In the months of June, July and August, we witnessed the rise and the demise of a surprising number of world leaders. In the United States, we saw the sudden political death of Joe Biden and the birth of Kamala Harris. In Iran, we saw the surprising voice of hope in the personality of Dr. Masoud Pezeshkian, who replaced the previous president Ebrahim Raisi. In Palestine, we witnessed the martyrdom of Ismail Haniyeh and now we bear witness to the consolidation of leadership in the person of Yahya Sinwar. In Bangladesh, we watched the ousting of Shaykh Hasina and the brave stand of the Bangladeshi people that was led by their courageous students. These are but a few examples, there are probably even more. But today I want to focus on what is now dubbed as the second Bangladeshi revolution, the tipping point of which came through the quota reform movement.
Protests began on June 4th when the Supreme Court of Bangladesh reinstated a 30% quota for the descendants of the freedom fighters. These freedom fighters are praised and beloved in Bangladesh, because they fought for independence from Pakistan in 1971, in a very bloody and difficult conflict. June 7-30 then saw protests in Bangladesh that spread across the country and included police violently clashing with protesters.
On the 1st of July, university students initiated blockades of roads and railways. On July 14th, the Prime Minister, Sheikh Hasina, who had been Prime Minister for four terms consecutively since 2009—five terms in total—uttered an unforgivable statement in response to the protests. During a news conference, she was asked about the protests against the job quotas. She dismissed the protesters with the remark, "If the grandchildren of freedom fighters do not receive quota benefits, who will? The grandchildren of Razakars?" Razakar technically means “volunteer.” Razakar. “Kar” in Persian meaning “work” or as a suffix, relating to an action or function, and “raza” refers to attaining God’s contentment and pleasure, thus altogether it means a volunteer to do good for God’s sake.
But in Bangladesh, razakar is a highly offensive pejorative used to refer specifically to volunteer militias that supported the Pakistani military's attempt to violently suppress Bangladeshi independence via genocide during the Liberation War of 1971. They stand accused of truly horrific crimes. In short, razakar means something akin to “genocidal traitor” and is thus perhaps the worst insult in Bangladesh, especially in the political arena. The following five days, over 200 people were killed by the state. Hasina did not condemn the violence. Instead, she bemoaned the damage to government property. At this point, the protests became about ousting a tyrant. A tyrant who, over a fifteen-year period, has engaged in suppression and banning of rival political parties, voter suppression, nepotism, hundreds of forced disappearances, torture, extrajudicial killings, the list goes.
Naturally, incensed Bangladeshis living abroad also took to the streets. One such place was in the United Arab Emirates, which has a significant Bangladeshi population. Witnessing the mass killings, the brutal injuries and the unjust arrests inflicted on the people of Bangladesh, Bangladeshis in the UAE hit the streets and protested the regime of Sheikh Hasina. Well, they were arrested and on July 22nd, a court in the UAE jailed 57 Bangladeshi nationals for staging these protests. 53 of them were sentenced to 10 years in prison for engaging in these protests in the UAE, one was for 11 years and three were sentenced to life in prison in the Emirates for protesting what was going on in their home country.Think about how committed the United Arab Emirates is to protecting fascism and tyranny worldwide, so much so that they automatically assumed to do the bidding of a tyrant. A tyrant who, it cannot be neglected to mention, has very close ties to the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and Modi of India. Of course, we know all about the close friendship between the Emirates and Modi of India.
The violence continued to grow worse through late July and on the 4th of August, government supporters and police clashed with thousands of students who had begun their march on Dhaka. Hundreds, perhaps even over a thousand people have been killed. The numbers are not clear. The following day, Hasina was overwhelmed and lost the support and the protection of the military. She fled to India and on the 8th of August, which was yesterday, a Nobel Prize laureate named Muhammad Yunus was sworn in as an interim leader of Bangladesh, a decent man who spent his life in service of the poor and the needy.
About five days ago, a Bangladeshi supporter of the Usuli Institute posted a comment on the khutbah that we last broadcasted before our hiatus in June, Syeda Nargis, asked, "Would the Usuli Institute arrange a khutbah regarding Bangladesh? I am a civil service candidate in Bangladesh. I want to know from the Professor who, if I was being my best self, whose intention it is to please God in the best possible way, would it be possible to do so as a diplomat or an administrator? Sincerely waiting for your answer. Thank you."
It is a pertinent question during a very tough moment for the Bangladeshi people. My heart goes out to them. I followed the difficult developments very closely and I was saddened to see that virtually no one spoke about these 54 people who were arrested and sentenced to egregious prison terms in the UAE. The people of Bangladesh succeeded and revolutions come at a very, very high cost and sacrifice. But, let us see if we can try to help answer the question of our dear supporter as she navigates this new reality in Bangladesh. We will do so by examining a sermon from Imam Ali whom, as I stated at the beginning, was described by the Prophet when he said that “I am the city of knowledge and Ali is its gate.” This hadith, of course, is often referred to by Sunnis, Shia or Sufis, but it is not limited to a metaphysical truth. It is far beyond that. The gate to the city of knowledge is the inheritor to Prophetic knowledge, and this can be demonstrated by close inspection of Ali’s sermons and his thought. We would be remiss to ignore this particular sermon at our present stage in history.
Recently, Professor Tahera Qutbuddin published a very good translation of Nahj al-Balagha, which of course contains the sermons of Imam Ali. Professor Qutbuddin has done a really wonderful job and I have benefited greatly from her work. I am of course a student, but nonetheless, there are certain parts of the translation where I do not necessarily disagree, but I am going to offer just a little bit of commentary to think about what the sermon is saying as a cohesive whole and to see if certain aspects of the language can be explained or tweaked, or if we can offer an alternative definition at certain points to understand the spirit of the sermon a little bit better. I will read the sermon in English and avoid Arabic as much as possible, but sometimes it will be necessary.
God has given me [the right and duty] (haqqan) over you [to govern] your affairs and has given you rights over me [similar to those which] I have over you. Rights are the broadest of things in their description and the narrowest in equitable application. They are never credited to any individual except that they can also be credited against him, and they are likewise never credited against him except that they can also be credited to him. If it were possible for any being to have rights credited to but not against him, that position would be reserved for Almighty God alone; it would not apply to any of his creatures because he is all-powerful over his servants and always just in enacting his decrees. But God made it his right over his servants that they obey him, while also making it incumbent upon himself to recompense them with manifold reward through the abundant generosity and expansive bounty only he can bestow. **Brackets indicate edits on translation not expounded upon during the sermon.**
Let us pause here. This is a sermon that is meticulous both in style and structure. There are many recurring words in the sermon, particularly usage of the word haqq. I believe it is purposeful on Imam Ali's part to use haqq in a variety of ways and after you read the sermon several times, you start to wonder whether haqq means “right” or “duty;” I think it is part of the point of the sermon. Ali begins by balancing the powerful and esteemed position of being a governor of people's affairs in general with the governor’s acknowledgment of the similar rights of the citizenry over the governor. This is an astounding closing of the gap in power dynamics, far ahead of its time. The subsequent Umayyads did not apply this principle following the governance of Imam Ali; not for several generations at least.
Ali underscores a concept of balance: one does not enjoy a right without also being accountable for that right in the form of a duty. If one can enjoy the benefit of the right, they must also be prepared to have that same right apply against them. Ali uses the word jara (جرى) which means to flow or circulate. Professor Qutbuddin understandably translated jara as credited in order to convey the concept of the relationship between rights and responsibilities. In the Qur’an, jara is used to describe the flowing of rivers in heaven. I think it is important to ponder Ali’s particular choice in using jara; when I see the word, I think of the flowing of a river. A river works begins at a source. That initial source could be a glacier, or a lake, amongst other examples. A stream flows downhill from that source and rainwater and different tributaries will feed the stream making a river system. That river system will grow in its current and it will continue to flow in a downstream current. Ultimately, it will empty into a river mouth and there is a watershed there where the river empties into another body of water.
This is amazing imagery that comes to mind with the very subtle use of the word jara. I am not arguing that Imam Ali is saying that rights adhere to the exact anatomy and function of a river system, rather he is drawing an allusion that invokes an image which illustrates the complex, dynamic interplay of rights and duties. If you take an entitlement and it carries you downstream, if you are not careful, in order to go back upstream towards the source, you will have to go against the current. You have to be very responsible with the way you travel on this river.
After Ali talks about this dynamic of rights and duties and how they flow to and from each other and against each other, the following sentence is very key. He says the only existent to whom rights are owed, but do not run against, is God. That is because God is ever just and because He has obligated himself to generosity and mercy upon his creation. Infallible human beings can never hold that position. Any attempt to do so would be a usurpation of God's sovereignty, and in my opinion, amount to shirk. It cannot be done. Such a deviation causes the flow of corruption. Therefore, according to Ali, the power dynamics between the governor and the governed must be intricately balanced. It's not too difficult to understand.
Then, as part of God’s own rights, he mandated rights for some people over others. He balanced these rights in their various aspects, making some entail others, and some not be entailed except by others. The greatest of his mandated rights are those of the ruler over his subjects and those of subjects over their ruler. This is a duty that God has mandated for everyone over everyone, in a system that generates mutual regard and strengthens Islam (li-dīnihim). For subjects will not be righteous except when their ruler is righteous, and a ruler will not be righteous except when his subjects are steadfast. **The underlined words are the subject of the commentary.**
Fa-jaʿalaha tatakafaʾ means “made it equal,” which is a bit different than “balanced,” conceptually. This paragraph logically follows the preceding discussion of the concept of “flowing rights,” and adds that rights are intricately balanced such that some rights necessarily activate other rights, while other rights are fully contingent on the activation of antecedent rights. This is why I argue that “necessitate” may possibly be a better choice than “entail” for translating yujib. Thus, God made these rights equal in their various aspects, making some rights necessitate other rights and some rights not be necessary except by others.
Then he says that the greatest (aʿadham) right in this genus of rights that flow laterally between people is that of the governed over the governor and vice versa. What he says is that God originally obligated this mandate and that the right was systematized (fa-jaʿalaha niẓaman) to generate “mutual regard,” (li-ulfatihim) or what I would call “familiarity,” and to strengthen what Dr. Qutbuddin calls “Islam,” but the original text says li-dīnihm. To me, li-dīnihim is “accountability.” Whether the sentence is read to mean that this system (niẓam) began with God’s creation of this dynamic of the greatest right that produces familiarity and accountability, or that humankind was expected to create a system (niẓam) to achieve this, either way the responsibility for maintenance and development of the system still belongs to the human being: “This is a duty that God has mandated for everyone over everyone, in a system that generates familiarity and strengthens accountability.”
Ulfa is a word that is probably best defined as familiarity, intimacy, or harmony. Alifa means acquainted with, familiar with, to be fond of, to be habituated or accustomed, to unify, or to be in harmony. The cognate taʾlif means to form or formation; a common example of usage is forming a government or a union. Again, God has created this dynamic of rights between the governor and the governed to achieve two primary, interrelated objectives by way of a system, niẓam. The first objective of the system is the production of ulfa. A system that produces ulfa is a system that is predictable, reliable, and safe. A Bangladeshi that is sentenced to ten years in prison in the UAE due to a demonstration of solidarity does not live in an ulfa-producing system. Such a system is not safe, kind, reliable, or predictable. It is perhaps predictable in the sense that the UAE routinely engages in tyranny; that is not the type of predictability we are hoping for. Instead, we want predictably positive outcomes when it comes to our systems of governance, because that is what makes us feel safe and gives us confidence that we can adjudicate and advocate effectively for our rights as citizens.
This dynamic of demanding rights from our governors is an obligatory responsibility for all people, over all people. Ali uses the word fardh to describe this obligation; it is not an optional undertaking. Fardh is the very same word we use to describe our obligation to pray, fast, etc. Perhaps in a future sermon I will return to this point and offer a demonstration as to how this concept is not Ali’s personal opinion, rather it is firmly and directly rooted in Qur’anic ethics.
We begin with a system of rights that flow bilaterally between the governor and the governed. If it flows to the right, it will produce a safe, reliable, and harmonious system. In turn, this system returns the flow back to the central right and to the left which is described as ʿizzan li-dīnihim. Professor Qutbuddin renders this “strengthens Islam,” and again I do not think that is wrong per se. However, the original text does not use the word Islam, it uses dīn. Without any context, dīn could simply be translated as “religion.” I agree that “religion” would not fit, for several reasons. But, what about in the context of Ali’s sermon? We are thinking about the equal rights between the governor and the governed and the key attributes of a reliable, familiar, and harmonious system. Such a system is grounded in accountability. There is a way for the people to hold the people who are in charge of the system accountable. There is a way for the system to hold accountable the people who are unruly within their greater society. If accountability is strong, the current flows back to the central source of the rights of the governor and governed, and thus continues to flow and fill the system or government which produces harmonious safety and reliability. As Professor Qutbuddin puts it, it empowers a system of “mutual regard” between the governor and the governed.
The final idea in this paragraph of the sermon is, “For subjects will not be righteous except when their ruler is righteous, and a ruler will not be righteous except when his subjects are steadfast.” Istiqama can of course mean being “steadfast.” However, one could be steadfast in evil. Sheikh Hasina was steadfast for fifteen years. She did improve the economy, but she was also steadfast in ordering forced disappearances, torture, using a drug and crime problem in Bangladesh as a guise for disappearing political dissidents and quashing any dissent. She was steadfast in protecting her dominance as a ruler above all else. Yes, one can be steadfast, but steadfastness does not imply moral integrity. This is what I believe istiqama is: moral integrity.
Perhaps “moral” integrity is redundant–integrity is a commitment to moral uprightness and principles, above all else. Integrity is the requisite linchpin to produce the river. Integrity is the rainwater, so to speak. If we want this river of rights to flow equitably, it must have enough water for a current that can strengthen accountability and feed a system of governance that is grounded in the suffering and needs of the average citizen. there to be rights that are beneficially, mutually regarded and equal between the governor and the governed. Without the moral integrity of the citizenry, the river runs dry.
*End Sermon 1*
We have examined half of Ali’s sermon and we have understood a few takeaways. The greatest right and duty that God created in the genus of rights amongst people is the right of equality between the governor and governed. We learned that God created this relationship with the expectation of maintenance of this right in a system that is accountable, reliable, and harmonious. If these elements are missing, the dynamic of equality is not being upheld.
Even if we read ʿizzan li-dīnihim as “strengthening Islam,” or “glory for Islam,” when rights of the citizenry are not upheld by the governor and the citizenry does not commit to integrity and moral uprightness, then dignity for Islam is absent and the strength of Islam is undermined. This is the function that Ali is offering us to ponder. Is Islam truly strong and dignified on the world stage? Are Muslims exhibiting any real power and agency? Even this revolution in Bangladesh, was the impetus Islamic ethics or ideals? No, that was not the source. The source was secular human rights, which is fine and good. But Islamic ethics was not the clear source and spirit. Think about “Muslim” countries. When someone stands up for what is right, they are thrown in jail for ten years, or even for life. That is not strength in religion, that is not dignity or glory for Islam, and it is not accountability or harmony. It is shameful. If there is no accountability and no respect for upholding the rights of the governed, then you cannot have a system that produces reliability and safety. You will have a system that produces fear and anxiety. Let us see what Ali says next.
If subjects render the ruler his rights and the ruler renders them theirs, truth (al-haqq) will become strong, (manahij ul-dīn) the ways of religion [the methods and procedures of accountability] will be established, the waymarks of justice will be fixed, and the (al-sunan) road of the Sunnah [the way of the authoritative precedent] will become easy to follow. Thereby, the age will become virtuous, the state can be expected to remain stable, and its enemies’ ambitions will be thwarted. But if subjects overpower their ruler, or if the ruler overburdens his subjects, voices will be divided, oppression will rage, (wa kathurat-al-adghalu fi-dīn) religious corruption [corruption of accountability] will increase, and (mahajj al-sunan) and the straight road [the procedure (or way) of authoritative precedent) will be abandoned. Then passions will drive actions, rules will be forsaken, and hearts will become diseased. People will cease to be outraged even when essential rights are abandoned, or great injustices perpetrated. In that moment, the pious will be shamed and the evil honored, and God will afflict his servants with great punishments. **Underlined words are subject to commentary, words in parentheses are the original Arabic, and words in brackets are alternative suggestions for the translation.**
Professor Qutbuddin translates ʿizz al-haqq baynahum as “truth will become strong.” I do not disagree that if the rights that we discussed are upheld, that truth will become strengthened, because upholding this right and responsibility means establishing strong accountability and therefore you it would mean truth is strengthened too. Strengthened truth means a system that works for people, is familiar, and relies on solid precedent. When this right between the governor and governed is upheld, one does not receive a sentence in court that is horribly unpredictable and unlike previous rulings. When the right of the governed over the governor is upheld, we would not see an unfair job quota system struck down in the lower courts, but then upheld again in the Supreme Court. In a fair system, we would not see a Supreme Court that is compelled to uphold the wishes of the corrupt ruler who institutionalized nepotism to give power to that Supreme Court in the first place. That is not a reliable system based on judicial precedent. In a system that does not uphold the rights of the citizenry over the governor, the governor picks up the phone and tells the Supreme Court to reinstate the quota by reminding them that they would not be serving on the bench in the Supreme Court if not for the governor. So, the unjust quota is reinstated.
While “the truth will become strong” is technically correct, the original Arabic is referencing the haqq that has been the primary focus of the entire sermon: the dynamic right and responsibility between the governor and governed. Therefore, if the system of ulfa is upheld and accountability is strong, then manahij ul-dīn will be established, the waymarks of justice will be fixed, and the sunan will become easy to follow. Earlier, Professor Qutbuddin translated dīn (ʿizzan li-dīnihim) as “Islam,” and here, she translates manahij ul-dīn as “the ways of religion.” As I argued before, I believe that dīn in the context of the sermon is referring to dedication to accountability. If the “ways of religion” are lax about the importance of accountability, I do not believe that the waymarks of justice will be fixed, or that “Sunnah” will become easy to follow, in any moral and meaningful way at least.
This particular haqq, the dynamic of rights between the governed and the governor, demands that we remain accountable to each other. That is, establishment of procedural and substantive accountability, reliability on just outcomes, and predictability and familiarity via just precedent. Ali describes this reality very similarly to how we did: in short, safety and stability.
Now, let us examine the translation, “the road of the Sunnah (al-sunan) will become easy to follow.” I am not convinced that sunan is a reference to the Prophetic “Sunnah” the way we tend to understand it in our modern conception. But calling it “Sunnah” would not be problematic if we understood the word in the way I think Ali is using it here. At its most basic, “Sunnah” is an authoritative precedent. We often hear the phrase, “do not set a bad precedent.” Why? Because it is authoritative and induces reliance on an outcome and its method. Changing methods and outcomes on a whim is a clear corruption of this greatest right that has been the subject of our discussion. It is a corruption of how the system (niẓam) is supposed to work and thus a corruption of what it is supposed to achieve. The authoritative precedent must be stable, reliable, and enact and inspire safety. The citizenry must be able to follow the logic of the governor, government, and judiciary in their decision-making and rulings. One cannot simply build up a political elite in order to consolidate and bolster power, the way Sheikh Hasina was doing. That is ultimately the point of the 30% government quota. Generations of people would say that had it not been for Sheikh Hasina, they would not have landed a position in the government. When she or her party calls them for a favor, what will happen? They will oblige to the exclusion of others, and the system will be corrupted. This corruption destroys all sense of accountability, and the greatest right and responsibility people have over each other.
Ali describes the opposite reality when the rights are not upheld. Here, Professor Qutbuddin renders kathurat al-adghalu fi-dīn as “religious corruption will increase.” Again, I do not disagree that “religious corruption” would result, but more fundamentally accountability would be corrupted (adghal), which would be the opposite of strengthening accountability (ʿizzan li-dīnihim). This same dynamic can and does unfold in secular societies, none of what Ali is saying is limited to a theocratic state. After mentioning this corruption of accountability, Ali then says the next result of failing the right is turikat mahajj al-sunan. A few sentences previous, Professor Qutbuddin rendered al-sunan as “Sunnah,” but here she translates turikat mahajj al-sunan as “the straight road will be abandoned.” When I read the English translation first, I half expected the original text to say something akin to “sirat al-mustaqīm,” as in straight road, straight path. In the context of this sermon, I believe turikat mahajj al-sunan is conceptually closer to “abandoning the way (or procedure) of authoritative precedent,” similar to how we defined al-sunan before. At baseline, we honor and follow the Sunnah of the Prophet because we respect his authority and example. But, beyond this, authoritative precedent only should become authoritative because it has a discernible method and people can follow the logic. We, who submit to this authority, must feel safe in relying on it to be fair, dependable and accountable, as we have said before.
Now, we come to the conclusion of Ali’s sermon, what are we to do now? He told us how to do things the right way, and how to discern when things are going wrong. Let us revisit the question our friend, the civil service candidate, asked us in the beginning: as a civil servant, what should I do to help my people and to please God? This is how Ali answers:
People, counsel one another in this matter and help one another as you should. No one, no matter how strong his wish to secure God’s pleasure, or how far-reaching his efforts in doing good, is capable of rendering to God the obedience that is truly his due. God has mandated as a right for himself over his servants that they counsel one another as much as they are able, and help one another in establishing what is proper. No man, no matter how great his station in truth, or how superior his precedence in religion, is above needing help in establishing God’s charge. And no man, no matter how servile people might think him, or how humble he may appear to their eyes, is too lowly to help in this, or to be helped.
What does this mean? Let us restate it. God has made another fardh, a mandate or obligation over his servants: that they give nasiha (counsel) to one another. Nasiha in the true and proper sense. What is nasiha supposed to accomplish? In our modern consciousness, we associate nasiha with very petty things like clothing, or how to sound; essentially superficial etiquettes. Such people get all upset when you tell them that we have much bigger problems to think about. Well, what is Ali saying? Is he talking about etiquette? No, Ali is talking about this greatest right between human beings. We think we have done someone a favor by telling them to wear pants instead of shorts, meanwhile Ali is inspiring us to ponder and dedicate to maintaining a level of equality between systems of government and the governed. He is imploring you to recognize that the governor and the governed are not equal, that is a usurpation of God’s sovereignty and that is unacceptable. To do so means assuming God’s position, and if you assume God’s position, you will corrupt and destroy all of your systems and it will end in war, famine and disease, etc. That is why it is the greatest bilateral right among human beings. Think of all of the relationships that human beings have with each other: brothers and sisters, parents and children, orphans and their caretakers, prophets and their followers. There are countless examples of these crucial rights, yet Ali says this is the greatest of them. Think about that. Pray on that. This is a massive responsibility and it seems to suggest that we cannot make progress unless we put this concern at the front and center of the way we think and how we act. Everything needs to be inclined towards setting the scale right in our systems. The way we do that is by making sure that our homes are also that way, following a loving and dignified system. Be very careful if you are in a position of leadership.
My nasiha to you dear sister, and I hope that Dr. Abou El Fadl would agree with me, take your position in civil service, especially now in this interim government. Show the people that together, you can build a system of accountability and familiarity, loving and kind, not the type of bureaucracy that I have experienced in my country of origin. Go into civil service and serve your people. If you serve this right (haqq), then you serve Allah. If you wish to attain God’s pleasure, you wish to be a real razakar, not the pejorative, a real volunteer for God’s sake, then go into civil service and help build a system that can be relied upon. A system where you would not be afraid to stand up to a tyrant, because Bangladesh is not out of the woods yet. This is an interim government. You must be very careful about what comes next. You have to keep the military at bay so that Bangladesh does not become a military dictatorship. You have to be very careful of other political parties jumping in and trying to take advantage of the vacuum. The students should be given positions of authority and should be celebrated. The morally upright, those with integrity amongst you must be elevated and be celebrated. You must properly mourn the lives that were lost in this horrific tyranny and the rest of us must appeal for these poor souls in the United Arab Emirates to be released. If you work in the civil service, I hope that you can find a way to help them. “No man, no matter how great his station to truth or how superior his precedence in religion, is above needing help in establishing God’s charge. And no man, no matter how servile the people may think him or how humble he may appear to their eyes, is too lowly to help in this or to be helped.” This is total equality, absolute equality. Ya Ibadullah! I enjoin you to morality, to integrity. Ponder this sermon, how the water source, the very life force of our rights, begins with our morality and our conviction that morality is our charge. Then we can uphold our rights, and then we can discharge our duties simultaneously in an equipollent and fair fashion.
*End Sermon 2*