THE CURRENT CRISIS
FORMULATING A RESPONSE
Interview
with Shaykh Nuh Ha Mim Keller
VOICE OF THE CAPE
Radio Station
Cape Town, South Africa
Drivetime
Show, 22 October 2001
INTERVIEW
WITH SHEIKH NUH HA MIM KELLER – VOICE OF THE CAPE RADIO STATION,
CAPE TOWN, SOUTH AFRICA
Drivetime
Show, 22 October 2001
THE
CURRENT CRISIS – FORMULATING A RESPONSE
Introduction of show, the Sheikh and details of his CV...
VOC:
Sheikh, I know you’re not too keen on personal questions, but I’m
very curious to know what was your reason for relocating to
Jordan?
SK: I
moved here in 1979 just after I became Muslim (in 1977) and went
on to finish my degree. Basically I moved here because of the
principle of the Hijra. I wanted to find something more than I had
in a non-Muslim country by moving to a Muslim one. And I did…
VOC: Any
particular reason for zoning in on a place like Amman in Jordan?
SK:
Originally because of the closeness of the dialect to classical
Arabic. I also needed to learn Arabic.
VOC: Do
you have a school or zawiya in Jordan?
SK: Yes,
we have a zawiya, a room next to our house. Shafi’i and Hanafi
fiqh are taught there and we have lessons in English and Arabic as
well as lughat ul-‘Arabiyya—Arabic grammar and syntax. We also
teach Ash’ari ‘aqida (tenets of belief) and have classes in
traditional Islamic spirituality, in tasawwuf.
VOC: And
Sheikh, looking at your approach of coming from the west into the
heartlands of Islam—I’m not going to say the east—are there any
murids (followers of your path of spirituality) from the west
who’ve come to your zawiya to learn?
SK: We’re
in contact with quite a number of people who’ve taken the path of
the tariqa. The particular school of thought we teach is the
Shadhili tariqa (Sufi order). There are probably five or six
hundred murids, of whom many, if not most, have visited us here.
There are easterners and westerners, those who speak Arabic and
those who speak English.
VOC: So,
if a person were to come to Amman with not much knowledge of
Arabic they would be able to sit in your majlis (gathering) and be
able to understand what’s going on?
SK: Yes,
we teach two nights a week in English and two in Arabic—and one
in a sort of mixture.
VOC:
Sheikh Nuh, what is the response of Arabs when they see that here
is man from America, a so-called Westerner, teaching them about
Islam?
SK: Each
one probably has his own response. Knowledge is recognized as
knowledge, and ignorance as ignorance, and if you want to know
whether a person is knowledgeable or ignorant, you just have to
listen to him for a few minutes and you can usually tell.
VOC:
Sheikh, let’s get on … at Voice of the Cape we have been
trolling in international waters, as it were, to try and get a
take on the World Trade Centre bombing…what traditional Islam says
about this…what’s your personal take on the WTT bombing?
SK: As
you probably know in order to give a fatwa (edict) about
something, there have to be a number of conditions that exist in
the ‘alim (scholar) who is giving the fatwa, especially in
political matters.
The first
is that his information is not simply at the level of what one can
glean from journalistic reports because, as we all know,
journalism is an instrument in the hands of those with political
and military aims. And so he (the ‘alim) has to have access to the
kind of information people in the intelligence business have
access to, not merely journalistic commentary and analysis which
is often merely for mass consumption.
Secondly,
he has to be able to speak freely—there have to be no consequences
if the ‘alim has an opinion for something or against something.
And thirdly, he should be in an otherwise neutral country in order
to give a reasonable ruling. And because of the need for each of
these conditions, I have to disqualify myself from giving a fatwa
about the WTT bombing.
However,
we can say some things about it and I have written a small piece
on Masud Khan’s web site called “Making the World Safer for
Terrorism.” Basically it boils down to the fact that “noble” aims
have been stated for bombing the World Trade Centre and for
bombing Afghanistan. However, the road to hell is paved with good
intentions, and one may not kill civilians, because it is not
moral, regardless of what one’s aims are. Islam most certainly
does not support the killing of civilians. This is absolutely
haram.
And so,
we can’t say that one bad act deserves another….killing civilians
is not moral and will never be. In other words, reciprocal
atrocities do not make for a moral outcome. This is my basic
opinion on the matter.
VOC:
Sheikh, let’s go on a slightly different tack. A problem that we
seem to be having in South Africa with regards to the situation
(particularly Afghanistan) is that you hear voices saying,
“support these people, support those people” just because they
happen to be Muslim without looking at the moral credentials of
whatever party they want to support. Do you think that in the
Islamic world today we have to be a lot more honest about whom we
sometimes are?
SK: With
reference to whom we are, or to those in Afghanistan?
VOC:
Basically with reference to whom we are as well as to Afghanistan.
That we have to blindly defend Muslim nations or communities
regardless of their human rights records…this kind of mentality.
SK: As
you may have inferred from my previous remarks, the depiction of
the Taliban and of the Northern Alliance is a journalistic one,
this is how the news reaches us. Here, it depends on whom you ask.
Misinformation is a weapon used by both sides in a military
conflict. If you listen to the ambassador of the Taliban
everything he says seems reasonable, if you listen to Western news
media, obviously interested in justifying what the West is doing
in Afghanistan, you get quite a different story.
So what I
think that needs defending in Afghanistan is national sovereignty.
If we say we are nations and we have a right to pass the laws that
we think are just, then we have to recognize that wherever you go
in the world if you enter a country you have to agree to abide by
their laws. So in Afghanistan, if there is a certain rule of law
that exists, we have to acknowledge their national sovereignty,
otherwise we’re hypocrites.
If they
have done something that is against another member of the world
community then the World Court and the United Nations have to
settle the dispute. It’s a question of the law of nations and of
recognizing real national sovereignty—or, is it a question of the
law of the jungle? The law of the jungle obviously needs no
comment…
VOC: Most
certainly. Now Sheikh, what interests us at the foot of Africa,
geographically distant from what’s happening, is how what’s
happened has been perceived in Jordan and the Arab world in
general? The reason I ask this is because we saw CNN images of
Palestinians celebrating at the news of the planes having crashed
into the twin towers in New York.
SK:
Well, in the Arab world like in most other parts there are people
who are very intelligent, people of average intelligence and
people who have little intelligence. Amongst those with
intelligence –and certainly the tragedy of the WTT was a saddening
event—it was generally realized by everyone that it was a
tremendous setback for Muslims and an aberration, far from what
anybody would have understood as Islamic in any of the past ages
of Islamic greatness.
As
President Bush has said, it was a twentieth century phenomenon.
The idea that terrorism is halal is an idea that does not have a
great deal to vouch for it, certainly not in traditional Islam.
And this, I think, is the reaction that has been seen in Jordan
and elsewhere in the Islamic world.
VOC: And
Sheikh, the other big question that is being asked here (in South
Africa) is whether the current situation is having any bearing on
the Palestinian crisis which is just across the river from where
you are sitting? We hear about new peace moves. Has this got
anything to do with what's happening in Afghanistan. People are
beginning to make these links.
SK:
That's what we saw in the news here. On the day of the tragedy and
thereafter we saw the Israelis celebrating. Noam Chomsky has drawn
attention to the word "terrorism" being used as a license to kill
almost anything and anyone. This is a huge setback for Palestine
because it gives the seeming justification to do anything to
Muslims and to depict Muslims in a very bad light and to permit
all sorts of things against them.
The
ruling that American weapons were prohibited against the civilian
population of Palestine was revoked only four days before the
tragedy occurred. And so this is a sort of carte blanche for state
terrorism…Of course the WTT bombing has been a tremendous setback
for the Palestinians, there's no question (about that).
VOC: As
you sit there, very briefly, are you optimistic that something
good can happen for the Palestinians? Or is the situation going
from bad to worse?
SK: I
don't know what the future may hold. However, there is a consensus
throughout the world amongst everyone associated with the Israelis
and the United States that there should be two nations in
Palestine, that they should return to the 1967 borders, and that
there should be sovereignty for each. And that Israel and
Palestine should have peace and respect for each other within
their own national boundaries.
Anything
that can facilitate the implementation of this consensus will be
beneficial. This is not something I'm pulling out of my pocket,
but something plain to whoever looks at the press in Europe and
throughout the world, and anywhere people are not Israeli, or
worried about being re-elected in the United States' political
process.
We hope
that this consensus can lead to a just and lasting peace. And if
it serves as a wake up call to see what's happening, then it will
be a good thing that we may hope for something positive.
VOC:
Insha-Allah. And Sheikh Nuh, we go to another question. Samuel
Huntington talks about a clash of cultures. We've heard certain
commentators saying that if you look at the real problems
vis-a-vis Islam and the rest of the world, it's rather a clash of
ignorance. What's your reading of this?
SK: It's
no question that it's a clash of ignorance. There are horizons
each culture has. They're based on epistemology: what they judge
to be knowledge and what they judge to be ignorance. Certainly,
the Muslims have another dimension that people who don't subscribe
to a religion do not possess. This is the point that there is an
afterlife and a next world waiting for us…that there are
consequences for our actions and that there is an ultimate good.
Consequently, I don't think that the bases for agreement between a
Christian country and a Muslim country are that far apart. We all
believe in one God, we all believe that there will be a judgement,
and we all believe that there will be consequences. No one
believes that killing civilians is halal, or just, or is right. No
one's religion condones it.
So if
we're talking to Godless people who only recognize the law of the
jungle, it's very difficult to avoid a clash—whether we call it a
clash of ignorance or of civilizations. If we're talking to a
people who recognize an ultimate God and objective, natural moral
law and the Divine Recompense for actions in this life, certainly,
there is room for agreement.
Here we
have to underscore the point of national sovereignty. Meaning that
if some country doesn’t agree with our Western interpretation of
the way things should be, of the sort of things that should be
sold in the market place, and of other questions of law…we can't
go in and impose our laws upon the people of that country.
I think
the principles are fairly well understood here, and that if
there's international law that has teeth, one power can't stomp
over all the others as soon as it wishes for something that the
others have, or wishes to change something that they do. So if
there's international law, and a law-like interpretation of
conflicts, there need not be any conflict. And Allah knows best.
VOC:
Right Sheikh, and of course this leads on to another question.
When one talks about ignorance, do you think that this syndrome of
Islamophobia—racism against Islam—that seems to have reared its
head since the WTT bombing; do you think that we have to blame
ourselves to a certain extent for this? That we have failed to
really tell the world what Islam is about? What is your reading of
that?
SK: Of
course, we have to propound traditional Islam, and we haven't yet
had much of a forum to do so. Ask anyone who's had their finger on
the pulse of what's been happening, particularly in the late
1970's and 1980's. Muslims in every country throughout the world
know that the money has mainly been coming from Saudi Arabia, and
that scholarships have been coming from them as well. For every
word that anyone else speaks, for any other viewpoint that anyone
else has, they produce ten.
Moreover,
everyone knows that they have a rather extreme interpretation,
that of Wahhabism, which is radically different from all previous
centuries of traditional Islamic practice and learning. It's
different in fiqh, in that it doesn't emphasize the four
traditional madhhabs, but rather emphasizes the ijtihad (or
“juridical reasoning”) of just about anyone who thinks he’s
qualified to make ijtihad. The bombing of the WTT is a direct
result of ijtihad from people who are not qualified to make it.
These people are essentially vigilantes, whose ijtihad leads to
them to believe they can slaughter “generic Americans”, and who
don't care if 6,000 human beings have to perish. This is a direct
outcome of their personal whims, which they call "ijtihad."
It is
pure Wahhabism. It is the result of the oil money that has flooded
every single country where there are Muslims, in order to put this
view across. No one wonders where it came from. I think that the
Western intelligence agencies know it, and that some of the
journalists know it as well.
The
fact is that traditional Islam has been derailed in the twentieth
century, especially during the 1970's and 1980's with all the
Saudi-Wahhabi oil-money and the consequences of educating people
at “Wahhabi U.” in Medina. Mainstream Sunni Islam has been
derailed so completely in the last half of this century that
nobody any longer realizes that this is what has happened. Of
course, it is our obligation to tell people what's been going on.
What
happened to the WTT Centre is the result of a splinter faction of
a splinter faction of Islam. It doesn't have anything to do with
what any Muslim would have understood, even 150 years ago, as
traditional Islam. It's ‘amal bi la ‘ilm or “extreme religious
practice without any knowledge” of what religious practice should
be. As a result, there is no baraka or “blessing” in it. Rather
there is only disaster and calamity in it, for Muslims and
non-Muslims. It should be identified as such. After all, we can
only tell things as they are. It's not a propaganda effort. It's
merely telling people what has happened.
VOC:
Sheikh, to get a bit philosophical—do you think that this
so-called “self-ijtihad” of the extremists is a good example of a
person’s nafs or “ego” overwhelming their angelic essence—would
you agree with that kind of perspective?
SK: Islam
is submission to the laws of Allah Almighty and the sunna of His
Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace). The Prophet Muhammad
(Allah bless him and give him peace) was a man of clemency, a man
of peace. He was a man whose entire struggle to overcome idolatry
in the Arabian Peninsula saw only 250 people killed on all sides,
altogether, in all of the wars.
This was
the Prophet Muhammad (Allah bless him and give him peace) and
there’s no question that the Wahhabi call, with its new Twentieth
Century facelift, termed Salafism, is an appeal to the ego. A
person will say: “I’m a man, and Abu Hanifa is a man.” Well, we
can see you’re not a woman, but what other resemblance do you bear
to him or any other of these great scholars?
Of
course, people don’t like to submit: they don’t like to say if
there’s a jihad, it can only be declared by a competent authority;
not by some “shopping bag ‘alim” who has a bunch of books that he
totes around with him, and opens them up to manifest his
“knowledge” to people. This is a parody of ‘ilm, and is a parody
of ijtihad. Only a person whose nafs is riding squarely on top of
him, and he is its donkey, will be fooled by such claims.
It goes
without saying that in traditional Islam we have spirituality. The
horizons of traditional Islam are far, far more comprehensive than
“can we get this piece of dunya back, or, can we get that piece of
dunya over there…” Much broader. People who espouse extremism
don’t make remembrance of Allah except a little…This is obvious:
if you sit with these people you can tell what your heart feels
like afterwards, it’s not the same as after making ‘ibada
(worship) or doing a good act or anything useful. What we see at
large in the world are clearly but the consequences of this.
VOC:
Sheikh Nuh, our next question. One of our local ‘alims in Cape
Town said the other day on this radio that mainstream Ahl-u-sunna
Islam had to develop a culture of resistance to ignorance and
extremism. Would you agree with this idea?
SK: Islam
is already against ignorance and extremism. And we do have to take
a look at what we already have in traditional Islam. I agree
one-hundred percent. There doesn’t have to be a revival of
anything in particular except the Islamic culture that we already
have. Take the works of Imam Ghazali, for example. The baraka only
left people of knowledge when the students of traditional Islam
ceased to carry the Ihya ‘Ulum ad-Din (“The Revival of the
Sciences of Religious Knowledge”) around with them under their
arms. This is no secret. I think that the traditional Islam that
has been known for centuries is sufficient. Ignorance and
extremism is already rejected by it.
VOC: And
of course, Sheikh, you would agree with the opinion of most
responsible ‘ulama that Islam is then in no need reformation. At
the turn of this century and the previous this was a strong
message and I think even during the 1940’s there were scholars
propagating the idea that the Din had to be reformed,
modernized…you would say that this is nonsense?
SK:
Absolute nonsense. This is what may be referred to as the
derailing of traditional Islam. It goes off the tracks in many
places and in many mosques precisely because of these reformers.
Islam doesn’t need to be reformed at all. The traditional Islam
that we’ve known and that our forefathers have known has the
answer to every question. The answer as to how Muslims are
supposed to deal with non-Muslims is with mutual respect. Islam is
not a religion of violence or contempt towards people of other
religions.
VOC:
Sheikh, do you think that Muslims have to be a lot more confident
about whom they are. What I mean is do you think that Muslims are
still suffering from an inferiority complex as a result of the
breaking up of the Ottoman Empire and the colonial carving up of
the Muslim world?
SK: There
is something of that. We’re in a historical period of political
weakness. This is obvious to everyone. As Muslims we should take
advantage of this as the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him
peace) took advantage of the early Muslim’s period of political
weakness to spread the message of Islam (da’wa) as widely as
possible. Because when there is no strong political entity behind
it, people are less afraid of something—and if they’re less afraid
they can be talked to. So we should be making da’wa to them. If
everyone in America became Muslims tomorrow, a great, great many
political problems would be obviously solved in the Muslim world.
So we should be emphasizing da’wa.
VOC: Most
certainly.
SK: One
has to make hay while the sun shines.
VOC: And
Sheikh Nuh, the final question…are you a prisoner of hope for the
immediate future of Islam?
SK: I am
hopeful. Anyone who wants to understand everything about what’s
going on in this world or the next only has to read the Qur’an. He
will understand why Allah Most High has created good people, why
He has created wicked people, and why He has created everything in
this world and in the next. Everything is part of Allah’s grand
purpose. It’s impossible to read the Qur’an without being hopeful.
If we
have patience with the tests that come to us, then we have a
reward from Allah Most High and it’s better for us. If we see
atrocities that do not agree with how Allah Most High has told
people to behave, and we say, “This is an atrocity, this is a foul
and wicked deed”, then in relation to us that evil becomes a good
because we have a reward from Allah for believing that it is evil,
and we have a higher degree in Paradise.
So, in
relation to the believer nothing is “bad”, since nothing can harm
him: if he believes that it is bad and is a sin, he has a reward
for his iman (faith) in condemning that which the Prophet (Allah
bless him and give him peace) taught and defined for us as being
evil. Evil cannot touch the mu’min (true believer) if he is a
mu’min. We have to return to fundamentals and increase our belief
in the eternal verities of faith. We have to read the Qur’an and
know that this is the truth from Allah Most High. If we understand
this, then outward appearances, be they of success or failure, we
will know the inward meaning of them.
We are
sitting in a room in which we’re undergoing an examination, and
soon we’ll stand up and leave the room and get our marks. This is
the reality and the meaning of this world: that there is heaven
and hell, and we are not responsible for making things happen in
this world that are beyond our control. We’re only responsible for
our own adab (conduct) before the Divine in relation to these
things, and to do that which Allah Most High has asked us to do.
Allah
Most High in His mercy has made this conditional upon our own
capacity, for He has said, “fattaqullaha ma stata’tum”—“Have as
much taqwa of Allah as you are personally able to,” and He doesn’t
require anything more or less than that. So everyone has to use
all of their capacities and talents, and “None of you believes
until he wishes for his brother that which he wishes for himself,”
which Imam Nawawi has said means one’s non-Muslim as well as
Muslim brothers.
And so we
wish for them, for every non-Muslim in the world, exactly what we
would wish for ourselves…to enter into the joys of Islam in this
world and perpetual bliss in the next by following the commands of
Allah. This is why the soul that is between our two sides was
created in each of us: to know Allah Most High, and be on a good
standing with Him. That He may make us the locus of his generosity
forever and ever.
When one
does this, one’s heart is at peace and this peace is what Islam
has to offer the world. I think this is already clear to everyone
who has any faith, certainly clear to you, Shafiq, and all of the
Muslims who may be listening to this. I am only saying it to
remind myself, and to anyone else who needs a reminder, Allah Most
High willing.
VOC:
Sheikh Nuh Ha Mim Keller unfortunately time has run out on us…we
must honor the time you set aside …it has been a great pleasure…
SK:
Alhamdulillah, it was my honor to speak to you and your listeners.
VOC:
Insha-Allah, and it’s been a great pleasure listening to
you…sitting at your feet and hearing your words of wisdom. And
insha-Allah, we hope to hear more from you…Jazak Allahu bi Khayr,
shukran jazilan for taking time out to talk to us, Sheikh.
SK: Jazak
Allahu Kulla Khayr, was-salam ‘alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatu.