Response 6: A masnavi inspired by “Complaint and Answer”
REPROACHES
Was not Islam’s House noble, back in the Prophet’s day?
Then why has it collapsed in ruins and decay?
Did not all their banners with Allah’s name adorn?
Then why into these factions is Islam’s fabric torn?
Was it not sufficient that Allah rule alone?
Then why do claimants fight to sit on judgment’s throne?
Were not idols broken that to them none might bow?
Then why do pious scholars before their tomes kowtow?
Did not music and poem his wondrous deeds proclaim?
Then why reject the arts that honor the Maker’s name?
Was not the rule of Allah without compulsion taught?
Then why by law and sword is now submission sought?
Were not new freedoms granted to women above all?
Then why to them from kin do newer woes befall?
Were not the rich challenged by the Messenger of God?
Then why do the poor cry out from the sands where he once trod?
Did not lord and servant, in unity prostrate?
Then why does salat’s end chasms between them create.
Was not sword then wielded to guard the poor and meek?
Then why innocent blood do modern ‘warriors’ seek?
Was it not to Love that nations did submit?
Then why do none return to the path of the prophet?
_________________________________________________
This masnavi was written modeled on the idea of “Complaint and Answer”. As is traditional for a masnavi, the rhythm is regular with 12 syllables in every line, and an aa/bb/cc/dd etc. rhyme scheme.
The speaker is a progressive Muslim lamenting the ossification he sees all around him, which, according to his interpretation, is at variance with the nature of Islam promoted during the lifetime of the prophet. The person the speaker complains to is left deliberately ambiguous – is it to God, for not preserving the spirit of Islam? Is it to Muslims for allowing the kind of “decay” that the speaker sees? Or is it even to himself/herself for his/her own inability to counteract the tide?
Couplet 1 opens with the speaker lamenting the state of the Dar al-Islam in the world, and then moves speedily into considering the first cause of the decay – Islam no longer has a common purpose, or a common identity – it no longer fights under a single flag. Instead, there are “factions” – a reference to both denominational and nationalistic conflicts. The couplet then serves as an implicit call for the recognition of the fundamental unity in the belief in one God but all muslims instead of letting other conflicts obscure this.
Further on the subject of conflict, the next couplet introduces questions of authority that underline ‘factionalism’ within the Muslim community – who has the authority to determine who is and who isn’t a member of the community, to divide or unite it, and so forth. It posits that God alone is the ruler and empowered to commission interpreters such as his Messenger – other claims of derived authority are divisive and needless. It does not posit that there should be no authority, but is ambiguous in that regard, also permitting an interpretation whereby others’ judgements are also equally accepted.
Couplet 4 reacts against rigid and rigorist interpretations of the ahadith and the Quranic suwar, and their often ossified nature. The speaker feels that without development or flexibility, such fundamentalism has made new idols of approved authors and opinions, that inhibit the true and free worship of God from the heart. Couplet 5 reacts against similar prohibitions of certain forms of art – a personal note that reflects my own belief in art and music as deeply personal and spiritually moving. The phrase “his wondrous deeds” is left ambiguous as to whether God or Mohammad is referred to – for the former, it is true, par excellence, in the Quran, its recitation and other acts connected with prayer such as the adhaan (even if many Muslims would not consider it as such). For the latter, it is true of famous poems such as the Burda of Ka’b ibn Zuhayr, and the various devotional songs in honour of the prophet.
Couplet 6 reacts against fundamentalist and totalitarian regimes in modern Islam that promote restricted interpretations that seek of codify various practices that were formerly broad in scope, according to a narrow criterion. Whether by codifying the jurist’s law system of the Shariah into a constitutional law-code framework, or by enforcing the dictates of Islam through religious police, the speaker sees a divergence between practice and the free adoption of Islam.
Couplet 7 talks about the condition of women and the oppression they face from their “kin” – meaning, their fellow Muslims, especially in rigoriost laws often enacted by fundamentalists in certain countries.. The form of oppression however, has been left deliberately vague because of the diversity of interpretation. For example, while some adopt the language of oppression while speaking of the hijab, other women regard it as liberating in an over-sexed world.
Couplets 8 and 9 talk about the vast inequality that still exists among Muslims throughout the world, especially in the Arabian peninsula. It finds it incongruous that those who claim to uphold the Prophet’s teaching in all matters, often ignore the social justice aspect of his mission and perpetuate inequality among humankind.
Couplet 10 reacts against militant forms of Islam that seek to intimidate, arguing that practices such as suicide bombings and killing of many innocent civilians would never have been condoned by the prophet’s teachings or by the prophet himself. This theme is carried on in the final couplet, which closes the whole poem with the crux of the argument – a return to the “path of the prophet” means for the speaker, a return to the justice, equality, freedom and love that characterized the prophet’s mission. It also forms an implicit critique of others who claim to return to the “path of the prophet” but in whose teachings, the speaker cannot find the qualities of the prophet’s mission.