Believers in the West: Islamic Standards for Revolutionary Action
Muslims living in the West are seeing the world pass through a critical political phase. This has led them to wonder what their own duty is. Does this all not concern them, or are they responsible for revolutionary action?
Having followed the state of Muslims in the West for a decent period of time, especially as it pertains to the Shi’a, it is difficult not to reckon a more informed approach to revolutionary action is needed. The social and political circumstances – in all that they contain in terms of cultural, economic, and security-related threats – are not getting any lighter on the religious conscience. Only someone in denial or uninterested would not reconsider their duty as a believer living in the West after what has transpired since 7 October 2023. This is why the question of alternatives – i.e., action – is crucial.
The following is only a brief overview of this issue, considering there is plenty that could and needs to be said on the subject matter. The fact is this is a scientific issue from the Islamic perspective and is evidence-based in its grounds and implications, which is why more thorough discussions with the plethora of relevant textual references ought to take place elsewhere. Nonetheless, it is important for believers in the West to pay close attention to the considerations religion points to on this issue, or they will face obstacles when they wish to discern their Islamic duties in critical times or specific situations such as those we are currently witnessing take place.
Interpreting the Lives of the Imams (a)
For the Shi’i Muslim, it is no secret that the lives of the Imams of Ahl al-Bayt (a), who are infallible and divinely appointed, serves as an eternal reference one must maintain sight of. That applies in all aspects of life, one of which being the topic herein. But there are two general directions of analysis regarding the Imams’ (a) lives – one that effectively leads to secularism and another more popular one that effectively invites to seeking further Islamic establishment.
The first posits that most of the Imams (a) did not seek Islamic governance by rising by the sword, and that in fact, the Imams (a) did not emerge for struggle after Imam al-‘Hussain (a), which proves that there was no movement to face the unrighteous authorities during their times (a). On the contrary, they claim, the test is to endure the oppression that exists and await the Imam of the time (aj) who rises as the divine promise to establish the long lost justice that humanity yearns for. To those who maintain this position, Imam al-‘Hussain (a) did what he did to reform the Ummah, indeed. However, [the argument is effectively that] Imam al-‘Hussain (a) ‘is not the only Imam we believe in’ and that there is enough inaction in the lives of the other Imams (a) to rely on in observing a secular posture.
The second posits that the lives of the Imams (a) are one in purpose and objective in all aspects including the political aspect in such a way that the Imams (a) are divine emissaries with a single goal despite having different tasks and methods in certain circumstances. Those who maintain this position emphasize that the words of Imam al-‘Hussain (a) clarify his objectives and if the Imams (a) are one with the noble Qur’an, then their lives ought to be interpreted in that lens. By taking a closer look at their environments, one quickly realizes that the reason why the Imams (a) did not seek governance through the sword is because the requirements for such endeavors were unmet.1 Had they chosen to do so anyway, it would have led to the weakening and in some cases the annihilation of the believing entity.2
For the sake of brevity, I did not mention any of the textual proofs used by advocates of the two positions. In any case, there is hardly a need to do so because those who maintain the first position would not be discussing revolutionary action to begin with. As advocates of the second position, we argue that while it is true the Imams (a) did not emerge by the sword after Imam al-‘Hussain (a), it is also true that they operated within the purview possible for them to seek the collective objective of a divine government. They preserved the religion and played their respective roles, and the final goal will be achieved at the hands of the Imam of the time, may God hasten his reappearance.
Is Rising Even Legitimate?
This leaves us with the understanding that rising is legitimate and permissible in Islam under particular conditions. This is not about defense, of which the permissibility is axiomatic. It is not about preservation of the religion, of which the permissibility is axiomatic. This is about rising to face oppressive and unrighteous governments and power structures. There is no doubt that God commands ruling by His revelation and commands disbelief in illegitimate rulers, but does that make it an obligation for all Muslims to rise against their governments?
It should be obvious and indubitable that this depends on external variables. The ‘Islamic’ rise has ‘Islamic’ standards and considerations. Some of the criteria of an Islamic rise to face the oppressor are that the leader must call to God and not himself, that he must be an insightful and knowledgeable scholar, that he must be morally and spiritually upright, and that he must possess the sufficient power and strength to achieve potential victory. If the prerequisites for an Islamic struggle of this connotation are not met, then the duty is not to go through with it. And if the criteria are not met by an ongoing rise, then believers must know: it is not an ‘Islamic’ rise because it does not match Islamic standards.
Also relevant and explanatory of this is the story of Imam al-Sajjad (a) and ‘Abbad al-Basri,3 which elaborates that struggle ought to be with the right people, and under the right leadership.
How Government Works, Conceptually
What may provide some context and further explicate the purport herein is the following: a society is essentially a group of people which is joined under laws legislated and policies mandated by a governing entity. This group of people’s posture in war and peace, in matters of wealth, in the nature of social behaviors, in the domestic and foreign relations that impact society, in what one wears and eats, and more, are all in compliance with the determinations of the governing entity. This is as far as the conceptual function of government is concerned.
Ontological Traditions
But this world, from the Islamic perspective and according to the social and historical pattern, is governed by ontological traditions; and human constructs are subject to these ontological traditions. What happens when the governing entity is wicked and lecherous, arrogant and hegemonic, and challenges God with no regard for His limits or the sanctity of human life? In simple terms, an ontological decree of punishment befalls that governing entity. But what many people may be surprised to learn is that along with the tyrannical and unrighteous power structure, society is punished for being ‘guilty by association’ having adopted postures according to the illegitimate leadership. The ontological tradition includes the people of that society for not disassociating from the posture of the governing entity that challenged God.
Of course, Islam has presented several methods of disassociation, which are paths to salvation from the ontological tradition of divine punishment. For instance, there is the duty of confrontation – i.e., commanding good and inhibiting evil. There are some who confront the unrighteous ruler, and they are saved: {So why were there not among the generations before you those of enduring discrimination forbidding corruption on earth – except a few of those We saved from among them?}.4 God says: {And when they [i.e., those advised] forgot that by which they had been reminded, We saved those who had forbidden evil and seized those who wronged, with a wretched punishment, because they were defiantly disobeying}.5 But as delineated in jurisprudence, when these methods are fulfilled to no avail, what must one do?
After all, as the narration from Imam al-Sadiq (a) says: “Commanding good and inhibiting evil ought to be done to a believer who then improves or an ignorant person who then learns; as for a carrier of a whip or sword, then no.”6
Emigration: Islam’s Alternative Solution
When there is no use, the other method of disassociation is incumbent upon believers: {So set out with your family during a portion of the night and follow behind them and let not anyone among you look back and continue on to where you are commanded}.7 The believer must then emigrate to disassociate, to go ‘where they are commanded’: the society where the Islamic association is established and has met the requirements of rising for God, etc. Note that even ‘looking back’ is hence a breach of the covenant of disassociation intended for the believer. These commands, as you know, are related to the Prophet of that society separating from it – and whosoever does not accompany him in said separation has fallen out of the sphere of mercy and salvation: {Allah would not punish them while you are among them}.8
The noble Qur’an tells us about the outcome of those who are in a position in which they do not accompany the legitimate leadership: {Indeed, those whom the angels take [in death] while wronging themselves – [the angels] will say, “In what [condition] were you?” They will say, “We were oppressed in the land.” They [the angels] will say, “Was not the earth of Allah spacious [enough] for you to emigrate therein?” For those, their refuge is Hell – and evil it is as a destination}.9 Either one confronts the unrighteous power structure, which has requirements, or emigrates – but disassociation is the duty and only means to salvation.
The Importance of Leadership
The aforementioned should suffice in demonstrating the importance of leadership in the Islamic belief system, but for further articulation of the point being made, kindly take note of the following narration:
It is narrated that ‘Abdullah b. Abi Ya’fur said: “I said to Abu ‘Abdullah [i.e., Imam al-Sadiq (a)], I encounter people and find it quite astonishing that some who do not take you as guardians – and instead follow so and so – are trustworthy, sincere, and loyal; whereas some who take you as guardians have no trustworthiness, sincerity, or loyalty. Abu ‘Abdullah (a) then sat straight and faced me almost angered, and said: “There is no religion for one who accepts the guardianship of an unrighteous leader not from God, and there is no blame for one who accepts the guardianship of a righteous leader from God”. I asked, there is no religion for these and no blame for those?! He (a) said: “Yes, there is no religion for these and no blame for those”. Then, he (a) said: “Do you not hear God saying {Allah is the Guardian of those who believe. He brings them out from darknesses into the light}, meaning from the darknesses of sin to the light of repentance and forgiveness for accepting the guardianship of righteous leaders from God? Then He said {And those who disbelieve – their guardians are unrighteous powers. They take them out of the light into darknesses}, so which light is for the disbeliever for him to leave it? What God means by this is they were upon the light of Islam, but when they accepted the guardianship of the unrighteous leader who is not from God, they left through that guardianship from the light of Islam to the darknesses of disbelief – so God declared Hellfire for them with the disbelievers and said {Those are the companions of the Fire; they will abide eternally therein}”.”10
Final Words
There is plenty to say on this topic because it is sensitive and requires a generous effort, which – again – is somewhat unsuitable for this brief paper. But when there is no executive order from the legitimate Islamic leader – even if it be via his representative (operating within the allocated purview of representation) – specifically determining the duty, then there is a margin for believers to operate within capacity and exhaust the possible means of religious practice without falling below the threshold,11 or rushing into what is unnecessary (given the standards). The believers can strategize in accordance with Islamic permissions and prohibitions and be wise in their rhetoric and action as a general posture until one of the two methods of disassociation is possible.
Citations:
1 And the reason why Imam al-‘Hussain (a) did was to save the religion, which is a categorically different matter than rising in the intended sense.
2 See the narrations on taqiyyah and those which clearly express this such as Imam al-Kadhim (a) saying he ‘saved the Shi’a with himself’ as narrated in Al-Kafi, v.1, p.260.
3 See Al-Kafi, v.5, p.22
4 The Holy Qur’an, 11:116
5 The Holy Qur’an, 7:165
6 Al-Kafi, v.5, p.60
7 The Holy Qur’an, 15:65
8 The Holy Qur’an, 8:33
9 The Holy Qur’an, 4:97
10 Al-Ghaybah by Sheikh al-Nu’mani, p.129-130
11 If an obligatory act is contingent upon emigration it becomes obligatory, and if a recommended act is contingent upon emigration it becomes recommended.
