Alhassanain(p) Network for Heritage and Islamic Thought

The ConceptOf Martyrdom In Islam

A. Ezzati, Tehran University, Al-Serat, Vol XII (1986)

ISLAM as an all inclusive systematic religion is an interrelated set of ideals and realities covering the entire area of human notion and action, beliefs and practices, thought, word, and deed. Islamic principles and concepts cannot be fully and properly appreciated unless they are analysed and realized within the framework of Islam as a whole.[1]

The concept of martyrdom (shahada) in Islam can only be understood in the light of the Islamic concept of Holy Struggle (jihad) and the concept of jihad may only be appreciated if the concept of the doctrine of enjoining right and discovering wrong (al-amr bi'l-maruf) is properly appreciated, and good and bad,[2] right and wrong, can only be understood if the independent divine source of righteousness, truth, and goodness (tawhid), and how the Message of the divine source of righteousness and truth has been honestly and properly conveyed to humanity through prophethood, are understood. Finally the divine message may not be fully appreciated unless the embodiment of this divine message, or the Model of Guidance, and the Supreme Paradigm (imama or uswa) is properly recognized.

We can thus see how the concept of martyrdom in Islam is linked with the entire religion of Islam. This whole process can be somehow understood if the term 'Islam' is appreciated. This is because being a derivate of the Arabic root salama, which means 'surrender' and 'peace', Islam is a wholesome and peaceful submission to the will of Allah.[3] This means being prepared to die (martyrdom) in the course of this submission. Thus the concept of martyrdom, like all other Islamic concepts, can be fully and wholly appreciated only in the light of the Islamic doctrine of tawhid, or the absolute unity of Allah and full submission to His will and command. It cannot be fully appreciated in isolation.

In this sense, the concept of shahada is no exception. All Islamic concepts are interrelated, and should be appreciated within the framework of the doctrine of tawhid.[ 4]

The concept of shahada in Islam has been misunderstood by both Muslims and non-Muslims. As stated above, shahada is closely associated with the concept of jihad. Most non-Muslim scholars, intentionally or unintentionally, have defined jihad as only the Holy War, and thus have understood neither jihad nor shahada.[ 5] The Muslims, mostly taking into consideration the martyrs of the early days of Islamic history, define martyrdom in terms of the fatalistic death of those dear to Allah, and do not see the close link between continuous struggle in the cause of Allah ( jihad) and martyrdom.[6]

Martyrdom is not the monopoly of Islam (though it is the monopoly of spiritual, religious, and divine systems, and cannot be claimed by followers of materialistic schools). Islam introduces its own concept of martyrdom. An Islamic concept should be explained within the framework of Islam, and not, by Muslims or by non-Muslims, in the light of non-Islamic concepts such as guilt and suffering.

Muslims are not allowed to explain Islamic principles without taking due consideration of the entire conceptual system of Islam. Shahada thus cannot be explained purely in terms of intercession and mediation. That is to say, those early martyrs of Islam volunteered for death to be able to intercede and mediate for sinners on the Day of Judgement.

The Islamic concept of intercession and mediation (shafa'a) should be appreciated within the framework of the principle of causality, and not solely as spiritual mediation.[ 7] Islam rejects the Christian concept of mediation without the personal responsibility for the salvation of oneself.

The concepts of martyrdom and Holy Struggle in the cause of Allah are interrelated. Both words have been frequently used in the Holy Qur'an.[ 8] In fact, there is no martyrdom without struggle in the cause of Allah and for the cause of the truth. Both words have literal meanings different from their terminological meanings, although these terminological meanings were originally based on the literal meanings.[ 9] They developed their terminological meanings later on, though the term shahada was used in the Qur'an for those who were martyred too.[10] The Islamic concepts of both shahada and jihad have been misunderstood, particularly by non-Muslims, mainly by Orientalists.

The word shahada is derived from the Arabic verbal root shahada, which means to 'see', to 'witness', to 'testify', to 'become a model and paradigm'. Shahada therefore literally means to 'see', to 'witness', and to 'become a model'. A shahid is the person who sees and witnesses,[ 11] and he is therefore the witness, as if the martyr witnesses and sees the truth physically and thus stands by it firmly, so much so that not only does he testify it verbally, but he is prepared to struggle and fight and give up his life for the truth, and thus to become a martyr. In this way, and by his struggle and sacrifice for the sake of the truth, he become a model, a paradigm, and an example for others, worthy of being copied, and worthy of being followed.[ 12]

In this process, the keyword is 'truth' (haqq), its recognition and declaration, the struggle and fight for it, and the preparedness to die for its sake and thus set the model for the seekers of truth. The goal, motive, and the whole aimis the establishment of the truth. Jihad is the means for establishing the truth, and may lead to martyrdom, but does not necessarily lead to being killed for it in the battlefield, although it necessarily involves the continuous Holy Struggle, and death in the cause of the struggle.

We may therefore conclude that there is neither jihad nor martyrdom outside the realm of truth, that martyrdom applies only when it is preceded by jihad, that jihad is an inclusive struggle for the cause of thetruth, that a mujahid dies the death of a martyr even though he does not fall on the battlefield. He dies as a martyr even though he is not killed, on the condition that he stays loyal to the divine truth and stands ready to fight for the truth and to defend it at all costs, even at the cost of his own life. He is a mujahid while helives, and a martyr if he dies or is killed for it.

We have explained that a martyr establishes himself as a paradigm and a model. Both shahid (martyr) and shahid (model) are derived from the same Arabic root. In this sense, the concept of shahada is closely related to the concept of prophethood in Islam. Both the martyrs and the prophets are regarded as paradigms (2:143).

In Islam man needs guidance to the truth. The true guidance is from the whole truth, God, the Source of Truth and Guidance (50:6, 71, 88, 92:12). But since it is man who is to be guided, the guide should naturally be a man. Islam is the message from the source of truth, given to the Messenger as the guideline for leading mankind to the truth. Guiding humanity requires leading humanity.

The true faith is united with righteous living in Islam, and there is unity of belief and practice in Islam. A comprehensive guidance therefore involves leading in thought, words, and behaviour. The guide should therefore practise what he preaches,[ 13] and should himself be the supreme incarnation and the perfect embodiment of the message he spreads. He should be a paradigm, a model, and a model-maker.'[14] Muhammad was thus the Messenger who brought the comprehensive universal Message of Allah, and he was the incarnation of the divine message,[ 15] and the living example of his mission, the model (shahid), the paradigm (uswa). The key word in the concept of prophethood in Islam is thus human guidance.

This involves the recognition of what humanity should be guided to, what guidance is, how it should be done, and the realization of the guidance by being the true model of the actual guidance. This is why Muhammad was himself the first Muslim and the best model of Islam. And thus his practice is recognized as the guideline and standard pattern (sunna) for the Muslim community, the members of which are supposed to become models (shuhada) for the entire human community.[ 16] The prophets, including Muhammad, were thus models and model-makers, and their disciples and companions were models. Thus those who carry on the struggle in the cause of the truth are mujahids and shahids at the same time.

The position of the prophets as the paradigms and model-makers in Islam gives the Islamic concept of prophethood a unique characteristic. Their main responsibility is thus leading and guiding humanity to the truth by being the true incarnation of God.[ 17] They do not intercede and mediate between the source of the truth and humanity spiritually, in the sense that they come to be crucified to pay for the sins committed by humanity through Adam.

In Islam, everybody is responsible for his or her own actions.[ 18] Nothing and nobody can intercede between the sinner and God. The concept of intercession is Islam should be appreciated within the framework of the principle of causality. That is to say that the prophets, by guiding and leading the people to the truth, cause their salvation (sa'ada).

Salvation must be earned and deserved, and the prophets and the Messengers of Allah provide us with the opportunity to earn and deserve salvation,[ 19] that is to say, it is not the crucifixion and the cross that causes salvation, but it is the realization of the truth that causes it. Man is thus, originally sinless, good, and peaceful, and the role of the prophets is a positive one that of guidance and of being a paradigm, and not a negative one. Martyrs are the super-models of the divine message, too, and in this way they share a special responsibility and honour with the prophets.

Because the responsibility of the prophets is partly to provide the living example of the divine message, their message should be practical so that the rest of humanity, like them, is able to copy and follow them and practise the Message too. What Jesus did, according to Christian doctrine, was a unique action by a unique being (the crucifixion of the Son of God), not possible and necessary for humanity to copy. But what Muhammad did was to convey the practical guidelines of righteousness, and he himself lived within those guidelines to prove their practicability for the rest of humanity. This is why the prophets are called shahids (paradigms and witnesses) in the Qur'an,[ 20] a term used for martyrs later on in the early days of Islamic history.

[21] Muhammad, therefore, like other Messengers, is the incarnation of Islam, full surrender to God, the universal religion of all of creation, including man.[ 22] He was the model of what he taught, and a paradigm for humanity. A model attracts and leads people to the truth. He does not force them. This is in full harmony with the concept of man in Islam. Islam rejects the incarnation in man of the essence of the actual divinity, but fully encourages the incarnation of God's guidance, will, and command, to become the living example of God's full code of thought and life (din, religion) for man. The prophets are the living examples of the divinemessage, and by being so make others the examples. Martyrs are also full examples of the divine message, and thus the embodiment of the divine will. There are a few Islamic traditions which introduce the blood of the martyrs as the blood of God (thar Allah).

Shi'ism being one of the fundamental and original sects of Islam, and staying loyal to all authentic Islamic doctrines, lays great emphasis on the doctrine of the leadership (Imamate) of the Muslim leadership. I believe it is not inappropriate to suggest that all of Shi'ism revolves around one major principle, that of the leadership of the Islamic community (umma).

The keyword in Shi'ism is thus Imamate, which means leading and guiding those in need of guidance. If the community is to be led and guided, the leaders themselves should be the leading examples of the faith in what they try to lead the community to believe in, and models of the code of thought and practice they try to lead others to practice. The concept of leadership involves three elements: (i) those who lead (imam), (ii) those who are to be led (shia , mamum), and (iii) the actual leadership, guidance, and code of leadership. The community cannot be lead unless those who lead believe in what they practice and in what they preach others to practice. In short, imams should themselves be the living examples and models for those they try to lead.

If prophethood and messengership involve two major responsibilities, namely, introducing and spreading the divine message, and setting the model and being the living example of the divine message, the Imamate involves only the latter responsibility. This is why every Messenger is also an Imam, but an Imam is not necessarily a Messenger. In fact, the office of the Imamate is the responsibility for providing the model for the office of messengership, and this is how he leads.

We can therefore understand that Shi'ism (following the leader) based on the doctrine of the Imamate (leadership) is more directly involved with the idea of setting the model, providing the example, and producing the paradigm. The entire history of Shi'ism, and the lives of the Shi'i Imams should be appreciated in this context and within the concept of the Imamate, which is the leading of humanity to salvation by guiding them to the full implementation of Allah's code for the salvation of humanity, by being the supreme example in word and deed of that divine code. That is to say that they live a life of continuous struggle in the cause of Allah and of truth, and that is why they are all regarded as martyrs, whether they die on the battlefield or in bed.

The event of Karbala', the martyrdom of the Imam Husayn on 'Ashura', and the whole struggle he undertook, plays a very crucial role in the history of Shi'ism. Yet this unique historical event is seen by the Shi'a as a model event to inspire the Muslims. This is explained in the well known narration frequently quoted 'Every day is 'Ashura', and every place is Karbala'. This is partly why it has kept its dynamic, resilient, and revolutionary spirit, and features throughout history, and this is how Shi'ism truly reflects this spirit.

Notes

[1] A. Ezzati,The Spread of Islam, (1976), p. 55

[2] Ibid., Introduction

[3] Ibid., pp. 39-42

[4] Morrish, BIC p. 191

[5] For this see N. Salihi, Shahid-i-Javid

[6] Tabatabai, Al-Mizan

[7] 2:218, 8:76, 9:115, 143, 13:43

[8] 29:52

[9] 4:72

[10] Farhang Jami'i, Mufradat Raghib. See 2:105, 143, 185, 282, 5:106

[11] 2:142

[12] 2:185

[13] 2:142

[14] 2:285

[15] 6:48, 14:10-12, 16:43-3

[16] 6:48, 14:10-12, 16:43-3

[17] 6:164

[18] Tabatabai, Al-Mizan

[19] 2:142

[20] 2:143

[21] 4:69

[22] al-Kulayni, Usul al-Kafi

Religious Education of the Younger Generation

Zakir Vol IV No. 1, 1398

At present the problem of imparting religious education to our children is exercising the minds of many parents and guardians. Those who are con- concerned about the weal, welfare and spiritual well-being of our budding youths feel concerned that, in the absence of proper understanding of the fundamental beliefs and cardinal principles of religion, our children may become preys to the scepticism and disbelief which is destroying the moral fabric of our society—society which is euphemistically called "permissive society".

This concern is felt in all parts of the world where people hold fast to their religious beliefs and cherish them as the storehouse of best moral values. In particular, in countries of the West, where our people are settled with their families, this concern is more vocally, and at times vociferously, expressed; and rightly so, because our children are amenable to extraneous influences which keep on assailing and undermining their religious beliefs, dogmas and susceptibilities.

Whilst I fully endorse the proposition that there is a crying need for impart- ing knowledge of the fundamentals of our religion and its cardinal principles to the new generation, I join issue with the proponents of these ideas on the methods to be adopted for achieving this end. My purpose in writing this article is to sound a note of warning that religious education of the conven- tional type which makes children of 6 to 10 memorise the "Usool-e-Deen" and "Furoo-e-Deen" with the dogmatic comments on them handed down to us from generation to generation, will not in the least serve the purpose we have in view, namely, to prepare our future generations for the onslaught from various quarters on their religious beliefs and practices.

When I say this, I am speaking from personal knowledge having attended such a "Maktab" (school) in my childhood where venerable preachers religiously repeated and reiterated all that they were expected to impart to their young pupils and, in fulfilment of what they thought to be part of their duty, made the pupils memorise them, and even chant them with all the zeal and fervour the young souls were capable of.

It is said that: "Truth is bitter but its fruit is sweet". I know that what I am trying to expound may be unpalatable or may seem to be gall and wormwood to the taste of many who are steeped in orthodoxy; but in the larger interest of truth it must be said for whatever it isworth . Present day knowledge of chi Id psychology has led many advanced countries to modify and revise their con- cepts of children's education at the earliest stage.

It is now well-recognised that highly learned, capable and understanding teachers are required to handle children just when they embark on their studies because, during their formative years, they must be given every encouragement and opportunity to develop their enquiring minds. When we talk about the religious education of our children, do we have in mind selection and appointment of persons possessing aptitude and education of the highest standard both religious and secular, and capability to mould the character and develop the reasoning faculties of our children in the best of traditions?

Are we not thinking of taking unction to our souls by entrusting them to the care of half-baked teachers of theology who accept the appointments more for earning their livelihood than with the high motives of inculcating love of religion amongst the pupils by explaining and expounding the undercurrent of truth and love of God and His creatures which pervades His universe and which is the essence of our religion? When we ask the parents to send their children to religious schools, do we tell them to whose care they will be entrusted, or are we presuming that it does not matter a whit who is to be entrusted this sacred duty so long as he is having a smattering of the fundamental principles of our religion?I am sincerely of the view that imparting of religious knowledge in a perfunctory manner will not serve the purpose and those who receive it will remain as vulnerable as those who never attend such schools or classes. It would be like laying the foundation of a house on quicksand—building an edifice with a tottering base.

It may appear to quite a few that I am over-emphasising one particular aspect of the matter and magnifying it manifold, but I honestly believe that, so far, very little has been done to produce the right type of religious teachers who can handle the education of our younger generation and equip them with sound knowledge and beliefs that can withstand attacks of outsiders, and emerge successfully in later life with unflinching faith and unshakeable belief in the righteousness of our creed.

Some years back I got an English translation of "Bab-ul-Ahada Ashara" which is an exposition of the Eleventh Chapter of Allama Hilli's work on the fundamental principles of Shi'a beliefs by Miqdad-e-Fazil al-Hilli, one of the foremost disciples of Allama Hilli. According to the translator, this book is being taught in a large number of Shi'a religious schools because it explains and clarifies the fundamental principles of Islam as understood and applied by Shi'a theologians. The translator mentions that the Eleventh Chapter of the treatise of Allama Hilli is so difficult to understand that even scholars of religion cannot properly comprehend it and, for that reason, the com- mentator has expounded and elaborated the matters set out in it so as to make them easily understandable. With all due deference to the learned commentator, the book is full of puerile arguments developed in a laboured manner, reminiscent of the style of Greek logicians of yore.

These syllo gistic exercises appear to be far below the standard to be expected in a work associated with the name of one of the most respected and learned Shi'a divines, Allama Hilli. Only very recently the late Agha Mirza Mehdi Pooya published his "Fundamentals of Islam" in English for the younger generation to meet a long-felt want. In my view, every person who wants his children to understand the fundamental principles of Islam, as enunciated by the Shi'a School, must make this book available to them. I may hasten to add that the work is not meant for children of very tender age but for those who have reached sufficient maturity and are capable of discernment.

To me it seems that religious knowledge, in the right sense of the word, as distinct and distinguished from religious jingoism, can be imparted only to children who have reached such age. Agha Pooya's "Fundamentalsof Islam" may, perhaps serve a far better purpose than the classes conducted by religious teachers whose scholastic credentials are suspect and whose own knowledge is strictly limited, and who, more often than not, are so hide-bound in their approach that they generate more heat than light in the course of the discussions and discourses. Lest I am misunderstood, I may clarify that I am all for selection and appointment of really learned and competent teachers of religious principles and doctrinces, in the true sense of the term, who can inculcate and develop a taste and kindle a yearning for religion in their pupils and not merely teach as a fulfilment of their professional duty during the appointed hours; persons who can clear mental cobwebs and aberrations by encourag- ing questions and arguments and not stifle them by snubs and scorn, persons who, like Tennyson, feel:

There is more truth in honest doubts

Believe me, than in all your creeds.

My genuine apprehension is that such dedicated persons are so rare and difficult to find that, instead of searching for them far and wide, we may compromise by settling for and selecting persons who, to us, may seem to be second or third best but who, in reality, may be the very antithesis of what is needed by the yearning hearts and inquiring minds of our talented youths whose appetite for information and knowledge is whetted by the present day discoveries of science and progress in methods of education.

The topic of religious education cannot be discussed without mentioning the role of Majalis-e-Imam Husain whichhave acquired the status of a religious institution in our society. The platforms which they provide during the months of Muharram and Safar can be very effectively used for the purpose in view, but unfortunately it must be admitted in all honesty that they have not even touched the fringe of the problem. They have fallen far short of expectation, mainly due to the fact that many of the venerable gentlemen who adorn the pulpits and deliver lectures are so steeped in outworn con- cepts, wrongly called traditions, that, if I may be excused the use of the expression in connection with the performance of these august persons, they simply get "inebriated by the exuberance of their own verbosity".

More often than not, their sermons are "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing". Times out of number they put forward arguments which cannot bear scrutiny, knowing full well that what they say will go unchallenged because time-worn, unwritten rules of behaviour in such Majalis require the audience to mutely suffer such travesties of facts. They expound the view of some of the Ulema of bygone days who, with due deference to the very valuable work done by them and contributions made in the course of development of religious thoughts, have made many patent mistakes and errors of judgment. This is because they were of earth, earthly. This is because they were fallible human beings like us.

I am not saying these things to denigrate these learned masters of the past who have earned our respect and esteem by their voluminous positive contributions. The fault lies squarely with their successors who have not used their reasoning faculties, the most precious gift of God to mankind, and evading and avoiding all research, have adopted a subservient and even atavistic attitude in using the material handed down to them by the past generation of religious scholars.

If many of the learned Ulema of the past made mistakes, they can well be attributed to the circum- stances in which they were working, to the fact that they did not have at their disposal all the facilities for research that we have today. In those days, general knowledge in various fields was strictlylimited, means of communication were scant and meagre. If our present day religious scholars fail to do research in various aspects and facets of religion and take shelter behind the works of past scholars, placing them on pedestals which facts and circumstances do not warrant, who is to be blamed for it? It is such un- questioning attitude that is likely to alienate our younger generation from religion and all that it stands for.

We find that in sermons delivered from the pulpits often there are glaring contradictions which create not only credibility gaps but also lead to the impression, albeit wrong, that what are narrated as facts of history are fibs, mere myths and figments of imagination. If sweeping statements are made in the course of these sermons which, on the face of them, are patently illogical and untrue, and they go un- challenged, many of our intelligent and discerning youths may begin to doubt and question the veracity of other facts and principles which are placed in juxtaposition with them. Such sermons prove counter-productive.

It is true that to the vast majority of people who attend the Majalis-e-Aza whatever is preached from the pulpit is the essence of truth and they just keep on gaping with admiration, unmindful of the correctness or otherwise of the utterances in the tradition of the admiration of the young pupils of Goldsmith for their teacher about which he has said:

And still they gazed and still their wonder grewHow one small head could carry all he knew.

But it is not whatthese majority of simple souls think or believe that really matters. It is what the thinking, brooding, reflecting intelligentsia amongst our younger generation think and believe that counts. It is these intellectual elites who can really mould and influence the future generations of our people and so it is our religious duty to cater for their spiritual needs and to ensure that they get ample opportunity to challenge all assertions and aver- ments made in the course of the perorations.

This can be possible if we divide the time of our 1l/lajalis into two parts—one for delivery of the lectures as at present and the other, immediately following it, for discussions on various aspects of religion, including questioning of facts and principles enunciated during the harangue but not necessarily confined to it.

Such symposia can be held with two or three participants, including the speaker of that day, with some learned man presiding as compere to regulate the proceedings and ensure that the discussion is held at an intellectual level and there are no frivolities. Such programmes must, at the same time, provide utmost freedom to the participants to air their views without any recrimina- tion and rancour, subject, however, to maintenance of standards of decency and decorum associated with such solemn functions.

Out of such functions and discussions, more often than not, considerable benefits are likely to accrue to the audience as well as the participants. It is possible that some of the other participants may be more knowledgeable than the main speaker of the day and the latter may himself gain the most from such discussions. At least, when he knows that he will not be able to get away with his "terminological inexactitudes" he will think twice before taking liberty with facts and common sense. Has not Firdousi the immortal poet of Iran, said:

I have heard from the wise man that there is a lot of wisdom (in this world)But it is scattered amongst a very large number of people.)

Unless we convert our Majalis-e-Aza into forums of such religious discussions, of course, retaining the essential characteristic of it by allocating a reason- able time for Azadaree-e-Husain, one of the most important purposes of it will be lost and frustrated.

I have made bold to say several things which may be unpalatable to many because I feel that truth transcends all other considerations. I am reminded of the verse of Sadi:

Sadi do not tread the path of formality

If you know the truth, speak it up and be done with it

Speak out what you know as the truth for it is better that way

Neitherindulge in graft nor in blandishments.