Alhassanain(p) Network for Heritage and Islamic Thought

HUMAN JUSTICE AND ITS MODES

Of course, ordinary human beings are not like ‘Ali, who had the guidance of the Quran and the Prophet in his heart and mind at all times. For ordinary men and women the question has always come up of how to be just in various concrete situations, how to recognize what is due all beings and treat them accordingly. The first guides given by God to Muslims about how to act justly are the Quran, the Sunnah, and theShari‘ah , which, being God’s Word, the teachings of His Prophet, and His Law, are of necessity the central means of understanding justice and acting justly. To live and act according to theShari‘ah is to act in justice toward both God and His creation.

But what about those actions for which there are no clear Divine injunctions, Prophetic guidance, or Shari‘ite instructions? In such cases one must use the intelligence God has given us and rely upon the innate sense of justice written by God on the tablet of our souls. And what about situations in life when one experiences oppression rather than justice? God asks us to be just at all times, not only occasionally, and to refuse to accept oppression. “O believers! Be steadfast before God, witnesses in justice” (5:8).

Muslims are constantly reminded that “My Lord hath commanded justice” (7:29), and that “You should be kind to them, and act justly toward them” (60:8). The Quran commands Muslims not only to act justly, but to speak in justice:

“And if ye give your word, do justice thereunto” (6:152). And above all, Muslims must always seek to judge justly, for as the Quran commands, “If ye judge between them that ye judge justly” (4:58). Christ said, “Judge not, that ye be not judged” (Matt. 5:44). But in practical life it is not always possible to follow this exalted teaching.

Although Muslims know that the supreme judge is God and ultimately only His judgment matters, there are always occasions in life when judgment is inevitable. In such cases they must act in truth and in justice.

In light of this essential necessity, courts were created on the basis of Shari‘ite teachings, and all cases were judged equally in such courts. In principle all Muslims are equal before Islamic Law and the judgments given on its basis.

Strangely enough, while in the West an independent judiciary is the mark of the modern period, in the Islamic world Shari‘ite courts remained in the hands of religious scholars and were independent to a large extent of political authority until modern times. It is only since the nineteenth century that the state has come to dominate the judiciary in many Islamic countries, so that much of the earlier judiciary independence has been lost and the administration of justice has been compromised by political considerations.

The question still remains about how to act justly in concrete situations when there are no clear Shari‘ite indications.

General principles stated in the Quran andHadith provide an answer to this vexing question. Besides specific Shari‘ite injunctions, there are general teachings about doing good, being fair, seeing the view of the other side, placing truth over expediency, being objective and not self-centered, and similar moral and spiritual principles common to Islam and other authentic

religions. These principles must be put into practice and the voice of one’s conscience must be always heeded.

Fighting injustice, oppression, and evildoing is itself just and the means of establishing justice. The word for injustice, oppression, or evildoing in Arabic (z.ulm) is used as the opposite of justice and is in its various forms one of the most frequently used terms in the Quran, which states, “God wisheth not injustice for [His] creatures” (3:108).

Those who are unjust and commit oppression break their covenant with God, for “My covenant shall not reach the oppressors” (2:124), and “Whosoever transgresses the bounds of God-those are the evildoers” (2:229). In more than one place in the Quran it is stated that, “God loveth not the evildoers” (e.g., 3:57) and in fact casts His wrath upon them: “The curse of God shall rest upon the evildoers” (11:18). Furthermore, the Quran andHadith make clear that those who are unjust and evildoing wrong themselves and that it is not God who wrongs human beings.

It might then be said that, in addition to following theShari‘ah and acting according to the principles of the Quran andHadith mentioned above, to live and act justly means to combat oppression, evildoing, and injustice. The Quran itself unfolds the epic battle between justice and injustice in the individual as well as in the social domain. To live under unjust human laws or unjust applications of just laws or under tyranny and oppression with disregard for the law obliges Muslims to battle against the injustice being imposed upon them. It is even said that to accept oppression without reacting to establish justice is worse than the original oppression and injustice.

Of course, not all human beings are alike; nor have all Muslims always arisen against oppression and injustice, but the ideal is very central to the Islamic concept of justice and a just society. Furthermore, the presence of this ideal has from time to time led to exertion on both the individual and collective level to reestablish justice. This innate desire for justice is, of course, not unique to Islam; nor is the impetus to act to overcome injustice. The history of the West is also replete with episodes of individual or collective action to overcome oppression and injustice. When some people attack Islam for inciting struggle in the name of justice, they forget the Boston Tea Party and the American Revolution, not to speak of so many other major political and social movements based on the perceived notion of correcting the wrong of injustice and oppression. Where the case of Islam differs from modern Western phenomena of this nature is that the claim to the establishment of justice is still seen by Muslims in Islamic terms and not in secular, humanistic ones. That the establishment of justice entails struggle brings us to the major question of exertion and striving in the path of God, or jihad.

JIHAD

Perhaps in modern times in the West no word in the vocabulary of the Islamic religion has been as distorted, maligned, misunderstood, and vilified as the word jihad, thanks not only to the Western media looking for demonizing epithets and stereotypes, but also to those extremist Muslims who readily provide them with examples to justify their propagation of the distorted image of this term. Now, matters are made worse by the fact that the word jihad has gained commercial appeal in Europe and America; a number of authors, seeking to attract a larger public and make their books commercially successful, have been trying hard to use the term in their titles in any way possible. Some have even changed the meaning of jihad to imply any local resistance and “tribalism” against the globalization process, whereas, in fact, in Islamic history itself, especially during the earlier centuries, jihad was often fought against “tribalism” and all the centripetal forces that threatened the unity of the Islamic community. To explain the authentic meaning of jihad requires clearing the slate completely of all the prevalent misunderstandings that unfortunately continue to be perpetuated in the Western media and much of Western literature concerned with Islam.

In Arabic the term jihad is derived from the root jhd, meaning “to strive” or “to exert effort,” and in the context of Islam this striving and exertion are understood to be in the path of God. The person who performs such a task is called a mujahid, usually translated as “holy warrior” in the Western media, as jihad itself is conveniently translated as “holy war.” One has only to recall that, in Sufi contemplation, the state of combating the distractions of the soul is also called mujahidah to realize how limitative such a current translation is.

To understand the significance of jihad in Islam and its civilization, we must first of all distinguish between a general, popular meaning of the term and the theological and juridical sense of the word. In the first sense, it is used to mean any effort considered worthy, much like “crusade” in its general sense in English and not in particular reference to the religious wars carried out by Western Christianity against both Muslims and Jews in Palestine in the Middle Ages. In the same way that in English one says that such and such an organization is carrying out a crusade to eradicate poverty or disease, in Islamic languages one can say that this or that group or government agency is carrying out a jihad to, let us say, build houses for the poor. In Iran today there is in fact a movement and organization called jihad-i sazandigi (that is, jihad for “construction”), whose function it is to exert effort to build housing for the poor and carry out similar projects. Also in the same way that throughout Western history certain wars have been fought in the name and spirit of a crusade, but without the blessing of the pope, who commissioned the medieval Crusades, in Islam some people have fought battles they have called jihad, although these battles were not, technically speaking, jihad according to Islamic Law or sanctioned by the ‘ulama’, or religious scholars. To say the least, the West has no less of a crusading spirit than Islam has a jihadic one, if both terms are used in their popular sense. In fact, during the past millennium the West has carried out many more wars in foreign countries as crusades for all kinds of causes

such as spreading Christianity, “civilizing missions” (la mission civilisatrice of the French), and disseminating modern ideologies from Communism to capitalism-than Islam has carried out jihad.

In the same way, however, that we must distinguish between the medieval Crusades, condoned and in fact directed by the Church, and this general usage of “crusade” in European languages, we must not confuse the general social and cultural use of the term jihad with its strict theological and juridical sense in Islam. Beyond this dichotomy, it is important to consider what jihad means in the context of Islam and the practices of its followers. To understand this more exact and pertinent meaning, it is necessary to go back to the root meaning of the term as “exertion and striving in the path of God.” On this basic level it might be said that all of life, according to Islam, is a jihad, because it is a striving to live according to the Will of God, to exert oneself to do good and to oppose evil. We are cast into a world in which there is disequilibrium and disorder both externally and within our souls. To create a life of equilibrium based on surrender to God and following His injunctions involves constant jihad, in the same way that a sailor on a windy sea needs to exert constant effort just to keep the boat on an even keel and continue to sail toward the chosen destination.

To wake up in the morning with the Name of God on one’s lips, to perform the prayers, to live righteously and justly throughout the day, to be kind and generous to people and even animals and plants one encounters during the day, to do one’s job well, and to take care of one’s family and of one’s own health and well-being all require jihad on this elemental level. Since Islam does not distinguish between the secular and religious domains, the whole life cycle of a Muslim involves a jihad, so that every component and aspect of it is made to conform to Divine norms. Jihad is not one of the “pillars”(arkan) of Islam, as are the canonical prayers or fasting. But the performance of all the acts of worship (‘ibadat) certainly involves jihad. To pray five times a day regularly throughout one’s life is certainly not possible without great effort, or jihad, on our part, save for the saints, who are always in prayer and in a sense have to carry out a jihad to tear themselves away from prayer to perform the chores of daily life. Likewise, for ordinary believers fasting from dawn to dusk is certainly a jihad and requires great effort on the part of the human will for the sake of God. The same holds true for the other acts of worship, or ‘ibadat. Jihad is, however, also required in the domain of transactions, or mu‘amalat, if one is going to live an honest and upright life. Not only acts of worship, which directly concern our relation with God, but also other human acts affect the soul and must be carried out ethically and justly.

But the soul is not always given to the good and the just.

Therefore, to be upright and to perform acts of everyday life in accordance with the Divine Law and Islamic ethical norms is to carry out a constant jihad. There are many simple people in the Islamic world trying to make an honest living in difficult circumstances who consider their everyday work to be a jihad. I have heard many a taxi driver in Persia and the Arab countries say he had to support a large extended family and

worked fourteen hours a day to do so, adding that every day for him was a jihad. To live in equilibrium in a chaotic world and a morally upright life in a society in which there are so many temptations to accept and participate in corruption is to carry out jihad. Also to try to overcome ignorance and to attain knowledge, the highest kind of which is the knowledge of God, is a major form of jihad and in fact its highest form. In its widest sense, therefore, it might be said that for a Muslim life itself is a jihad and that the peace one seeks is the result of the equilibrium created through jihad in its basic sense of exertion on the path of God and striving to act according to His Will. The saying of the Prophet “Jihad remains valid until the Day of Judgment” must be understood in this universal sense of the jihad inherent in the general human condition in this imperfect world.

Beyond this general understanding of jihad, which embraces life itself, Islamic authorities over the ages have distinguished between the lesser and the greater jihad on the basis of a famous saying of the Prophet after the great battle of Badr, which was crucial to the survival of the newly born Islamic community. Despite the momentous significance of this battle, in which the still idolatrous Meccans sought to defeat and destroy the nascent Islamic community in Medina, the Prophet, after having achieved victory, said, “You have returned from the lesser jihad to the greater(akbar) jihad.” When asked what the greater jihad was, he said, “It is the jihad against your passionate souls.”

The greater, and one might also say greatest (in Arabic the word akbar means both “greater” and “greatest”), jihad is therefore the inner battle to purify the soul of its imperfections, to empty the vessel of the soul of the pungent water of forgetfulness, negligence, and the tendency to evil and to prepare it for the reception of the Divine Elixir of Remembrance, Light, and Knowledge. The greater jihad is undertaken only by those spiritual warriors who are willing to sacrifice their ego before the Throne of the One.

In the same way that external jihad as battle or war is not required of every Muslim, but only of those physically and mentally qualified, the spiritual jihad is also not required of every Muslim, only of those who have the spiritual and mental capability-along with the spiritual will-to follow the path to God in this life and the virtues to be worthy of remaining on it. In light of the meaning of al-jihad al-akbar, or greater jihad, it can be said that the greatest “spiritual combatants” in Islam are the saints, whose instrument of battle is, however, not the sword, but prayer and the rosary. Sufism in general is concerned with this greater jihad, which is similar to the “spiritual warfare” known so widely in Orthodox Christianity and also mentioned by certain Western Christian mystics and to the spiritual exertions of Hindu and Buddhist sages, in whose words and deeds numerous parallels can be found.

As for the lesser jihad, in the sense of outward struggle and battle, the meaning of jihad as the Western media use it, a distinction must first of all be made between the struggles and battles carried out within Arabia against idolatry at the dawn of Islam and events in later Islamic history.

In Arabia the idolaters were given the choice of embracing Islam or fighting against Muslims, because according to Islamic belief God did not want such a crass form of idolatry to survive. This was similar to arguments

given by Christianity when it rooted out by force what remained of the decadent Greco-Roman and northern European religions, once it gained sufficient power. But even in Arabia jihad was not carried out against Jews and Christians in order to force them to convert to Islam, nor was this policy carried out generally later outside Arabia against Jews and Christians, or for that matter against Zoroastrians or Hindus, as was mentioned earlier. During Islamic history some rulers invaded non-Muslim lands and even spoke of jihad, but rarely was a juridical edict given by the ‘ulama’ that such battles were a jihad to convert people to Islam. The view of Western orientalists and centuries of Christian polemicists on this issue is simply not correct. The principle of “There is no compulsion in religion” (2:256) did not allow jihad outside of Arabia during the lifetime of the Prophet to include forced religious conversion of the “People of the Book.” Likewise, it is forbidden to carry out jihad against other Muslims to bring them to one’s own persuasion.

In fact, all Shi‘ite and most Sunni jurists, especially in modern times, believe that jihad is legitimate only as defense (difa‘i) and cannot be originated as aggression (ibtida’i). As far as Twelve-Imam Shi‘ism is concerned, throughout the centuries and including today, all the eminent authorities have asserted that jihad, except for defense, is haram, or forbidden, by Islamic Law in the absence of the ma‘s.um, that is, “the inerrant one” (or one who is impeccable in the etymological sense of this term), which in the context of Shi‘ite Islam means the Prophet and the Imams. In Sunni Islam, historically some jurists have ordered a jihad in an offensive mode based on a argument one might call “the best defense is an offense,” but since the 1950s with the pronouncements of the Shaykh al-Azhar of the time, Mah.mud Shaltut, who occupied what is the most influential and significant religious position in the Sunni world, the mainstream Sunni position has been like the Shi‘ite one. The reputable religious scholars of the Sunni world agree that the only jihad permissible is a defensive one, which is incumbent on the Islamic community as a whole once its existence is threatened. This does not mean, however, that any extremist group can carry out violence by appealing to the need to defend Islam, for in every case authorization of the jihad by the head of the Islamic state and the authoritative ‘ulama’ is required.

The Quranic verse “Fight in the way of God against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Verily God loveth not aggressors” (2:190) has provided the scriptural basis and the principle for judging the legitimacy of jihad. It must be recalled that, during the past century and a half, all those who have fought against foreign invaders or occupiers, whether they were in West Africa, Algeria, Bosnia, Kosovo, Palestine, Kashmir, or the Philippines, and have spoken of jihad, have done so in a defensive sense. There have been no Muslim jihads in non-Islamic lands. Those who carry out terror in the West or elsewhere in the name of jihad are vilifying an originally sacred term, and their efforts have not been accepted by established and mainstream religious authorities as jihad in the juridical and theological sense of the term. The declarations of Shaykh al-Azhar, the most authoritative religious voice in Sunni Islam, condemning in no

uncertain terms the terrorist acts of September 11, 2001, in America is a clear example.

This naturally brings up the important question of who can declare jihad. In classical Sunni theory based on the existence of an Islamic state, it was the sovereign in consultation with the ‘ulama’ who could declare jihad in the juridical and theological sense. And without the existence of an authentic Islamic state, it was the leading religious authorities, the ‘ulama’, and more precisely muftis, who had such a prerogative. Although each Muslim stands directly before God and there is no priesthood in Islam, no one can simply declare jihad by virtue of being nominally Muslim and wielding some political or military power. The difference between the declaration of jihad in the Islamic sense and its everyday declaration by various extremist groups here and there is as great as the difference between the declaration of a crusade against this or that evil by a Western political or social leader and the declaration of the Crusades by Pope Urban II in 1095.

When a legitimate jihad is to be carried out, it must not be based on anger and hatred that would blind one to justice.

The Quran warns Muslims in no uncertain terms when it states, “Let not hatred of a people cause you to be unjust” (5:8). Grievance can turn to anger and hatred, but that cannot be the basis of blind revenge. Jihad cannot be carried out against the innocent, and even the enemy must be treated in justice and even kindness. One should “repel the evil deed with one which is better, then verily he, between whom and thee there was enmity (will become) as though he were a bosom friend” (41:34). And above all jihad must be carried out for the truth and the truth alone, not on the basis of anger, hatred, or revenge. Traditionally even external jihad has been associated in the Muslim mind with magnanimity, generosity, and detachment, with all the virtues associated with chivalry.

A story in Book I of the Mathnawi of Rumi about ‘Ali ibn AbiTalib, the prince of those who carry out jihad for God alone, is very revealing as far as the Islamic understanding of jihad is concerned. In a one-to-one battle with a great enemy of Islam who was a powerful warrior, ‘Ali was able to subdue his opponent and throw him to the ground. As a last act of hatred the enemy warrior spat in ‘Ali’s face, upon which ‘Ali immediately got up from his position of sitting on the enemy’s chest and sheathed his sword. The warrior became surprised and asked ‘Ali why he had done such a thing. ‘Ali answered that until then he was fighting for the Truth (al-H. aqq), but as soon as he was spat upon he became angry; recognizing this, he ceased to battle because he did not want to fight on the basis of personal rage and anger. As Rumi puts it:

He spat on the face of ‘Ali

The pride of every prophet and saint. . .

And ‘Ali responded, He said, “I wield the sword for the sake of the Truth, I am the servant of the Truth, not commanded by the body.

I am the Lion of the Truth, not the lion of passions, My action is witness to my religion.”2

The action of this prototype of all authentic Islamic mujahids, which led to a change of heart in his enemy, should serve as a salutary correction for,

first, those who in the name of Islam carry out actions based on rage but call them jihad and, second, those in the West who continue to speak of holy or sacred rage among Muslims who are trying on the basis of justice to protect their home and religion.

When one looks beyond current aberrations of so-called jihad by certain extremists to the long history of Islam, one sees numerous examples of the kind of chivalry exemplified in its supreme form by ‘Ali in such warrior-heroes as Saladin, whose chivalry was proverbial even among his Western enemies, and in more recent figures such as Amir ‘Abd al-Qadir, ‘Abd al-Karim, and ‘Umar al-Mukhtar in North Africa; Imam Shamil in Caucasia; the Brelvis in the northwest provinces of India; and more recently Ah.mad Shah Mas‘ud, who participated in the Afghan war against the Soviet Union and was assassinated shortly before the September 11, 2001, tragedy in America. All such figures were not only pious and chivalrous, but were attached to the inner dimension of Islam and some were saints. None was the product of a narrow, literalist, and exclusivist interpretation of his faith.

CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH WAR CAN BE FOUGHT

Not all wars are jihads, and Islam has also promulgated certain regulations for conflict in general. First of all, war should be in self-defense and Muslims should not instigate wars, as the already cited verse, “Fight in the way of God against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Verily God loveth not transgressors” (2:190), demonstrates. If, like the Bible, the Quran does speak of fighting against one’s enemies, it must be remembered that Islam was born in a climate in which there were constant wars among various tribes. Still, after ordering Muslims to battle against their enemies, the Quran adds, “Except those who seek refuge with people between whom and you there is a covenant, or (those who) come unto you because their hearts forbid them to make war on you. . So, if they hold aloof from you and wage not war against you and offer you peace, God alloweth you no way against them” (4:90). War can be fought to avoid persecution and oppression or to preserve religious values and protect the weak from oppression. The Quran does mention the biblical “an eye for an eye,” but recommends forgoing revenge and practicing charity, as in the verse, “But whoso forgoeth it [that is, an eye for an eye] it shall be expiation for him” (5:45). Also war should not go on indefinitely; as soon as the enemy sues for peace, hostilities must terminate, “But if they desist, then let there be no hostility” (2:192).

Of the utmost importance is the injunction that innocent human life must not be destroyed in any warfare, for the Quran says, “Whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all humanity” (5:32). The Prophet forbade explicitly attacking women and children and even killing animals or destroying trees during war. His own magnanimous treatment of his most bitter enemies upon his conquest of Mecca has remained the supreme concrete example to be followed. Likewise, Muslims recall to this day how, upon conquering Jerusalem, ‘Umar dealt with Christians and their respected sites of worship with remarkable magnanimity and justice. Needless to say, not all Muslims have followed these precepts during Islamic history any more than have all Jews, Christians, Hindus, or Buddhists followed the injunctions of their religions. But it is essential here not only for Western observers but also for many Muslims who, having lost hope, have fallen into despair and commit desperate acts to remember what the teachings of Islam as a religion are on these matters. Human nature being what it is, it is not difficult to find reasons why not all Muslims have followed the teachings of their religion in matters of war. What is remarkable is the degree to which over the ages many of the values of this spiritualized chivalry were followed, as witnessed over the centuries even by Western invaders from medieval knights to French officers in Algeria.

Today a new challenge has been created by the invention of modern means and methods of warfare, of the invention of weapons of mass destruction causing so-called collateral damage over which one has no control, of bombs that cannot distinguish between combatants and women and children. Now, Islamic civilization did not invent these monstrous technologies, or even the idea of total war involving whole civilian

populations, but it is faced with their reality on the ground and, one might add, in the air and at sea. This situation creates an additional challenge of monumental proportions for Muslims, as it does for those Christians in the West who seek to live according to the teachings of Christ and even for many secular humanists. It is precisely at such a juncture of human history that Muslims are called upon to be most vigilant in the defense of what their religion has taught them about jihad and the regulations it has promulgated for any form of warfare. Moreover, any Muslim who has a sense of responsibility before God must be especially careful when he or she carries out an act explicitly in the name of Islam in a world in which inhuman and even infrahuman tools of military combat are in the hands of the powerful who dominate the global scene.

Although defense of oneself, one’s homeland, and one’s religion and the overcoming of oppression remain religious duties, the regulations of warfare, especially the protection of the innocent, that is, nonaggression against noncombatants, and dealing with the enemy in justice, also remain part and parcel of the religion and essential to it; they cannot be cast aside with the excuse that one is responding to a grievance or injustice. If one does so, one is no longer speaking or acting in the name of Islam and is in fact in danger of defiling the religion more than its enemies ever could.

MARTYRDOM

As a result of suicide bombings and the extensive use of the term “martyr” in recent years in various Islamic countries, many people in the West have turned to the question of martyrdom in Islam, and some have even described it in the most pejorative manner as an object of ridicule. First of all, martyrdom exists in every religion. Second, Christianity relies particularly on martyrdom and celebrates its martyrs as saints more than Islam does, especially Islam in its Sunni form. It is therefore particularly strange to see some observers in the West speak of martyrdom as if it were a peculiar, solely Islamic concept. The Quran states, “Think not of those who are slain in the way of God that they are dead. Nay, they are living being nourished by their Lord” (3:169), and “They rejoice because of favor from God and kindness and that God wasteth not the wage of believers” (3:171). Therefore, just as Christian martyrs enter paradise, Muslim martyrs are also blessed and allowed entry into the paradisal states. For both, martyrdom is victory over death, and Muslim martyrs share with Christians in asking at the moment of their ultimate victory, “O Death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?” (1 Cor.15:55).

Who is a martyr? In Christianity, at least Catholic Christianity, this question has been decided over the centuries by the Church, but in Islam there is no official magisterium to decide ecclesiastically who is a martyr. In Twelve-Imam Shi‘ite Islam martyrdom plays a more central role than in Sunnism. All the Imams, except the Twelfth (who according to Shi‘ism is still alive although in occultation), were martyred, and the martyrdom of the Third Imam, Husayn ibn ‘Ali, who is called Sayyid al-shuhada’, or the Master of Martyrs, is particularly important in Shi‘ite piety.

The Shi‘ite community has also recognized a number of other martyrs who were clearly killed for religious reasons.

In Sunni Islam, likewise, a number of figures have been given the title of martyr over the ages by the Islamic community (al-ummah), which is the final arbiter on this matter in Sunni Islam. Sometimes the term “martyr” has also been used more politically for those killed in a religiopolitical struggle even within the Islamic world and by other Muslims.

The term “martyr” in Arabic is shahid, which is related to the term for the supreme testification(shahadah) of Islam regarding Divine Unity. Furthermore, it is truly remarkable that the word shahid is also related to the word shahid, which means “witness,” exactly as does the Greek word martos, from which “martyr” derives. Even the word “martyr” has therefore the same root meaning in Christianity and Islam. Furthermore, in both traditions often the same symbols were used to describe a martyr. In Shi‘ism a martyr is often referred to as the lamp that burns itself but illuminates the world about it; the most famous English Catholic martyr, Thomas Becket, was also called the “bright candle on God’s candlestick.” In the truly spiritual sense, the shahid is the person who has born witness with his or her whole being to Divine Oneness. He or she has made the supreme sacrifice of his or her own life for the sake of God, a sacrifice that has been truly for God and not for any worldly cause. Such people go to paradise because they have given their life in all sincerity to God. In this context it is also

important to recall thehadith of the Prophet, “The ink of the scholar is more precious than the blood of the martyr,” which means that although martyrdom is such an exalted state, the inner jihad leading to the knowledge of God and His revelation (hence the ink of the scholar) is of even higher value.

But can a person become a martyr by committing suicide? Suicide itself is forbidden by Islamic Law, and those who commit it are condemned to the infernal states because they have taken upon themselves a decision that belongs to God alone. Life can be terminated legitimately only by the Giver of life. But suicide as a desperate act to overcome oppression or to defend oneself has manifested itself on the margin of human existence everywhere. Many brave American soldiers in various wars have thrown themselves on bombs, which is an act of suicide, to save others, and we all know of the Japanese kamikazes during World War II. An especially telling case is mentioned in the Bible: Samson committed suicide by bringing the Temple of Dagon down not only on himself, but on thousands of Philistines, including women and children, because his people had been oppressed by the Philistines. Some Jews consider him a hero and some a prophet, whereas, interestingly enough, Muslims do not consider him one of the Hebrew prophets.

For Muslims, the difficult question on both moral and religious grounds concerns those who live under appalling oppression and in a state of despair and have no other means of defense except their bodies. Even in such cases the Islamic injunction that one cannot kill innocent people even in war must of necessity hold. As for using one’s body as a weapon against combatants, this is an issue that is being hotly debated among experts on Islamic Law in the Islamic world today. Most believe that an act that is certain suicide must be avoided, while some believe that it is permissible as self-defense or for the protection of one’s people if it does not involve innocent victims. The great tragedy is the existence of a situation in which young people fall into such a state of desperation that the question of suicide even arises. Here again, as with total warfare, the phenomenon itself, which exists among Hindu Tigers in Sri Lanka, in the case of the person who killed Rajiv Gandhi, and among Palestinians and others, is one of the fruits of modern technology that make what is now called terrorism possible, but about which few are willing to speak.

TO ESTABLISH JUSTICE AND PEACE

In conclusion, we must remember that there is no peace without justice, and justice implies a constant struggle to establish equilibrium in a world, both within and without, in which forces and tensions threaten chaos and disorder at all times. A Muslim’s duty is to seek to establish peace and justice within, and on the basis of the Divine injunctions to establish justice in the world about him or her through an effort, or jihad, that must avoid outward war and confrontation except when absolutely necessary and in defense.

But even in war, regulations set down by the religion must be observed. Today we live in a world full of strife with powerful economic, political, and cultural wars that occasionally also result in military confrontation. In such a situation Muslims must be vigilant, but also seekers of peace.

Some have said that Islam displays a greater combative spirit than other religions. Now, all religions are guardians of the sacred, and Islam, coming at the end of the present human cycle, has a particularly important role in carrying out this duty. Therefore, whenever the sacred is attacked and challenged by the forces of desacralization and nihilism, Islam is destined to display a particularly combative spirit to respond to this challenge. But this response must not be at the expense of destroying the sacred message of Islam itself, based on peace and surrender to the Divine Will. Therefore, Muslims must strive to preserve the sacred and to defend justice, but not by succumbing to means that contradict and in fact destroy the very reality of not only Islam, but religion as such. Muslims must seek justice, but with humility and charity, not in self-righteousness, ever aware that absolute justice belongs to God alone and that one of the cardinal meanings of the shahadah is “There is no justice but the Divine Justice.”

CHAPTER SEVEN: HUMAN RESPONSIBILITIES AND HUMAN RIGHTS

He it is who produceth gardens. . Eat ye of the fruit thereof when it fruiteth, and pay the due thereof upon the harvest day.

Quran 6:141

Let me free so that like the Sun I shall wear a robe of fire, And within that fire like a Sun to adorn the world.

Rumi

But is it always man who “chooses”? And who then is this “man who chooses”? Where is his limit and his center?

If it is man who defines himself, what objective value can be attached to this definition? And if there is no objective value, no transcendent criterion, why think?

If it is enough to be a man in order to be in the right, why seek to refer to human error?

Frithjof Schuon

TO BE HUMAN

Before speaking 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 mentioned earlier, Islam believes that God breathed His Spirit into Adam and according to the famous hadith, “God created Adam in His form,” “form” meaning the reflection of God’s Names and Qualities. Human beings therefore reflect the Divine Attributes like a mirror, which reflects the light of the Sun. By virtue of being created as this central being in the terrestrial realm, the human being was chosen by God as His vicegerent (khalifatAllah ) as well as His servant (‘abdAllah ). As servants human beings must remain in total obedience to God and in perfect receptivity before what their Creator wills for them. As vicegerents they must be active in the world to do God’s Will here on earth. The Islamic conception of insan, or man, as the anthropos encompassing both the male and female states, can be summed up as the wedding of these two qualities in him.

But God has also given human beings free will; this 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 the 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 in fact 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 our fulfilling our responsibilities toward 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” (‘ibadah) in Arabic also means “service.” To worship God is also to serve Him. Many interpretations have been given of the term ‘ibadah 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.

INTELLECTUAL AND THEOLOGICAL DIVERSITY

In addition to those variations delineating Sunnism and Shi‘ism and the numerous sects, there have existed since the beginning of Islamic history, within the mainstream, different theologies and philosophies that have contributed to diversity within the Islamic world, even within a particular school of Law. When one thinks of Islam, it is important to remember that, on the intellectual and theological levels, as well as on the juridical one, Islam is not a monolithic structure, but displays remarkable diversity, the elements of which are bound together by the doctrine of tawhid, or unity. Over the centuries, Islam has created one of the richest intellectual traditions of the world, favorably comparable in its depth and diversity to those of India, China, and the Christian West. In medieval times, in fact, many Jewish and Christian theological and philosophical schools in Europe were created as a result of the influence of and in response to Islamic philosophical and theological teachings.

To discuss in depth all the different theological and philosophical schools or even the most important ones would not be possible here. What is important in the present context is to at least mention the best-known schools and point out that even on some of the most important central religious issues-the meaning of Divine Unity especially in relation to multiplicity, the nature of God’s Names and Qualities, the relation between faith and works in human salvation, predestination and free will, revelation and reason, the relation between God’s Mercy and His Justice, and questions of eschatology, not to mention political philosophy-there have existed numerous views, sometimes opposed to each other.

In theology, which in Islam is called ‘ilm al-kalam or simply kalam, there developed in the Sunni world in the eighth century, first of all, the Mu‘tazilite school, which favored extensive use of reason in the interpretation of religious matters, a position to which certain strict literalist interpreters of the Quran and Sunnah, such as the Hanbalis, were opposed. In fact, the Hanbalis have remained opposed to all forms of kalam until today, as has their Wahhabi offshoot.

To this day the teaching of any form of kalam is forbidden in religious universities in Saudi Arabia.

In the tenth century a new school of kalam called the Ash‘arite arose in Baghdad with the aim of creating a middle ground on many questions, such as the use of reason in religious matters. Ash‘arism, which many orientalists have identified with Islamic theological orthodoxy as such, spread quickly among the Shafi‘is and reached its peak in many ways with al-Ghazzali, who did, however, hold some non-Ash‘arite views, and with Fakhr al-Din al-Razi, in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. Gradually Ash‘arism spread among the Hanafis and Malikis as well and became the most widely held school of kalam in the Sunni world until the contemporary period. But there were also other Sunni schools of kalam that held sway in certain localities, such as Maturidism in Khurasan and Central Asia and T. ahawism in Egypt. Since the late nineteenth century, certain Muslim “reformers” such as Muh.ammad ‘Abduh of Egypt have sought to revive Mu‘tazilism, because it

made greater use of reason rather than relying predominately on the tenets of the revelation.

In Shi‘ism also, kalam has had a long history. Isma‘ili kalam, which began to be developed from the eighth century onward, was closely allied to Isma‘ili philosophy and took greater interest in what in the West would be called mystical theology than Sunni schools of kalam. As for Twelve-Imam Shi‘ite kalam, it developed along more intellectual lines than Ash‘arite kalam and received its systematic formulation in the thirteenth century in the hands of Nas.ir al-Din T. usi, who was also one of the greatest philosophers, mathematicians, and astronomers of Islam. The Zaydis adopted more or less Mu‘tazilite kalam, which therefore survived in the Yemen long after it had become eclipsed by Ash‘arism after the eleventh century in the intellectual centers of the heartland of the Islamic world in the Arab East and Persia.

Islamic philosophy was developed by Islamic thinkers rooted in the Quranic revelation and meditating upon translations of Greek and Syriac texts into Arabic. The result was the integration of ideas drawn mostly from Pythagoreanism, Platonism, Aristotelianism, Neoplatonism, Hermeticism, and to some extent Stoicism into the Quranic worldview and the creation of new philosophical perspectives.

Various schools were developed, starting with the Peripatetic (mashsha’i) and Isma‘ili from the ninth century onward. This early period produced such famous philosophers as al-Kindi, al-Farabi, Ibn Sina(Avicenna) , and Ibn Rushd(Averroës) , whose influence on the medieval West was immense. One cannot conceive of either the Christian philosophy of the Middle Ages and such figures as Albert the Great, St. Thomas, and Duns Scotus or medieval Jewish philosophy as represented by such masters as Ibn Gabirol and Maimonides (who wrote his most famous work, The Guide of the Perplexed, first in Arabic), without consideration of the influence of early Islamic philosophy and to some extent kalam upon them.

Although the influence of Islamic philosophy upon the West came more or less to an end in the thirteenth century with the translation of Averroës and earlier Islamic philosophers into Latin, Islamic philosophy itself not only did not come to an end, but was revived in the eastern lands of Islam and especially Persia. In the twelfth century Suhrawardi founded a new school of philosophy called the School of Illumination(ishraq) and in the seventeenth century S. adr al-Din Shirazi created a major synthesis of philosophy, doctrinal Sufism or gnosis in the sense of illuminative and unitive knowledge (‘irfan), and theology in a new school he called “the transcendent theosophy” (al-h. ikmat al-muta‘aliyah). Both of these schools are still very much alive and have played a major role in the intellectual life of Persia, India, and as far as the school of ishraq is concerned, to some extent, Ottoman Turkey.

Another major school that developed in the later history of Islam is doctrinal Sufism, or gnosis, associated with, more than anyone else, the name of the thirteenth-century Andalusian Sufi Muh. yi al-Din ibn ‘Arabi, the most influential intellectual figure in Islam during the past seven centuries.

His teachings spread from Sumatra and China to Mali and Mauritania, and his school produced numerous major thinkers and poets in nearly every Islamic land.

All of these schools of kalam, philosophy, and gnosis along with the philosophy of law, methods of Quranic commentary, and the study of other transmitted sciences with which we cannot deal here, as well as various schools of the sciences from medicine to astronomy, all of which are so important for both Islam and the development of science in the West, had both their adherents and opponents, and all of them must be seen as so many strands in the total tapestry of the Islamic intellectual tradition. Although they were all concerned with either the intellectual aspects of the religion, the cosmos in light of the truths of revelation, or purely theoretical knowledge, they often also exercised either direct or indirect influence on the popular level. In any case, their diversity must be considered when studying the spectrum of Islam in its totality. Their very existence also demonstrates the remarkably open universe of intellectual discourse within the framework of the Islamic tradition, an openness that marked many periods of Islamic history yet did not lead to rebellion against the sacred framework established by Islam, as was to happen in Christianity in the West after the Middle Ages.

THE QUESTION OF ORhTHODOXY AND HETERODOXY

The question of orthodoxy in any religion is of the utmost importance, for the very word means “correctness of belief or doctrine.” If there is truth, there is also error, and if nothing is false, then there is no truth. As the Quran says, “The truth has come and falsehood has perished” (17:81).

Orthodoxy means possession of religious truth, and orthopraxy, the correct manner of practicing and reaching the truth. In the context of the totality of the Islamic tradition and in light of what has been said of the spectrum of Islam, orthodoxy and orthopraxy can be understood as the state of being on the “straight path” (al-s.irat. al-mustaqim); Islam itself is sometimes called the “religion of the straight path.”

There is no magisterium in Islam, as there is in Catholicism, to determine the correctness of doctrine, and on the level of belief and doctrine Islam has been less stringent than Catholicism in determining what is orthodox. Usually acceptance of the testifications of faith, that is, “There is no god but God” and “Muh.ammad is His Messenger,” has sufficed, even if opposition has been made to other beliefs and interpretations of a particular person or group. Like Judaism, Islam has insisted more on the importance of orthopraxy than orthodoxy. Although it has been lenient on the level of orthodoxy as long as the principle of tawhid and the messengership of the Prophet have been accepted, it has been more stringent on the level of practice of the daily prayers, fasting, pilgrimage, and so forth; in observing dietary laws such as abstention from pork and alcoholic drinks; and in following moral laws dealing with sexual relations, theft, murder, and so on.

As to what plays the role of the magisterium in Islam, the best response is the ummah, or the Islamic community itself, and for Shi‘ism the guidance of the Imam. Throughout Islamic history, the consensus of the community has decided in the long run what new interpretations of the Quran andSunnah on the level of both thought and action are permissible and what is to be rejected. But this action by the community must always remain subservient to the teachings of God’s Word and those of His Prophet. At that level any innovation (bid‘ah) has always been seen as a major sin and deviation from the “straight path,” but the strong rejection of bid‘ah in its technical religious sense has never meant opposition to adaptation and application of the immutable principles of Islam to new conditions and situations, as has happened often throughout Islamic history.

With these definitions in mind, we can now turn to the spectrum of Islam and pose the question “What constitutes orthodox Islam?” In most Western studies, orthodoxy is limited to its exoteric aspect, and when Islam is considered, the four Sunni schools of Law alone are considered orthodox.

But this appraisal is totally inadequate. There is an exoteric orthodoxy and orthopraxy and there is an esoteric orthodoxy and orthopraxy. Traditional and orthodox Sufism is not only part of Islamic orthodoxy, but is its heart and must not be seen as analogous to various mystical and occult manifestations in postmedieval Christianity that are called heterodox. Sufism is as much a part of Islamic orthodoxy as Franciscan or Dominican spirituality was part of Catholic orthodoxy in the Middle Ages.

To understand the position of Shi‘ism within the Islamic tradition, one must compare it not to Protestantism, which arose many centuries after the foundation of Christianity as a protest against Catholicism, but to Eastern Orthodoxy, which has been there from the beginning. Although Catholicism and Orthodoxy have been at odds with each other for nearly one thousand years, both belong to the totality of Christian orthodoxy. The same holds true for Sunnism and mainstream Shi‘ism of the Twelve-Imam School. One might say that in the middle of the spectrum of Islam as far as orthodoxy and heterodoxy are concerned stand Sunnism and Twelve-Imam Shi‘ism. On the side of Sunnism leaning in the direction of extremism stand the Khawarij and similar groups, and on the side of Shi‘ism after the Zaydis and moderate Isma‘ilis stand those called Shi‘ite extremists(ghulat) , including eclectic forms of Isma‘ilism and the various sects described above. Certainly on the formal and exoteric level all the four schools of Sunni Law, Twelve-Imam Shi‘ism, Zaydiism, as well as those at the two sides of the central bands of the spectrum, whether they be Isma‘ilis or ‘Ibadis, as long as they practice theShari‘ah , belong to the category of Islamic orthodoxy, as does of course all normative Sufism that bases itself on the practice of Shari‘ite injunctions. In fact, because of the centrality of orthopraxy one could say that Muslims who practice theShari‘ah belong also to Islamic orthodoxy as long as they do not flout the major doctrines of the faith such as the Prophet being the seal of prophecy, as do the Ah. madiyyah.

The use of such terms as “heterodox” and “sect” must be weighed closely in light of the nature and structure of the Islamic tradition. One should never refer to Shi‘ism as a whole as a sect, any more than one would call the Greek Orthodox Church a sect. Nor should one call Sufism heterodox, unless one is pointing to a particular figure or group which has adopted either beliefs or practices that are indeed heterodox as judged by the consensus, or ijma‘, of the mainstream community on the basis of the Quran and the Sunnah, but such a phenomenon pales into insignificance when compared with the vast reality of Sufism.

Authentic esoterism, far from being heterodox, lies at the heart of orthodoxy and orthopraxy in their most universal sense.

CULTURAL ZONES IN ISLAMIC CIVILIZATION

People often speak of Arabic, Persian, or Turkish Islam as if they were three Islams. In reality there is only one Islam, but with local coloring related to the ethnic, linguistic, and cultural traits of the different peoples who became part of the Islamic community. Wherever Islam went, it did not seek to level the existing cultural structures to the ground, but to preserve and transform them as long as they did not oppose the spirit and form of the Islamic revelation. The result was the creation of a single Islamic identity. The vast area of the “Abode of Islam” (dar al-islam ) therefore came to display remarkable diversity on the human plane while reflecting everywhere the one message of the Quran revealed through the Prophet. This cultural and ethnic diversification must therefore be added to all of the factors already mentioned to make clearer the patterns that, superimposed upon each other, have created the great diversity in unity found in Islam.

The first cultural zone in the Islamic world is the Arabic zone, which stretches from Iraq and the Persian Gulf to Mauritania and before 1492 into the southern part of the Iberian Peninsula. Needless to say, in contrast to what many in the West think, the Arab world is not by any means synonymous with the Islamic world. In fact, Arab Muslims constitute less than a fifth of all Muslims, being around 220 million in number, but since the Quran was revealed to the Arab Prophet of Islam and the first Islamic society was established in Arabia, the Arabic zone of the “Abode of Islam” is the oldest part of the Islamic community and remains central to it. One of the great mysteries of early Islamic history is that as the Arab armies came out of Arabia, the lands that they conquered to the north and the west became both Islamicized and Arabized. The word “Arab” is a linguistic and not an ethnic term when used in a phrase like “the Arab world.” There was also much Arab migration into this world, but what made it decisively Arab was the adoption of the Arabic language from Morocco to Iraq. Even a country with such an unparalleled ancient past as Egypt became Arab and in fact remains to this day the center of Arabic culture. In contrast, the people of the Persian Empire under the Sassanids, who were conquered by the Arabs in the seventh century, became Muslim, but they did not adopt the Arabic language. Rather, they developed Persian on the basis of earlier Iranian languages and retained a distinct cultural zone of their own. Iraq was the only exception. Although the seat of the Sassanid capital, it became Arab and in fact the center of the ‘Abbasid caliphate, but it always retained strong Persian elements.

It is interesting to compare this development with the spread of Christianity into Europe. Through becoming Christian, Europe also became to some extent a part of the Abrahamic world, but remained less Semiticized than the non-Arab Muslims who embraced Islam, because through St. Paul Christianity itself had already become less “Semitic” before spreading into Europe. That is why the Christianization of Europe was not accompanied by the spread of Aramaic or some other Semitic language in the same way that Arabic spread in the Near East and Africa and also among Persians and Indians, who belonged to the same linguistic and racial stock as the Europeans.

Not only were the Gospels written in Greek and not Aramaic, which Christ spoke, but also the Bible itself was translated early into Latin as the Vulgate and became linguistically severed from its origin. Latin became the closest in its role as the language of religion and learning in the West to what Arabic was in the Islamic world, with the major difference that Arabic is the sacred language of Islam as Hebrew is that of Judaism, whereas Latin is a liturgical language of Christianity along with several other liturgical languages such as Greek and Slavonic. The Arabization of what is now the Arab world and the significance of Arabic among non-Arab Muslims cannot therefore be equated with the Christianization of Europe and the role of Latin in the medieval West, although there are some interesting parallels to be drawn between the two worlds.

The Arabic zone, characterized by the use of Arabic as not only the language of religion, which is common to all Muslims, but also as the language of daily life, is further divided into an eastern and a western part, with the line of demarcation being in the middle of Libya. The western lands, called in classical Arabic al-Maghrib, that is, “the West,” are further divided into the “near West,” including western Libya, Tunisia, and most of Algeria, and “the far West,” including western Algeria, Morocco, Mauritania, and in earlier periods of Islamic history al-Andalus, or Muslim Iberia. Also within the western zone are important non-Arab groups, the most important being the Berber, who inhabit mostly the Atlas Mountains and who have their own distinct language.

The second zone of Islamic culture, whose people were the second ethnic group to embrace Islam and to participate with the Arabs in building classical Islamic civilization, is the Persian zone, consisting of present-day Iran, Afghanistan, and Tajikistan (with certain cities in Uzbekistan).

The dominant language of the people of all these countries is Persian, known locally by three different names, Farsi, Dari, and Tajik, all of which are the same language; the differences between them are no greater than differences between the English of Australia, England, and Texas. This zone also included southern Caucasia, the old Khorasan, Transoxiana, and parts of what is today Pakistan before the migration south of Turkic people from the tenth and eleventh centuries and subsequent ethnic and geopolitical changes. The people of this zone are predominantly of the Iranian race, which is a branch of the Aryan or Indo-Iranian-European peoples, and Persian is related to the Indo-European languages as are other Iranian languages spoken in this zone, such as Kurdish, Baluchi, and Pashtu.

This zone has a population of some 100 million people, but its influence is felt strongly beyond its borders in other zones of Islamic culture in Asia from the Turkic and the Indian to the Chinese.

The first Persian to embrace Islam was Salman-i Farsi, a slave whom the Prophet caused to become free, making him a member of his “Household.” From the beginning the Persians were deeply respectful of the “Family of the Prophet” and many of the descendants of the Prophet, including the eighth Imam, ‘Ali al-Rid.a, are buried in Persia.

But it would be false to think that the Persians were always Shi‘ites and the Arabs Sunnis. Shi‘ism began among Arabs and in the tenth century

much of the Arab east was Shi‘ite, while Khorasan, a major Persian province, was the seat of Sunni thought. It is only after the establishment of the Safavids that Persia became predominantly Shi‘ite and this majority increased when Afghanistan, a part of Baluchistan, and much of Central Asia, which were predominantly Sunni, were separated from Persia, and Iran in its present form was created. As far as Afghanistan is concerned, during the Safavid period until the eighteenth century it was part of Persia. Then the leader of the Afghan tribes defeated the Safavids and killed the last Safavid king.

Shortly thereafter Nadir Shah, the last oriental conqueror, recaptured lands all the way to Delhi, including what is today Afghanistan. After his death, however, eastern Afghanistan became independent, and in the nineteenth century finally, under British pressure, Persia relinquished its claim on Herat and western Afghanistan, and thereafter Afghanistan as we now know it came into being.

The third zone of Islamic culture is that of Black Africa.

Among the entourage of the Prophet, in addition to Salman, there was another famous companion who was not Arab. He was Bilal ibn Rabah al-Habashi, the muezzin or caller to prayer of the Prophet, who was a Black African.

His presence symbolized the rapid spread of Islam among the Blacks and the creation of the Black African zone of Islamic culture, encompassing a vast area from the highlands of Ethiopia, where Islam spread already in the seventh century, to Mali and Senegal. The descendants of Bilal are said to have migrated to Mali, forming the Mandinka clan Keita, which helped create the Mali Empire. Some of the companions of the Prophet also migrated to Chad and established Islam there a generation after the Prophet.

Altogether Islam spread in Black Africa mostly through trade, and such tribes as the Sanhaja, who themselves embraced Islam early, became intermediaries between Arab Muslims to the north and Black Africans. By the eleventh century a powerful Islamic kingdom was established in Ghana, and by the fourteenth century the Mali Empire, which was Muslim, was one of the richest in the world; its most famous ruler, Mansa Musa, one of the most notable rulers in the whole of the Islamic world.

In East Africa, which received Islam earlier than West Africa, the process of Islamization took a different path and was influenced greatly by the migration of both Arabs and Persians into the coastal areas of West Africa. By the twelfth century a Swahili kingdom was established with its capital in Kilwa, and from the mixture of Arabic, Persian, and Bantu the new Swahili language, perhaps the most important Islamic language of Muslim Black Africa, was born.

But in contrast to the Arab and Persian worlds, where one language dominates, the Black African zone of Islamic culture consists of many subzones with very distinct languages ranging from Hausa and Fulani to Somali. Some of these languages are also spoken by Christians and are culturally signficant for African Christianity.

Although the north of the African continent was already Arab a century after the rise of Islam, the area called classically the Sudan, which included

the steppes and the grasslands from present-day Sudan to Senegal, also became to a large extent Muslim over a millennium ago. It is, however, only since the nineteenth century that Islam has begun to penetrate inland into the forest regions south of the classical Sudan. There are of course also intermediate regions between the Arabic north and Black Africa where the two zones become intermingled, such as present-day Sudan, Eritrea, and Somalia. The zone of Black African Islamic culture with a population of well over 150 million people is bewilderingly diverse and presents a remarkable panorama of ethnic and cultural diversity within the local unity of Black African culture and the universal unity of Islam itself.

The fourth zone of Islamic culture is the Turkic zone, embracing all the people who speak one of the Altaic languages, of which the most important is Turkish, but which also include Adhari(Azeri) , Chechen, Uighur, Uzbek, Kirghiz, and Turkeman. The Turkic people, who were originally nomadic, migrated south from the Altai Mountains to conquer Central Asia from the Persians, changing its ethnic nature but remaining culturally very close to the Persian world. By the time they had entered the Persia of that historical period, they had already embraced Islam and in fact became its great champions. Not only did they defeat local Persian rulers such as the Samanids, but they soon pushed westward toward Anatolia, defeating the Byzantine army at the Battle of Manzikert (Malazgirt in Turkish) in 1071. This was one of the pivotal battles of Islamic history. It opened the Anatolian pasturelands to the Turkic nomads and led to the Turkification of Anatolia, the establishment of the Ottoman Empire, and finally to the conquest of Constantinople in 1453. The Turks were powerful militarily and ruled over many Muslim lands, including Persia and Egypt, and their role in later Islamic history can hardly be exaggerated. Today the Turkic peoples, composed of more than 150 million people, are spread from Macedonia to Siberia and all the way to Vladivostok and are geographically the most widespread ethnic and cultural group within the Islamic world. There are notable Turkic groups also within other areas that are not majority Turkic, including Persia, Afghanistan, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Russia, which has important Turkic minorities who are remnants of people conquered during the expansion of the Russian Empire under the czars.

The fifth major zone of Islamic culture is that of the Indian subcontinent. Already in the first decade of the eighth century, the army of Muh.ammad ibn Qasim had conquered Sindh, and thus began the penetration of Islam into the subcontinent during the next few centuries, but Islam spread throughout India mostly through Sufi orders.

There were also invasions by various Turkic rulers into India, and from the eleventh century onward and until the British colonization of India Muslim rulers dominated over much of India, especially the north, where the Moghuls established a major empire in the sixteenth century. Indian Islam is ethnically mostly homogeneous, with some Persian and Turkic elements added to the local Indian population, but it is culturally and linguistically very diverse. For nearly a thousand years the intellectual and literary language of Indian Muslims was Persian, but several local languages, such as Sindhi, Gujrati, Punjabi, and Bengali, also gained some

prominence as Islamic languages. Gradually, from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, a new language was born of the wedding of the Indian languages and Persian with Turkic elements added and became known as Urdu.

Written in the Arabic-Persian script, Urdu became, like Swahili, Ottoman Turkish, and several other Islamic languages, a major language of Islamic discourse and was later adopted as the official language of Pakistan. The Indian zone of Islamic culture includes Pakistan, Bangladesh, Muslims of India and Nepal, and the deeply rooted Islamic community of Sri Lanka. There are some 400 million Muslims in this region, more than in any other. The reason for this vast population is the rapid rise of the general population in all of India since the nineteenth century, including both Hindus and Muslims, and the fact that more than one-fourth of Indians had embraced Islam, which was able to provide providentially a path of salvation for those who could no longer function within the world of traditional Hinduism. They have created some of the greatest works of Islamic art and culture, and although ruled often by Turkic dynasties, they have been very close in cultural matters to the Persian world until modern times.

The sixth zone of Islamic culture embraces the Malay world in Southeast Asia. Islamicized by Arab traders from the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea and also by merchants and Sufis from India from the thirteenth century onward, Malay Islam displays again much ethnic homogeneity and possesses local traits all its own. Influenced deeply from the beginning by Sufism, which played a major role in the spread of Islam into that world, Malay Islam has usually reflected a mild and gentle aspect also in conformity with the predominant ethnic characteristics of the people. Dominated by Malay and Javanese languages, Malay Islam embraces Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei, and sizable minorities in Thailand as well as the Philippines and smaller minorities in Cambodia and Vietnam. Altogether there are over 220 million Muslims in this zone, and although this part of the Islamic world is a relative newcomer to the “Abode of Islam,” its adherents are known for their close attachment to Mecca and Medina and love for the Prophetic traditions.

As is the case with Africa and India, Malay Islam is highly influenced and colored operatively and intellectually by Sufism.

Besides these six major zones of Islamic culture, a few smaller ones must also be mentioned. One is Chinese Islam, whose origin goes back to the seventh century, when soon after the advent of Islam Muslim merchants settled in Chinese ports such as Canton. There has been a continuous presence of Islam in China since that time, but mostly in Sinkiang, which Muslim geographers call Eastern Turkistan.

The Islamic population of China includes both people of Turkic origin, such as the Uigurs, and native Chinese called Hui. Even among the Hans there are some Muslims. The number of Muslims in China remains a great mystery and figures from 25 to 100 million have been mentioned. There is a distinct Chinese Islamic architecture and calligraphy as well as a whole intellectual tradition closely allied to Persian Sufism. The Islamic

intellectual tradition in China began to express itself in classical Chinese rather than Persian and Arabic only from the seventeenth century onward.

Then there are the European Muslims-not Turkish enclaves found in Bulgaria, Greece, and Macedonia, but European ethnic groups-that have been Muslims for half a millennium. The most important among these groups are the Albanians, found throughout Albania, Kosovo, and Macedonia, and Bosnians, found mostly in Bosnia but to some extent also in Croatia and Serbia. These groups are ethnically of European stock, and the understanding of their culture is important for a better comprehension of both the spectrum of Islam in its totality and the rapport between Islam and the West in today’s Europe.

Finally, there are the new Islamic communities in Europe and America, including both immigrants and converts (or what many Muslims prefer to call reverts, that is, those who have gone back or reverted to the primordial religion, which is identified here with Islam). These include several million North Africans in France, some 3 million Turks and a sizable number of Kurds in Germany, some 2 million mostly from the Indian subcontinent in Great Britain, and smaller but nevertheless sizable populations in other European countries. In America there are both immigrants, mostly from the Arab East, Iran, and the subcontinent, and converts, primarily among African Americans but also some among whites. The spread of Islam among African Americans began with Elijah Muhammad, who created the Nation of Islam, which espouses reverse racism against whites. This movement later split into two groups and most of its members, along with other African American Muslims, soon joined the mainstream of Islam.

In this process the role of El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz, better known as Malcolm X, was of particular significance. There are some 25 million Muslims in Europe, some 6 million (although some have claimed other figures ranging from 5 to 7 million) in America, half a million in Canada, and perhaps over 2 million in South America. To view the spectrum of Islam globally, it is necessary to consider also these Islamic communities in the West, especially since they play such an important role as a bridge between the “Abode of Islam” (dar al-islam ), from which they come, and the West, which is their home.

These zones of Islamic culture described briefly here display a bewildering array of ethnicities, languages, forms of

art and music, and differing habitats for human life. Islam is practiced from the jungles of Borneo to the Hindu Kush mountains to the deserts of Mauritania. It includes whites, blacks, yellow-skinned people, and practically every intermediary type. Its followers have black as well as blond hair, brown as well as blue eyes. But within this remarkable diversity there reigns the unity created by Islam, a unity that can be seen in the recitation of the Quran in Arabic from east to west, in the daily prayers in the direction of Mecca, in the emulation of the single model of the Prophet, in the following of theShari‘ah , in the spiritual perfume of the Sufi orders, in the universal patterns and rhythms of Islamic art, and in many other factors. Unity in Islam has never meant uniformity and has always embraced diversity. To understand both this unity and this diversity within unity is to grasp the way in which Islam has been able to encompass so many human collectivities, to respect God-given differences and yet create a vast civilization unified and dominated by the principle of tawhid, or unity.