Working
together

Now we know that it's not just governments

that are involved in politics.

All sorts of individual and group relationships come under that banner,

from the family politics into which we are born,

then as we grow through all the different group endeavours

in which we work as members of teams,

all the way out to global politics.

But the processes are the same,

the negotiation and compromise,

the give and take

between one individual and another,

one group and another,

each having to examine their own needs and desires, preferences and priorities.

And the resultant gains and losses for each side

are agreed on to achieve a greater unity,

some form of shared way of life.

For this reason, what is crucial to negotiation

is not just the motives but the morality of those involved.

If it is not there, no agreement can be trusted.

The outcome of any negotiation

is the result of the generation of trust between the parties,

a recognition of a shared morality

at the root of a shared humanity.

And although there may be a billion muslims in the world,

they are still only a minority,

so it is crucial that they remember their shared humanity,

their commonality rather than their difference.

In most of the situations muslims working in Scotland will find themselves,

they are usually working alongside and surrounded by non-muslims,

from school classroom projects

to adult working life,

and from a practical point of view

there may seem to be no difference,

but as to whether workmates

consider each other good or bad people,

trustworthy

they will judge by each other's language and behaviour,

spoken opinions and personality.

What others look for in a muslim

is not their performance of religious duties,

but the way that they talk about and act towards other people.

And they can recognise the heart of anyone living the Deen.

Now personal human relationships may stay the same,

but global politics is much less predictable,

and the politics of right now is not the politics of the future.

By the time anyone reads this,

who knows what shape the muslim world might take

and there is only so much that can be extrapolated from historical precedent.

The butterfly effect of some minor event

can quickly change the world beyond recognition,

and the ecological catastrophe that seems inevitable from here

will most certainly not be a minor event.

And with survival on the line,

we can be sure that the politics will become heated.

And that's before negotiations start with regard to disparity in wealth.

The task for those seeking a more unified planet is a moral one,

not a practical one.

It is really not a case of how to solve problems but why,

not how should those with more give a greater share to those with less,

but why should they.

What reason does anyone have to change their mind?

It is clear from observation of the workings of political parties around the world

that this is something only rarely achieved by argument,

politicians hardly ever change sides,

no matter how persuasive the opposition.

Change can only be achieved

after mutual recognition of a shared morality,

a common humanity,

and we judge that not by words but by example.

But humans share more than good intentions and the selflessness of morality,

they also share their worst inclinations,

and the behaviour we can recognise and judge in individuals

can also be seen in groups.

But what is easier to see in individuals

is much harder to recognise in group behaviour.

Individual criminality is much easier to recognise

and if necessary punish,

than similar behaviour exhibited by large political groups,

even though the results may be orders of magnitude worse.

A personal argument that leads to a fight

has less repercussions than a political argument

leading to an international war.

Of course, many muslims living as minorities

consider that as equivalent to living in the Dar-al-Harb,

a state of war

justifying all manner of lies and deceptions,

and otherwise unconscionable behaviour.

But this minority status doesn't just apply to those living surrounded by non-muslims,

as so many muslims, for whatever reasons,

see themselves as different from other muslims that surround them,

and feel free to apply the rules of war to them in the same way.

For muslims to live peacefully in the world,

they need to judge the Islamic credentials of political groups

in the same way that they do any individual,

including non-muslims.

It is said that the Messenger described Islam

as the religion of truth and tolerance.

Truth is a requirement for human interaction in society,

as without it nothing and no-one can be trusted.

Tolerance is a requirement because without it there can be no peace,

and it can be recognised by how much you are prepared to accept

the input of those with different ideas to your own.

Yet still muslims insist on dividing themselves into opposing groups,

many quoting a supposed hadith

suggesting that at the end of time

Islam will be divided into fifty-seven different varieties

and only one of them will be correct.

Unsurprisingly those that think this way

invariably consider themselves to be members of

the one group that is correct.

The Qur'an often rails against all such division into sects,

without suggesting that one needs to be right and all the rest wrong.

The process itself is condemned,

including both or all sides of any such division.

Muslims have to ask themselves

whether their Islam has tolerance at its heart,

requiring that although you may believe in your opinion,

it is always necessary that you recognise you may be wrong,

and vice-versa accepting that someone else may be right.

Our quest in living the Deen should recognise

that the variety of our languages and colours is a Sign of God,

all one divine creation,

Tauhid.