Fahmida Riaz is Pakistan’s premier female poet. She became a sensation in the early 1970s when her bold, feminist poetry created a stir in the convention ridden world of Urdu poetry. Riaz was expressive, sometimes explicit, and politically charged. She created a completely new genre in Urdu poetry with a post-modern sensibility. Later, she remained prominent with her defiance of General Zia‘s martial law, her exile to India and the continuous evolution of her fiction and poetry.
Since the late 1990s, Fahmida Riaz has discovered Jalaluddin Rumi, the 12th century Turkish poet and jurist, and now an international celebrity. Her recent publication – Yeh Khana-e aab-o-gil – is a unique translation of Rumi’s ghazals in the same rhyme and meter. Since her navigation of the Rumi universe, she has explored another dimension of her individual and cultural consciousness, where the influence of Islamic scholars and Sufis is paramount.
Last winter, she read a letter by Hazrat Ali bin Abi Talib (AS), the fourth Caliph and son-in-law of the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH), while browsing a translation of Nahaj ul Balagha (a collection of sermons, letters and sayings of the Caliph). Later, in an email, she related to her friends across the globe how angry she felt for not knowing about this letter all her life, and how the real jewels of Muslim history were concealed “generation after generation.”
At the time she was preparing for a Conference at Heidelberg, Germany. Lo and behold, she made a dramatic speech about Ali‘s (AS) letter at the international moot. Thereafter she showed the text of the letter to Dr Patricia Sharpe, a US-based writer who was impressed by it and immediately paraphrased and uploaded it to on her website under the title “Good Governance Early Muslim Style.”
Ali (AS) had written a comprehensive letter – articulating principles of public policy – for the guidance of the newly appointed Governor to Egypt, Maalik al Ashtar. In this fascinating directive, Ali (AS) advises the new governor that his administration will succeed only if he governs with concern for justice, equity, probity and the prosperity of all. There is a timeless applicability of this famous letter. Selected passages from the text are reproduced below:
Religious tolerance: Amongst your subjects there are two kinds of people: those who have the same religion as you [and] are brothers to you, and those who have religions other than yours, [who] are human beings like you. Men of either category suffer from the same weaknesses and disabilities that human beings are inclined to; they commit sins, indulge in vices either intentionally or foolishly and unintentionally without realising the enormity of their deeds. Let your mercy and compassion come to their rescue and help in the same way and to the same extent that you expect Allah to show mercy and forgiveness to you .
Equity is best: A policy which is based on equity will be largely appreciated. Remember that the displeasure of common men, the have-nots and the depressed persons, over-balances the approval of important persons, while the displeasure of a few big people will be excused… if the general public and the masses of your subjects are happy with you .
The rich:…are the people who will be the worst drag upon you during your moments of peace and happiness, and the least useful to you during your hours of need and adversity. They hate justice the most. They will keep demanding more and more out of State resources and will seldom be satisfied with what they receive and will never be obliged for the favour shown to them if their demands are justifiably refused.
On judiciary: You must select people of excellent character and high calibre with meritorious records . . . When they realise that they have committed a mistake in judgment, they should not insist on it by trying to justify it . . . They should not be corrupt, covetous or greedy . . . . These appointments must be made . . . without any kind of favouritism being shown or influence being accepted; otherwise tyranny, corruption and misrule will reign . . . Let the judiciary be above every kind of executive pressure or influence, above fear or favour, intrigue or corruption.
Poverty: If a country is prosperous and if its people are well-to-do, then it will happily and willingly bear any burden. The poverty of the people is the actual cause of the devastation and ruination of a country, and the main cause of the poverty of the people is the desire of its ruler and officers to amass wealth and possessions, whether by fair or foul means.
Corruption undermines national well-being: I want to advise you about your businessmen and industrialists. Treat them well . . . They are the sources of wealth to the country . . . One more thing . . . you must keep an eye over their activities as well. You know that they are usually stingy misers, intensely self-centered and selfish, suffering from the obsession of grasping and accumulating wealth. They often hoard their goods to get more profit out of them by creating scarcity and by indulging in black-marketing.
On communicating with people: You must take care not to cut yourself off from the public. Do not place a curtain of false prestige between you and those over whom you rule. Such pretension and shows of pomp and pride are in reality manifestations of an inferiority complex and of vanity. The result of such an attitude is that you remain ignorant of the conditions of your subjects and of the actual cases of the events occurring in the State.
Peace leads to prosperity: If your enemy invites you to a peace treaty . . . never refuse to accept such an offer, because peace will bring rest and comfort to your armies, will relieve you of anxieties and worries, and will bring prosperity and affluence to your people . . . Be very careful never to break your promise with your enemy; never forsake the protection or support that you have offered to him; never go back upon your word, and never violate the terms of the treaty.
This document, written centuries ago, reflects an astute understanding of the class structure of society – ages before class as a political construct was defined, analysed and elaborated upon. The underlying ethos of a welfare state is captured here: protecting the poor and the disadvantaged .
Unlike many classics on governance, which tell you how to invite your enemy to dinner and then stab him, and how to perpetuate the exercise of power, Ali (AS) emphasised the creation of a state that provided the greatest opportunities to the people. Indeed, Riaz became a little poetic by stating that we hardly deserved the honour of being associated with a faith and vision that Ali (AS) propagated; in what unworthy hands his teachings fell!
The common stories about Islam or Muslims have to do with the chopping of arms and killing of infidels. We are told that Muslims had a great empire, after many conquests and subjugation of the “infidels.” And what have we learned in the textbooks: Ali (AS) was a brave general with a legendary sword? Have we heard this:
Do not close your eyes from glaring malpractice of officers, miscarriage of justice and misuse of rights, because you will be held responsible for the wrong thus done to others. In the near future, your wrong practices and maladministration will be exposed, and you will be held responsible and punished for the wrong done to the helpless and oppressed people.
Fahmida‘s exuberance indeed was heart-warming. Alas, not all her friends were impressed. A couple of agnostic liberals in Karachi were appalled – comrade Fahmida of yesteryear talking about Ali (AS) and Islamic history? So it turned into a spiteful, bitter litany against her for being “reactionary.” A self-styled intellectual from Karachi went to the extent of saying that she, being a woman, could not be fit to understand history and politics. This was shocking – all in response to a personal discovery that the poet shared with child-like enthusiasm. She was chided for everything under the sun, including supporting enlightened moderation, mullahs and dictatorship.
Undaunted, Fahmida composed a poem, and later wrote an allegorical short story on how a dreg of the earth, a cleaner in our society, finds a parchment of this letter and asks a mullah about it, who holds that the contents of this letter are beyond the comprehension of the cleaner. But there is a connection as the story proceeds, that universal principles of justice, fairplay and equal opportunity are valid for all – not just the elite or the powerful.
Thanks to Fahmida, many of us have (re)discovered this gem. Doubts on the authenticity of all ancient texts exist, and many a sceptical friend reminded me of this possibility. There are other ‘believers’ who contest such doubts. My view is simple:
one has to relish these little moments of pride and happiness in finding such wisdom from our heritage in an otherwise bleak world dogged by the constructs of Islamism and religious fundamentalism
Translations of the letter are based on the versions in “The Peak of Eloquence,” published by Islamic Seminary, Karachi – An earlier version appeared in the Friday Times, Pakistan.
Salamalikum,
Ok, I understand some what you were saying now, but I still don’t get a few things. Why is writing down ‘singularly’ any more significant than ‘compiling’ singular sayings. The way I read your comments I felt that you are saying Sayyidana Ali’s (ra) book is more authentic than other hadith books because Ali (ra) was alive at the time, and inherently those compilation were first transmitted orally. Have I understood you correctly? If so, then does this added qualification make sense in the light that ahadith are narrated from other sahabah as well? Why should it matter that they were ‘written down’ at a later time?
I was also just commenting out that Nahaj al-Balagha is not considered by majority of the Muslims to be the second most authentic/important text to read after Quran, as Haider mentioned.
I’m only saying that the suggestion that somehow al-Bukhari’s compilation is less authentic than Ali’s (ra) letter is incorrect. And, if that’s the case (if I haven’t misunderstood you), then take a shot at answering my ramablings in my last comments.
Bhittai: Thank you. I had never heard of abu-dharr and even if the name is somewhat familiar i never knew of him. I would like to read more about him to fullfill my curiosity as you say he “was Ali’s(ra) hero” in some way.
i, certainly, didnt take any offense to anything you wrote. Its all educational.
This post has certainly lead to some diverse comments. but all is good.
Dear brother Ibrahim: I think you don’t get it
1. written down singularly is different than compiled in the sense that compiled means collectively put together. Sahih al Bukhari is compilation, where all the hadiths that were oral and or singularly written were taken and put into one single text/format by Imam Bukhari.
2. Yes my brother I have heard of Muwatta of Imam Malik and Imam Muhammad and no one ,certainly, not I, am saying that the hadiths were pulled out of thin air as you say. I think you miss the point here.
3. Both the Muwatta(s) were written after the time of Hazrat Ali(ra). As you may know that Imam Muhammad was born atleast 100 or so years after Rasool Allah (saw) passing away and Imam Malik was born in 93Hijri. and Hazrat Ali (ra) lived during the time of the Rasool (saw).
Both the Muwattas are agreed upon but they both are after the life of Hazrat Ali(ra) so just basic math can tell you that Hazrat Ali (ra) lived before the birth of these two respected personalities, therefore, anything written by Hazrat Ali (ra)has to be written before either of the 2 Imams. Since we are ttalking about his own letters and not some narration or summary of these letters.
4. You are correct that both these Muwattas pre-date Sahih Bukhari but I was commenting on Sahih Bukhari vs. the LETTERS and NOT commenting on which was the first hadith of all times. I was just trying to clairfy what Haider Ali meant (in my comprehension)in his comment and what you may have understood.
please read again what i wrote.
{I think what Haider Ali
ali.m.m.khan
http://www.shariati.com/abudhar.html
is Shariati’s take on Abu Dhar. He casts AbuDharr(as) as an avid anti-bourgeois activist who meets a tragic end. In him, Shariati finds a prototypical socialist with an islamic identity, and he become a major figure in his overall framework of red shiism (class-struggle characterized by islamic notions of justice and jihad). Why Shariati was mentioned in the first place is because he’s arguably the last most notable proponent of (some form of ) islamic-socialism. As an avid admirer of Shariati, the first thing that caught my attention in this letter was the underlying distrust of the rich and powerful, who aren’t necessary evil – yet they resent and resist the social change that a Utopian islamic state will inevitably bring about. Ali is a martyr of a class-struggle. It was in his death that we saw the emergence of an empire. This to me is a theme that someone like Fahmida Riaz should/might have found appealing.
I do apologize if my words sounded offensive to anyone.
Salamalikum
Before the compilation, the hadiths were in oral form and/or written down singly but not compiled.
Ali, how is ‘written down’ different than compiled?
They were eventually compiled by a few different persons. seperately, the first compilation by an imam from Bukhara therefore named after him -Bukhari-
Have you heard of Muwatta of Imam Malik, Muwatta of Imam Muhammad (student of Abu Hanfiah), Musnad of Imam Ahmed and others? These were all written before Sahih of al-Bukhari. This and other evidence show that the ahadith weren’t just ‘compiled’ out of thin air after some time.
Hazrat Ali (ra) lived during the life time of the Rasool (saw) and all hadith were compiled after the passing of the Rasool(saw).
So, are you saying it’s ok to believe in Nahaj al-Balagha, which was written after the death of Rasoolullah (saw) because it was written by Sayyidana Ali (ra), who was alive at the time of Rasoolullah (saw), but not other hadith books because they were compiled by people who weren’t alive at the time of Rasoolullah even though they heard it from people who heard it from sahabah? Does this make sense?
If this is your argument, then how do you believe Rasoolullah (saw) was born in Makkah, moved to Madinah, fought here and fought there? How do you believe that there was a person named Ali or Fatima or Umar or Abu Bakr? Were these events and names mentioned in Quran or do you think somebody who was alive at the time of Rasoolullah (saw) wrote down these names and events down? If so, I’ll be interested to know about that sahabi. The fact it almost all of the tarikh was compiled just as ahadith were compiled!There is no two opinions about it.
Viqar, yes I agree. I was just telling the bithai to not write inappropriate things of this nature.