Reactionary and Progressive Between Islam and Its Opponents (2-4)
Yusuf al-Azm
---------
Heritage
Islam’s Ethical and Social Vision
The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “A woman entered Hell because of a cat she tied up; she
neither fed it nor let it eat from the insects of the earth until it died.” (Reported
by Muslim).
He passed once, leading the Muslim
army to Mecca, by a dog nursing her pups. He ordered one of his companions to
stand guard beside her, preventing anyone from harming her, and the man
remained until the entire army passed without causing her harm. (Reported by Muslim).
On another journey, one of the
Muslims took two chicks from their nest. Their mother fluttered around the
Prophet and his companions, distressed. The Prophet said: “Who has distressed
her by taking her young? Return them to her.” (Reported
by Muslim).
Ibn ‘Abbas narrated that the
Messenger of God passed by a donkey branded on its face and said: “May God
curse the one who did this. Have I not forbidden this? In another narration:
May God curse the one who branded it. In another: He forbade striking the face
and branding it.” (Reported by Muslim).
Such refinement and gentleness elevate the
Muslim nation with its civilizational values to a rank no other nation
surpasses. The noble Messenger and his righteous companions recommended all
that brings good to the community and adds beauty to humanity, placing a fine
brick or artistic touch upon the grand canvas of the universe. Jarir (may God
be pleased with him) said: “I heard the
Messenger of God say: Whoever is deprived of gentleness is deprived of
goodness.” (Reported by Muslim).
Gentleness is not confined to a limit nor restricted to a
matter alone. Islam raises gentleness to the level of a foundation of daily
life, making the Muslim society the highest model of a strong community
overflowing with goodness, beauty, and righteous work. Life without gentleness
is considered empty—without benefit, without giving. ‘A’ishah (may God be pleased with her) narrated that the Prophet said:
“Gentleness is not found in anything except that it beautifies it, and it is
not removed from anything except that it disgraces it.” (Reported by Muslim).
She also narrated that the Prophet said: “O ‘A’ishah, God is Gentle and loves gentleness. He
grants through gentleness what He does not grant through harshness, nor through
anything else.” (Reported by
Muslim).
This leads us to say that Marx himself will one day, in the
logic of Marxism,
become reactionary—his thought outdated, his opinion antiquated, unable to keep
pace with the ever-changing civilizational development. Thus we see the
contradiction in their belief in “old and new.” Otherwise, what does it mean to
believe in the eternity of one thought and not another, in the progressiveness
of one human and the backwardness of another, when the law of decay and the
inevitability of death apply to all creation?
Nevertheless, we wish to discuss reactionary thought in all
its concepts, to show that it applies only to the “defeated” themselves in more
than one sense and in more than one field:
- Reactionary
in human terms: It is unjust to label as reactionary those
who called for true equality between Bilal and ‘Ali, Suhayb and Abu Bakr,
Sulayman and ‘Umar. It is rejected by reason, transmission, logic, and
morality to let those who degrade human dignity for race or color accuse
the advocates of sincere brotherhood of backwardness. Islam calls to the
highest level of sound human thought. No concept of democracy—Eastern or
Western—can match the moment when ‘Umar ordered Bilal the Abyssinian to
place his foot upon the cheek of Abu Dharr, who had insulted him by
saying: “O son of the black woman.” Is it not true human honor that
equality in origin and destiny be established between man and woman, white
and black, rich and poor, within one framework and one measure that does
not change with rulers or men of influence? {Indeed,
the most noble of you in the sight of God is the most righteous of you.}[Qur’an,
al-Hujurat 49:13].
- Reactionary
in economics: It is unjust to accuse Islam, which calls
for fair distribution of wealth, justice for worker and farmer, and their
participation in profits. Islam considers wealth to belong to God, with
people entrusted as guardians, acting faithfully within the bounds of
God’s law and the believer’s piety—neither arrogant nor wasteful, nor
belittling the dignity of his fellow man.
We see many Islamic advocates in modern times demanding
workers’ and farmers’ rights in lands where the worker had no weight and the
farmer was close to being a serf of the soil. An eyewitness in Kafr al-Shaykh
(in Egypt) recounts that large trucks once passed carrying young preachers of
Islam. Loudspeakers atop each vehicle filled the air with a clear call for
farmers’ rights to the fruits of their lands. This came after widespread
awareness among farmers declaring their right to the land, and Islam’s view—long
preceding today’s glittering systems—proclaiming: “The
land belongs to the one who cultivates it.”
This was one of the reasons that led to the dissolution of the Muslim group calling to God with insight in 1948, accused of inciting workers and farmers. At the forefront of those arrested then were the two struggling brothers, ‘Abd al-‘Aziz Shahin and Muhammad ‘Amir. In Shibin, where lay the largest estate of Egypt’s greatest landlord at the time, al-Badrawi ‘Ashur, the preachers of Islam stood demanding the farmer’s right to his land in an organized and powerful manner. This was followed by the landlord’s bullets raining from every side upon those calling for Islam’s rule in the land, and the soil was watered that day with the blood of the first martyr of the Islamic labor struggle—the martyr ‘Awwad.
All the harm inflicted upon the “Islamists,”
and all the false charges leveled against them, never included—even from their
opponents who dragged them before sham courts—the claim that among them were
owners of vast estates or major farms like those of ministers and men of
influence in Egypt, whose wealth was confiscated and lands seized.
A deep look and human survey of the various sectors of the
“Islamists” confirms that they were a movement that sprang from the very heart
of the people, while the financial elites and feudal lords stood in a
completely different camp. They represented the working class laboring in
fields and factories most faithfully, alongside small employees and the rising
educated generation.
One day, a “progressive Jewish woman” at the American
University in Cairo attacked the “Islamists,” inspired by the “progressives of
the American University,” after an article appeared in the Islamists’ newspaper
describing the American University in Tahrir Square as a serpent stretching in
the heart of Cairo. Her accusation, voiced with hateful trembling, was: “Who
are these people attacking the fortress of progressive culture? They are
nothing but a large group of doormen, peasants, and poor workers.”
That day, she found someone to answer her, explaining the role
of those poor farmers in reviving heritage and restoring the wasted dignity of
the oppressed Egyptian people.
------------------------
This text was published in Issue (15), 19 Rabi al-Thani 1390 AH / 23 June 1970, p. 8.
To be cont.
