Warning: Long post ahead
The criticism of Hamza Yusuf’s remarks on Syria keep rolling out over the internet, and I have the reflex to respond. The problem is, the criticism are so lacking in substance that it is hard to find anything worth rebutting. Maybe it’s just me. This controversy has just reignited the old debate about rebelling against oppressive rulers, with a side dish of how do you define what is or is not an “Islamic” ruler. And it is an issue I grappled with for so many years that there isn’t a word of it I have not heard before, so it gets a bit tiresome. Frankly, the tantrums I am seeing over his remarks do nothing but prove his point.
I have to emphasise here that I have zero interest in defending Hamza Yusuf. Most of the lectures I have listened to, I find it hard not to roll my eyes. He swerves between topics about which he genuinely has knowledge and others about which he is clearly only superficially familiar, and then there is all the weird esoteric metaphysics stuff that just annoys me. Personally, it becomes too tedious for me to extract the valuable from the useless when I listen to him.
What is worth defending, though, is a level of intellectual religious analysis and discussion with regard to social and political issues.
OK, you are mad because of his snide “how’s that revolution going for you” remark. But can you answer the question? Yeah, I didn’t think so…hence his glibness. You want to obsess about the particular hadith he used? Fine, how about a dozen others that prohibit rebellion? How about the consensus of the ‘Ulema for centuries against rebellion? How about the actual real-world experience of disastrous rebellions…including our recent past? Can you disprove his remarks, instead of just being offended by them?
Not holding my breath.
And, again, you will say that the hadiths that prohibit rebellion only apply to the “Sultan of Allah” who is ruling by Shari’ah. Yeah, ok, except the hadiths specifically mention that we are talking about oppressive rulers who are governing in a way we do not recognise, i.e., NOT pristine, comprehensive, to-the-letter Shari’ah. AND, we are told that ruling in this manner does not constitute Kufran Bawaahan. So, can you deal with that, please? And if your position is that Muslims are obliged to rebel against any ruler who is not a Muslim, what exactly are you suggesting for Muslims living in the West? You are painting yourself into the mad jihadi corner.
Now, just to clarify something here…and this is not something I entirely agree with, but just for the sake trying to explain what Hamza Yusuf was saying…He was NOT saying that you are supposed to just surrender to oppressive power. In his view, the ayah about Allah not changing the condition of a people until they change what is in themselves provides the recipe for how social and political revolutionary change can actually occur. He is saying, if you want to change the situation, reform yourself, focus on your immediate sphere of influence. It is Jordan Peterson’s “clean your room” idea. And, because of that ayah, you can be assured that broader change for society will follow. In other words, the proper pursuit of revolutionary change is implemented on the personal and local level.
I have seen people saying that this ayah refers only to Allah not changing the good condition of a people to a bad condition, so long as the good within them does not become bad; but I think the ayah is sufficiently general to accommodate other interpretations.
The bare minimum of what constitutes an Islamic government is basically that mosques are open, there is adhan, people can practice the religion without persecution, and so on. No matter how oppressive it is, as long as these basal conditions are met, there is not Kufran Bawaahan. Everything else you want Islamic government to be, those are all essentially fine tuning.
So, if you accept that rebellion is not only forbidden but, more often than not, stupid; but you reject Hamza Yusuf’s highly individualized and personal strategy for social change through self-improvement; what are you supposed to do to make your government more just?
Well, there is no big secret there. You analyse, you strategise, you organize, and you mobilize. Is that risky? Yes. Depending on your approach, are you likely to be arrested, jailed, and probably tortured? Yes. Is it worth it to you? You decide. But what you are NOT allowed to do is to cause a greater evil than the evil you are opposing.
On a side note here; I do not subscribe to the politically correct prohibition on victim blaming. Being a victim does not automatically mean that you had no role in precipitating what happened to you, and identifying the mistakes you made does not absolve your victimizer of blame; it just means when everything goes sideways, there is usually enough blame to go around on all sides.