Post by Islamic Revival on Nov 5, 2004 4:30:53 GMT -5
The terminology of compromise did not appear amongst Muslims until the modern age. It is a foreign terminology and its source is the West and the Capitalist ideology. This is the ideology whose creed is based upon a compromise solution. This methodology arose as a result of the bloody war between the church and the kings as well as Western thinkers and philosophers. The first group used to view the Christian religion as the basis for problem solving. The second group believed that religion was not a suitable mechanism to answer life's questions. According to them, the mind is able to come up with a system that is suitable to organise the issues of life. This dispute resulted in humiliation and misery.
After a bitter conflict between the two groups they agreed on a compromise solution. The solution was the recognition of religion only so far as the relationship between an individual and the Creator is concerned, so long as religion did not have any impact outside the sphere of religion. Life's affairs would be dealt with by man-made solutions. Separation of religion from life became the creed for their ideology. The basis of Capitalism emanated from this system. It was then carried to others via colonialism.
This creed, based on compromise was reflected in every act of legislation and behaviour of the followers of the Capitalist ideology, including political issues. In Palestine, for example we see the Muslims demanding the land as their own; while the Jews claim that it is the Promised Land that God promised to them. In 1947 the Western Capitalist states put forward a solution, which is the plan of partition, that called for the establishment of two entities in Palestine; one for the Arabs, and the other for the Jews. This compromise solution appears in many international problems that are controlled by the Capitalist nations.
As a consequence, politics depends on lies and deviousness. Rather than searching for the truth, they search for a goal that will satisfy, somewhat, each party involved. The issues of right and wrong are not important here. What is important is benefit. What is considered is which party is able to offer the Capitalist country the most benefits. Basically the stronger group takes everything it desires, and the weaker one is forced to relinquish everything it cannot obtain.
Some Muslims, instead of criticising the idea of compromise and the compromise solution and clarifying its error and fallacy, have adopted it. They say that compromise is thriving in Islam. They might even go as far as saying that Islam is established on it. So Islam is between spiritualism and materialism, between individualism and collectivism, between realism and idealism, between constancy and change. There is no excess or deficiency, nor exaggeration or exceeding the bounds.
To prove the opinion they have adopted a means of explaining their findings. According to them, every issue has two extremes and a middle point. The middle is the safe area, while the extremes are subject to danger and corruption. The middle is the centre of power, the area of balance and equilibrium between two poles. So, it is no surprise that compromise should emerge in very aspect of Islam. They would suggest that Islam is the in the middle between belief and worship and the middle between legislation and morals.
After they rationally measured the rules of Islam, they studied certain Shari'a texts and tried to distort them so that it would conform to their new understanding. For example, with regards to what is stated in the Qur'an, "Thus We have made you a just nation, that you be witnesses over mankind and the Messenger (saw) be a witness over you" [TMQ Al-Baqarah: 143], the middle position of the Ummah is derived from the moderation in their minhaj and system. There is nothing in it of the excessiveness of the Jews and the negligence of the Christians. According to them, the word 'middle' (wasat) means justice, and justice is the middle of two conflicting sides. Justice, therefore, became synonymous with the idea of compromise. The correct meaning of the ayah, however, is the Islamic Ummah is an Ummah of justice. Justice is from the conditions of a witness in Islam, and this Ummah will be a just witness over the other nations to which she will convey the message of Islam. The ayah, though it came in the form of a notification (seeghatul ikhbaar), is an order from Allah (swt) to the Islamic Ummah that she spread Islam to the other nations; otherwise, she will be sinful. She is a proof against the other nations, just as the Messenger (saw) is a proof against her in his conveyance of Islam to you and his (saw) request from you that you should convey it to others, "Let the one present convey it to the one absent".
They were also known to distort the following ayah as evidence, "And those who, when they spend, are neither extravagant nor niggardly, but hold a medium (way) between those" [TMQ Al-Furqan: 67]. Here, they attributed spending with two extremes: extravagance and stinginess. They gave it a middle position, which is the medium.
This, in their view, is an evidence for moderation in spending money. They did not understand that the meaning of this ayah is that there are three types of spending: extravagance, niggardliness and moderation. Thus extravagance is the spending in haram, whether less or more. An example would be of one who spends a dirham for buying alcohol, gambling or bribery. So extravagance is haram. As for niggardliness, it is the abstention in spending in the wajib. If a person did not pay a single dirham that he owes for Zakat, or if he does not spend on those he is obligated to give maintenance to, then that will be niggardliness. It would be haram. Moderation (qawwaam) in this ayah refers to the spending that is in accordance with the rules of the Shari'a. This is regardless of the fact if such spending is more or less. So, honouring a single guest by slaughtering a sheep, chicken or camel is moderate spending. It is halal because it is mentioned in the ayah "between those" [TMQ Al-Furqan: 67] to show that there are three types of spending: extravagance, niggardliness and moderation. one of those three types is required by the Shari'ah; that is the moderation. It does not say: "between those two" to show the middle position between two different things.
There is no middle position or compromise solution in Islam. Allah (swt) created man, and He (swt) knows his reality. This knowledge is beyond the realm of man. Allah (swt) is the only one able to organise life accurately; no one can attain this level. So the rules have come defined, there is no middle position or compromise solution in the texts and rules of Islam. They are accurate, clear and distinct until Allah (swt) himself called them Hudood (limits) due to their accuracy and directness. In the Qur'an it says, "These are the limits of Allah, which He makes plain for the people which have knowledge" [TMQ Al-Baqarah: 230].
Also, "And whosoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger, and transgresses His limits, He will cast him into the Fire, to abide therein" [TMQ An-Nisa: 14].
There was neither middle position nor a compromise solution when the Messenger of Allah (saw) said to his uncle Abu Talib, when his people offered him position, money and rank to leave Islam, "By Allah! O uncle, if they put the sun in my right hand and the moon in my left, that I should abandon this matter. Until Allah makes it victorious or I perish I shall not leave it."
Furthermore, there was no compromise in his (saw) statement to the tribe of Bani 'Aamir b. Sa'sa'ah when they demanded that they should have the rule after him (saw) in return for their Nusrah (support), "The matter belongs to Allah, He (swt) places it where He wills".
The compromise solution is an idea that is foreign to Islam. The Westerners and those Muslims, who are loyal to this solution, have attached it to Islam in order to sell it to those who are not willing to make sacrifices in the name of Allah (swt). Instead, they seek moderation. They distort the limits and clearly defined rules of Islam in order to suit their needs and desires.
This article was taken from a book entitled 'Dangerous Concepts' produced by Hizb ut-Tahrir. It covers the topics: "Terrorism, Interfaith Dialogue, Compromise, Fundamentalism and Globalisation".