|
His Eminence, the Religious Authority Sayyed Muhammad Hussein Fadlullah answered a few questions about the following issues: Fundamentalism and authentication, The phenomenon of fundamentalism
Fundamentalism and authentication
Q: Your Eminence, you used the term "authentication". In Arabic, the terms "authentication" and "fundamentalism" are derived from the same root, but they have contradicting connotations.
To "authenticate" is to turn the idea back to its cultural root that it had originated from and lived in its circumstances, so as to display the thought in its entire elements, and eventually face it as if it were something alive that you address and it addresses you in return. Thus, the problem we are facing is: what are the religious roots? We notice that there resides a kind of backwardness in the Shiite or Sunni jurisprudent circles in understanding the thought and opening up to its roots, for many of them handle the text without reflecting on it. Allah says: "Do they not then reflect on the Quran? Nay, on the hearts there are locks." (47:24) These people do not reflect on the text to make it open up to the issues of life; the text might pertain to a certain event, but this event actually represents an example that opens up to the extensions that meet with the example's singularity, as well as its elements.
It must be noted that the concept of fundamentalism differs from that of authentication. Fundamentalism, in its literal meaning, is that people go back to the basic sources. But the question is: how do we understand the basic sources? Those who talk about fundamentalism are required to refer to what the Prophet (p.) had said, or what the Muslims have adopted from the Book, rather than going through the circumstances surrounding his (p.) words, since they are circumstances that might grant his words a wider meaning than the event it had originally initiated from.
Likewise, the Quran is the Book of the Islamic movement, since it accompanied the Islamic Call when the Muslims triumphed or got defeated, or when Islam stepped into a struggle with the People of the Book, the hypocrites, or the atheists, or when it talked about the moral or behavioral lines, and so on.
Therefore, we have to understand the circumstances from which the Quranic words had originated and according to which the Quranic text was formed. This requires that we study the reasons behind the revelation of the Quran that we are sure of, in order to open up to the Quranic horizons in this aspect, i.e. to the extended horizons by virtue of which the special elements can bare within them the general elements.
When a Muslim is considered to be a "fundamentalist", he has to understand what the basic sources are. As Muslims, it is natural that we go back to Islam represented by its legal, conceptual, and doctrinal roots, but the question is: how do we understand these roots? Is Islam a religion of violence or leniency? Is it a religion of backwardness or progress? Is it a religion of opening up or isolation? Is it a religion of war or peace? What are the means used by Islam for the Islamic Call, and the management of the struggle?… as well as the principles that can set the foundations for the "civilized Islam". Therefore, we do not consider that the "fundamentalists" – who deem violence as one of the pillars of Islam and accuse those who disagree with them of unbelief and consequently deem shedding their blood lawful – do understand Islam, because they have lived in environments that tried to lock them up inside some concepts that were imported from certain studies or as a result of certain understandings.
Perhaps, ascribing the term "fundamentalism" to the "extremist Muslims" is of a western origin, considering that the West is the one that had actually lived fundamentalism. The West represented violence throughout its history and among its members. Moreover, we are aware that the Westerners have gone through a multitude of wars until they reached this stage of institutions. Moreover, the West still embodies violence but it justifies it as a means to protect its strategic interests. The best examples on that are the occupations of the last century, as well as those of this century. Violence is also evident in the Western mobs (Mafias) and in the crusade wars led by popes to dominate over the sacred places in Jerusalem and elsewhere.
Therefore, we say that the true concept of "fundamentalism" contradicts with how these people regard "fundamentalism". Muslims are fundamentalists who go back to the basic sources; however, not all Muslims believe that their fundamentalism imposes on them to use violence in any time or place. As a matter of fact, the Islamic culture is based on leniency, while violence is nothing more than a preventative and defensive means, because you cannot offer a bouquet of flowers to the one who launched a rocket at you!
The phenomenon of fundamentalism
Q: Your Eminence, it feels like we are going in circles, when you were explaining the phenomenon of the "fundamentalists" or the violent movements, you said that they do not reflect on the religious text and they do not interact with the historic element lying within; however, the problem is that they adopt in their acts of killing innocent people – the Muslims before non-Muslims – certain Fatwas and Ijtihads that deem such acts permissible and even impose them. So, what are the criteria for such an "act"?
A: Of the essential criteria confirmed by the Holy Quran is the fact that it is impermissible to kill a Muslim or a peaceful man, for Allah says: "And whoever kills a believer intentionally, his punishment is hell; he shall abide in it." (04:93) and: "And do not kill the soul which Allah has forbidden except for the requirements of justice." (06:151). In addition, the Prophet has confirmed that "the blood, money, and honor of a Muslim are prohibited to you".
Actually, the first verse confirms that it is impermissible for a Muslim to kill a brother Muslim except for the requirements of justice. These requirements include self-defense, defending the helpless downtrodden, as well as confronting those who commit armed robbery and inflict corruption on earth, thus destabilizing the entire society. We also find in the Quran the following verse: "Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just." (60:08). This verse says that it is impermissible for a Muslim to aggress against a peaceful person who does not fight him or drive him out of his home. Allah also says: "Allah only forbids you, with regard to those who fight you for (your) Faith, and drive you out of your homes, and support (others) in driving you out, from turning to them (for friendship and protection). It is such as turn to them (in these circumstances), that do wrong." (60:09).
So, you do not kill an unbeliever just because he is an unbeliever, you are allowed to kill him when he fights you. You can defend yourself if he attacks you, or drives you out of your land, or conspires with others to do so, just as the case with Israel that had collaborated with Western countries to expel the Palestinians from their homeland.
Moreover, we say that those who issue these Fatwas – as mentioned in the question – have neither understood the Quran nor the Sunnah. Actually, a certain disagreement with someone on a sectarian issue or an interpretation of a verse or a prophetic tradition does not make me an atheist, but rather a jurisprudent (Mujtahid) who might be right or wrong, just as the one whom I have disagreed with might be right or wrong, for Allah says: "If ye differ in anything among yourselves, refer it to Allah and His Messenger" (04:59)
Islam tells us to kill the act of unbelief and not the unbelievers; to kill the wrongdoing acts and not the wrongdoer. In conclusion, the issue lies in killing the one who wages wars and not the atheist, for Allah says: "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified…" (05:33). Moreover, there is a difference between the act of engaging in a war and unbelief. One cannot use unbelief as an excuse to assault an unbeliever simply because he is an unbeliever, because if he was a peaceful person, then it becomes impermissible for him to assault this unbeliever, or take his money or violate his honor. We notice that when the Prophet (p.) entered Al-Madina, he signed a treaty with its people, basing this treaty on the concept of "citizenry" in Islam, for he considered the Jews to be a party in the treaty he concluded between them (the jews) on one hand, and the supporters (Al-Ansar) and the immigrants (Al-Muhajireen) on the other hand. However, when the Jews violated the treaty and collaborated with the atheists in the battles of Al-Khandak and Al-Ahzab, the Prophet (p.) fought them because they violated the treaty and resorted to fight Islam instead of the peace that Islam had granted them.
Q: What about the chaos caused by some Fatwas? Who is the one entitled to issue Fatwas?
The one who is entitled to issue a Fatwa (Mufti) is the jurisprudent (Mujtahid) who possesses a wide Islamic culture to understand the Quran and the Sunnah and to authenticate the jurisprudent rulings, which enables him – according to his culture and scientific integrity – to deduce the jurisprudent rulings based on their detailed evidences. Therefore, not any person is entitled to issue Fatwas. We consider that the positions of the official Muftis do not make them qualified to issue Fatwas, because it was the state that appointed them in their positions and not their personal competence. |