Open Discussions/ Gulf Cultural Club
Lessons on martyrdom and change from the Karbala epic
Challenging the tyranny of the status quo
*Dr Sheikh Saeed Bahmanpour (Scholar)
Cannon Dr Andrew Smith (Director of Interfaith Relations)
** Danjuma Bihari (Community Griot)
It is one of the greatest challenges of reformists to stand up to the cultural, religious or political ailments of their societies. The status quo is often so rigid that people with a religious mission would be frustrated as they face the social diseases inflated by evil forces; consumerism, materialism, immorality, dictatorship and exploitation. But they have a duty to fulfil. Imam Hussain, the grandson of Prophet Mohammad, sacrificed himself and 72 of his family members and supporters when he challenged the status quo that had developed under the Umayyad dynastical rule. They were all martyred on 10th Muharram 61 AH (680AD). To stand up for freedom, justice, human rights and pluralism is a task that only great people will undertake. Yet everyone is capable of challenging the status quo with the aim of changing the lives of people and granting them free choice, dignity and spirituality. This is the mission of people of religion today.
25th September 2018
Chairman: It is one of the greatest challenges of reformists to stand up to the cultural, religious or political ailments of their societies. The status quo is often so rigid that people with a religious mission would be frustrated as they face the social diseases inflated by evil forces; consumerism, materialism, immorality, dictatorship and exploitation. But they have a duty to fulfil. Imam Hussain, the grandson of Prophet Mohammad, sacrificed himself and 72 of his family members and supporters when he challenged the status quo that had developed under the Umayyad dynastical rule. They were all martyred on 10th Muharram 61 AH (680AD). To stand up for freedom, justice, human rights and pluralism is a task that only great people will undertake. Yet everyone is capable of challenging the status quo with the aim of changing the lives of people and granting them free choice, dignity and spirituality. This is the mission of people of religion today.
Just to go a further back in history before the martyrdom of Imam Hussein when you look at the prophetic mission whether it was the Prophet Abraham standing against Nimrod or Moses standing up against the pharaohs of that time and of course Jesus Christ himself challenged the money lenders in the church or the temple when he got rid of them. So he was challenging the status quo. Nimrod tried to get rid of Prophet Ibrahim and the pharaoh wanted to kill all the boys born at that time to eliminate Prophet Moses and we know from the Christian perspective that Jesus was also martyred at that time because he challenged the status quo of the rulers of that time.
Cannon Dr Andrew Smith: Thank you for inviting me here tonight. It is my first visit and I hope it will not be my last. I spent the day in London at a meeting in Lambeth Palace which is the office of the Archbishop of Canterbury. I was not with him but I was with some of his staff talking about a number of issues relating to other faiths. I am sure that just a few weeks ago the archbishop was in the news once again for challenging the status quo. He spoke at the Trades Union Congress and challenged the status quo of the gig economy, of Amazon and how little tax they pay. He talked about the gig economy in particular and the way people are commodities and the way in which profit is put before humanity as merely the latest incarnation of an ancient evil. He challenged the status quo and rather predictably got attacked in the media for what he said and the usual cry about why should he speak about politics, he should stick to religion.
So why did he did he do it? Why did he feel it was his place to challenge the status quo. And if you go online you can find his speech, you can read it or listen to him speak. But he made it very clear that actually being religious, sticking to one’s religion and sticking to ones faith means getting involved in issues of justice, it is political, it is not party political but it is political. He argued very forcefully that issues of justice arewrit large throughout the bible and throughout the scriptures. So therefore to be faithful to ones scripture means to be involved in issues of justice, inevitably challenging the status quo particularly that of the rich and powerful.
He quoted from one of the prophets in the bible, the prophet Amos and he said this. “Let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a stream”. And the idea of righteousness rolling on like a never fading stream.” He argued that we are called on as Christians and people of all faiths to fight for justice. That justice flows like a never-ending stream, thatjustice rolls on. And that becomes political – it means challenging the status quo.
He also quoted the song of Mary that in the bible recounts what she said when she found out that she was going to give birth to Jesus. And in the middle of that she says: “God has brought down the rulers from their thrones but has lifted the humble.” A challenge to the order that the powerful will stay on high and the humble will stay low, challenging that status quo.
And as we have been reminded challenging that status quo was the call for the prophets, the calling for God’s people and challenging the status quo – standing up for the poor and the marginalised. Jesus started his ministry if you look in the Book of Luke one of the first things he does is he goes into a synagogue and quotes from the Book of Isiah. He reads “the spirit of the Lord is upon me because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor, he has sent me to proclaim freedom to the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free.” A manifesto about challenging the status quo.
And as we are reminded for most of the prophets it didn’t end well. They were persecuted, they were ignored, many were killed. It did not end well. In fact right at the start of Jesus ministry we read that the people chased him out. Not for quoting scripture but because he dared to suggest that thepromises were not just for God’s people – they were for everybody. God’s blessings were for everybody including the idol worshippers and the people did not want to hear it. He challenged their status quo. And it ultimately ended with his death on the cross which we as Christians read in the scripture.
So challenging the status quo is a calling for those of us who follow God’s words, for those who want to be faithful to his calling in our lives. This is a very difficult task. There are those for whom this is a primary calling and they have the courage to stand up and speak publically and we pray for them and support them. It is also a challenge to all of us. As we live our lives do we challenge the status quo? It is not easy. I also want to suggest it is not the most difficult thing either. It is not the hardest thing. The bit that Archbishop Justin quoted from about justice flowing actually comes atthe end of a few short verses which I will read for you. This is what Amos said before that. He said: “I hate your religious festivals, your assemblies are a stench to me. Even though you bring me burnt offerings and grain offerings I will not accept them. Though you bring choice fellowship offerings I will have no regard for them. Away with the noise of your songs. I will not listen to the music of your harps but let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-ending stream.”
Actually the challenge to the status quo was not just to the political rulers and to the secular authorities: it was to the religious leaders as well and to the status quo that said what we do outwardly is more important than the way we treat people. Our ceremonies, our way of behaving in our places of worship are more important than justice. That is what Amos was challenging: the religious people who thought that wearing the right clothes or putting on the right face was more important than the way people were treated.
When I say that challenging the status quo is hard but not the hardest place, the hardest place I find is when my status quo is challenged, when someone challenges the things that I think are immovable. It is far harder when our status quo is challenged but that is also there throughout scripture.
We read later on in the writings of Jesus when he said why do you look at the speck of saw dust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank of wood in your own eye. How can you say to your brother let me take the speck out of your eye when all the time there is a plank in your own eye. You hypocrite. First take the plank out of your own eye and then you will be able to remove the speck in your brother’s eye. It is so much easier to see the fault in other people than in ourselves. It is always nicer to see someone else’s status quo get challenged than to deal with the status quo in our communities that may be leading to oppression, that may be about power, that may not give everyone the chance to flourish. I think when people challenge us that is a far harder place to be.
And throughout scripture time and time again the prophets were talking to the religious community. They were challenging the religious leaders who did not give justice to everyone. That is a challenge today to people of different faiths, of all religious communities. We have to be attentive to the voices that challenge our own institutions. As a church we have to learn that. We have had to listen to the voices of women. They have been called to be leaders. We have had to listen to the voices of the windrush generation. Many Caribbean Christians were coming to Britain in the 1950s seeking a place to worship and were turned away by the Christians who wanted to keep the status quo that the church is only for white people. A terrible thing happened. They did not want their status quo challenged.
That kind of challenge continues for all of us at local levels and at the national level when people come and say but what about me, what about us? You are maintaining a power structure that holds us back and it is a real challenge to hear that. I want to suggest that how we respond as people of faith to those who challenge our status quo is a sign of our maturity, and a sign of our confidence in our faith to listen to the dissenters. Are we willing to listen to the prophets? If Amos turned up now and said to us God says I hate your religious festivals. Let righteousness roll on like a never ending stream? Would we say how interesting or would we say go out. I wonder how we would respond to Amos coming to our place.
Are we willing to listen to the prophets, to the dissenters. Not just to their arguments but to their pain and to their experiences? Are we willing to examine ourselves and our institutions and see the things that have grown up are actually not of God but are being made by people and are structures that need challenging. This may be a Christian way of framing the question but can we discern the will of God in what people are saying to us. What would God be saying about the way we want our institutions to behave, about those things that have become the status quo but are just created by people? Do we know what we must hold on to and what is up for grabs and what must be changed? This is why the people struggled to hear the prophets back them and why they struggle to hear them now. It is so much easier to rejoice when other people’s status quos are challenged. I do it myself. And say ha, ha they have been challenged. But when someone challenges what I am involved in: my structures, the church that I am a part of it is quite painful because these are things that we hold dear. But I believe it is time we listened to those who would be prophets to us who would call us to be more in tune with what God wants: places where justice flows like a never ending stream.
Chairman: Thank you. Your presentation was excellent and you talked about challenging the status quo whether it is at an individual level, community level or my the society and the most difficult part was as you quite rightly pointed out, to challenge one’s own status quo.
Danjuma Bihari: I will try to modulate my speech. I have very big shoes to fill. I listened to what the cannon said and I scarcely think there is much to what I can add to what our dear brother has articulated so well.
I would just like to look at my own historical background in terms of protest because I come from the school of the famous incendiary of the 60s Malcolm X. He was moved to take things from a civil rights position to a human rights position because he said that if one part of the world community of human beings is disabled we are all poorer as a result. So he decided that the issue had to be made a world-wide concern and I remember growing up in that tradition as a boy in Trinidad. I remember the first book on Islam that fell into my hands Militant Islam. It is from the 70s. And I remember reading this book as a child and wondering if that was the sum of the religion that my father taught me because I had never heard these two words put together before the mid 70s. I never heard these two words articulated together in the same sentence.
I have of course heard Malcolm X use the language of Islam quite correctly in my opinion as a positive force for corrective change. But to reduce Islam to the title that precedes it now in retrospect to me is where the problem began when I look at celebrations like Muharram. I have been told that there is a hadith from the Prophet who saw the Jews on that particular day observing paisa or Passover on that day. And he asked what ceremony is that.? And the way it was explained to him was that it is about Moses. Moses is dear to me. He is dear to me and on that day I will observe a fast. That reminds me of something. How integrated our faiths really are. Mohammed speaking in the traditional of Moses and Moses was one of the first people to proclaim liberty unto the land, unto the inhabitants thereof.
So Moses was an organ of protest and it is in that tradition that I would like to look at this Muharram and the words bismallah al rahman al rahim. Just look at those words. Because for too long in my opinion we have been associated with this title here (Militant Islam). Not that al rahman and not the al rahim. Not the most compassionate, the most merciful, the forgiver. The cannon spoke about the Prophet Amos and of course in this tradition Jesus who is the master forgiver, the great forgiver and we have traditions in Islam throughout the Quran speaking about Allah and forgiveness and mercy. And I think perhaps there are ways of protest, there are ways of challenging the status, using forgiveness and rahma and mercy and in that sense I want us to try to think about looking at protest, looking at resistance, looking at challenging the status quo in a manner that does not have to fall into this trap. We do not have to be what people say we are.
That is my bayan, my little message today. I live in Harlesden. I see young people all over London. Harlesden is as multi ethnic as you can get. London is a unique city in that regard. I think New York stands second to London because New York has these massive communities almost living in encampments. It has an almost hermetically sealed quality not where you just have a Hispanic neighbourhood. You have Mexicans there and Puerto Ricans. In Harlesden where I live there are Caribbean’s, Somalis, Algerians, Asians of all kinds. In a very tiny compass.
Another thing about London is you have rich and you have poor. So you will go to a place like Bromsberry and you will see social housing juxtaposed with Tudor Mansions. We should get to know each other. The Quran insists on it. I should have started with bismallah al rahman al rahim. God says in the Quran we made you from male and female, we created you from tribes and nations so you would get to know each other. The best of you are those who are righteous.
It refers to inter faith dialogue, to sit together Muslims, Jews, Christians and people of all faiths, to sit together and find ways on which we can agree, to challenge, to protest – there is a lot happening in this country. This is a very good country. Things that are good can be made better. There is always room for improvement.
I am reminded of a film from 50s. The original Gladiator. It was called Spartakus with Kurt Douglas and the legendary Charles Morton was acting as the centre Dracus. You may not like how he expresses it but he said to the would be dictator Crixus will take some Republican corruption with my Republican freedom but what I will not stand for is the dictatorship of Crixus and no freedom at all. There are those who may take issue with this but I like it because God gives us this freedom, he gives us that latitude to slip and make a mistake or two and making those and correcting yourself he says your sins can be as big as a mountain, if you come to me with sincerity I will forgive them. And we need to treat each other like this.
In the society in which we live we need to treat it like this, we need to be bigger than the thing we are challenging. Our moral position has to be higher. It is pointless in my opinion to topple a system to replace it with the same thing. It happens as history is cyclical. It was in the nature of history for this to happen. Organisations grow they become corrupt and they themselves stand in need of correction.
What we are being asked to do on this platform here is to propose a model where we can be ever vigilant, ever challenging in a way that the institutions will understand and will see the wisdom of changing their ways.
I have spoken long enough. Thank you for your attention.
Chairman: The concluding remark reminds me of animal farm, the famous story written as a satire when those who challenge the status quo actually themselves become as evil as the status quo itself. The slogan was four legged is better than two legged but when the four legged came to power they put a slogan outside the farm. First it was all animals are equal. After the revolution is became some animals are more equal than others. All of us who may speak piously and want change when we come into power do we actually imbibe what we challenge.
Dr Sheikh Saeed Bahmanpour: Bismallah al rahman al rahim. There is always an advantage to being the last speaker because you know what already has been covered and a disadvantage because everything has already been covered. I think our brothers have covered the challenges to the status quo. I just want to connect that to the incident of Kerbala and Imam Hussein as we are commemorating his martyrdom. Many people are killed in battle but not all of them are honoured by the title martyr and every nation has martyrs. Every nation knows that now everyone who is killed for a cause would deserve the title of martyr.
Why? Because martyr (shaheed in Arabic) means witness. So a martyr is a witness to the social behaviour and the social values on the social conduct. So for every nation martyrs are the people who offer their lives to preserve the values of society. So martyrs are those who offer their lives to preserve what is valuable for that society.
In Islam the peak of all martyrs is Hussein Ibn Ali, the grandson of the Prophet. Shias, Sunnis and all Muslims know that and the commemorations are held every year. They are a witness to the fact that Hussein is regarded as a hallmark of martyrs in Islam.
So what was it that made Hussein obtain such a position? First of all was his position in relation to the Prophet and the daughter of the Prophet, his relations and conduct during the whole years when he was silent in Medina and the description of him as a child. He was a person of eloquence and a person who everyone revered: both friends and foes. They both praised his conduct and his position. So this was the personally of Hussein.
What he did was to challenge the status quo. Is it always good to challenge the status quo? Of course we can say there are some sorts of deficiencies, problems in the status quo that we have to challenge in us. The canon put it very eloquently that if our position is challenged what are we going to do? So there are always shortcomings in the system no matter what kind society we live in, whether in the most perfect democracies or in dictatorships we always have problems with the status quo. People have problems with the status quo. But should they always challenge and rise against them?
Challenging in the sense that they should try and modify and change. But rising against in the sense of completely trying to modify and reverse the situation is another thing. We do not always have to challenge the status quo in that way. It may have problems but if we have to rise against it we actually make it worse. We create more problems.
In the life span of Hussein we see two different phases in the way in which he somehow confronted the status quo. One was in the time of his brother Hassan when he had the leadership. And he was completely silent. He made a peace treaty, he fought against Muawiya – he just followed. He was just a person in the shadow of his brother. He was not doing anything or saying anything because he thought that a community cannot have two leaders. He had full trust in his brother Hassan and therefore he made a peace treaty with Muawiya the tyrant of that time. We have to somehow put away the religious prejudices. We know the way in which Muawiya the challenger of the Calipahte and later taking the caliphate himself, how he behaved, his expansionist programme, fighting against anyone who was challenging the slightest problems in the status quo – killing, murdering all these. Hassan did not want bloodshed. He made a peace treaty. But there were certain terms and conditions and certain articles in that peace treaty. Hussein was following them.
The other thing was when he became the leader. His brother Hassan passed away or was martyred as we have in historicalaccounts. This span was ten years and the status quo was really bad. It was full of conspiracies, the differences between rich and poor between Arabs and non Arabs.
It is very interesting. At the time of Muawiya peopleconverted to Islam. We have this historical record – people wanted to convert to Islam but they did not accept. Why? Because of instead of paying jzia a tax for non Muslims they had to pay zakat. And jzia was much more than zakat. The second caliph Omar gave an order when he conquered Persia that we do not accept conversions. People should stay where they are, remain in their faith and pay jzia. And despite that people were converting. Persia converted in a span of ten – fifteen years. They had become Muslims and they were paying jzia. It is very interesting. They were Muslims and they were paying the tax of non Muslims to the government and they accepted it.
This was going on under the scrutiny of Hussein. All the articles of the peace treaty with Muawiya were violated but he was keeping silent. Why? Because if he wanted to stand against the status quo it would have brought great bloodshed among Muslims. Factions would have fought against each other.
He was very much willing to sacrifice his own life and the life of his family and a small group of people rather than creating huge bloodshed among Muslims. This was the case at the time of Muawiya.
One of the articles of the treaty of Hassan with Muawiya was that he would not appoint a caliph after himself and the Muslims chose who they want to be their caliph. Muawiyaviolated this and appointed Yazid his son.
In a sweeping manner we say that we have to rise against the status quo. It is not something which we can do or we must do. It is not a good thing. We always have to judge and assess the situation and see how this could be done in the best manner, rather than creating huge bloodshed among Muslims. This was the case at the time of Muawiya.
One of the articles of the treaty of Hassan with Muawiya was that he would not appoint a caliph after himself and the Muslims chose who they want to be their caliph. Muawiyaviolated this and appointed Yazid his son. Now here was the time.
In a sweeping manner we say that we have to rise against the status quo. It is not something which we can do or we must do. It is not a good thing. We always have to judge and assess the situation and see how this could be done in the best manner. Yazid was just a man of play and sport. He did not know anything about leadership or Islam. His conduct was very clear to everyone and the challenge did not start from Hussein. It started from Yazid. How did it start from Yazid? He said you have to pay allegiance to me because Yazid was the leader of the community. If he did not pay allegiance many would not have regarded him as a legitimate caliph so he said you have to pay allegiance.
When he was summoned to the emir’s mansion in Medina and was given the order to pay allegiance or we will just kill you right here he said Yazid does not even believe in God. How can I pay allegiance to him? So he just moved out of Mecca and went to Medina to find a safe place to stay. Had he given allegiance to Yazid what would have happened. Everyone would have said the grandson of the Prophet has given allegiance this is legitimate, his leadership is legitimate no matter what happens this type of leadership is acceptable in Islam. This type of conduct differentiated between Arabs and non Arabs. This was going on for years. And it went on after Hussain as well until the year 100 after the Prophet when it was abolished. It Mecca they threatened to kill him. Then he moved to Kufa and they told him to pay allegiance just by words – you do not need to do anything afterwards. Just go and sit in your house. We do not want you to do anything.
He said this violates everything that my grandfather stood for. So what we understand here is that when the core values of the community are undermined, when the core values of the community are under question, when the real values are going to change to something different then that is when you have to stand against the status quo and that is when you have to ensure that this is not going to happen.
And that is what happened. When this very small group of people – 72 people and a few family members met the army of 30,000 men and they said come down to the verdict of Yazid and save your life. He said I will not give my hand to Yazid and this is humiliating for me. To give allegiance to someone who is against everything that I believe.
I want to somehow make a sort of understanding from what happened then and what we are in now as Muslims, as Christians as people of faith. This is very important – we are Muslims and Christians but we are all people of faith.
The way Hussain stood against Yazid is very interesting. He did not violate any values that he was committed to. When we want to challenge the status quo we think it makes it permissible for us to ignore some of our values, to ignore some of the ends and important things that we stand for. It is not possible to fight the status quo or to challenge it by doing the same thing that the people in the status quo are doing. It is not possible.
One example I want to give. When all this happened the move from Mecca to Kufa was in the month of haj and then in Muharram. Fighting was forbidden in that month. Since the time if Ismael the son of Ibrahim legislation was made by Ismael and it remained in the Arab culture and it was of course honoured in Islam in the month of pilgrimage no one has the right to fight.
Hussain came across the first despatch of the Kufan army. There were only one thousand men. His companion said that we know after this are going to come huge despatches. So let us fight them now and we can defeat them now but if we wait and we do not fight them they will be joined by thousands and thousands and we cannot fight them. Hussein said this is the month when fighting is not permissible. I am not going to violate it. And also he said I am not going to start a fight in the community. Let them to whatever they want. Because of this they had a very disadvantageous position in the battle.
Now when we want to challenge the status quo what we have to learn for our own community we should do it in a way that we do not violate the values that we stand for. The most important thing about the status quo is that the values of the faith school are challenged. Should we just submit and concede and say these are the moral values, we want to go along or do we say ‘no’, we have to really judge whether the values will be compromised or not.
So we are in exactly a similar situation. Our values, the values of Islam, Christianity and Judaism are challenged by modern society. What should we do? Should we say that this is a new way of life. This is a new way of conduct and values. Or do we say we have to be firmer about this. We have to be stricter about the values which are taught to us. In the gospel, the Quran in the scriptures there are values that can be made adaptable to modern values. This is something that we can learn from with the martyrdom of Hussein.
Chairman:
*Sheikh Mohammad Saeed Bahmanpour is a cleric and a popular speaker. Currently he is the director of interfaith relations at the Islamic Centre of England and a lecturer of Islamic Studies at the Islamic College for Advanced Studies,He completed his religious studies in Qum, Iran before he was invited to Cambridge University to teach as a visiting lecturer in the Faculty of Oriental Studies In 1999. Later, he was appointed as the principal of The Islamic College in London which has both seminary and university degrees on its educational programs where he continued for four years. He is also interested in the history of Jesus and Mary from an Islamic perspective and has written a screenplay about the life of Mary based on the Islamic sources, which was made into a successful movie. Another of his works on Christian history was the screenplay about The Seven Sleepers of the Cave (Ashab al-Kahf). Sheikh Bahmanpour has authored several books including Muslim Identity in the 21st Century, ed. (2001), The Idols Will Fall (2010), The Blessed Tree: The Life and Times of Fatima Daughter of Muhammad (2011), Towards Eternal Life (2015), and Understanding Sura Yāsīn(2018).
**Canon Dr. Andrew Smith is the Director of Interfaith Relations for the Bishop of Birmingham. In 2014, at the Bishop of Birmingham’s request, Andrew set up ‘The Birmingham Conversations’ dialogue process which involved people from six different faiths discussing ‘How faith is lived in modern society’. For ten years, from 1994-2004, he worked for Scripture Union as a Schools Worker working primarily with pupils from a Pakistani Muslim heritage, and thereafter as the Director of Youth Encounter, developing dialogue between Christian and Muslim teenagers and training Christian youth workers for work with young people of different faiths. He is the founder and Chair of Trustees for The Feast, a Christian charity which works to bring together Christian and Muslim young people to build friendship and understanding, which currently operates in four cities in the UK as well as Beirut and Berlin. (www.thefeast.org.uk). He was awarded Doctor of Theology by the University of Birmingham in 2007. He is the author of several articles and books
*** Danjuma Bihari is a community scholar, historian, anthropologist and public speaker. A Windrush activist, a compulsive reader who is an advocate for cultural heritage awareness and education.
