I Mean You, Neighbor!

By Khalid Al Khaja

We must be humble and fair when studying the cultures of nations and sects that differ from us. We must address them as if we are addressing ourselves, just as we would like those nations to address us. Humility and fairness are necessary:

A- If we want to compare our culture with theirs. It is not right to deal with our culture with our hearts, while dealing with their cultures with our minds.

B- If we want to compare ourselves to them. We have to measure our degree of compliance with our own principles and compare it to their degree of compliance with their own principles.

It is unfair to judge other nations and sects by measuring how upright they are to our principles, and it is unfair for others to do this to us. There must be justice when studying other cultures, no matter how alien these cultures may seem to us. This is the methodology of every serious seeker of truth.

And know that in uprightness on principles lies the weakness of all sects and nations. Cultures themselves, on the other hand, have relatively close values, even if there are some radical differences. How easy are speeches and slogans, and how difficult it is to be upright about them!

For example, the culture of the first Islamic nation (the Companions of the prophet (ﷺ), may Allah be pleased with them), was somewhat similar to the French culture that bans hijab. Our Muslim pioneers forbade the veil on the female Muslim slave, meaning that she was obligated not to cover up, but had to reveal her hair in the markets. Simply put, this is how the culture of the first Islamic nation was in the charitable centuries, and these values and rulings are still an integral part of Islamic jurisprudence; and I understand it, agree with it and proud of it, for reasons that I will explain later!

So, in principle, if we want to address the French and criticize their negative attitude on the issue of the hijab, we cannot criticize them for not considering the importance of the hijab and modesty. Islamic law also does not consider the importance of the veil of the female Muslim slave, and there is no difference between a free female Muslim and a female Muslim slave in gender, as both of them are females.

However, there is a big difference between the attitude of the pioneers of Islamic culture in the charitable centuries and the position of the pioneers of French culture today. While the first Islamic Ummah (nation) had integrity (uprightness on their religious principles that is centered at the happiness of the society), I do not find integrity among the pioneers of French culture (uprightness on their liberal democratic principles that is centered at the happiness of the individual). That is, the pioneers of the Islamic Ummah succeeded in its integrity (credibility), but the pioneers of the French Ummah are failing.

The Islamic legislations that obligated the female Muslim slave to uncover in the era of the Companions, may Allah be pleased with them, were universal and common in their time among all nations and sects. However, when we compare, we find that the Islamic laws relating to slavery have been reformed to distinguish them in their time from other nation’s slavery laws. The Islamic laws of slavery were far more sophisticated and humane when compared to the barbaric slavery laws of other nations. Therefore, I understand, agree with and proud of the Islamic reformist legislation!

What is important is that Muslims have been able to apply their laws fairly and without discrimination, which we do not find among the French. Although the French laws against the hijab appear to be generic and include fighting all religious symbols, an honest researcher will not find it difficult to expose their randomness and targeting the Muslim community in particular and not others. It’s this discrimination that undermines the credibility and integrity of the French experience. What is the desired benefit of beautiful principles whose ink has dried up and has not been adhered to and remained just as empty slogans?!

So, when we address the French experience, we can challenge the credibility of the French government for its double standards and its floundering in uprightness to its liberal democratic principles. However, it is not right to address them according to our Islamic principles and systems that are against the liberal principles.

Similarly, when comparing the Islamic religion with others, it is necessary to distinguish between the internal advocacy discourse (directed at Muslims) and the external advocacy discourse (directed at non-Muslims). When addressing other sects in their religion, it is humble and fair to rely on their holy books and not ours, as Sheikh Zakir Naik does, may Allah protect him. Sheikh Zakir reveals that Hindus violate their holy books, and explicit texts that call for monotheism and forbid idolatry and taking idols as lords. He further fairly reveals that Christians violate their holy books, and explicit texts calling for monotheism and offers Jesus (ﷺ) as a human being and a prophet, and not as the Son of God or God. These are fair references to their religious traditions and indicate the lack of integrity of the Hindu community on adherence to the Hindu teachings, and the lack of integrity of the Christian community on adherence to the Christian teachings.

Therefore, we as Muslims should be happy if other sects address and criticize us and reveal our violations of our holy books (the Qur'an and the authentic Sunnah), and explicit texts that indicate our lack of integrity as Muslims on adhering to the Islamic teachings. Not to criticize us for not being upright on liberal principles, practices, cultures and laws that appeal to them, but seem abnormal and ugly to us!

Do you see what I see?!