often recited during the prayers, the remaining two are oft-recited as well, but for different reason.  These last two, al Alaq and an Naas, are known as verses for seeking protection.  The former is to seek protection from black magic (sihr), while the latter is to seek protection from the conspiracy of the devils, be they of genie or mankind.

There are at least two interesting points about these last two chapters, known as Mu'awwidhatayn (the two surahs in which refuge with Allah has been sought). 

The first is that they are so closely related in terms of style and subject matter, and are said to be revealed together at once.  Thus, although they are separated into two chapters and given different names, some consider them as if they are one chapter.

The second is that Ibnu Mas’ud, one of the foremost authorities on Quran among the Companions, was alleged to be saying that they are not part of the Quran.  The Orientalists have a field day about this.  Since a companion of Ibnu Mas’ud stature claimed these chapters not to be part of the Quran, the whole authenticity of the Quran is therefore a matter of conjecture.  Their intent, of course, is to denigrate the status of Quran to the level of their Bible.

We shall talk about these issues later in the series.  Suffice to say here that even the foremost authority can make mistake, as was the case with Ibnu Mas’ud, who later repented when he realized his error.

There is also an interesting point about Surah al Kafirun.  It is used by some people to convey the tolerance in Islam, while the subject matter clearly indicates otherwise.  Some people, even among Muslims and by scholars no less, go as far as saying that this chapter indicates that Islam accepts pluralism, which is contradictory to the essence of Islam itself.  We shall talk about it later in this series.

For this introductory remarks, suffice to say that Muslims in the main take their Quran, as a sacred book if not its teachings, very seriously.  It is unthinkable for them to make fun of it, as the Christians do with their Bible. 

Many memorize the whole Quran by heart, which is not an easy job no doubt, especially to those who do not even understand Arabic.  They recite it every day in their prayers, although most of them would just recite the short chapters or verses, and do not even know the meanings.

Some even hang selected verses on the wall to get the blessing, or as part of the decoration, with the Verse of the Throne (Ayat al Kursi) easily passes as the most prominent.  The Four Quls is also prominent, being hanged in many houses. 

But among those who hang the Four Quls on the wall, I suspect few indeed who know about the stories behind these chapters, or some of the controversies surrounding them.  Many probably do not even understand properly what these chapters are all about.

As for me, I have memorized these Four Quls even before my parent taught me how to recite the Quran.  I am sure I am not alone here.   These four chapters are so oft-recited in the prayer halls, mosques and houses that their verses get imprinted in a child’s heart.

But it is only a decade or so ago that I learned the finer points about the Four Quls, and I hope to share them with you.

Stay tuned.

Brief Reflections On Independence Day, Open House and a Six-Day Fasting

Today, Malaysians celebrate Malaysia’s 55 years of Independence.

Actually, the above is not quite accurate. 

Malaysia was not formed until 1963.  In 1957, the country that gained independence from British was not Malaysia, but Malaya.

Malaysia was a federation of Malaya, Singapore, North Borneo (Sabah) and Sarawak.  Singapore seceded from the Federation two years later, in 1965. 

The original idea is that Malaysia was to be officially formed by 31^st August 1963, with Brunei included.  Brunei decided to remain under the British Colonial in the last minute, and hence the formation of Malaysia had to be postponed.  It was only sixteen days later, on 16^th September 1963, that Malaysia was born.

The last minute changes, no doubt, gave some dilemma to the then Government of Malaysia, whether to celebrate the Independence on the 31^st August, or on 16^th September.  The former date was decided, and Malaysia celebrates her independence on that day ever since.  The 31^st August was then called the Independence Day of Malaysia. 

Another dilemma surfaced.  Should it be counted from 1957, or 1963?  Conveniently, 1957 was chosen.  This year, therefore, is the 55^th year of Malaysia’s Independence, although Malaysia is only 49 years old.  It is Malaya, now known as West Malaysia, which is 55 years old.

As long as I can recall, the Independence Day of Malaysia was always celebrated on 31^st August, and it was only a one day celebration.  Since the last few years, however, the date of 16^th September has been given its due importance.  The celebration is henceforth extended until that day. This suggests that the importance of Sabah and Sarawak (known as East Malaysia) started to be given their due consideration. Thus, instead of having only a one day celebration, Malaysia is nowadays celebrating her independence for 17 days. 

As is the habit of Malaysians, they like to engage in polemics, including the Independence Day.  Some say we are not really independent.  We merely change our masters, from the British to the Malay ruling party, which happens to be the same party since 1957.  This argument is quite odd, considering that any country, whether independent or colonized, must somehow be ruled by somebody.  Would Malaysia be independent in the truest sense of the word if their party rules it, instead of the current ruling party?  In short, we can dismiss it as a mere political talk.

Others argue it along the religious line.  Malaysia is not truly independent because we are still using the system devised and institutionalized by the Colonial Government.  What they mean is that since the majority of Malaysians are Muslims, Malaysia therefore would be truly independent if it is an Islamic State, instead of remaining a secular state with Islam as official religion.  This argument, however, is not about independence, but about aspiration.

Yet, some others argue that Malaysia is not truly independent because Malaysian minds are still influenced by the West.  We still look up to the West instead of ourselves.  But just what exactly is “The Malaysian Mind” would be anyone’s guess.

Luckily, Malaysians are sensible enough not to carry the matter too far.  I haven’t heard anyone suggests that we should not celebrate the Independence Day at all, on the ground that, being a sovereign nation, and already freed from the crutch of foreign powers for 55 years already, we should not celebrate the occasion that would remind us of being colonized at one time, and for many hundred years to boot.

Or to the idea that Malaysia was never colonized in the first place, being in existence only in 1963.  It was Malacca who fell to the Portuguese in 1511.  And that it was only a Malacca’s port, since most of Malacca Empire was still under the rule of their kings for many hundreds years thereafter.  Or that some sovereign states in Malaya fell to British only in the early 20^th Century.

Or to the idea that there is no such thing as being independent, for one way of another, we are dependent upon something.  It is when are dependent only upon Allah can we be called truly independent.

Yes, we can count our blessings for not being too philosophical about everything, although in many ways, the polemics on our Independence is often senseless nevertheless.

Relatedly, it so happens that this year, the Independence Day celebration falls during the month of Eid al Fitri.

Month of Eid al Fitri?  But Eid al Fitri is only one day, you may argue. 

Well, in Malaysia, Eid al Fitri is celebrated one whole month.   Towards the end of Ramadan, people start to go back to their hometown to celebrate the Eid with their parents and loved ones.  Their houses are, therefore, left empty and hence closed.  When they come back from their hometown, they start to open their houses for others, such as friends, relatives and neighbors.  Many allocate one special day and have what they call Open House, where food and drinks will be served in abundant.

Companies and Government agencies also allocate a special day for this feasting purpose.  Since companies are not houses, they call it Open Day instead of Open House.  Since many houses and companies do that, everyday in Shawal is a feasting day.  After all, after having a fasting month, it is only appropriate that we have feasting month as well.

But this culture has made it difficult for some to have the benefit of fasting the whole year.  As we know, after a month of fasting in Ramadan, we will get the reward of fasting one whole year if we are to fast six days in Shawal, the following month of Ramadan.  This Open House or Open Day culture, good as it is, has made it difficult for those with less will power to get the benefit of fasting a mere 35 or 36 days, depending on whether Ramadan happens to be 29 or 30 days, to get the multiplied benefit of ten times.  

Of course there is no Divine proof for the above "arithmetic," other than the fact that the Prophet used to say, that those who fast the whole month of Ramadan, followed by six days of fasting in Shawal, would be like those who fast for the whole year.  In Islam, one year is 354 days.  Thus, if we fast for 35 or 36 days, but get the reward of 354 days, then the reward appears to be ten times over. 

If there is a will, however, there will always be a way.  Feasting is good, especially on other’s expenses, but completing the six days fasting is better, if we are to get the real reward from the Real Rewarder.

Let’s get the best of both worlds, as we always recite in our dua (supplication).

Takbir of Eid: Between Cultural Norm, Bida’ah and Lesson Lost

One of the MUST DO for the Muslims during the Eid  (Festival) is to pronounce Takbir loudly. 

Takbir is the glorification of God, reciting the words “Allahu Akbar,” meaning “Allah is Greatest,” loudly.  During the Eid, either al Fitri (after fasting month) or al Adha (during Pilgrimage), the Takbir takes the longer version, with many verses added to this basic Allahu Akbar.

When the Prophet and his companions went to war, they shouted the basic Takbir before the battle started.  The way they shouted it was sanguine, drowning the battlefield with energy and force.

The way the elongated Takbir is recited in Malaysia and the rest of the world during the Eid, however, has a melancholic effect. It can shed tears especially to those who do not, or cannot, celebrate the Eid with their loved ones. 

I find this particularly curious and fascinating.  What makes it fascinating is that some of the wordings of the Takbir are supposed to be choleric or at least sanguine. 

For instance, some of the verses recited are:

           

There is no deity other than Allah, who has fulfilled His promise, given victory to His servant, and dignity to His soldiers, and Who has defeated the confederates single handed.

This particular Takbir was proclaimed loudly for the first time after the Battle of Ahzab (Battle of Confederates), which took place in 5 AH.   It was also recited loudly by the Prophet and his companions when they entered Makkah for their first Umrah (Little Pilgrimage) in 7 AH, and during the conquest of Makkah in 8 AH.

In the above three occasions, this Takbir was to glorify Allah who had made good of His promise to help the Muslims in their struggle against the disbelievers.  Since it signifies victory and therefore “good times,” these verses are also recited when the Muslims are celebrating joyous moments, such as the Eid al Fitri and Eid al Adha.

But why it has changed from a sanguine to a melancholic mood is probably due to the differences in the occasions.  The first is to celebrate victory at the brink of annihilation, and the second is to celebrate the reunion as well as saying good bye to the Ramadan.

In the first occasion, it was the cry of joy after the whole Islamic community were saved from the brink of annihilation.   This was the aftermath of the Battle of Ahzab.

The Battle of Ahzab was the third major war engaged by the Muslims with their archenemies, the Quraysh.  The first was the Battle of Badr, of which the Muslims were victorious.  The second was the Battle of Uhud, where the Quraysh took revenge for their loss in Badr.

The Battle of Ahzab (or Battle of Confederacy) was so called because the Quraysh had formed an alliance with the Arab and Jewish tribes for the sole purpose of annihilating the Muslims, once and for all.  This took place in 5 AH.  By then, the Muslims were already too powerful for the Quraysh to eliminate them, all by themselves.  The Quraysh therefore needed the support from their allies who were also the enemies of Islam.  Forming the alliance among the Arabs and the Jews, the Quraysh had raised 10,000 strong armies to crush the Islamic community in Madinah.

Knowing the intent of the enemies, and their sheer size which had not been seen in Arabia, the Prophet and his companions quickly formed a defensive strategy which had not been heard of by the Arabs.  They dug a ditch as a defence.  Thus the war is also known as the Battle of the Ditch (Khandaq).  The suggestion, of course, was not made by the Arabs, because this strategy was unfamiliar to them.  It was made by Salman the Persian, one of the companions.

The ditch can protect the Muslims in Madinah from the enemies on the outside, but their situation was not safe.  They had enemies from within, the Jewish tribe of Quraithah.  The Muslims and this Jewish tribe had a peace agreement between them, but soon the Quraithah were persuaded by their Jewish allies residing in Khaybar to betray the agreement. 

The plan was for the Quraithah to attack from within the city of Madinah.  The Muslims, thus busy with the enemies from within, would not be able to defend their ditch and the enemies from the outside would cross over to finish them off.  To top it all, there were hypocrites among the Muslims, who were interested to see the Muslims perished.  The situation was life threatening, to put it mildly. 

The Prophet was confident that his companions would be able to stave off the alliance forces outside of Madinah, because the ditch was too deep and too wide for them to cross safely.  Whenever the alliance forces tried to cross it, they would be showered with arrows, which forced them to retreat.  But if the Jews of Quraithah were to attack them from behind, their defence would be split, and the alliance forces would be able to take this advantage by crossing the ditch in large numbers. 

Knowing that they could not afford the betrayal from the Quraithah tribe, the Prophet sent four of his companions led by Sa’ad bin Mu’ath, calling on them to maintain their peaceful relations and to confirm their alliance with the Prophet.  The Quraithah abused them instead. 

The situation was deeply distressing.  The Muslims were in dire straits.  Food was beginning to run out.  They were approaching starvation.  There were large forces beyond the ditch, always trying to cross over.   Within the city, the Jews were getting ready for the imminent attack.  The Muslims were running back and forth, trying to protect themselves.  When they stationed themselves at the ditch, they feared the Jews would attack from behind.  Thus they went to the Jewish fortress for the rear defence.  Over there, their minds were not at peace either, fearing that the defence at the ditch was too thin to counter the alliance forces, forever trying to cross over.

In this distressing state, many of them had already entertained the thought that the end of Islam is near.  Some began to wonder whether Allah’s support is for real.  A few started to doubt Allah’s promise that He would make them victorious.  They feared worse than the fear of death itself.  It was at this moment that the help of Allah came.

The first help came in the form of a man.  A certain man, whose name is Nu’aim bin Massoud, hailed from the tribe of Ghatafan, the main ally of the Quraysh.  Nu’aim had secretly become Muslim, but neither his tribe, nor his Jewish allies among the Quraithah, knew it.  He quietly came to the Prophet and offered his help. 

Receiving him as God’s send, the Prophet praised Allah and asked Nu’aim to devise some kind of trick, for war is a deception.   Nu’aim knew both the leaders of Quraithah and the leaders of the Alliance well.  Together, they plotted the strategy to break the trust between the Jews and the Alliance (the seerah seems to suggest that Nu’aim’s rue was entirely his own, but it is possible that the Prophet was also involved in the planning).

Having formulated the strategy,   Nu’aim first went to the chiefs of Quraithah.  They received him well, for he was their good friend.  Nu’aim said that they are in a worse state.  The allied forces are in a better situation.  They come to annihilate the Muslims, no doubt, but if they fail in their mission, they can always go back to their lands.  But the Quraithah could not afford such an eventuality, because if the allied forces go back, the Muslims would surely slaughter them en masse.  Hence, if they were to help the allied forces, the latter must show their commitment.

“What would you suggest?” They asked.

“Take some of their leaders as hostages.  That way you would be absolutely certain that they will fight with you until Muhammad is defeated."

The Quraithah took the bait, for they saw the logic behind Nu’aim’s argument.  Having succeeded in putting some doubt in the minds of the Jews, Nu’aim went to the allied forces.

He told them that he has some information which might be useful, but asked them to sworn to secrecy if he were to deliver that information.  They agreed.  He told the leaders of the Alliance that the Jews had regretted their decision to betray Muhammad and the Muslims.  The Jews, Nu’aim said, had sent their delegates to Muhammad, and asked whether Muhammad would be satisfied if the Jews were to deliver a few of the nobility among the Alliance, so that Muhammad can have them killed.   Muhammad agreed that such a gesture would be sufficient for the Jews to atone their betrayal.

“If the Jews ask you to send them some of your people to stay with them as a guarantee that you will not abandon them, do not send them a single person.”  Nu’aim said.

There was no way to ascertain the truth of what Nu’aim said, except to put it to test.  So, the leaders of the Alliance sent a few delegates to the Jewish tribe of Quraithah, asking them to initiate the attack on the Muslims, so that the Alliance could cross over and finish the Muslims off.

This request happened to be made on Saturday, the Sabbath day for the Jews.  The tribe of Quraithah was not about to break their Sabbath, so they told the Alliance’s delegates that the request could not have come at the worst time.

“That aside,” said the leader of the Jews, “we want you to leave some of your leaders as our hostages to signify that you are serious about eliminating the Muslims.”

Remembering what Nu’aim had told them, the delegates of the allied forces refused.  The Quraithah’s mere request suggested that Nu’aim had been telling the truth.  The Alliance’s refusal to fulfil the request, in turn, made the Jews believed that Nu’aim likewise had been right all along.  To the Jews, the allied forces were not all that determined to annihilate Muhammad and his companions.

With a deft of trickery through the work of Nu’aim, who had come out of nowhere, other than being sent by Allah, the impending disaster was averted.  The Jews were reluctant to make the move, and the allied forces could not penetrate the defence put by the Muslims.  Their mutual trust had been broken. 

As for Nu’aim, throughout this process, he did not go to the Muslims camp again, for that would arouse suspicion.  He joined the Prophet only after the war was over.

With no impending threat from the Jews, the Muslims were safe.  There were only skirmishes here and there.  No all out battle could be fought because the Alliance could not breach the defence put by the Muslims.

Soon after came the second help.  This time, it was the desert storm, which wrecked havoc the enemies’ tents.  Cold and running short of food supply, for the allied forces thought that the war would be a brief one, they abandoned the mission and went home.  Had they stayed a while longer, however, the Muslims would have met a different kind of disaster, for they too had run out of food supply and could die of starvation.

It was to celebrate this victory that they shouted these verses: “There is no deity other than Allah, who has fulfilled His promise, given victory to His servant, and dignity to His soldiers, and Who has defeated the confederates single handed.  No one was before Him, and no one remains after Him.”

These verses have become part of the standard text in the Takbir recited loudly and in unison during the Eid celebration.

We can imagine, however, that when the Prophet and his companions recited these verses for the first time, the mood was choleric or at least sanguine, not melancholic as it is recited nowadays.

That it is being recited in a melancholic tone is probably due to the different setting.  The Eid celebration is a joyous occasion, but it is not exactly a choleric or sanguine moment.  Ramadan is leaving.  There is a tinge of sadness in that, for the Muslims have to wait for another eleven months before Ramadan is to come again.  Or perhaps it is recited that way because it is more melodious. 

The Eid celebration is also an occasion for family reunion, where the family members all over the place will come back to their parents to celebrate together.  While the Takbir itself is not overly melancholic, the sound of it can shed tears to those who cannot make the journey back home, due to duty or other reasons.   Or to those who have recently lost the loved ones.  Or to those who have to go back to their in-laws, instead of their own parents (in Malaysia at least, this is often a thorny issue).

Since those lines were first recited after the Battle of Ahzab, which took place in 5 AH, while the first Eid al Fitri was celebrated in 2 AH, I suspected that the Prophet and his companions did not recite those lines during the Eid celebration of their times.  Out of curiosity, I browsed in the net, searching for the origin of the insertion of those lines in the Takbir recitation.

I couldn’t find what I was looking for.  But what I found was somewhat surprising.  It seems that Takbir in unison, as is the practice all over the world, has been banned in Saudi Arabia by their previous Grand Mufti, Ibn Baz.  The ground for the ban, as expected, is because it is a bida’ah (innovation).  The Takbir itself is not an innovation, but to recite it in unison, following an imam or someone leading the Takbir, is.

Quoting what they said authentic hadith, the Sunnah is to recite Takbir individually, while going to the mosque or place for prayer.  Once reaching the mosque, there appears to be a dispute whether Takbir should be continued or stopped, although the ruling is that it may be continued, but not in unison.  Given that the Prophet’s apartment is just a few steps away from the mosque, it is safe to assume that the Takbir is continued.

Furthermore, the Takbir as done during the Prophet and his companions appears to be quite short.  The lengthy part, recited only by the imam or the one leading the Takbir, appears to be a later insertion. 

I am amused by the fact that the cultural norm of reciting Takbir in unison should be an issue at all.  I would have thought that it might be a good idea to explain the origin, meaning and significance of the wordings of the Takbir. 

Perhaps, when we are drowned in the melancholic rhythm of the Takbir, the lesson is lost, and the bida’ah surfaces.