|
|
 الأستاذ محمود محمد طه: القراي والخليفة والأفندي (مقال وردود)
|
CRITICAL MUSLIM 12, OCTOBER–DECEMBER 2014
MAHMOUD TAHA: HERESY AND MARTYRDOM
Abdelwahab El-Affendi
The lowest point for the regime of former Sudanese President Gaafar Nimeiri (1969–1985), if not for the whole of modern Sudanese history, came on the morning of Friday 18 January 1985. At that fateful hour (around 10am), a seventy-seven-year-old man was dragged in chains to the gallows, with tens of thousands of people watching, most of them cheering with glee. The courtyard of the main prison in Khartoum, the Kober prison, was full to capacity, and the masses were queuing for miles around in the vain hope of catching a glimpse of the spectacle. Just before being dispatched, the hood covering the convict’s face was removed so that he could behold the hate and condemnation in the eyes of the crowd.
To the astonishment of all watching, there was a confident and benign smile on that well-known face, with its traditional parallel scars on both cheeks. Just at that moment, the hundreds of political prisoners housed in that jail shouted in unison a slogan calling for the downfall of the regime. His smile broadened slightly as he acknowledged the implied support. His face was covered again, and he was promptly hanged. His body was then winched in a helicopter and taken to an anonymous burial spot on the edge of the desert. His grave remains unknown to his family and friends to this day.
The condemned man was Mahmoud Muhammad Taha, at the time an established religious thinker with a small but dedicated band of followers, mainly among the educated youth. He was relatively unknown outside Sudan, and was shunned by the established religious mainstream. Already a Shari’a court had condemned him in 1968 as an apostate. But since Shari’a courts, a remnant of the days of British rule, had no jurisdiction beyond personal affairs, that was more of a fatwa than a judicial decision.
However, after Nimeiri announced sweeping ‘Islamic’ legislation in
September 1983, things began to change.
In 1984, frustrated with the mounting opposition to his measures and
the reluctance of the judiciary to cooperate, Nimeiri established a tier of
courts dubbed the ‘Prompt Justice Courts’, operating under emergency
regulations. These courts were manned by zealots from both Nimeiri’s
core support among minor Sufi groups, plus an assortment of Islamists.
The courts adopted a cavalier attitude towards procedures, and scores of
summary harsh sentences were meted out every week and were publicised
in the media. Some of the trials were televised.
In January 1985, Taha was hauled with four of his followers in front of
one of these courts. He had been arrested in December 1984, having been
released from nineteen months of detention earlier that month, on
charges of sedition for distributing leaflets condemning Nimeiri’s anti-
Islamic laws. Criminal Court no. 4 in Omdurman happened to be manned
by a young judge adhering to a small Sufi sect headed by Nimeiri’s key
adviser on Islamic law at the time. The charges against the accused were,
ironically, under secular law: they were accused of sedition and ‘inciting
hatred against the state’. After just two days of trial, the five accused were
sentenced to death on 8 January. The Appeals Court, within the same
Prompt Justice Courts system, not only affirmed the sentence but added
the charge of apostasy, citing the 1968 court decision and a statement by
the Muslim World League, also in 1968, declaring Taha’s ideas contrary to
Islam. In its ruling issued on 15 January, the accused were given three days
to repent or face execution. The four other accused decided to recant and
were reprieved. President Nimeiri endorsed Taha’s sentence; and it was
carried out.
The speed with which the trial was conducted sent shock waves through
the Sudanese intellectual and political scenes. There were wide
condemnations from trade unions, lawyers and academic bodies, and the
process which led to Nimeir’s toppling from power in a popular
revolution three months later was set in motion. In February 1986, the
Appeals Court quashed the ruling retrospectively.
A Turbulent Life
Mahmoud Muhammad Taha (1909–1985) first came to national
prominence in September 1946 when he led a demonstration that
stormed the prison in the provincial town of Rufa’a to free three women
imprisoned under a law which banned Female Genital Mutilation (FGM).
The British colonial authorities had passed the FGM ban a year earlier and
the women included the mother of a little girl and the midwife who
performed the operation. Taha and his followers forced the release of the
women, and entered into further confrontations with the police when the
mother was re-arrested. Taha argued that he was not in favour of FGM,
but resented colonial interference in local customs. The women were
freed, but Taha himself was arrested and sentenced to two years in prison.
That was his second stint in jail that year. Earlier in the year, and a few
months after setting up the Republican Party in October 1945, he was
detained by the authorities and sentenced to one year in prison for
sedition. But he was released after less than two months due to popular
pressure. However, in the Rufa’a protest case, he was forced to serve his
full term. It proved a turning point in his life.
In prison, Taha, an engineer by profession, found religion. Prior to that
episode, his rhetoric was largely secular, with a focus on opposition to the
traditional ‘sectarian’ parties. However, following his detention, he began
a period of deep reflection on religious issues. Emerging from jail two
years later, he went into voluntary seclusion for three more years. When
he emerged, he was a new man. His ‘republican’ party became a religious
cult centred around his mystical vision. He still maintained a liberal
outlook, prioritising individual freedom and the anti-colonial struggle.
But this time, he used the term ‘jihad’ as a rallying cry. Many of his
colleagues left to join other parties, and he had to make do with a small
ever-growing circle of disciples.
His full vision was not coherently developed until the mid-1960s. But
in the meantime, he began to campaign on a number of issues. In the
run-up to independence in 1956, the main Islamist movement, the
Muslim Brotherhood, emerged on the scene and managed to put the
question of the ‘Islamic Constitution’ on the agenda. Taha vehemently
opposed this call, and later resigned from the Constitutional Commission
in protest at its domination by what he saw as ‘sectarian’ parties. He wrote
one of his first pamphlets, Usus Dustur al-Sudan (the Fundamentals of
Sudan’s Constitution, 1955), in which he outlined his vision for Sudan as
a decentralised presidential republic. Already, however, we can discern
here some of his future core ideas, such as arguing that ‘absolute freedom’
for the individual should be the goal of the political system, but citizens
need to be educated to deserve it; and part of the education is political
empowerment. He also argued that the Qur’an should be the basis of the
constitution, adding a ‘cosmopolitan’ flavour to his prescription by
arguing both that the future of humanity requires a proper understanding
of Islam, but also that Sudan should orient itself to become part of a world
order based on peace and equality. He also advocated some form of
welfare state.
The democracy in Sudan did not survive long, and Taha was quick to
write to the generals who took power in 1958, beseeching them to
implement his vision of a ‘socialist, federalist, democratic system’. The
request was completely ignored. But it set a precedent that would prove
problematic, and ultimately disastrous, in days to come: pinning the hope
on a dictator to realise a vision of ultra-liberal democracy. Taha had a
problem with actual democracy in a context like Sudan, where he
detested the main political actors, blaming them for misguiding the
masses into adhering to reactionary visions.
It was under the military regime, however, that Taha encountered his
first serious setback. In 1960, three of his disciples were expelled from
the Ma’had al-‘Ilmi, the highest institution of religious learning in Sudan.
They were accused of propagating Taha’s ideas, in particular his views that
the obligatory daily prayers need not be performed by one like him, who
had achieved an elevated spiritual rank. Taha tried to negotiate the
students’ reinstitution, and when he failed, he wrote one of his first major
works, Al-Islam, in which he summed up his reform vision.
His problems got much worse once democracy was restored after the
popular uprising which swept the military away in October 1964. He
revived the Republican Party again and plunged headlong into the politics
of the day. His first major clash with the establishment came in 1965,
when parliament decided, by an overwhelming majority, to ban the
Sudanese Communist Party (SCP) and dismiss its eleven MPs. This came
after a young man who claimed to be a member of the party launched a
public attack on the Prophet Muhammad and his family, provoking public
protests. The Communist Party denied the man was a member and
distanced itself from his remarks. But its opponents decided to exploit the
popular backlash and banned it anyway. When the Supreme Court
declared the measures were unconstitutional, the government and
parliament defiantly refused to abide by the ruling, causing the Chief
Justice to resign in protest.
Hassan Turabi, the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood and at the time
the country’s leading constitutional lawyer, produced a booklet supporting
the ban. His argument was that ultimate sovereignty rested with
parliament, which was the source of law. Therefore, no other authority,
including the courts, had the power or right to challenge the parliament.
Taha produced a scathing counter-attack, questioning Turabi’s Islamic
credentials (he scarcely produced Islamic arguments to support his case)
and his legal competence and understanding of democracy.
In 1967, he launched into another battle, this time targeting Arab
leaders following the catastrophic defeat against Israel in June that year,
challenging them to recognise Israel and accept a peace deal with it on the
basis of the Partition Decision of 1947. He had been engaged for years
prior to that in a crusade against Egypt’s Gamal Abd al-Nasir (Nasser). He
had sent him letters (in September 1955 and again in August 1958) urging
him to espouse Islam as a basis of his rule, and chastising him for his
populist anti-Western policies, which he deemed demagogic and
irresponsible. Taha was deeply hostile to pan-Arab nationalism, which he
branded as ‘racist’; he argued that Arabs have only entered history as
Muslims, and that is the way they will do so again. Like Sudan’s generals,
Nasser did not bother to reply to his messages.
In 1966, Taha gave up his job as an engineer and dedicated himself fully
to his mission. Over the next two years, he published some of his most
important works, including his magnum opus, Al-Risala al-Thaniya fi’il-
Islam (The Second Message of Islam, hereafter RTI, January 1967). This
landed him into big trouble. Shortly after the second edition of RTI was
published in April 1968, some clerics lodged a complaint against him in
one of the Shari’a courts, accusing him of apostasy. These courts had no
real powers, and no jurisdiction. Taha boycotted the proceedings, and
treated the court with disdain. Nevertheless, the court held a trial in his
absence and declared him an apostate on 18 November 1968, after just
three hours of deliberation.
Taha and his followers saw this as the culmination of a long struggle
with the traditional religious establishment, and in their riposte,
condemned the ulama as hypocrites who were not qualified to judge Taha,
being themselves a creation of the colonial order and having a history of
serving colonial rule and all variety of authoritarian regimes. Interestingly,
they also accused Nasser of instigating the court procedures against him
in a ‘conspiracy’ to silence him and avenge his vocal criticisms of Nasser.
It was a poignant irony, therefore, that when Nimeiri took power in a
bloodless military coup in May 1969, Taha offered enthusiastic support to
the new regime, even though it was supported by Nasser and the SCP.
Even when Nimeiri engaged in massacres against the Mahdists and later
against his own Communist allies, Taha maintained his support. Nimeiri
banned all political parties, so Taha’s movement changed its name to the
Republican Brothers and continued to operate with tacit regime approval.
This remains one of the most controversial positions of the Republicans,
given their principled support for freedom and their blanket
condemnations of dictatorships elsewhere. The justifications offered for
this position tend to compound the problem, since it reiterates the
unprincipled claim that the ‘reactionary’ sectarian parties and Islamists
were a worse alternative. Expressing the hope that Nimeiri’s rule would
‘liquidate’ the sectarian parties and suppress the Islamists, as well as
eliminating the Communists, thus permitting a period of ‘enlightenment’
and change, is apparently an overt endorsement of repressive violence.
However, not only did Nimeiri fail to eradicate sectarians and Islamists,
but he later allied himself with them. Further on, he declared himself an
‘imam’ in his own right and became Taha’s worst nightmare: a zealot
religious dictator. That is when he decided to oppose him, and paid with
his life.
The Core Theory
It is not easy to pin down the essence of Taha’s innovative thought, but two
interconnected strands pervade his discourse: a commitment to liberal
individualism and a mystical inclination. It is also not clear which came
first, given his trajectory. It is also problematic that he combines his
almost dogmatic liberalism with socialist notions. In this sense, at times
one discerns that the liberalism frames the mysticism, while at others, it
looks as if it was the mysticism which framed the liberalism. But there is
no doubt that it was his mystical certainties which sustained him through
his turbulent times.
The way he expresses his hopes and analyses also indicates an
evolutionary vision which operates at multiple levels: biological,
historical, social, political and spiritual. He combines the traditional
creation story with conventional Darwinism by arguing that when Adam
was banished from Heaven, he was banished into almost nothingness, and
had to be created anew along the lines suggested by Darwinism: life
emerged like a spark from sheer matter, then evolved until man came
into being. This was the tortuous path through which Adam became
human again and was forgiven. Human society also evolved from a
primitive state of superstition and barbarism to civilisation. Social
evolution was also paralleled with spiritual evolution: from primitive
paganism, to advanced paganism, to monotheism. This was also a kind of
objective process, like the biological evolution: as humanity evolved and
became more mature, it became deserving of a higher level of
spiritualism. Within monotheism itself, there was an evolution that could
be described as the ‘Islamic Trinity’: Judaism was strictly regulatory in its
prescriptions, while Christianity swung like a pendulum in the other
direction, concentrating on spirituality rather than behaviour. Then Islam
came to restore the balance to the middle, between the arbitrary
strictness suitable for primitive societies, and the idealist spiritualism
which borders on permissiveness.
On the basis of this analysis, Taha builds his core theory of individual
spiritual evolution. And here, his mystical inclinations come into their
element. He begins by arguing that man is not only a divine creation, but
essentially divine. The verse which states that ‘O Mankind, be conscious
of your Sustainer who created you out of one living entity (nafs)’ (4: 1),
is interpreted to mean that you have been created out of God himself.
Having been banished into oblivion, this nafs (soul, self) then evolves back
into humanity, and through Shari’a could be restored back to its divine
status and absolute freedom.
Thus in political society as in religious law, the absolute freedom of the
individual is the most fundamental principle. In Islam, the individual is the
basic unit of accountability, and each individual confronts God on his/her
own. But to be exercised, freedom needs to be earned and deserved.
Those incapable of respecting the freedom of others must be restrained
through ‘constitutional law’ and chastised until they reach the requisite
level of maturity. The whole objective of Shari’a is to attain this end of
absolute freedom. This includes the harsh provisions, such as ‘an eye for
an eye’, since these are primary educational tools. The main reason for
aggression by man against his fellow man is a ‘lack of imagination’. But
when an aggressor is made to suffer the same harm he had perpetrated on
a fellow human being, his eye is then opened and he realises the enormity
of what he had done. The ‘Law of Compensation’ is thus a fundamental
law of the creation. As well as being a legislative provision, it is a cosmic
law (for the universe has come into existence through truth and justice
b’il-Haq). Through this law, man draws nearer to God through will and
freedom, while the rest of the inanimate universe obeys God’s will
through coercion. However, this difference is only apparent, since man’s
will is only apparent. The naïve individual may imagine that he/she has a
will and can control his/her action. But a truly knowledgeable individual
would realise that this is mere illusion. In reality, both the unbeliever and
believer obey God and prostrate to His will. Only the true believer does
this willingly and knowingly, while the unbeliever does so without
knowing it. The whole objective of religion is to help attain this stage of
awareness of obedience.
To attain this condition of genuine freedom and knowledge, the
individual can choose to elevate himself/herself to a higher degree of
obedience through strict training, beginning by shunning sins of action,
then sins of speech, and finally sins of thought and even of the
‘unconscious’. The realisation that there is no will but God’s is attained
through strenuous exercises of fasting, prayer and charity. It also reflects
itself in moving beyond justice and retaliation to forgiveness of those who
wrong you, and then caring and loving them. At the level of realisation of
complete absence of will and compete submission to God, the soul attains
absolute peace and identity with self, and then free will again:
Here, the heart bows, forever, at the threshold of the first stage of servitude. Then
the servant is no longer in the complete grip of fate, but with complete free will;
that is because complete obedience to God has raised him to a status of nobility,
handing him over to the freedom of choice; he has obeyed God until God obeyed
him in compensation. He becomes alive though God’s life, and in possession of
God’s knowledge, God’s will and God’s power. He becomes God.
When a person ascends to this level, religious laws no longer apply to
him/her. This is the level of ‘individual Shari’a’, where every person
follows norms appropriate to that level, up to level of ‘absolute individual
freedom’:
And as the conscience becomes progressively more purified, the conduct becomes
more correct and the circle of prohibitions narrows, while the circle of permitted
things widens… When the journey reaches its ultimate end, with a completely
pure heart, all sensible things revert to their original status permissibility.
Islam, New and Old
It is within this overall evolutionary theory of life that Taha proposes his
vision of the ‘Second Message of Islam’. According to Taha, this ‘second
message’ was in fact the first one, revealed in Mecca but rejected by the
Quraysh. Therefore, the message was diluted because humanity was not
at that time capable of shouldering it. Only the Prophet observed the
dictates of this message in his personal conduct. The second message thus
involves reviving the Prophet’s ‘Sunna’ and generalising it to become the
conduct of everyone.
The Shari’a, as it was revealed and applied in the seventh century, was
suitable for that period, but totally incapable of addressing the challenges
of the twentieth. But if we say that the Shari’a is to be suitable for every
time and place, this can be only because it is a living and evolving system.
To launch the second message of Islam, we need to go back to the Qur’an
and read it in a new way. We need a new messenger to receive the new
revelation. This revelation comes directly from God, without the
mediation of the Angel Gabriel, through reading the Qur’an. The new
messenger is someone whom God has endowed with the appropriate level
of comprehension and given permission to speak. And as Christ said, ‘by
their fruits you will know them’.
In reality, Taha argues, the second message of Islam is the only genuine
Islam. He bases this on a rather significant reversal of the accepted
hierarchy between iman (faith, belief) and Islam. Traditionally, it has been
accepted, based on very clear Qur’anic and hadith injunctions, that Islam
is the bare minimum and formal acceptance of the faith, which is followed
by iman, is backed up by dedicated action. Above iman, we find ihsan
(perfection), which is to worship God as if feeling His actual presence.
Taha overrides this hierarchy by postulating two levels of religious
experience, the first (inferior one) is the level of faith, and the second is
the level of knowledge (‘ilm) and truth (haqiqat). In the first level, Islam
is indeed the lowest rung, followed by iman and then ihsan. At the level of
‘ilm, however, we start with ‘ilm al-yaqeen (knowledge of certainty),
followed by ‘ilm ‘ayn al-yaqeen (knowledge of the very certainty), and then
ilm haqq al-yaqeen (knowledge of true certainty). Islam is the level beyond
that third phase.
At this level, Islam was in the past available only to prophets and
exceptional individuals. However, now that humanity has evolved
sufficiently to qualify for accepting this level of Islam, it is time for the
emergence of the first and true Muslim community. Humanity is now
ready for the message because it is sufficiently advanced socially,
intellectually and economically, but impoverished spiritually. This
combination of material advancement and spiritual impoverishment is
the sign that a new dispensation is needed, and only Islam can provide
this dimension.
But Islam provides this in its second message, not in the first. In its new
mission, the norms of Islam in the areas of worship (except for zakah, or
charity) and the areas of justice (including the hudood punishments) need
not be revised, but social and political norms and practices should be. For
example, jihad is not a fundamental precept of Islam, since the original
and fundamental norm is that of individual freedom, so coercion is not
admissible. However, since at that early stage, coercion was appropriate,
jihad was permitted. Similarly, enslavement of individuals was permitted
as a consequence of jihad, and as a concession to prevalent norms. By the
same token, ‘capitalism’ and private property, inequality between men
and women, divorce, hijab and the segregation of men and women, were
all permitted as interim measures, since the societies of the early Islamic
era would not have been able to handle the true injunctions. For example,
the Prophet did not retain any property above his most basic needs, giving
away everything beyond absolute necessity. In this regard, the provisions
of zakah, as the obligatory allocation of a portion (between 2.5% and
10%) of one’s assets or income to charity, is not the true Islamic norm. In
reality, the true Islamic society is a ‘democratic socialist’ system, where
social equality is the norm, and where individual control of means of
production must not be permitted.
If the believers observe these norms of true Islam, they will achieve on
this earth the paradise described in the Qur’an. That divine promise is
‘only a miniature model for the greater paradise, which will be realised
on this earth on which we live today, when it is filled with justice after
having been filled with injustice’:
This is the dream entertained by Marx, but which he has completely missed,
lapsing into error. It will not be realised, however, except by the Muslims, who
have not yet appeared. When they do, part of what God foretold in the verse:
‘Verily, the God-fearing [shall find themselves in the hereafter] amidst gardens and
springs; [having been received with the greeting,] “Enter here in peace, secure!”;
And [by then] We shall have removed whatever unworthy thoughts or feelings may
have been [lingering] in their breasts, [and they shall rest] as brethren, facing one
another [in love] upon thrones of happiness; No weariness shall ever touch them in
this [state of bliss], and never shall they have to forego it.’ This aspect is the
communism which will be achieved by Islam the moment the Muslim umma
appears. At that moment, ‘the earth will shine bright with her Sustainer’s light’,
and God’s grace will fully encompass its inhabitance, and peace will prevail all over
and love will triumph.
Evaluation and Critiques
It is clear from the preceding that there are many aspects of Taha’s thought
which the orthodox will find troubling, beginning with the last point
where paradise is not an alternative to earthly life but a continuation of it.
Then, there is his claim that not only can man become one with God, but
he can become God, and therefore become a law unto himself, with no
need to observe any religious prohibitions or taboos. Such views were
naturally found outrageous by the orthodox, including the Sufis, some of
whom could have become his allies.
The secular components of his theses, including his critiques of Western
civilisation, are not without problems either. This is not least because such
points are often offered in a few paragraphs, and with such generalisations
as ‘man and the universe in philosophical thought’, without citing a single
philosopher. His followers complained that Taha had been systematically
ignored by the intellectuals. This might have been out of deference, since
the secular intellectuals would have to criticise his rather maverick ideas,
which they did not want to do, happy to have him as an ally against the
Islamists and conservatives.
Islamists also ignored Taha’s ideas, concentrating instead on
condemning him as a heretic and attacking him for his alliance with the
Nimeiri dictatorship. In another irony, Nimeiri in fact pursued the
policy of previous regimes of depriving Taha and his followers of any
access to the media. To circumvent this obstacle, the group relied on
innovative methods, such as conducting regular daily debates in
universities and some public squares, in addition to members
volunteering as itinerant sales people to distribute their literature. These
tactics, and the deep isolation nationally and regionally (surrounding
Arab countries were not that receptive either), ensured the membership
remained small, but cohesive.
The main critiques of Taha came from the religious establishment,
which built what one of his supporters described as a ‘broad Islamic
alliance’, made up of the religious establishments in Sudan, Saudi Arabia
and Egypt, backed up by some Islamic movements and a wide array of
religious functionaries (imams, ulama associations, etc.). This alliance
succeeded, as al-Bashir notes, in ‘misleading the peoples of Sudan and
peoples of Islam’ through their anti-Taha propaganda.
Taha’s confrontations with the orthodox religious establishment was a
straightforward issue: the traditionalists rejected his claim of authority to
override accepted dogma and practice on the basis of personal communion
with God, for that amounted to declaring oneself a prophet. But his
conflict with the Sufis, including the group which masterminded his
demise, was more complex. For Sufism does accept the possibility of
direct communion with God, and many renowned Sudanese Sufis had
regularly challenged the authority of the ulama, including a sixteenthcentury
ancestor of Taha, Sheikh Muhammad al-Hamim, who defied the
judge of the day by marrying two sisters and exceeding the limit of four
wives. However, Sudanese Sufis also consistently rejected ‘radical’ claims,
such as those of the Sudanese Mahdi (d. 1885), who claimed communion
with heaven through visions of the Prophet. The judge who tried Taha also
reiterated claims citing Al-Ghazali (d. 1111) that mystical knowledge is
personal and privileged, and should not be shared or used as a basis of
public claims.
Secular critiques, which were rare, centred more on the man’s
obscurantism, his hold on his followers and his ‘reactionary’ views. His
support for the Nimeiri military dictatorship also remained an unresolved
issue. An additional problem is that Taha (and some of his followers, such
the human rights advocate Abdullahi An-Na’im), tend to offer the most
restrictive interpretation of Shari’a (such as that it is lawful to use violence
to force people to accept Islam) in order to justify their arguments that it
should be transcended.
The group now receives little criticism, except from hard-line Islamists,
most probably because it is not seen as threatening. Since the demise of its
charismatic leader, the movement’s already low profile has receded
further into the background. According to the movement’s own
adherents, the membership of the group never exceeded one thousand
followers. However, the movement has witnessed a minor revival recently,
in terms of political and media presence, if not in membership. In 2010,
Taha’s former modest home in Omadurman became the locus of the most
appropriate tribute to the departed thinker: the Ustaz Mahmoud
Muhammad Taha Cultural Centre. Earlier this year, the group applied for
a registration as a political party in Sudan, but its application was rejected
in May 2014 after a challenge from a group of ulama. The issue is currently
being hotly debated, and the Parliament has intervened by summoning the
independent Parties’ Registrar for questioning on the constitutionality of
this rejection.
Conclusion
Taha was no doubt a charismatic and very interesting person, with very
deep conviction. His instincts – if not his practice – were liberal. His
attempt to combine a deep spiritual commitment with similarly strong
liberal convictions is rather unique. His notion of the need for a radical
rethinking of Islamic norms by deepening understanding of its
fundamental values through a process of reflection and rethinking cannot
be disputed. His visions of democracy, including his critiques of Islamist
political leader, Hassan Turabi, are pointers in the right direction.
However, his vision suffers from three main problems: theoretical,
ethical and spiritual. Theoretically, his views are based on a hotchpotch of
amateur physics, amateur anthropology, amateur philosophy and amateur
economics, among others. In his writings, he makes sweeping claims
about the findings of whole disciplines without quoting a single reference
or even mentioning a name. At times, the sources quoted are secondary
translated newspaper or magazine articles. This is deeply problematic,
since he often builds the whole edifice of his theory on such casual claims
(as in his 1960 book Al-Islam, where his proposed ‘spiritual
experimentation’ is entirely premised on the claim that the whole physical
universe is reducible to –and could be explained in reference to –
energy). Similarly, his theories of biological and social human evolution
take for granted Western modernity’s claims about being the most
advanced in all aspects, including ethically, in human history, a
questionable proposition, to put it mildly.
Ethically, Taha faces the dilemma of all modern Muslim ‘liberals’, who
cannot accept the right of Muslim societies to govern themselves, and
advocate what I have elsewhere called the ‘guardianship of the liberal’ (in
contrast to wilayat al-faqih, the guardianship of the religious scholars). This
leads to some stark self-contradictions. For example, Taha rightly and
courageously challenged the decision by Parliament to ban the Communist
Party in 1965, and cited this in supporting Nimeiri’s coup against what he
termed ‘civilian dictatorship’. However, when Nimeiri banned all political
parties, including the Communist Party and Taha’s own party, the archliberal
did not utter a single word of protest. Nimeiri was not satisfied by
just banning parties, but imprisoned hundreds of opponents, and
massacred Mahdists and Communists. He also eliminated media freedom
and judicial autonomy. The democratic system Taha defied did not
imprison the Communists, nor did it interfere with the media or freedom
of speech. But Taha was content to support a regime which perpetrated
far worse transgressions than the ones he had so vehemently decried. In
fact, the Republicans continued to support the dictatorship, issuing a
pamphlet as late as 1979 justifying this position.
Spiritually and theologically, Taha’s position poses the most serious
problem. His notion that the believer, by immersing himself in the Qur’an
and engaging in spiritual exercises of fasting and seclusion, could receive
‘revelation’ poses a serious challenge about what happens if different
individuals receive conflicting revelations. More fundamentally, what is
the mechanism of determining when a revelation is authentic as opposed
to a mere hallucination? This is not just a theoretical problem, since
throughout Islamic (and Sudanese) history, many claimants of ‘Mahdist’
and other missions have emerged. Some, like the Sudanese Mahdi, have
demonstrated deep convictions and admirable selflessness. But does that
guarantee authenticity?
In any case, the spiritual dimension is not Taha’s most enduring legacy,
since the mystical experience he advocates is by nature not communicable
or replicable. None of his followers had claimed to have attained his level
of perfection, as far as we know. His legacy has thus restricted itself to
three areas: a cultural and intellectual dimension of diffuse liberalism,
propagated by the Taha Cultural Centre and in the writings of select
followers; a political dimension, also disseminated through the activism of
the writings of his remaining followers; and a legal dimension propagated,
almost single-handedly, by Emory University’s Abdullahi An-Na’im, and
becoming more and more detached from the original mystical foundation,
and tending to be plain liberal and secular.
In a characteristic statement made by Taha when he was condemned by
the first ‘Apostasy Court’ in 1968, he said that he did not blame his
adversaries, who believed that Shari’a as they understood it was the last
word in matters of Islam, for not understanding him. ‘If they were sincere
in their own sphere [of understanding], then even if they condemn us as
apostates and decree our death, they could be considered Mujahids and
we become martyrs if they succeed in killing us. But if they are not
sincere, then their acts are rather trivial. And we know that they are not
sincere in their own sphere, since they have always been tools in the hands
of authorities’.
The same test of sincerity could be applied to Taha and his followers.
But sincerity in itself is no guarantee of validity or truthfulness.
http://www.musliminstitute.org/blogs/crhttp://www.musliminstitute.org/blogs/cr ... eethinkers
المقال نشر في مجلة Critical Muslim تحت عنوان مفكرون أحرار يشكلون خطورة:
|
|
  
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: الأستاذ محمود محمد طه: القراي والخليفة والأفندي (مقال وردود) (Re: عبدالله عثمان)
|
كتب الأستاذ الريح حسن خليفة ردا جآء فيه
The article published by Dr. Abdewahab El-affendi, (Effendi) a writer, activist and a previous affiliate with the Muslim Brotherhood movement, about Ustaz Mahmoud Mohammad Taha, (Taha) the late Sudanese Islamic thinker and reformist and the leader of the Republican Brotherhood Movement (Republicans) has raised many questionable issues. I would like in this small piece to shed some lights on these issues and to introduce the readers to some aspects of Taha’s ideology through responding to Dr. Effendi
Other than the brief account about the spectacle of Taha’s execution and some historical facts Effendi has intentionally attempted to distort the image of Taha’s life and work by describing his quality of contributions as little less than mediocre; stating that: “theoretically, his views are based on a hotchpotch of amateur physics, amateur anthropology, amateur philosophy and amateur economics, among others. In his writings, he makes sweeping claims about the findings of whole disciplines without quoting a single reference or even mentioning a name. At times, the sources quoted are secondary translated newspaper or magazine articles.”
In his browsing through Taha’s books Effendi failed to notice that Taha did not need to cite any philosophical ideas to authenticate his views, because his theory was not developed through rational and objective study of philosophy or jurisprudence. According to Taha if an individual follows the example of the prophet, in every aspect of his life; with love and trust; Allah would diffuse knowledge unto his soul and heart. Taha maintained that the function of Prophet Mohammad as a messenger is to perfect whoever follows his footsteps, take him to God and leave him to communicate with Him. If that happened to an individual then that individual would become knowledgeable enough to understand from the Quran (nothing have we omitted from the book) and divulge what he/she had learned. As Islamic scholar, Effendi should be mindful of the fact that, though the Prophet and his nation were illiterate, they were able to dominate the two major civilizations of their time. They acquired their knowledge through devoutness and god-fearing, the mechanism which Taha indicated earlier; following what Allah said “So fear Allah; for it is Allah that teaches you. And Allah is well acquainted with all things.” Effendi, therefore, should subscribe to the fact that Taha himself was an authority, who expounded an unprecedented ideology and his views should be criticized in this level. The source Taha referred to is in the book of Al-Islam (published in 1960) where he quoted Einstein in a piece translated by Dr. Ahmad Zaki, a renowned Egyptian Scientist. The piece was about Empirical science, in which Taha illustrated the interconnection between empirical science and spiritual science. Whether this source is secondary or primary is not of great essence, inasmuch as it elucidates the discourse, nevertheless Effendi did not offer examples from Taha’s writings or speeches, in which Taha neglected to mention certain references.
As we will see later, Effendi did not refer to Taha’s views, as they were written in his books; instead he articulated his own understanding of these views and presented them as facts. While Republicans experienced this method from their uninformed opponents, who usually raised these same unsubstantiated allegations about Taha’s ideas, (they were usually refuted, partly because they were lies and partly because of the misinterpretation of Taha’s ideas) this should not be the case with Effendi, a professional writer, who was supposedly employing legitimate methods of research. The only instances in which Effendi made references to some of Taha’s books were to state that they were written as a reaction to certain events; as in the case of students of the Islamic University of Omdurman.
Though Effendi mentioned that Taha was jailed in the year 1946, during the colonial rule, he denied him the credit as the first political prisoner in the Sudan modern history. This neglect was not new to Taha, as most of the Sudanese historians intentionally overlooked his heroic role in the struggle against colonialism. They, instead, venerated other politicians who did not play the role Taha played in their campaign against colonialism. Effendi further stated in his paper “his followers (meaning Taha) complained that Taha has been systemically ignored by the intellectuals.” It is important to note that Taha, in the course of forty years, has published hundreds of thousands of books and booklets, delivered hundreds of speeches and lectures, and toured almost all parts, of the Sudan to explicate his message. This momentum created by Taha’s movement did not seem to catch the attention of the intellectuals; in the left or the right, including Effendi. Taha did not find the consideration he deserved as a thinker and Islamic reformist until after his execution. The entire media outlet; private and public, intentionally ignored the role and activities of this movement; even though they watched its members in the streets, every day discussing whole range of issues. The only time Taha had his turn to appear in public TV was during his trial after which he was executed! And the only moments his name was echoed in the Public media was to announce to the public that Taha was officially an apostate and thus he was going to be executed. After these outrageous situations can Effendi disagree that Taha was not only ignored but also treated unfairly? In any case, by deemphasizing the role of Taha as first political prisoner Effendi placed himself with those intellectuals who deliberately disregarded Taha’s role in the history of Sudan.
Effendi also mentioned that Taha’s Republican Party became a ‘religious cult centered on his mystical vision’. The term religious cult usually carries derogatory connotations; entailing surreptitious and covert activities. However, Effendi is conscious that Taha’s movement is all about writing books, conducting public presentations, holding debates and discussions, delivering lectures, even undertaking internal session in the open; how can this movement be characterized as a cult? It is important to assert that no movement in the history of Sudan seeks to discuss its views and strives to reach all people, without exception like the Republican movement. Therefore, It is prejudicial, to define Taha’s movement as a religious cult without offering evidence. Taha and his followers dedicated their entire intellectual efforts towards enlightening against sectarianism and religious extremism; by continually urging the public not to be deceived by the self-proclaimed Ulama whose function was to use religion for their personal gain. They further, armed the public with the necessary knowledge to face and expose those Ulama and any other religious figures, who manipulate religion. While I am conscious that Effendi is an Islamic traditional thinker whose mind does not go beyond Muslim Brotherhood interpretations of Islam, I was hopeful that, instead of labeling Taha’s movement as a cult, to fairly articulate its role in raising the level of awareness among the people against all the ossifying tendencies of those religious groups or personalities who created a fertile environment for extremism and terrorism.
Effendi also noted that Taha’s rhetoric before the second imprisonment was purely secular. It is important to note that Taha’s message has always been about religion, ever since 1945. As a matter of fact his first book entitled ‘Assifr Alawal’ the first testament, which was published in October 26, 1945; where he asserted that religion is the only ideology that can resolve people’s problems. He spoke about the bankruptcy of the West and its failure to realize happiness for mankind. He added that the East, in particular Sudan, can include a new element to the Western civilization, which is urgently needed; namely the spiritual element. Therefore the claim by Effendi that Taha’s rhetoric before his second imprisonment was purely secular is inaccurate.
Effendi also stated “ In the run-up to independence in 1956, the main Islamist movement, the Muslim Brotherhood, emerged on the scene and managed to put the question of the ‘Islamic Constitution’ on the agenda. Taha vehemently opposed this call, and later resigned from the Constitutional Commission.” This statement is entirely erroneous; it shows that Effendi did not bother to read Sudan political history. The fact of the matter is; in September 1956 a national committee for the constitution was formed and Taha was invited to participate. The work of the committee was to draft a constitution to be presented to the Constituent Assembly. Taha requested in a proposal that the committee should be fully independent from intervention of the government, with respect to appointing of its chairman and members and also in the decision making. When the proposal failed Taha resigned with a letter published in Array-Alaam newspaper in 1/26/1957. He emphasized that: ‘by giving itself the right to appoint the Chairman and the members, the government undermined the very idea of the nationality of this committee.’ He went on to say that “our basis for participating in this committee came as a real desire expressed by the public opinion; to help highlighting the human ideals of the peoples and incorporate them in the constitution.” (Read Faisal Abdurrahman Ali Taha; Sudan on the Outskirts of second Independence. Page 351. You can also go to article Abdallah Alfaki AL Basheer; Mahmoud Mohammad Taha and the Intellectuals 17). There was no any mention in the history books that Taha resigned from the committee because of the Islamic constitution proposed by the Muslim Brotherhood Movement. Moreover, the claim that Taha wrote the book of (The Fundamentals of the Constitution) as a reaction to this event or in protest to its domination is baseless; as the book was published in 1955, before this episode took place (Effendi himself noted the year!). Taha wrote this book a sole reason to outline his vision for ruling Sudan, suggesting Federalism as a system of governance for the first time in Sudan history. Although most politicians opposed the idea of federalism they came after some forty years to discover that it was the most felicitous thing to do.
Effendi pointed out that absolute individual freedom should be the core of the political system according to Taha. However, he neglected to add that this absolute individual freedom should correspond with social comprehensive justice. For Taha every individual has the absolute freedom to think, as he likes, say what he thinks and act accordingly, in as much as he takes responsibility for his actions. Individuals’ actions are governed by a constitutional law, which reconciles between the need of individual for absolute individual freedom and the community for comprehensive social justice. Taha asserted that every individual, however insignificant he is, is an end in himself, and that very thing else including slam and the Quran should be a means for him to evolve and realize his/her individualism.
“Taha has a problem with actual democracy in the context like Sudan, where he detested the main political actors, blaming them for misguiding the masses into adhering to reactionary visions.” This is a claim put forth by Effendi. Taha has never had a problem with democracy, in the context of Sudan or any other country. He has a problem, though, with the wrong practices, which could occur in developed or under-developed countries. In his last writing (The Preamble) he said “let us make it clear that democracy which is defined as ‘ruling of the people by the people for the people’ does not fail, it is the remaining rule in which societies evolved in improving and upgrading it.” Taha rebuked the Sectarians not for their reactionary ideas- Vis à Vis democracy- but for intentionally misleading the public, in their dubious endeavor to impose the Islamic constitution. Taha exposed the inadequate practices of the sectarian parties and their strives to control the government by any means possible. At that democratic era, which Effendi alluded to; the Prime Minister refused to honor the Supreme Court ruling, the communist party, a party whose members in the Assembly won in a free election, was banned and his members were expelled from the parliament. The word (detested the main political actors) should be understood in the context of corruptions of those political actors and their failure to honor the trust of the people. But Taha did not detest those politicians whom he disagreed with; he always welcomed any chance to open a dialogue with them.
Effendi detailed the relationship between Nimeiri regime and the Republican movement; concluding that the movement offered enthusiastic support to Nimeiri even when he committed atrocities, banned all political parties and restricted human right and freedoms. It is difficult to comprehend Republicans’ support to May regime without contextualizing the historical backdrop, in which May regime took place. After Sudan attained its independence it was plagued by two main sectarian parties that shared the rule of the country. Their concern was to pursue their narrow partisan interests at the expense of the unity, independence and interest of the Sudan. Effendi himself cited some examples of their debacles; including, banning the communist party, expelling members of the parliament for their political views, disrespecting the constitutional institutions by dishonoring the Supreme Court ruling, orchestrating Taha’s apostasy trial and the list goes on and on. It is pertinent to shed the light on the era which preceded May regime, in order to understand the justification put forward by the Republicans in their support to May regime.
In his article The Republicans and May (2); Dr. Omer Algarrai, under the title civil dictatorship, stated that; when Taha resisted the falsification of democracy in series of lectures under the title (the combat of dissolving the Sudanese communist party) both sectarians and Islamist groups attempted to muzzle the Republicans with what was known as the apostasy trial; which ruled the apostasy of Taha, closed his party house and confiscated his books. When the trial failed to attain its goal; sectarians and Islamic Charter Front (the organization for Muslim Brotherhood) endeavored to impose the Islamic Constitution as a means to silence their opposition in the name of religion. In 1969 the constitution was in the second reading in the Constituent Assembly, (by a committee, so inept that it refused to include the words ‘democracy and socialism’ in the constitution because they were not mentioned in Quran and Sunna!) At that time an announcement attributed to Alhadi Al-Mahadi, the Umma party leader, that, if the Assembly did not pass the constitution then the Ansar (Umma Party affiliates) would pass it by the sword. In this environment; where the country was at the verge of chaos and the lame parliament transformed into a religious dictatorship, threatened to impose a faulty constitution aiming at liquidating the political opponents, May regime took over. For this reason Taha perceived it as a salvation for the country because it put an end to the conspiracy of imposing the constitution by force. It also stopped the war between the South and the North (erupted in 1955), that all the successive governments failed to stop. Dr. Algarrai concluded his article by highlighting two vital facts: before May regime Republicans were demanding to stop the Islamic constitution, cease the ongoing war in the South and prevent sectarians from imposing the Islamic constitution by force. When May regime came, it virtually implemented all the demands which the Republicans were calling for. The Republicans stood by the principles they had called for and were not concerned with the regime as an entity. Thereupon, Republicans remained faithful to these principles, even when Nimeiri relinquished them; by allaying with sectarians and Muslim Brotherhood, waging the war in the South and proclaiming the Islamic constitution. It is obvious that Taha’s stance stemmed from unshakable moral principles and not pragmatic or tactical gimmick (all Sudanese parties participated in May regime, by way or another, only they didn’t have the principles and courage Republicans had). The Republicans stood neutral; neither to oppose nor help the opposition, so that May might not collapse, because the alternatives, as mentioned above were far worse. When May deviated from the principles stipulated by the Republicans, they showed it an unwavering campaign until they brought it to its knees. If Effendi wishes to criticize the relationship between May and the Republicans, he should emphasize these historical facts and put them into perspective, instead of throwing unfounded accusations. It is ironic that, while Effendi attributed to the Islamists their attack toTaha, for allaying with Nimeiri, he fell short to point out that those Islamists did not only support the regime, but they became part of it, even when the regime was secular. This should be compared with the position of the Republicans who resolutely adhered to their principles all along.
In discussing the theological aspect of Taha‘s ideology Effendi referred to a quotation from one of Taha’s books which stated the followings: “He becomes alive though God’s life, and in possession of God’s knowledge, God’s will and God’s power. He becomes God.” That was Taha speaking about the evolution of the individual. It is important to mention that Taha did not stop in that phrase but went further to say that God has no image to be actualized or a destination to be reached. But rather means that the opportunity of the individual for perfection has no limit. His/her aspiration (the individual) is to become God but god is the infinitude and cannot be reached and so it is a limitless journey, in which a person is perfecting his/her attributes. Effendi maintained that Orthodox were troubled by the claim of Taha that paradise is not an alternative to the earthly life but a continuation of it. It is my understanding that orthodox exponents believe that God would reward people according to their acts in this earthly life, if that is the case, then each individual would carry with him/her what he/she had achieved in this earthly life to continue in the other life. For Taha, however, existence is an eternal journey, which neither started with human existence nor would it end with paradise or hell. Orthodox, therefore, should not be troubled by the fact that paradise is not an alternative, but a continuation because that was the intuitive fact.
The misunderstanding of Taha’s concept about the relationship between man and God led Effendi to assume another misleading conclusion, by stating the following, “Then, there is his claim that not only can man becomes one with God, but he can become God, and therefore become a law unto himself, with no need to observe any religious prohibitions or taboos.” This statement implies that a person in a certain level is not required to abide by the law of the society (no need to observe any religious prohibitions or taboos), which would open the door to false claimants and chaos in the society. Taha believed that if a person reached his/her individualism, he would realize the maximum stature of human morality, such that he would not be embroiled in violation of the law, which Taha defined as ‘the minimum standard of morality.’ But even if that individual violated the law he would be responsible.
Effendi further claimed that Sufis themselves were at odds with Taha, with regard to his theory about the relationship between man and God, without offering any example. He further reiterated the fact that Taha was in conflict with the Sufi (the group that mastermind his demise). Let me make it clear that Taha was never in conflict with the old real Sufis, who represented the exemplary of religion; by devoting their lives for teaching and guiding their followers, and never covet their wealth. In contrast, their current counterparts (Effendi referred to as allies) who were credited with the same attributes and prerogatives; used the trust of their followers to further their personal earthly gain. Consequently, they lost track of their predecessors and transformed into sectarians. For this reason Taha issued in in April 27, 1965 a pamphlet to all the Sufis in Sudan telling them that the time has come to follow one path; and that is the path of Prophet Mohammad (May peace be upon him). He further urged Sheikhs of the Sufis to instruct their followers to leave all the other paths and guide their followers to the path of Prophet Mohammad. (May peace be upon him). Taha emphasized in his pamphlet that Sufis have contributed great services to the people and their leaders have been beacons of guidance for the nation, where people sought their religion, their morals and their teaching. But now, Taha said; there was no person with a religious or moral standing as Prophet Mohammad, who could unify the nation and renew its religion. Taha’s call did not resonate with most of the pseudo Sufis. No wonder if they masterminded the conspiracy that leads to the execution.
Secularists, according to Effendi criticized Taha for his obscurantism and reactionary ideas. But Effendi did not offer any example from the writings of those critics nor did he give names or references. As was mentioned above, the activities of the Republicans have always been in the open. Nothing would thrill the Republicans more than having the people come to discuss their ideas. Taha’s ideas and conduct have been scrutinized, by his enemies and friends; including his private life, without a hint of him being annoyed. Moreover, the claim that Taha‘s ideas were reactionary is self-contradictory and does not warrant elaboration. Effendi also added that Taha and his followers offered restrictive interpretation of Sharia to support their argument. It is important to note that, when citing texts from the Quran or Sunna, Republicans would validate them with examples form the Prophet’s deeds. The most blatant example is the issue of Jihad, where most intellectuals who hold traditional views of Islam are torn between defending these views and adopting the Western culture of democracy and human rights. They would attempt to justify the validity of Jihad by claiming that it was a defensive tool used by Muslims to counterattack their enemies. In order to refute this argument, Republicans would offer un#####ocal historical facts which would show that, in fact, the Prophet Mohammad (may peace be upon Him) dispatched his messengers to the Kings and Emperors demanding them and their peoples to accept Islam, as their religion, or be prepared for war. When Republicans raised this irrebuttable argument they were faced by fallacious allegations such as the one raised by Effendi.
In the conclusion of his paper Effendi pointed out that “Similarly, his theories of biological and social human evolution take for granted Western modernity’s claims about being the most advanced in all aspects, including ethically, in human history, a questionable proposition.” This quotation clearly explains that Effendi did not digest Taha’s views. In his book “The Second Message of Islam” (which Effendi, inadvertently miswrote its title) Taha articulated his critique of the Western civilization. He differentiated between civility, as the summit of the social pyramid and civilization as its base. Civility, according to Taha, could be defined as the ability to discern the values of things and commit to these values in a regular manner. Accordingly the civil person cannot confuse, or sacrifices ends for the sake of means. In a nutshell he/she is the person who realized the perfection of the intellectual and emotional life. Based on this premise, Taha maintained that the current Western civilization was not considered a civility, because its balance of values was upset; the means advanced and the ends delayed. Western civilization, according to Taha, has two faces; one is ugly and the other is pleasant. Its pleasant face is its capability in the field of scientific exploration to manipulate the material power to enrich life and use the machine to aid the human being. Its ugly face is its inability to wisely strive to maintain peace and work for war and spends on means of destruction much more than worked for peace and building. Its ugly face is the shortcoming of its ideology to reconcile the need of the individual for absolute individual freedom and the need of the community for comprehensive social justice. It is difficult to comprehend how Effendi overlooked this critique of Western modernity, which was taken from the book of the Second Message of Islam, unless he intentionally aimed to misrepresent Taha’s views.
Effendi is counting Taha with (Modern Muslim Liberals) who cannot accept the right of Muslim societies to govern themselves, calling it the guardianship of liberals as opposed to the guardianship of Islamic Juris, in some Muslim countries. This is one of Effendi’s baseless allegations against Taha. In his book the Basis of Sudan Fundamental Constitution: page 20, Taha stated the following; “we should know that no matter how the Sudanese people are backward in some areas, we do not have any other means of educating them except by giving them full opportunity to directly manage their own affairs. We recognize their full rights to oversee the works of their rulers, as well as their representatives. They can further call their representatives for questioning, terminate their membership from the representative council, or send others to replace them. They have the exclusive right to dissolve the legislative council before the end of its term.” Taha went further to state “the people have the right to oversee the work of the officials, amend the constitution; whether by referendum or by their representatives in the Parliament. They can propose laws to be included in the constitution and can also discuss the constitutionality of laws passed by the Parliament.” In this book Taha also spoke about Popular Sovereignty where he said it should be vested fully in the hands of the Sudanese people from the beginning, in order to learn by practice. Therefore, the claim that “Taha faces the dilemma of all modern Muslim liberals who cannot accept the right of Muslim societies to govern themselves and advocate what Effendi called ‘guardianship of liberals’” is not only meritless but an intentional attempt from his part to undermine Taha’s work. It further portrays Effendi as someone who followed his preconception about Taha’s views and failed to apply himself as impartial writer.
After accusing Taha with advocating liberal guardianship, Effendi expressed his astonishment about what he considered a stark contradiction of (challenging the decision by the Parliament to ban the Communist Party). However, had f Effendi been eager to know what Taha stood for, he could have known that the slogan of the Republicans was “freedom for us and for others.” They applied this sloagan indiscriminately, whether their opponents were Muslim Brotherhood (Taha stood with them during the assassination of their leaders in Egypt in 1966) or Communists as in the case offered by Effendi. Again, these stances stemmed from Taha’s religious convictions and not merely out of political expediency or pragmatism. Supporting May regime could be another example of his impartiality.
Effendi further questioned Taha’s theory of epistemology by stating the following “Spiritually and theologically, Taha’s position poses the most serious problem. His notion that the believer, by immersing himself in the Qur'an and engaging in spiritual exercises of fasting and seclusion, could receive ‘revelation’ poses a serious challenge about what happens if different individuals receive conflicting revelations. More fundamentally, what is the mechanism of determining when a revelation is authentic as opposed to a mere hallucination?” It is not counterintuitive to assert that human reason and judgment are the only mechanism for discerning the authenticity of knowledge. In the book of “The Second Message of Islam”;Taha referred to the argument of Jesus when he told his disciples ‘ beware of the false prophets, his disciples asked him how could we know them? He answered them; ye shall know them by their fruits’. So if the fruit is good or bad it could only be identified through engaging one’s mind. Again; if the content of the idea is convincing to the mind, why should its acceptability be contingent on the mechanism by which it was received? By the same token if the mechanism is genuine (according to Effendi) does that make it unquestionably correct regardless of its content? Apparently Effendi is implying that lack of mechanism (which determines certain knowledge is authentic or false) is a ground for disbarring knowledge from being divulged. This is exactly the guardianship which advocates that; people should be protected from receiving knowledge, for lack of approved mechanism! The fact that someone might claim to be Mahdi or Messiah does not detract from the validity of the mechanism, rather it prompts people to look into content of his/her message and see if it is right or wrong.
Effendi summed up Taha’s legacy by the following statement “His legacy has thus restricted itself to three areas: a cultural and intellectual dimension of diffuse liberalism, propagated by the Taha Cultural Centre and in the writings of select followers; a political dimension, also disseminated through the activism of the writings of his remaining followers; and a legal dimension propagated, almost single-handedly, by Emory University’s Abdullahi An-Na’im, and becoming more and more detached from the original mystical foundation, and tending to be plain liberal and secular.” Taha’s legacy is wider, has more profound impact than the underestimation offered by Effend. People in Sudan still remembered that Friday, when they saw for the first time in modern history a unique example of human excellence. An example in which an individual was able to practice what he preached to the ultimate test of death. People of Sudan, with their entire political spectrum conceded that the heroic stance of Taha was the direct spark that ignited the uprising of1985; putting an end to May regime, which Taha defied. On the other hand, the followers of Taha have preserved his work and made it accessible to everyone, additionally; they are always prepared to answer questions and explain any incomprehensible matter. Consequently, thousands of people started to own Taha’s views, write about them and to see in them the only hope out of this turbulent era in which Muslim Brotherhood and similar groups had sunk humanity in. But the real legacy of Taha, in my view, is his disciples; his sons and daughters, who, for the most part became the personification of the Republican ideology with their good standing, reputable conduct and their positive influence, which inspired others to transform their lives. It is not so much being active in the public domain, (although that has its advantage too) that matters, but rather, to what extend you (as an individual) own the morals you preach and live them in your every aspect of your life.
Effendi has raised many issues which are worthy of discussion, however, my intention is for this paper to be rather brief and to cover the issues which I perceive to be important. While I commend Effendi’s concern over bringing Taha’s work and life to the spotlight, I deplore his intentional attempts to distort Taha’s work, whether by deemphasizing his views, misinterpreting them, or making up statements and attribute them to Taha’s work. If Effendi had the patience in approaching Taha’s books with open mind, good faith he could have benefited (himself) a great deal and could have reached entirely different conclusion.
http://www.alfikra.org/article_page_view_e.php?article_id=1267andpage_id=1http://www.alfikra.org/article_page_view_e.php?article_id=1267andpage_id=1
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: الأستاذ محمود محمد طه: القراي والخليفة والأفندي (مقال وردود) (Re: عبدالله عثمان)
|
كتب د. عمر القراي التعقيب التالي:
Paltry and Partial Paper
No doubt, Dr. Abdelwahab El-Affendi, a Sudanese professor at Westminster University in London, deducted a considerable time from his busy schedule to read the ideas of Ustadh Mahmoud Mohammed Taha (1909-1985) and the history of his movement in Sudan. This attitude, regardless of the consequences, is appreciated as a credit that many intellectuals fail to attain. However, a lot of the information he obtained probably from the book recently published by Abdalla Albashir titled, “Mahmoud Mohammed Taha and the Intellectuals”, was deliberately tarnished to look contradictory or bizarre. Though he conceded that some parts of Taha’s idea are difficult for him to grasp, El-Affendi did not contemplate these ideas patiently or pose his reservations in forms of questions. Instead, he issued his negative judgment without a hint of hesitation. His article revealed his dual personality that embedded two discordant characters. One exemplifies an active liberal democrat criticizing dictatorship and fanaticism as in “Who Needs an Islamic State” and the other reflects a typical member of the Muslim Brothers (MBs) group who accused other Muslims of heresy following the tracks of his leader Dr. Hassan El-Turabi.
Discrediting Heroic Actions
El-affendi started his article by an account of the fights that Ustadh Mahmoud Mohammed Taha encountered. This includes the British Colonial Regime, the sectarian parties, Hassan Turabi, the leader of the MBs and the Islamic traditional scholars (Ulamma). None of these civilized disputes was personal or for material benefit. They were either in the course of defending Islam or Sudan. Instead of praising the stand of Taha in the face of the colonial regime as the first political prisoner, and considering his critique to the wrong Islamic conception of Hassan El-Turabi, which resulted in the existing ‘Ingaz’ regime that El-affendi is now censuring bitterly, El-affendi, due to a reason far from justice, called this heroic actions (turbulent life)!!
When Ustadh Mahmoud steadfastly climbed the platform of the gallows, and the guard uncovered his face, the judges and shouting mob were stunned by his smile. Many poets and thinkers commented on that unbelievable smile. Some considered it Taha’s proof of certainty, solidity and unprecedented bravery. Others who thought deeper about the issue interpreted it as absolute submission to the Will of God and joy of meeting Him. According to them, it is a sign of acquiring a high stage of the holy servitude to God. However, El-Affendi has a different explanation. He said, (the hundreds of political prisoners housed in that jail shouted in unison a slogan calling for the downfall of the regime. His smile broadened slightly as he acknowledged the implied support). So for El-Affendi, the reason behind the “smile” on the face of Ustadh Mahmoud who was approaching death was the implied support of the cheering prisoners!
Although he told us about the courts like the one which convicted Taha being operating under emergency regulations, adopting ‘cavalier attitude’ and ‘harsh sentences’ and run by traditional ‘Islamists’ who were opponents of Taha’, El-affendi did not say a word in condemnation of the trial itself. This naïve attitude is better than his opinion in 1985 when the execution actually took place. At that time he was the editor of a magazine called ‘Arabia’ issued in London and funded by Saudi Arabia. He wrote an article about the subject and instead of blaming the fanatics who assassinated a pacifist; he gloatingly blamed Ustadh Mahmoud describing him as being a sophistical!
Twisting Facts
El-affendi wrote, (In 1960, three of his disciples were expelled from the Ma’had al-Ilmi, the highest institution of religious learning in Sudan. They were accused of propagating Taha’s ideas, in particular his views that the obligatory daily prayers need not to be performed by one like him, who had achieved an elevated spiritual rank. Taha tried to negotiate the students’ reinstitution, and when he failed, he wrote one of his first major works, Al-Islam, in which he summed up his reform vision). This is the testimony of El-affendi. But what were the real facts? The three students were expelled just because they were Republicans! The issue of Taha’s prayer was brought up by the Sheikhs who intimidated and provoked young student at the intermediate or secondary school level asking them to justify following Taha. They harassed them asking for to explain Taha’s complex conception of authenticity and imitation that depicts the spiritual development of man from the collective to individual legislation. When Ustadh Mahmoud confronted the head of the institute Sheikh Mohammed Elmubarak Abdallah by inviting him to a public debate on the issue, the Sheikh declined the invitation and failed to stand for the challenge.
El-affendi can disagree with the ideas of Taha about prayer, but as scholar and researcher, he should not repeat what the Sheikhs of Al Ma’had al-Ilmi said without referring to secondary data. This is not an innocent error but rather a deliberate effort of twisting the facts in order to defame a progressive religious idea in favor of reactionary group of traditional Islamists who expelled al-Tigani Yousif Bashir, the famous poet from the same institution years before the Republicans because he challenged the archaic ideas they used to teach.
El-affendi mentioned the banning of the Sudanese Communist Party (SCP). He told us how a youth who claimed to be a member of the SCP insulted the prophet and provoked the public. The opponents of the SCP who were the MBs and the sectarian parties insisted to amend the constitution to ban the SCP and expel its elected members from the parliament. The Supreme Court declared what the Parliament did as unconstitutional and cancelled the banning of the SCP, but the government refused to abide by the ruling. The head of the Judiciary resigned considering this as a humiliation for the Judiciary system and a disbelief in democracy, which is built on the separation of powers. El-affendi told us that SCP denied the membership of the youth who defamed the holy prophet, but he forgot to tell us that the government announced him later as insane, and sent him for treatment abroad. Despite all this El-affendi failed to see the conspiracy against democracy in which the SCP was only the scapegoat. As a liberal democrat, El-affendi should have condemned the banning of the SCP, but instead he cheered for Dr. El-Turabi’s effort to justify it legally! He wrote, ( Hassan Turabi, the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood and at the time the country’s leading constitutional lawyer, produced a booklet supporting the ban. His argument was that ultimate sovereignty rested with parliament, which was the source of law. Therefore, no other authority, including the courts, had the power or right to challenge the parliament. Taha produced a scathing counter-attack, questioning Turabi’s Islamic credentials ‘he scarcely produced Islamic arguments to support his case’ and ‘his legal competence and understanding of democracy’).
In this sad story, El-affendi twisted the facts again by illustrating Turabi’s argument and hiding Taha’s respond. Criticizing the booklet of Turabi, Ustadh Mahmoud wrote, ( the key of Turabi’s mentality and culture in this respect, could be noticed in many paragraphs of this rum book. However, we nominate for this purpose what he said in page 16, “ There is nothing in the content of the constitution or its interpretation that we can depend on, to differentiate between an article and another by considering one amendable and the other is not. Nor there is any support that the chapter of the basic rights has a special status that distinguishes it from other chapters. They all have the same power. If any legal person claims relative importance of this or that chapter as a personal consideration, he is just a feigned without witness from the constitution, a chicane with no legal argument, and an idiot who encroaches on the law. If there is preference between the chapters of the constitution the chapter of liberties would be the weakest because it is subject to legislation” …If Dr. Turabi had penetrated to the core of the western culture he would have known that the article 5 (2) of the interim constitution of Sudan is unamendable. This article states that, “All persons have the right of freedom of expression of their opinions and the right to form associations and trade s within the limits of law” and it is unamendable because it is the germ of the constitution. In fact, it is the constitution, and if it has been amended in any way that allows enactment of laws, which confiscate freedom of expression, the constitution will be destroyed. It will be incorrect to talk after that about the democratic rule unless you mean the pseudo democracy by which Turabi seems to have been misled).
Although Turabi at that time was a professor of constitutional law at Khartoum University, his malice towards the communists and his desire to bury them, blared his judgment and stripped him of his honesty. He failed to see the fact that in a democratic state the majority in the Parliament cannot issue a law that prevents the minority from expressing their views or establishing their parties. Because, simply, democracy means the rule of the majority with observance of the rights of the minority.
In another example, El-affendi deviated from the truth he knew very well to appear democratic as he claims. He wrote, (An additional problem is that Taha “and some of his followers such as the human rights advocate Abdullahi An-Naim” tend to offer the most restrictive interpretation of Shari’a “such as that it is lawful to use violence to force people to accept Islam” in order to justify their arguments that it should be transcended). First, Ustadh Mahmoud and the Republicans did not say that it is lawful to use violence to compel people to accept Islam, but they said that was the rule of Shari’a; no matter how it seems illogical and illegal today. Second, the Republicans argument is not that Shari’a should be transcended, but rather should be evolved to a higher stage up the ladder of religion. As for using violence to force people to accept Islam, I once wrote: (….. the direct order came with the verse famous in the books of interpretation as the verse of the sword. It says, “Then when the sacred months have passed, kill the Mushrikin wherever you find them, and captured them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. However, if they repent and offer prayers perfectly and give Zakat then leave their way free. Verily Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful” (9:5). This verse offered guidelines for dealing with Polytheists: the time of killing them was at the end of the sacred months; the place of fighting them was wherever they were found; the reason for fighting them was their infidelity; and the end of fighting would only come when they repent and started to perform the Islamic rituals. According to most of the interpreters, this verse abrogated the verses of forgiveness and the call to be peaceful and patient with the infidels. Directed by the verse of the sword the prophet –peace be upon him-said, ‘I have been ordered to fight people until they declare that there is no god but Allah, offer prayers, and give Zakat. If they did so, they protect themselves and their properties from me and will be left to Allah’……There is a common misconception that Jihad is only self-defense. Although one who defends himself, his honor, land or property against an intruder could be considered Mujahid, Jihad has evolved into more than that. Every act of self-defense is Jihad, but not every act of Jihad is self-defense. To act out of self-defense was an accepted tradition before the emergence of Islam. It is a tradition that predates all religions and upon which ancient communities depended for their survival. It was a natural reaction to danger. Islam did not need to order people to practice it and considered it as a dignified behavior. Jihad started as self-defense, but it continued as a holy war against non-believers. This kind of Jihad currently referred to was initiated by Islam with God’s promising higher degrees in heaven for those who perform it. The Jihad of Islam is the fighting to spread the word of God on earth. In following Jihad Muslims’ armies marched from Arabia and invaded India, China and Spain to spread Islam, even though these nations did not attack or threaten Arabia. When Muslims conquered these countries and forced the Islamic religion, they did not return to Arabia….The invasions were not carried out as self-defense or protest against injustice. In fact, it was other nations who were trying to defend their countries and protect their systems in the face of the Islamic invasion. Many Islamic writers were in error when they said that Islamic wars were wars of self-defense. Perhaps they were only responding to Orientalist critics who said that Islam was spread by the sword. In fact the wars of Islam where justified enough if we take the historical circumstantial aspects in consideration. Islam was revealed to a society with a tradition of war and fighting over trivial things; at least Islam’s fighting had a noble objective. Instead of fighting without a reason Muslims fought to establish a system of new values of righteousness and justice. Moreover, as was stated earlier, Islam only started fighting after Arabs essentially failed to embrace peace and freedom and believers were forced to become guardians over aggressive Polytheists. Islam then used the sword ‘as the physician uses the scalpel, not as the butcher uses the knife’ as Ustadh Mahmoud said. However this practice of using war as means of spreading religion is not justified today; today’s accepted tradition is peace. Humanity has evolved to realize its need for freedom and peace. The UN charters and principles of human rights have been founded on the right of the individual to live and to be free regardless of his or her religion, race, color or gender. Contemporary societies don’t endorse the idea of killing human being just because he or she has a different belief. This contemporary belief is what made the Islamic writers, who were mentioned earlier, deny the Orientalist accusations that Islam had spread its theology through armed invasion of other countries). This is the standard of the Shari’a as had been practiced by the Prophet and his followers. If El-affendi can’t handle it as being contradictory to liberalism which he is propagating, his only genuine way out is to accept the evolution of the Shari’a law as illustrated by Ustadh Mahmoud. The other alternative is to support ISIS by heart while condemning it publicly.
As continuation of muddling the facts, El-affendi said, (In 2010 Taha’s former modest home in Omdurman became the locus of the most appropriate tribute to the departed thinker: Ustaz Mahmoud Muhammad Taha Cultural Centre. Earlier this year, the group applied for a registration as apolitical party in Sudan, but its application was rejected in May 2014 after a challenge from a group of Ulama. The issue is currently being hotly debated, and the Parliament has intervened by summoning the independent Parties’ Registrar for questioning on the constitutionality of this rejection). What El-affendi wrote here is starkly ##### of the truth. The application of some of the Republicans to establish the Republican Party was rejected without any convincing reasons. The Ulama challenge was based on the conviction of Ustadh Mahmoud in 1985 which has been nullified by the Supreme Court in 1986. The issue has not been discussed in the Parliament. Also El-affendi knows that there is no independent Parties Registrar in Sudan and no one asked him about the constitutionality of rejecting the Republicans ’application. Moreover the government abolished the permission of the cultural center and stopped its activity on the thirtieth anniversary of Taha’s martyrdom.
The Republicans Support and Attack of May Regime
El-affendi wrote, (It was a poignant irony, therefore, that when Nimeri took power in a bloodless military coup in May 1969, Taha offered enthusiastic support to the new regime, even though it was supported by Nasser and the SCP. Even when Nimeri engaged in massacres against the Mahadists and later against his own Communist allies, Taha maintained his support. Nimeri banned all political parties, so Taha’s movement changed its name to the Republican Brothers and continued to operate with tacit regime approval. This remains one of the most controversial positions of the Republicans, given their principled support for freedom and their blanket condemnations of dictatorship elsewhere. The justification offered for this position tends to compound the problem, since it reiterates the unprincipled claim that the ‘reactionary’ sectarian parties and Islamists were a worse alternative.).
Many Sudanese intellectuals have misunderstood the position of the Republican with May regime so it is normal that El-affendi considers it as contradictory to the essence of Taha’s idea, which calls for democracy. However, what undermines the integrity of El-affendi is the grave-silence he has been indulging with regard to the position of his party- the National Islamic Front (NIF)- from the same regime. As El-affendi and all the Sudanese know, the NIF was the active part of the National Front (NF), which was driven far by its spite against May regime to the extent of invading Sudan with an army funded and armed by foreigners in 1976. Some of El-affendi’s friends and colleagues were killed during that futile intrusion. In 1977 the NF made a reconciliation with May regime and accordingly Dr. Turabi, the leader of the NIF of which El-affendi was a member, got a position in the Sudanese Socialist (SSU), the sole party of May government after he swore the oath of loyalty to the ‘victorious May Revolution’. The irony was not clear just in fighting a war in -which many died– this year, and making reconciliation next year. It is rather in declaring Nimeri as a wanton dictator who committed the crime of banning the multi-party system and establishing instead the SSU this year, and describing him as a patriot leader and join the same one-party system next year.
Later in 1983, when Nimeri announced September laws and considered them Islamic laws, Turabi flattery asked him to be the Caliphate of Muslims and tailed for him a proposed constitution that gives him the right of rule for life, and identification of his successor. During all this period El-affendi was one of Turabi’s loyal followers.
The Republicans did not support the discourse of May regime; it is the other way round. The Republican Party (RP) was established in 1945 and since its inception it was against sectarianism. May regime leaders were children at that time. The RP used to fiercely attack the sectarian parties in public lectures and with circulars and pamphlets. What the RP was worried about even before independence and emergence of the MBs, was the success of the sectarian parties to reach power and combine religious and political authorities. May regime stopped that and thus walked on the old route of the Republicans.
Since their establishment, the MBs were helping the sectarians to achieve that dream. They were a cat’s claw for sectarianism. Before May they allied with them to compel the technocrat government formed after October Revolution 1964 to step down. In 1965 they allied again to ban the SCP. Ustadh Mahmoud opposed this undemocratic action as I mentioned before so the allies planned to ban the RP too. They used and abused sheikhs and shari’a judges to hold an apostasy trial for Ustadh Mahmoud in 1968. Although they announced him as an apostate they couldn’t kill him or ban his party as the state was not governed by shari’a laws at that time. The campaign of the Republicans against the ‘apostasy trial’ criticized the court, the witnesses, and the Islamic –sheikhs severely. In public lectures conducted all over Sudan, Ustadh Mahmoud revealed the conspiracy behind the trial. What he called reactionary forces (MBs, sectarians, and Islamic-sheikhs) turned the democratic system into civilian dictatorship, and to paralyze any opposition, they started cooking what they called the “Islamic Constitution” and Ustadh Mahmoud called “pseudo Islamic Constitution”. The proposed constitution was faced by a strong protest from the southern Sudanese and representatives of Nuba mountains and failed to pass in the first round of election in the Constituent Assembly (CA). According to the procedures it should be presented for election in a second round, but before that sectarians threatened to enact it by force if it failed again. The country was hastily approaching an ocean of darkness when Numeri conducted his coup and assumed power in 25th of May 1969. May regime came as a rescue when it stopped the conspiracy of the alliance of sectarians and Islamists through the ‘pseudo-Islamic Constitution’. When it announced solving the problem of the south through negotiation and stopped the war that was also part of the Republican discourse since the independence.
In their support to May regime, the Republicans did not dissolve their party or became members of the SSU like the leaders of the MBs and sectarian parties. Even when Numeri announced appointment of two of them in the People’s Council, they refused to comply.
May regime retreated from its principles when it held the National Reconciliation 1977 with sectarian and MBs parties. When they joined the SSU, the MBs started to sabotage the system from within. At that time, the Republican wrote many pamphlet disclosing the conspiracy against the country such as: ‘Alhawas Aldeeni utheer al fitna lyasal illa al sulta’ and ‘ Almua’mara min Jadeed?!’ But the regime was not listening. Then it turned on itself starting to adopt Islamic ideas. It banned Addis Ababa agreement in 1982 and the war between the north and south was resumed. Due to the war, the development was curtailed and the economic situation deteriorated dramatically. In September 1983, Numeri declared the Islamic laws and with that, May regime completed a full circle of backwardness and alliance with the sectarians and MBs. At that time, Ustadh Mahmoud started his opposition not against the principle of May regime but against the deviation of Numeri and his colleagues from these principles. If the Republicans opposed May from day one because it was not a democratic regime the alternative ready at that time was undemocratic too. Moreover it had the weapon of religion by which many would be misguided. The rule of the MBs under the name of Ingaz which is torturing the Sudanese people now-to an extent that a product of the institution such as El-affendi condemned it-would have started since 1969. When May retreated until it adopted the same ideas of the MBs and the sectarians, Ustadh Mahmoud declared his opposition and carried it seriously to the end.
Critique and Evaluation
Under the above title, El-affendi honed his mind to put down his main objections against the Republican thought. He wrote, (It is clear from the proceeding that there are many of Taha’s thought which the orthodox will find troubling, beginning with the last point where paradise is not an alternative to earthy life but a continuation of it. Then there is his claim that not only can man become one with God, but he can become God, and therefore become a law unto himself, with no need to observe any religious prohibitions or taboos. Such views were naturally found outrageous by the orthodox, including the Sufis, some of whom could have become his allies). The former statement poses two questions. First, why didn’t El-affendi support his serious allegations with excerpt from Taha’s books? Second, if Taha’s thought is troubling to the orthodox Muslims does that necessarily mean it is not true? Ustadh Mahmoud did not say that paradise is not alternative but continuation to the earthy life, but he explained that it is not the end of the human journey. Our ultimate goal is neither hell nor heaven but God. This is explicitly stated in the Qur’an: “And that the final end is unto thy Lord” (53:42). And because God is infinite He is not confined within space ‘heaven’ or time ‘day of Judgment’. We could only meet Him spiritually beyond earth and heaven. This is why Ustadh Mahmoud did not consider heaven the end as stated in the traditional Islamic thought.
Ustadh Mahmoud never claims that man can become one with God. In fact, he stated the opposite.He said man cannot be unified with God as he is limited and God is unlimited. However, when he stated that man will be God he made that clear as meaning developing towards the perfection of God without stopping. (The goal of the slave in Islam is to achieve the perfection of God, and the perfection of God is infinite. God says, “ Man has nothing except his own achievement. What he achieves he shall meet. Then he shall receive the fullest payment. And to your Lord is the ultimate goal” ’53: 39-42’. This means that God is the purpose of the whole endeavor. As stated above progress to God is not through traveling distances but rather through the longing of the slave to achieve the qualities of the God. God say, “Oh man you are toiling along towards your Lord and you shall meet him” ’84:6’. Whether you want to meet Him or not. And where shall this meeting be? Is it on earth or in heaven? God said, “ I am neither contained in my earth nor in my heavens, but rather contained in the heart of my true slave”. Thus one meets Him within one’s self and such meeting shall be achieved by Him and not be the individual human being. To this effect the prophet said: ‘Adopt the qualities of God, my Lord are on straight path’ God also says, “Be of the Lord because you teach the Book and because you study [it]’ ‘3:39’).
When El-affendi tried to prove that Taha said that man will be God, he translated a quotation as follows (Here, the heart bows, forever, at the threshold of the first stage of servitude. Then the servant is no longer in the complete grip of fate, but with complete free will; that is because complete obedience to God has raised him to status of nobility, handing him over to the freedom of choice ; he has obeyed God until God obeyed him in compensation. He becomes alive though God’s life, and in possession of God’s knowledge, God’s will and God’s power. He becomes God.) El-affendi stopped here, and did not complete the rest of the quotation so as to reach a conclusion that he already believes. So he wrote immediately after that, (When a person ascends to this level, religious laws no longer apply to him/her.) I translated the same text as follows, “Just here the heart prostrates, and forever, at the door of the first stage of servitude. At that time, the slave is no longer dragged by predestination but he is rather free; as determinism has reached him the status of honor and handed him over to the free choice. He has obeyed God until God obeyed him in reciprocity for what he did. He becomes living the life of God, knowing the knowledge of God, willing the will of God, capable the capability of God and becomes God. Yet God has no shape for man to be, nor end for man to reach. His fortune of all that, is continuing to be by renewing his life of feeling and his life of intellect every moment in accordance with God’s description of Himself, “ Every day He is in a new affair”. This is the objective of worship. The prophet summed it up in his advice, ‘ Adopt the morals of God; my God is on the straight path’ and God said, “Be of the Lord because you teach the Book and because you study [it]” (3:39).”
El-affendi wrote: (Taha’s confrontations with the orthodox religious establishment was a straightforward issue: the traditionalists rejected his claim of authority to override accepted dogma and practice on the basis of personal communication with God, for that amounted to declaring oneself a prophet. But his conflict with the Sufis, including the group which masterminded his demise, was more complex. For Sufism does accept the possibility of direct communication with God, and many renowned Sudanese Sufis had regularly challenged the authority of ulama , including a sixteenth century ancestor of Taha, Sheikh Muhammad al-Hamim, who defied the judge of the day by marrying two sisters and exceeding the limit of four wives). This statement is full of mistakes. Taha did not ask the traditionalists to accept his call because he has direct communication with God, but because they failed to refute his argument logically. In addition, if someone claims personal communication with God that does not mean he claims prophecy. God teaches pious people by throwing knowledge into their hearts. God says, “And fear God, God teaches you, and God has knowledge of everything” (1:282). The other mistake is that Muhammad al-Hamim was not one of the ancestor of Taha. So there is no way that, the insinuations of El-affendi that Taha has inherited from him the tendency to defy Islamic laws, could be true. I have corrected this before when Dr. Mahammed Mahmud raised it, but it seems that instead of the correction El-affendi is fond of sticking to the fault.
El-affendi wrote (However, his vision suffers from three main problems: theoretical, ethical and spiritual. Theoretically, his views are based on a hotchpotch of amateur physics, amateur anthropology, amateur philosophy and amateur economics among others. In his writings, he makes sweeping claims about the findings of whole disciplines without quoting a single reference or even mentioning a name). Then he said (This is deeply problematic since he often builds the whole edifice of his theory on such causal claims “as in his 1960 book Al-Islam, where his proposed ‘spiritual experimentation’ is entirely premised on the claim that the whole physical universe is reducible to –and could be explained in reference to- energy”).
Like many intellectuals, El-affendi has separated locked rooms in his mind for physics, anthropology, philosophy and other disciplines. When he saw all of them unified in one scientific discourse he was astonished. Instead of admiring the new knowledge, and trying to comprehending it, he considered that like a mutton stew with different mixed vegetables. If El-Affendi had worship God properly enough he would have achieved part of the internal unification that enables him to approach seeing the existence as a unity. What El-affendi said about Ustadh Mahmoud not quoting a single reference or mentioning a single name is completely false. We need no other evidence, than the same example brought up by El-affendi himself. In the book Al-Islam Ustadh Mahmoud mentioned the name of the Egyptian Scientist Dr. Ahmed Zaki and quoted a long paragraph from his book Maa Allah Fi Allsamaand in that quotation a statement of Einstein was put under his name. If El-affendi had read and perceived that paragraph, he would have known that everything in the universe is composed of electrons, protons and neutrons. If a nuclear fission erupted in any of these atoms the result would only be energy. So the conclusion that reduced the entire universe to energy which El-affendi ignorantly denied is scientifically and religiously correct.
El-affendi said ( Ethically, Taha faces the dilemma of all modern Muslims ‘liberals’ who cannot accept the right of Muslims societies to govern themselves, and advocate what I have elsewhere called ‘guardianship of liberal’ “in contrast to wilayat al-faqih –the guardianship of the religious scholars”. This leads to stark self-contradiction. For example, Taha rightly and courageously challenged the decision by Parliament to ban the Communist Party in 1965, and cited this in supporting Nimeiri’s coup against what he termed ‘civilian dictatorship’. However, when Nimeiri banned all political parties, including the Communist Party and Taha’s own party the archliberal did not utter a single word of protest).
Taha does not face any dilemma, as he never said that Muslims cannot rule themselves or they need the guardianship of the liberal elites. He has been always against any kind of guardianship even if it comes within the package of Shari’a laws such as the rule of the Caliphate. Nevertheless, the dilemma is facing El-affendi and many intellectuals within the MBs party as they claim democracy and liberalism, and at the same time, they call for the rule of Shari’a laws that state the guardianship of an individual who is the Caliphate. Taha challenged the decision of dissolution of the SCP under a democratic state, which by that and other deeds, was transferring into civilian dictatorship. In addition, it was trying to impose by force a false Islamic constitution to combine between the temporal and religious authorities. When May conducted a coup it was expected to ban all the parties but it was still, at the beginning, better than those who delude people in the name of God. When May adopted the same discourse of its opponents and tries to make Islamic state Taha opposed it. So who is the consistent and who is the inconsistent?!
El-affendi wrote (Spiritually and theologically, Taha’s position posed the most serious problem. His notion that the believer, by immersing himself in the Qur’an and engaging in spiritual exercises of fasting and seclusion, could receive ‘revelation’ poses a serious challenge about what happens if different individuals receive conflicting revelations. More fundamentally, what is the mechanism of determining when a revelation is authentic as opposed to a mere hallucination? This is not just a theoretical problem, since throughout Islamic ‘and Sudanese’ history, many claimants of ‘Mahadist’ and other missions have emerged).
El-affendi would have made it easy to himself if he defined the word, ‘revelation’. Basically revelation means God reveals knowledge to the heart of the pious believer. This is the essence of our contact with Him. By denying it, El-affendi is denying the relation between the human being and His creator. What is what El-affendi is refusing is for anyone to claim prophecy. Prophecy is another type of revelation, in which knowledge is carried through the angel Gabriel to the chosen prophets. This type of revelation had been concluded with Prophet Mohammed –peace be upon him-but other ways of revelation such as knowing by direct God’s inspiration are still going on. God’s revelation can also be for other creatures. God says, “And the Lord revealed unto the bees, saying: Take unto yourselves of the mountains, houses and of the trees, and of what they are building” (16:68). Revelations cannot be contradictory, as El-affendi wrongly mentioned, as they are from the same source. But some people can lie about them. Because of these liars El-affendi wants us to decline those with genuine revelations. Jesus Christ –peace be upon him- said, ‘Beware of the lying prophets! They said: how can we know them? He said: by their fruits you know them’.
Who is El-affendi?
Abdelwahab Ahmed El-affendi has been a member of the MBs since he was in High School. During his study in Khartoum University in the seventies he was an active participant in all their actions including violence against other students. When the MBs made their coup against the democratic regime, assumed power in June 1989, and declared the government of Ingaz , El-affendi supported it and received its promotion of being the Communication attaché at the Embassy of Sudan in the UK. During that period (1990-1994), El-affendi was not just carrying his diplomatic career professionally. Following his hidden agenda, he was also denying and justifying the awful crimes of the government of Ingaz with extremely exaggerated bias. At that time the Ingaz government established special facilities equipped with unimaginable tools for torturing political detainees. The Sudanese called these prisons the “ghost houses”. Some people died under excessive torture; others were paralyzed, some lost sight and hearing, and some women and men were humiliatingly raped. The most famous case was that of retired Brigadier Mohammed Ahmed El-rayah. He was brutally tortured and raped in the “ghost houses” and transferred to different remote prisons in the west and east of Sudan. He wrote ( From my prison at Sawakin I wrote a complaint to the Ministry of Justice with a copy to the president, the Chief of the Parliament, and the Head of Human Rights Committee in the Parliament describing the atrocities and torture I went through supported with medical reports. This complaint was leaked outside the prison; and many human rights organizations high lightened it. The British House of Lords got interested, and contacted the Embassy of Sudan in UK. El-affendi at that time was the spokesman at the Embassy in London. At first he told them that my case is now under investigation by the highest authority; although he knew that the case was not even opened. When the House of Lords insisted to know the results, El-affendi told them that the person who raised the complaint admitted that he was lying. I have read the correspondence between El-affendi and the House of Lords in the office of Lord Avebury, the Head of the Human Rights Committee in the House of Lords. Later, after El-affendi became one of the critics of the Ingaz, I read an article in which he admitted that there has always been torture and some of his relatives have been tortured by the Security Apparatus…)(Sudanile 5/4/2007).
What is peculiar about El-affendi, is that he never thinks of apology. He moved from government seats, to opposition seats, without a blink of an eye. When he changed his skin and adopted a new discourse to defend the victims instead of cheering for the executioner, he never tells those victims why he was supporting their executioner before, or why he is defending them now. In his critique to the government of Ingaz he concentrated on their new crimes. He never mentioned the awful crimes, which happened during the period in which he was a member of the MBs and an employee for the Ingaz. As part of the regime, when Ingaz government falls, he will be one of the fugitives.
Conclusion
It is clear to me that El-Affendi is not eager to know the truth about the Republican Thought. He is more concerned about his status in the west, as a moderate Islamic scholar, who wants to be invited by TV channels as an expert in political science as well as modern Islamic thought. Few of his audience in the west know that he spent his whole life as a member of the party of the MBs which is considered now even by Arab societies, such as Saudi Arabia, as one of the terrorist organizations that threatens the world. Even after he separated from his party, and started criticizing its government in Sudan, El-affendi never questioned the basic idea of the MBs.
El-affendi wrote an article published in Elsahafa newspaper on 25 April 2006, commenting on the fuss about some religious views of his former leader Turabi, that were considered by some Islamic Sheikhs, as infidelity. Although in his article he criticized those Islamic Sheikhs and considered Turabi as a good Muslim, he also disagreed with his opinions. Then he mentioned Ustadh Mahmoud and said he swept away all the Islamic legislation and brought a new one. I responded with an article entitled ‘The Dilemma of El-affendi’ published by the same newspaper in May 2006. In that article I advised El-affendi to read again what Ustadh Mahmoud said with an open mind and not a preconceived notion.
This current article showed that he read but with a mind closed with the ideology of the MBs. After the split of the MBs they formed two parties: the National Congress Party (NCP) and the People Congress Party (PCP). In that article, El-affendi condemned both of them, as well as of the Islamic Sheikhs. He also criticized the Republican ideology depending on false accusations. He did not accept the traditional understanding of Islam advocated by the NCP and the PCP, and failed to comprehend the advanced understanding of the Republicans. He was not aware of his dilemma that he is still an Islamist, after the fall of the Islamic project without clearly forming a new version of the Islamic thought that supports his critique to his old colleagues. Equipped with this horrible emptiness, he approached the critique of the Republican Thought.
In this article he used a lot of cosmetics, to disguise the spiteful face of the traditional MBs. Despite the talk about democracy, and criticism of the alleged support of the Republican to May regime, he still considered Ustadh Mahmoud as a heretic. He put the word ‘Martyrdom’ in his title regarding the many people who think that about Taha trying in his article to prove them wrong, by presenting what he thinks as refutation of the Islamic belief.
Despite his trial without sincerity to deform the Republican Thought, h think he still has a chance to solve this puzzle if he is truthful. He can know the secret of the stand of Ustadh Mahmoud smiling for death. He can understand his ideas about the authentic prayer, the eternal journey of perfection towards God, the abrogation of the branches of Qur’an and reviving of the original texts of Qur’an and other mystical ideas, if he really needs to know to free himself. I think his first step should be writing all he thinks about the Republican Thought in Arabic. Many deep ideas depend on the underlying meanings which derived from the Arabic origin have no close meaning in other languages. It will afford me a better chance to respond to him in a way that helps him to see the truth.
Dr. Omer El-Garrai
[1] -A book by El-Affendi published in 2008
[2] - Turabi expressed more than once his joy for the execution of Taha considering him an apostsate.
[3] - The Arabic word means rescue. The MBs made a military coup in 1989 and called the government this name.
[4] -p. 115
[5] -Dr. Ahmed Elbadawi, 7/7/ 2012
http://http://www.sudanray.comwww.sudanray.comhttp://http://www.sudanray.comwww.sudanray.com
[6] -P. 118
[7] -the article of Ustadh Mahmoud on Alsudan al-jadid newspaper 31/1/1960
[8] -For the resignation of Babikir Awad Alla, see Ibrahim Ahmed Alhaj: The Democratic Experience and Development of Governance in Sudan.+
[9] -El-affendi’s article pp.119.
[10] -the writer translation from: MM Taha (1968) The leader of the Islamic Charter Front on trial. Khartoum-Sudan pp.8-9.
[11] -p 127
[12] -Polytheists
[13] -alms
[14] -Alhilali and Mohammed Khan (1993) Interpretation of the Noble Qur’an in English Language. Saudi Arabia, Riyadh: Maktabat Dar-us-Salam. P. 282
[15] -one who practice Jihad.
[16] -Omer Elgarrai (2004) Jihad or Freedom of Belief? Bloomington, IN : Author House. Pp 19-30
[17] -p.27
[18] -P 120
[19] -the declaration was attributed to the Imam of the Ansar Alhadi El-Mahadi
[20] -Asma Mahmoud and Awad AlKarim Musa
[21] -Religious Mania Stirs up Conflicts to Reach Power
[22] -The Conspiracy Again ?!
[23] -p. 126
[24] -A.J. Arberry (1969) The Koran Interpreted. Toronto :The Macmillan Company.
[25] -MM Taha (1970) Asila Wa Ajwiba (Questions and Answers-First Book) Khartoum.
[26] The slave here is the person who submitted entirely to God and is free from all other bondage.
[27] -This is not Qur’an but divine hadith (hadith Qudsi).
[28] MMTaha (1987) The Second Message of Islam. Trans. By Abdullahi An-Naim. New York, Syracuse University
[29] -p123
[30] -p123
[33] -With God in the Sky.
[34] -p 128
[35] -p 129
[36] -A. J. Arberry (1969) The Koran Interpreted. Toronto, The Macmilan Company. P.293.
[37] -a city on the banks of the Red Sea in East of Sudan
[38] -the statement was written in Arabic and translation is by the writer.
http://www.alfikra.org/article_page_view_e.php?article_id=1286andpage_id=1http://www.alfikra.org/article_page_view_e.php?article_id=1286andpage_id=1
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
عبدالله عثمان
بكرى ابوبكر
فيس بوك
تويتر
انستقرام
يوتيوب
بنتيريست