DAWN - Opinion; August 26, 2005
Philanthropy in Islam
Instead of kindness, compassion, mercy, generosity, and love of mankind, ordinary westerners tend to characterise Islam by such features as violence, terrorism, intolerance, authoritarianism, oppression of women, etc.
There are two reasons for this grave misconception: (1) their ignorance of the Quran and the Traditions of the Prophet (PBUH) and (2) the irresponsible attitude of certain Muslims. In fact, Islamic texts contain numerous injunctions to perform good deeds and to serve fellow humans. The Quran says: “...But righteous is the one who believes in Allah, and the Last Day, and the Angels, and the Book, and the Prophets; and gives away wealth, out of love for Him, to the near of kin and the orphans and the needy and the wayfarer and to those who ask and to set slaves free .... These are they who are truthful, and these are they who keep their duty.” (2: 177)
“... Say: whatever wealth you spend, it is for the parents and the near of kin and the orphans and the needy and the wayfarer. And whatever good you do, Allah surely is Knower of it.” (2: 215) “The parable of those who spend their wealth in the way of Allah is as the parable of a grain growing seven ears, in every ear a hundred grains. And Allah multiplies (further) for whom He pleases. And Allah is Ample-giving, Knowing. Those who spend their wealth in the way of Allah, then follow not up what they have spent with reproach or injury, their reward is with their Lord, and they shall have no fear nor shall they grieve.” (2:261, 262)
“Those who spend their wealth by night and day, privately and publicly, their reward is with their Lord; and they have no fear, nor shall they grieve.” (2: 274) “You cannot attain to righteousness unless you spend out of what you love. And what you spend, Allah surely knows it.” (3:91) “So give to the near of kin his due, and to the needy, and the wayfarer. This is best for those who desire Allah’s pleasure .... And whatever you give in charity, desiring Allah’s pleasure, these will get manifold.” (30:38,39)
“So keep your duty to Allah as much as you can, and hear and obey and spend .... If you set apart for Allah a goodly portion, He will double it for you and forgive you. And Allah is the Multiplier (of rewards), Forbearing.” (64: 16, 17)
Similarly, there are various sayings of the Prophet describing the significance and modes of philanthropy: “You shall not enter Paradise until you have faith; and you cannot attain faith until you love one another. Have compassion on those who are on earth, and He who is in heaven will have compassion on you. God will show no compassion to him who has no compassion toward all human beings.”
“If a Muslim clothes another Muslim in his nudity, God will clothe him with the green freshness of Paradise; and if a Muslim feeds a Muslim who is hungry, God will give him to eat the fruits of Paradise; and if a Muslim gives a drink to a thirsty Muslim, God will let him drink from the fountain of Paradise.” “Think not that any good act is contemptible, though it be but your brother’s coming to you with an open countenance and good humour.”
“There is alms for a man’s every joint, every day in which the sun riseth. Doing justice between two persons is alms; and assisting a man upon his beast, and his baggage, is alms; and pure words, for which are rewards; and answering a questioner with mildness is alms; and every step which is made towards prayer is alms; and removing that which is inconvenience to man, such as stones and thorns, is alms.” “Feed the hungry, visit the sick, and free the captive if he be unjustly bound.”
Philanthropy, according to Islamic injunctions, is of two kinds: obligatory and voluntary. Obligatory philanthropy consists of Zakat and Zakat-ul-Fitr or Fitrana; whereas, voluntary philanthropy includes Sadaqa and Wakf. Let us have a brief look at these institutions.
1. Zakat: It is the share or portion of wealth that is obligatory upon a Muslim to give to fixed categories of beneficiaries, if the value of his assets is more than a specified limit. The beneficiaries of Zakat are mentioned in the Quran: “(Zakat) charity is only for the poor, and the needy, and those employed to administer it, and those whose hearts are made to incline (to truth), and (to free) the captives, and those in debt, and in the way of Allah and for the wayfarer — an ordinance from Allah. And Allah is Knowing, Wise.” (9: 60)
Regarding the importance of Zakat, the Quran says: “Those who believe, and do good deeds, and keep up prayer, and pay Zakat — their reward is with their Lord ....” (2: 277) “And keep up prayers, and pay Zakat, and obey the Messenger, so that mercy may be shown to you.” (24: 56)
In an Islamic state, the government is responsible for the collection and administration of Zakat.
2. Zakat-ul-Fitr or Fitrana: It is the charity which every Muslim, having a certain amount of wealth, pays at the end of the month of Ramazan. Zakat-ul-Fitr is mandatory on every Muslim not only on his own behalf, but also on behalf of all the persons he is in charge of.
3. Sadaqa: It not only means charity in the form of money or food, but includes every act done for the benefit of fellow men. The Prophet said: “Every act of goodness is Sadaqa.” “There is a Sadaqa due on every Muslim. If he cannot give because he has no money, let him work so he can support himself and give charity; if he is unable to work, then let him help someone in need of his help; if he cannot do that, let him adjoin good; if he cannot do that, then he should not do evil or harm others: it will be written for him as a Sadaqa.”
4. Wakf: It is the permanent dedication, by a Muslim, of any property for any purpose recognized by Islamic law as religious, pious, or charitable. Wakf causes the transfer of ownership, of the thing dedicated, to God. But as God is above using or enjoying any property, its profits are reverted, devoted, or applied to the benefit of mankind.
Any property can be the subject of Wakf. A valid Wakf may, therefore, be created of shares in a joint stock company, money, etc. The validity of a Wakf is determined by the possibility of everlasting benefit being derived from it by any form of dealing of which it is capable, or by converting it into something else. It is only where the subject matter is totally unfit for being turned into profitable use that its dedication fails.
The Islamic institution of Wakf has a wider scope and purpose than that of trust in the English law. The institution became so popular and important in Islamic countries that, in most of them, a special ministry was established to deal with the administration of Wakf properties.
Islam lays great emphasis on supporting the destitute. The Quran and the Traditions declare in clear words that it is the responsibility of the wealthy to look after the deprived sections of society. In fact, even a casual study of the Islamic texts reveals that Muslims are not only instructed to do good to fellow humans, but are also told to treat animals well and to protect the environment.
It must also be noted that though other religions too preach and encourage philanthropy, Islam takes a step further by making it compulsory in the form of Zakat. Islam has made it the responsibility of the Islamic state to ensure that people perform this obligation. Thus, a nonpayer of Zakat not only incurs the displeasure of hod, but is also prosecuted by the state. In other words, philanthropy has been made a legal duty as well.
Tony Blair’s new game
AFTER the bloody London bomb attacks British Prime Minister Tony Blair warned, with an underlying touch of authoritarian glee, that “the rules of the game are changing.” What this solemn message means is that he intends to operate with fewer rules or, better yet, none at all. So the real rules remain the same. Elites seize every chance to increase their power, and everything is permitted in the name of security.
Blair issued 12 new ‘commandments’ — including a new ill-defined offence of “glorifying terrorism,” stripping extremists of citizenship, shutting down suspect places of worship, and deporting anyone he pleases. Blair, and his disciples, threatened to amend the British Human Rights Act if the judges dare to prevent the government from sending people to a country that practises torture or implements the death penalty.
For his own folly of following Bush brutally into Iraq, Blair is determined to punish the British public by rescinding as many civil liberties as possible. Blair presents himself as acting to preserve the domestic security that his tag-along-with-Bush foreign policy has done so much to undermine. The answer to any crisis for renowned control freaks like Blair’s New Labour is more control.
The real political game is the familiar one of reducing, by any distortion necessary, a complex problem to a single easy target, even if it is often the wrong one. That way you persuade the ignorant portion of your citizenry that more of the same is the solution. So the problem, according to this public relations creed, isn’t the actual problem at hand, but rather the public’s image of it. If you fool the public into imagining things as you would like them to be then the problem, presto, goes away — at least long enough for you to leave office and hand the consequences over to the next lot. This Alice in Wonderland logic is a recipe for endless tragedy.
Up until now British governments, for their own geopolitical reasons, were content to grant asylum for chosen extremists from Muslim countries (Algeria, Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia). The British, out of a seemingly mysterious sense of charity, gave many radical clerics refuge and passports (although withholding citizenship from many foreigners who served bravely in their armed forces in the last war). Why? It suited them at the time. When anti-western regimes spanned the Middle East these hidebound fundamentalists served British needs by acting within their societies as subversive religious forces, undermining uppity nationalists. If the extremists were told to leave they were given asylum in the UK to continue their activities from abroad, or be held in reserve for later use.
The British tabloid press ceaselessly criticizes this policy, conveniently ignoring its origins and purposes. What the authorities did not count on was another form of ‘blowback’, that these extremists might spawn violent kids opposed to the host country. It was all okay so long as violent ambitions were exclusively for export.
The London Sunday Times on August 7 got an undercover reporter inside the “Saviour Sect’ which, as the paper says, went underground after its ‘predecessor group Al-Muhajiroun’ was banned. The story relates the group’s activities from beating up moderate Muslims to driving autos in the UK without insurance, as a matter of religious principle. The Times very oddly claimed that their story backed Blair’s move to proscribe such organizations, which, however, were already driven underground.
A British court in the Belmarsh decision earlier this year overturned certain anti-terror laws, saying they were more a threat to British liberty than terrorists. Blair threatens to bypass the judges if they don’t comply with hurried exits for suddenly unwelcome guests.
The judiciaries in the home countries of the Muslim radicals were bulldozed. Now Blair promises to gut what he praises out of the other side of his mouth as ‘traditional British freedoms”. We see in Britain, as in America, how flimsy and disposable traditional freedoms are when they conflict with political egos, policy commitments, and public fear-mongering.
As for those harbouring extremist views, one can find them anywhere. Until 9/11 the largest loss of life inflicted in the US was by homegrown terrorists in Oklahoma City in 1995. Anne Coulter, the American ultraright writer, after 9/11 said about Muslim nations that “we should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity” — and her sloppy exploitative books top the bestseller lists. How about the fervent Gaza strip Jewish (often American) settler who declare with ardent regularity,”God told us to come back to Israel and build it again, and we should keep going.” It is not only in Muslim countries that enthusiasts are prone to say God is on their side alone.
The British and French colonized Muslim lands for 200 years, and after decolonization, a sizable minority migrated to the ‘home’ nations for many reasons: cheap labour, education, economic opportunities. The educated class of second generation Muslims cannot be as cautious, grateful and passive as their parents. They are assimilated. Any callous treatment as second-class citizens, a common experience intensified by 7/7, annoys and alienates them.
While the vast majority clearly are happy to be living in democratic societies and if anything only wanted more of democracy, (as do the populations in their countries or origin), the eruptions of the Palestinian and the Iraq crises mean that some of them, undergoing adolescent identity struggles, are susceptible to cult-like organizations.
Every Muslim youth grapples with glaring contradictions and double standards. A British born Jew who goes to Israel and fights for it is regarded as perfectly fine, as scholar John Rose pointed out recently, but a Palestinian who returns and gets involved in the liberation struggle is a terrorist and criminal. This isn’t very easy to explain to an understandably concerned or even alarmed youth as they scan the Middle East
One of the most tightly organized dogmatic organizations, Hizb-ul-tahrir, desires to restore the caliphate and indeed to transform the whole world into a fundamentalist Muslim one, all the way to pinning a victorious flag on top of Buckingham Palace. They recruit under peaceful means, but this is purely tactical and circumstantial behaviour. They are deeply engaged in armed struggle to change (albeit nasty) Central Asian states.
The solution in the West, however, is political dialogue, to keep them above ground, debate them, scrutinize them, and induce them to make, and to acknowledge, the better argument. Banning them is futile because members already are passionate and need no central authority to direct them to mischief or murder. They should be politically confronted. If banned, this organization, and others like it, would only deepen its appeal through its secrecy and romance.
The hijab needs to be interpreted with care. Many modern women wear it, sometimes as a sign of a rebuke against critics of their ethnic background, whether they are practising Muslims or not. It’s a part of everyday culture too, and often no different than headscarves that East European women wear. The women may be religious as well but that is beside the point. They feel comfortable using it. There’s a touch of impudence to it, of rebelliousness. It became a symbol of protest against the Shah in Iran, then in France and Turkey when they banned the scarf. Banning is bad psychology anyway.
What is happening in terms of cultural change to the Muslim population today also happened in much of Europe before the First World War. We ought to allow the same evolution to continue. The British government focused on a few cranky interpreters of Islam and by doing so publicized them as a threat far beyond their intrinsic influence. Karen Armstrong recently noted that their proselytizing was “unwittingly aided by the media” which presented their truculent interpretation of Quranic passages as if it were a mainstream one. Tony Blair is embarrassing even his loyal Muslim Council members with what he imagines is a crowd-pleasing hard line policy. D.H. Lawrence noted long ago that blindly striving after “righteousness only causes your own slow degeneration.” As always, self-righteousness will reap the reverse of what it seeks. The last thing the western democracies need to become are mirror images of intolerant Islamic groups. One hopes that Blair’s proposals vanish in the silly season of August and that he may return in the autumn with blissful amnesia about the whole episode.
An irrevocable error
SIXTY years ago, the state of Georgia executed a woman named Lena Baker. Last week the state Board of Pardons and Paroles announced that it would posthumously pardon her.
Officials said the execution was a “grievous error” in a case that cried out for mercy. The sentiment is noble, clearly meaningful to her surviving family, which pushed for it. And it is always important for anyone wielding the tremendous power of government to be prepared to stare error in the face. But the nature of the death penalty makes it impossible even to begin to right the wrong that took place in this case. The error was grievous and irrevocable.
Ms Baker, an African American woman of 44, was put to death in 1945 for killing her employer, a white man named E.B. Knight. At her trial, she contended that he held her as a kind of sex slave and she shot him in self-defence as he was attacking her with a crowbar.
At most, this is manslaughter. But in the segregated South, an all-white, all-male jury convicted her of capital murder in a one-day trial, and she was executed in Georgia’s electric chair less than a year later.
It is tempting to believe that these tragedies don’t happen anymore, that the death penalty now is more protective of innocent life. Indeed, trial standards are undoubtedly higher; southern states are no longer organized governmental conspiracies against the rights of African Americans; and capital appeals today ensure layers of review totally absent then.
Yet injustice is a resilient pestilence that — like drug-resistant bacteria — has myriad ways of defeating the best human attempts to eliminate it.
—The Washington Post