In a two-part interview with the Qatari daily Al-Raya, Dr. Abd Al-Hamid Al-Ansari [1], former dean of the Faculty of Shari'a and Law at the University of Qatar, expressed his unconventional views on a variety of religious topics. The interview is unique since Dr. Al-Ansari's point of departure in his call for change in Islam isreligious and not secularist.
Dr. Al-Ansari attempts to "remove the concept of sanctity" from Islamic history and from the Companions of the Prophet Muhammad so that Islamic history can be open to criticism and the Companions can be seen as fallible human beings. He attempts to find the golden means between Islam and modernity.
In the interview, Dr. Al-Ansari denounces sectarian Islamic fanaticism, states that the law regarding apostates is not binding upon Muslims in the modern age, and says that the poll tax ( Jizya ) levied on non-Muslims under Islamic rule was never meant to apply to citizens who fulfill their obligations to the state.
He also explains how polygamy was intended as a solution to a social or individual problem, but was never a natural male right. On the other hand, he does not support change to Islam's inheritance laws that give different portions to men and women, and while he supports women's right to extensive religious activity, he does not think they should be allowed to deliver Friday sermons in mosques. The following are excerpts from the interview:
Sectarian Fanaticism is the Root of the Backwardness of the Muslim World
Interviewer Anwar Al-Khatib: "The Iran-Iraq war exacerbated the struggle between the Sunni and Shi'ite schools of faith, as did the incidents between the sects that have been taking place in Iraq since its occupation. In your opinion, is the region headed towards a Sunni-Shiite conflict…?"
Al-Ansari: "…In my opinion, the foundation of the conflict is fanaticism. Fanaticism is the source of the disease and the source of all manifestations of the backwardness from which we suffer: tyranny, divisiveness, dependence, and terrorism. But
fanaticism is a primeval flaw which began [in the competition between] different Islamic groups to be 'the group that shall be saved,' according to the traditions relating to the end of time, with every group claiming... that it is the only one that will be saved while the others will go to perdition. As if Paradise, which is as wide as the sky and the earth, had room for only one group. [2]
"It is absolutely amazing that this claim is voiced by followers of Islam, even though their religion respects and appreciates pluralism. Instead of devoting efforts to repairing the rift and strengthening what they have in common, the Islamic groups have directed most of their efforts to pursuing the tradition regarding the 'group that shall be saved' in a way that... fostered sectarian, religious, and ethnic fanaticism. This chronic ill in the [Muslim] social and cultural structure continues to this day, and it is manifested in the fanatical conflicts nourished by the modern media…
"We must address this despicable fanatical sectarianism with practical and viable solutions. Conferences and conventions are not helpful in bringing [Muslims] closer together, because they recreate the culture of fanaticism. Each party seeks to investigate and check in books everything that condemns the other, so as to shove it in his face – thus only increasing divisiveness and fanaticism.
"Dealing with this requires, first of all, a conscious dissociation from this fanatical heritage and the adoption of new civilized humane thought. Second, this thought must be translated [into deeds] in educational ways, via the media, tolerant religious discourse, non-discriminatory policy, and just legislation.
"We must purge the school curricula of all sectarian implications and elements according to which others deviate from the righteous path and the truth is in our hands alone. We must enrich the curricula with the values of tolerance, and acceptance of the other who is different (in school of faith, ethnic group, religion, nationality, or gender). The political regime must refrain from sectarian or ethnic preference; it must respect the rights and liberties of the minorities and must guarantee them through legislative action, practical policy, and equal opportunity in the areas of education, media, and civil positions.
"The great amount of talk about Islamic tolerance is useless if the laws of the land discriminate among the citizens… Similarly, there is no use in religious sermons, or even in curricula and early education, if daily reality contradicts the values of tolerance and national unity…
"We must recognize that in our societies, minorities suffer from an improper situation, from unfair deeds, from unequal treatment, and from various forms of discrimination by the state or by the Muslim and Arab majority. These minorities suffer greatly, and the outside world knows it. If we do not act to rectify this situation and to treat our citizens with justice and integrity, it may become a pretext for foreign forces to interfere in our affairs…"
Question:"Must we be connected to specific schools of faith? Am I making a mistake if I pray, fast, make a pilgrimage, and give charity, but take no interest in the question of what school of faith I belong to?"
Al-Ansari: "There is no better answer to this question than the words of the imam [known for his commitment to bringing Muslim hearts together], Sheikh [Mahmoud] Shaltout. [3] He was asked about the idea that in order for the edicts to be properly fulfilled, the Muslim must act in accordance with one of the four schools of faith [– hanafi, shafi'i, maliki and hanbali ], but not shi'a.
"The sheikh replied: 'Islam does not require anyone to act in accordance with a specific school of faith. First, every Muslim has the right to act according to one of the schools whose laws appear in its books. It is the right of those who act in accordance with one of these schools to move to another school. There is nothing wrong with this.
"'It is permitted by religious law to belong to the ja'fari school, known as the school of the Shi'a of the 12 imams, just as it is permitted to belong to the other schools of the Sunnis. It is appropriate for Muslims to know this and to rid themselves of the unwarranted fanaticism towards certain schools of faith. Allah's religion and His Shari'a are not limited to a specific school of faith…'"
Jihad May Be Waged for Defense or for Escaping Tyrannical Regimes
Question: "How can the verse 'There is no coercion in religion' [ Koran 2:256 ] be reconciled with [the tradition of the Prophet Muhammad] 'I have ordered to fight against the people [i.e. non-Muslims] until they attest [that there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is His Prophet]'? How is it possible to explain Islam's conquests in light of the statement that they are no different from modern wars [fought] for imperialism and occupation? In this argument there lies an accusation that the Righteous Caliphs did not understand the secret of spreading Islam by peaceful means. Why was there a need to use weapons to compel people to adopt the religion [i.e. Islam]? And should we remove the sanctity from Islamic history and from the Companions of the Prophet [the Sahaba ]?"
Al-Ansari: "These questions lead us directly to clarify the concept of Jihad. Jihad, as I have understood it and taught it for the past 25 years, does not deviate from two main goals: First, [Jihad is] defense against existing aggression, or aggression that is about to take place. This was the [kind of Jihad] in all the Prophet's wars with Mecca and the tribes allied with it, [as well as his wars] against the Jews in Al-Madina and Khaybar who violated [a pact] and fought the Muslims.
"Second, [Jihad is extending] help to persecuted peoples, and liberating them from their tyrannical regimes. This is what the noble Companions of the Prophet did when they fought to liberate the peoples in Persia, Al-Sham [Greater Syria], Egypt, and North Africa from the yoke of the Byzantine and Persian empires that enslaved the helpless peoples.
"Clearly, the spread of Islam is not connected to military activity. True, military activity removed repression and enslavement from the peoples, and gave them the freedom to adopt Islam, but basically Islam spread because the peoples found in it justice, honesty, equality, and freedom, and found in the Muslim leaders an awe-inspiring example of humane behavior – something to which they had not been accustomed in the past.
"There is no contradiction between the verse 'there is no coercion in religion' and the tradition 'I have ordered to fight against the people [i.e. non-Muslims] until they attest that there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is His Prophet.' The verse rejects coercion and confirms freedom of choice, while the tradition is directed at those among the people of Mecca who are fighting Muslims… [When the Prophet talked about those non-Muslims who should be fought] he meant the polytheist Arabs who had been at war with them since they expelled him [from Mecca]…"
The Muslims, Not Islam, Are Responsible for Any Injustice to Other Peoples During Islam's Wars
"We do not deny that there were grave injustices caused to other peoples in the wars of Islam after the era of the Righteous Caliphs, that is, from the Umayyad period to the Ottoman period. These wars were partly for expansion and economic interests, but we must be aware that this was the nature of those times – that there were periods of ongoing wars, armed conflicts, and heated conflicts.
"If Muslims perpetrated grave deeds, others perpetrated even worse ones. Similarly, these wars were not only those of Muslims against others. On the contrary, the wars among Muslims themselves... were even worse and bloodier, and the Muslims spilled more Muslim blood than other blood.
"But, whatever these grave deeds may have been, the Muslims, as one of the world's peoples, were responsible for them – not Islam, its values, and its just and humane precepts. Thus, when we teach Islamic history, we must remove sanctity from the behavior of individuals, however high their status. We must distinguish between the needs of the religion and the demands of politics and rule.
"The curricula must separate religion from history, so that the younger generation will understand the history in all its positive and negative aspects. It is not right to fill the minds of the young people with glory, grace, and [other] positive aspects of our history, while completely ignoring the negative aspects. This instills in them arrogance and false pride, and binds them to a glorious past in which they seek solutions to present-day problems.
"Teaching history one-sidedly and superficially and linking it to religion in order to justify excesses and mistakes is very dangerous to the future of the younger generation. Perhaps this selective and arrogant way of teaching history is one of the extensions of the aggressive terrorist thought that torments our society…"
The Companions of the Prophet Were Human Beings with Human Weaknesses, Not Saints or Infallible
"The Companions of the Prophet were credible with regard to what they passed on about the Prophet, and they are a model. They sacrificed their lives and property, spread and defended Islam, and served as an awe-inspiring example. But ultimately they were human beings who are not infallible. They were both right and wrong, with human aspirations and tendencies, and therefore it says in the Koran [ 3:152 ]: 'Amongst you were some who desired this world and amongst you were some who desired the hereafter.'
"The Companions of the Prophet have no sanctity and are not infallible. We have the right to assess their political behavior negatively or positively without [this being considered] defamation of any one of them. We know that the greatest civil war took place during their time, and it was the greatest catastrophe, which broke the strength of the Muslims. [4] Thus, it is natural for us to be familiar with the reasons that led to it, and we will assess the positions of those who participated, and clarify who was right and who was wrong. If we say that everyone acted according to [right] religious judgment and that everyone was right, and that they are accountable only to Allah, history becomes meaningless.
"Indeed, we must remove the concept of sanctity from Islamic history, because it is the history of human beings who are right and wrong, like all human beings. It is the history of the Muslims, not of Islam, and our criticism is criticism of history, not of Islam…" [5]
The Command to Kill the Apostate is Not Binding upon Muslims in the Modern Era
Question: "What is the position on the Muslim apostate? Must we use new religious judgment on the matter, in light of the accusations directed against Islam that it orders the killing of the apostate? Whose responsibility is it to guide [Muslims] in the right path – the state's or the individual's?"
Al-Ansari: "First of all, freedom of belief is a strong element in the Koranic and prophetic texts and in the historical facts, beginning with the early era. It suffices to look at verses such as 'There is no coercion in religion…' [ Koran 2:256 ] and 'L et him who pleases believe, and let him who pleases disbelieve. ' [ Koran 18:29 ] Islam's point of departure in establishing freedom of belief is logical and simple: The universe, nature, and man are based on difference, variety, and diversity. Moreover, the Koran decided on this matter when it said 'And for this did He create them ' [ Koran 11:119 ], that is, for the purpose of difference, diversity, and variety, with the aim of enriching life. As long as nature is diverse, and Allah created us different in everything – color, religion, language, nationality – it is natural that our choices will be diverse, in belief, way of thought, imagination, style, and laws, and that we have freedom of choice…
"The words of the jurisprudents in the matter of killing the apostate do not bind us in the modern era, because they fundamentally contradict the Koranic text [ 4:137 ]: ' Those who believe, then disbelieve, again believe and again disbelieve, then increase in disbelief – Allah will not forgive them nor guide them in the right path.' That is, the punishment will be in the hereafter, not in this world.
"As to what the Sunna says, 'Kill the one who changes his religion,' these words refer to a situation of great treachery through collaboration with the enemy. The Murtad [to whom the tradition refers] belonged to the camp of the Muslims in Al-Madina. [He] became an apostate, joined the camp of the enemies in Mecca, and began to fight Islam and the Muslims. Therefore, it was natural for the Prophet to order him killed.
"This understanding is reinforced by means of another tradition, according to which the blood of the Muslim is permitted in only three cases. Among these is [the case of] a Muslim who abandons his religion and leaves the group. That is, not only does he abandon his religion, but he also leaves the Muslims for the enemies.
"This leads us to the conclusion that the issue of belief and disbelief is a personal issue that is not the business of the regime, that must be distant from state or society's interference. Guidance in the right path is [solely] from Allah… When the state interferes in the individual's affairs, in the believer's affairs, and in private relations between man and his Lord, it ruins more than it rectifies, and becomes a tyrannical regime that harms the religion itself. True, the state must encourage virtue, spread the values of Islam, and urge the people to cling to the precepts of the religion, but the coercion of a repressive regime."
The Poll Tax Does Not Apply to Citizens Who Fulfill Their Duties to the State
Question: "How must we treat the Christians who live among us? Must they pay the poll tax [ Jizya ] even though they fulfill the same duties – the military, taxes, and service to the homeland?"
Al-Ansari: "All the lengthy talk that fills the books of jurisprudence, claiming that the poll tax was imposed upon non-Muslims instead of killing them and as a punishment for their remaining infidels, and as humiliation and subjugation – [all this talk] is worthless when it is compared to what was clearly established in the agreements signed by the first Muslim commanders with the people of the vanquished countries. [In these agreements it was stated] that the poll tax is imposed in exchange for protecting them, or as a tax to 'defend' them, and it is abolished when they participate in this defense. The agreement between the [early Muslim military commander] Khaled bin Al-Walid and the priest Saluba stated: 'You [the Christians] deserve safeguarding and protection. If we protect you, we [the Muslims] deserve the poll tax…'
"The poll tax is abolished when the non-Muslims participate in fighting, as established in the agreement between Suwaid bin Mukrin, one of the commanders of Omar [bin Al-Khattab], and the people of Dahastan: 'You deserve protection, and we must protect you. You must give payment [for the protection] every year, in accordance with your ability, but whoever among you helps us, his payment [will remain his,] because of his help…'
"The Companions of the Prophet recognized and approved these agreements made with the Muslim commanders, and there was general agreement that the poll tax was in exchange for protection. Similarly, taking money for protection is not an Islamic invention, but is an old matter and an international custom that has continued to our days. The international forces that liberated Kuwait and are now protecting the Gulf are not doing this without recompense, which is manifested by guaranteeing of their international interests…
"Christians and other non-Muslims who obtained [Arab] 'citizenship' and who take part in the duty of service to the homeland and fulfill their duties to the state have the same rights [as the Muslims]... The concept of 'citizenship' is a modern concept linked to the shaping of the modern state over a period of 200 years, and it sets out equal rights and obligations between the individual and the state. The principles of Islam include nothing that contradicts the concept of citizenship.
"The logical point in the distinction that existed between Muslim and dhimmi during early Islam and throughout the previous generations has disappeared in our times, in the modern state. There is no justification for discriminating between citizens because of their belief, religion, or gender, and there is nothing in the principles of Islam that contradicts such non-discrimination. On the contrary, [non-discrimination] is obligatory according to the principles of justice, social needs, politics, and the needs of national unity."
Polygamy is a Solution to a Social or Personal Problem, Not a Man's Natural Right
Question: "Is polygamy a fundamental principle [in Islam], and when is it permitted? Do we need new restrictions and rules? Is it possible to issue a law preventing polygamy except for special cases?"
Al-Ansari: "If polygamy was a fundamental principle, Allah would have created many more women than men. But the official statistics that we and others have always pointed at indicate that the number of women is smaller than the number of men. The most recent statistics published by the Al-Khaleej Center for Strategic and Future Studies in Kuwait at the end of 2003 showed that Kuwait has 50.2% women, the United Arab Emirates have 50%, there is 49.5% in Bahrain and Oman, 49% in Saudi Arabia and Qatar…
"No one denies that polygamy is legitimate. On this there is no argument. Our dispute with the supporters and encouragers of polygamy is whether polygamy is a [natural] right or a solution [to a problem]. We maintain that it is the solution to a problem that can be individual or social, and is not the natural right of the man....
"During the time of the Prophet Muhammad and early Islamic society, polygamy was the answer to a general problem. The Islamic conquests and wars had left behind a large number of widows and homes that had lost their source of support and needed supervision. The number of men was reduced due to the wars and the difficulty of making a living, and the dangers of movement on the roads, and therefore there was no social solution except polygamy. In addition, the woman was not productive, because she did not work, and she needed protection and safeguarding.
"There are, therefore, a number of humane justifications that turned polygamy into something accepted at that time, and a means of protecting homes that were in danger of collapse – and this is in contrast to what happens now, when polygamy destroys stable homes.
"[Today, however,] polygamy is the source of many social tragedies. The courts are full of the problems stemming from it. Unplanned polygamy in Arab society has contributed to the intensification of two major problems: First, increasing the divorce rate above 35%, and second, increasing the rate of delinquency among the youth.
"Therefore, there is a need to restrict polygamy with rules that will limit its negative effects on the family, on the younger generation, and on society... I support restricting polygamy and restraining it, but I do not support banning it by law because the prohibition is likely to worsen the situation and push people to cheat in various ways."
The Fact that Women Today Work and Help Make a Living Does Not Justify Changing Inheritance Law
Question: "Today, the woman works and participates in earning a living. Does the man still deserve the portion of two women in inheritance? And if a father divides the inheritance evenly, is this permitted and just?"
Al-Ansari: "The inheritance apparatus is a just Islamic apparatus with two principles: first, the principle of equality – namely, equal parts to equal members of the family [6] – and second, the principle of justice – wage for labor. In Islam, the man is the father, husband, and brother responsible for making a living, and therefore it is just for him to receive a larger part of the inheritance than the woman… Had Islam wanted to express discrimination and preference [for the man], the woman would not be equal to the man at all with regard to parts [of the inheritance she receives]. But a number of researchers have enumerated over 24 instances in inheritance law in which the woman is equal to the man, and sometimes even surpasses him. [7]
"With regard to an equal will, upon his death the father loses control over the division of his estate, and the estate is managed by a predetermined public distribution apparatus. Thus, his will does not replace this unless the male heirs agree to relinquish their rights… The fact that the woman today works and makes a living and that she has become a source of production... does not justify change in the basic apparatus of inheritance distribution, and does not justify changing the legal status of the various parties, since in the future as well the man will remain the one fundamentally responsible for making a living."
Women Can Be Appointed to Top Religious Posts, but Must Not Deliver Friday Sermons
Question: "Is it permissible for a woman to deliver the Friday sermon? 'Aaisha the mother of the believers [and the young wife of the Prophet Muhammad] delivered a sermon to the Companions of the Prophet. Why didn't she lead them in prayer?"
Al-Ansari: "In general, preaching is a legitimate matter for a woman, just as it is for a man. From the jurisprudent point of view, there is nothing to prevent a woman from doing so, except among those who think that the voice of a woman is of nakedness, because of the distraction from the written text and the principles…
"The women from the group of the Companions of the Prophet handed down traditions about the words and deeds of the Prophet, and 'Aaisha led the army of the Companions [seated] on a camel and gave speeches before them as a leader.
"But the Friday sermon has special status. It was always in the hands of men, because the deliverer of the sermon leads the worshippers, and among us a woman leads prayers for women, not for men. Similarly, the Friday [sermon and public worship] is not one of her obligations.
"At the same time, it is the right of the woman to deliver sermons from various religious, media, cultural, political, and educational pulpits, because this is a form of 'encouraging virtue and prohibiting vice' and this is part of the social responsibility that is shared between the sexes. It is her right to be appointed to posts of judging, giving jurisprudent opinion, supervising public morality [ hisba ], and religious preaching, and the ruler has the right to enable women to do this. A woman with ability and training can by nature better understand the needs and problems of women. The Turkish government, [for example,] ordered the appointment of 30 women as muftis and muftis' aides in many districts in Turkey, and there is nothing wrong with this…" [8]
Endnotes:
[1] For more on Dr. Abd Al-Hamid Al-Ansari, see
Special Dispatch No. 792, "Qatari Intellectual on the Islamic Roots of Antisemitism and 9/11 Conspiracy Theories," October 24, 2004, Qatari Intellectual on the Islamic Roots of Antisemitism and 9/11 Conspiracy Theories;
Special Dispatch No. 660, " Former Dean of Islamic Law at University of Qatar: 'America Has Changed the World for the Better,'" February 10, 2004, Former Dean of Islamic Law at University of Qatar: 'America Has Changed the World for the Better';
Special Dispatch No. 757, " Liberal Columnist in Al-Hayat: Do Arabs have the Courage to Reconsider Their Positions Following the 9/11 Commission Report?," August 3, 2004 Liberal Columnist in Al-Hayat: Do Arabs have the Courage to Reconsider Their Positions Following the 9/11 Commission Report?;
Special Dispatch No. 699, " Liberal Muslim Scholar: The Term 'Jihad' is Misunderstood by Islamist Clerics, " April 23, 2004, {{nodeurl-}};
Special Dispatch No. 503, " An Arab Intellectual in Qatar: 'Arab Media's Conduct During the War is Indicative of a Deeper Malaise,'" May 9, 2003, An Arab Intellectual in Qatar: 'Arab Media's Conduct During the War is Indicative of a Deeper Malaise';
Special Dispatch No. 386, " Leading Islamic Clerics Come Out For Reform in Arab-Islamic Society" June 5, 2002, Leading Islamic Clerics Come Out For Reform in Arab-Islamic Society;
Special Dispatch No. 337, " Dean of Shari'a and Law at Qatar University in Support of the U.S., the War on Terror, and Curricular Reform Part I," January 29, 2002, Dean of Shari'a and Law at Qatar University in Support of the U.S., the War on Terror, and Curricular Reform Part I;
Special Dispatch No. 338, " Dean of Shari'a and Law at Qatar University in Support of the U.S., the War on Terror, and Curricular Reform Part II," January 30, 2002, Dean of Shari'a and Law at Qatar University in Support of the U.S., the War on Terror, and Curricular Reform Part II;
Special Dispatch No. 307, "Dean of Islamic Law, Qatar University: The fight against terrorism must begin with curricular, educational, and media reform in the Arab world," December 4, 2001, Dean of Islamic Law, Qatar University: The fight against terrorism must begin with curricular, educational, and media reform in the Arab world.
[2] A reference to the tradition according to which the Prophet Muhammad said that after his death, his nation will be divided into 73 groups, only one of which will be saved on the Day of Judgment.
[3] Sheikh Mahmoud Shaltout served as Sheikh of Al-Azhar from 1958 through 1963.
[4] A reference to the Battle of Sifin in 657, between the forces of the Fourth Caliph 'Ali bin Abu Taleb and the forces of Mu'awiyya bin Abu Sufyan, the First Caliph of the Umayyad dynasty. Following the Battle of Sifin, Islam's first religious opposition group, the Khawarij, was formed.
[5] Al-Raya (Qatar), January 29, 2005.
[6] Meaning that people with the same degree of proximity to the deceased are entitled to an identical portion. For example, the deceased's sons each receive an equal inheritance, and the daughters each receive an equal inheritance – although less than the sons.
[7] The inheritance is divided among a large number of the deceased's relatives. There may be a situation in which a woman, such as a mother, is closer to the deceased and she will receive a larger portion than a man who is a more distant relative.
[8] Al-Raya (Qatar), January 31, 2005.
