Sedikit bingkisan berkenaan ulamaʾ haraki/siasah dan faham perubahan yang didakyah mereka

Oleh: Wan Ahmad Fayhsal

http://rausyanfikir.com/2012/05/sedikit-bingkisan-berkenaan-ulama.html

Gelaran atau klasifikasi ulamaʾ haraki/siasah ini tidak pernah ada dalam sejarah Islam. Seperti yang dijelaskan olem Imām ʿAbd Qāhir al-Baghdādī dalam al-Farq bayna’l-Firaq[1], tidak disebut pun "Ulama Haraki/Siasah" sebagai salah satu kumpulan yang tergolong dalam Ahl Sunnah seperti yang lainnya ya’ni Sufiyyah (Sufis),Mutakallimun (Theologian), Fuqahaʾ (Jurists), Muhaddithun (Prophetic Traditionists), Mufassirun (Exegetes).

Adapun ulama' yang terlibat dan bercakap dengan hal-hal siasah itu pada masa lalu sebenarnya adalah para Fuqahaʾ par excellence seperti al-Māwardī, al-Ghazālī. Harus diingat disini yang berjuang menentang penjajah seperti Amīr ʿAbd al-Qādir al-Jazāʾirī[2], al-Sanusi[3] itu bukanlah ulama haraki/siasah kerana mereka berjuang dan berjihad bukan sebagai politikus. Pendek kata mereka tak bercakap sebagai seorang politikus apatah lagi mencalonkan diri untuk menjadi penguasa.

Pada hemat saya Ulamaʾ Haraki/Siasah seperti yang dicanang hebat kini – khusus dari kalangan golongan ilmuan agama yang terjun dalam parti-parti politik (harakah Islamiyyah) merupakan satu perkara baharu yang agak terkeluar daripada pengklasifikasian tradisi keilmuan Islam.  Ianya timbul daripada cabaran dan kesan zaman moden, bukan warisan sejarah dan tradisi kita.

Saya terfikir dan berusaha mencari jawapan apakah pengklasifikasian sebegini sesuatu yang baik atau sebaliknya? Ini kerana kalaulah ribuan tahun sudah berlalu sejarah kaum Muslimin tetapi tiada pula dikalangan ulamaʾ kita yang mengelaskan diri atau sebahagian daripada mereka sebagai “ahl-haraki/siasah”, masakan tidak kita yang baru ini memberanikan diri mewujudkan serta mengabsahkan (crystallization) klasifikasi sebegini?

Ingin saya tekankan di sini bahawa ulamaʾ kita yang terdahulu – seperti dijelaskan dan dipertahankan oleh Prof. Syed Naquib Al-Attas, bukan calang-calang insan. Mereka amat berhati-hati dalam menamakan sesebuah disiplin ilmu apatah lagi sesuatu hakikat kerana sifat Pengislaman itu memang amat menitik beratkan adab terhadap sesuatu. Ini amat kena dengan ayat 31 dalam sūrah al-Baqarah bahawa “Allah mengajar Nabi Adam kesemua nama” (ʿallama ʾĀdama al-āsmāʾa kullahā) – dan nama itu senantiasa merujuk kepada hakikat, bukan sekadar nama.  Sesuatu taʿrīf itu merujuk kepada ilmu bukan sekadar penamaan dan pendefinisian yang tiada asas dan batas.

Saya bukan ingin memberi penilaian berbentuk fiqhiyyah terhadap perkara ini cuma ingin benar-benar menilai apakah wajar klasifikasi sebegitu diperteguhkan dan menjadi sebahagian daripada “kumpulan” ulamaʾ yang tersegam atur dalam penjelasan-penjelasan oleh ulamaʾ terdahulu sepertinya Imām ʿAbd Qāhir al-Baghdādī.

Tidak cukupkah golongan fuqahaʾ, mutakallimun, sufi, muhaddithun, mufassirun itu untuk diangkat sebagai kumpulan-kumpulan ulamaʾ tanpa perlu mewujudkan lagi satu “label” baru tersebut? Bukankah pada hakikatnya seperti yang dijelaskan tadi bahawa yang memperjuangkan keadilan Islam dalam lapangan siasah sebenarnya adalah fuqahaʾ?

Antara perkara yang saya amat musykil ialah mengapa ribuan tahun lamanya para ulamaʾ kita, semacam mana teruk dan kegentingan keadaan umat Islam dalam berhadapan dengan penguasa yang zalim tidak pernah mendambakan diri mereka untuk menggantikan penguasa tersebut.

Ya, mereka menentang penguasa dan sebarang bentuk kezaliman tetapi tiada sesekali mereka menjadi ahl-haraki/siasah seperti yang ada pada hari ini – ya’ni golongan ulamaʾ yang mencalonkan diri mereka untuk bertanding menjadi pemimpin (umarāʾ).

Saya hairan hatta Shāh Walī Allāh yang hebat itu pun tidak pernah mengaku atau melabel diri beliau sebagai ahl-haraki/siasah. Walhal karyanya Hujjat Allāh al-Bāligha[4] yang menjelaskan kerangka islāh siasah-akhlaqiah-ʿilmiyyah itu luar biasa sekali khusus berhubung teori irtifāqat-nya[5].

Dan saya tertanya-tanya, mengapa mereka-mereka yang mengabsahkan diri mereka sebagai ulamaʾ haraki/siasah ini tidak mengangkat gagasan yang ditinggalkan ulamaʾ yang tidak menamakan mereka sendiri sebagai ulamaʾ haraki/siasi – seperti Shāh Walī Allāh, untuk diperjuangkan dilapangan siasah? Apa yang melayakkan mereka mendapat gelaran ulamaʾ haraki/siasah? Apa yang membezakan mereka dengan Shāh Walī Allāh yang serba unggul dalam pelbagai bidang agama hatta ilmu siasah yang sangat hebat hujjah dan huraian secara sistemik itu?

Saya bukan mempersoalkan kewibawaan mereka yang digolongkan atau mereka yang cuba mewujudkan seterusnya mengabsahkan satu lagi kelompok ulamaʾ dalam Ahl Sunnah yaʾni sebagai ulamaʾ haraki/siasah dari segi keilmuan tetapi saya benar-benar ingin tahu apakah amat-amat diperlukan untuk kita mewujudkan satu klasifikasi baru seperti itu yang dimana ulamaʾ terdahulu yang lebih hebat seperti Shāh Walī Allāh sendiri tidak mendambakan gelaran sebegitu walaupun beliau lebih layak untuk memiliki gelaran tersebut jika benar-benar boleh diwujudkan dan diabasahkan. Pasti ada sebab dan hujjah mengapa ulamaʾ dahulu tidak langsung mewujudkan dan mengabsahkan satu kelompok ulamaʾ yang digelar dan diklasifikasikan sebagai ulamaʾ haraki/siasah.

Mungkin ulamaʾ dulu sedar bahawa tugas mendapatkan kuasa sebenarnya membuka fitnah kepada “institutsi ulamaʾ”. Walaupun mereka kalau dikira kelayakkan ilmu dan pengalaman secara sebenar-benarnya sudah tentu terlebih layak daripada umaraʾ zaman mereka itu, tiada pula didambakan kekuasaan dalam apa bentuk alasan, hujjah sekalipun untuk mereka meletakkan diri mereka pada jalan perebutan kuasa daripada pemimpin-pemimpin yang bermasalah itu.

Harus difahami institusi ulamaʾ yang saya maksudkan ini jangan langsung disamakan dan disalah erti dengan peranan golongan Ayahanda (Fathers) dalam struktur Kegerejaan/Kerahiban (The Church) atau Kebrahaminan (Brahmin). Struktur ini yang menimbulkan fitnah kepada sekalian agama seperti pengalaman pahit-getir Gereja Katolik yang menatijahkan Reformasi dan mazhab Protestantisme dalam agama Kristian yang mana golongan agama menjadi pemerintah menghasilkan theocracy yang sama sekali tiada dalam Islam. Baca sajalah asal usul perpecahan agama Kristian dan kesannya dalam melahirkan faham sekularisme di dunia Barat ternyata anda akan memahami mengapa saya kritikal dengan ulamaʾ yang menuntut ingin jadi penguasa.

Saya katakan fitnah kerana peranan “institusi ulamaʾ” itu senantiasa berada di “atas” lapangan siasah. Dari segi kuasa memang Sultan, Wazir dan segala macam jawatan pemerintahan itu melebihi kuasa ulamaʾ dalam lapangan siasah tetapi hakikatnya ulamaʾ lebih tinggi daripada mereka semua kerana kemulian jawatan ulamaʾ itu tiada mampu diukur oleh harta dan kedudukan – apatah lagi masani dimana lapangan siasah demokrasi itu lebih membawa kepada perpecahan tanpa ada pihak yang mengemudi setiap perubahan yang sepatutnya ditunjangi oleh institusi ulamaʾ. Dengan mencampuri urusan siasah melebihi had yang sepatutnya, kecenderungan untuk berat sebelah dan campur aduk peranan, sama ada ulamaʾ itu bercakap sebagai seorang ʿalim atau sebagai seorang ahl-siasah itu akan senantiasa timbul.

Saya amat terhimbau dengan kisah Said Bediuzzaman Nursi yang amat terkenal dengan ungkapan istiʿādhah “aku berlindung daripada Syaitan dan politik”. Setakat yang telah saya telaah kisah hidup beliau ternyata ada benarnya apa yang didoakan tersebut. Said Bediuzzaman Nursi ceritakan bilamana sistem khilafah sudah tumbang dan demokrasi di Turki mula berpucuk, banyak ulamaʾ yang mula menganggotai parti-parti politik dan bersaing sesama mereka secara sengit.[6]

Sifir (atau lebih tepas calculus) di lapangan siasah apatah lagi dalam latar demokrasi moden ini senantiasa mewujudkan kecenderungan setiap perwakilan yang bertanding untuk saling menjatuhkan antara satu-sama lain. Said Nursi ketika itu melihat ulamaʾ yang dahulunya amat waraq dan berakhlaq telah bertukar menjadi “political animal” ketika di pentas politik seperti memburuk-burukkan pesaing/lawannya antara satu sama lain yang juga ulamaʾ!

Perkara seperti ini seolah-olah tidak dapat dielakkan kerana kerusi kekuasaan itu hanya satu dan tiada mampu dikongsi maka mereka harus berusaha untuk mendapatkan kerusi tersebut at all cost!

Atas alasan apa semua ini dilakukan? Sudah tentu untuk tegakkan agama, bangsa dan negara tetapi bila keadaanya sudah teruk begitu apakah mungkin niat mereka benar-benar tulus murni seperti awalnya atau benar-benar sudah menjadi satu “political animal”?

Dan kalau kita kaji latar persejarahan timbulnya arus ulamaʾ menyertai medan siasah ini sebagai ahl siasah atau politikus, banyak timbul selepas era wujudnya gerakan Pan-Islamisme seperti yang dibawa Shaykh Muhammad ʿAbduh dan al-Afghani. Golongan ini sering melaungkan slogan pembaharuan dalam pelbagai rupa dan agenda. Saya lihat golongan yang mempertahankan pembaharuan (bidʿah) ini, atau lebih tepat golongan Maqsadiyyun – golongan yang sering mengangkat hujjah maqāṣid  al-sharīʿahsebagai yang termutlak dengan memborong semua perkara seolah-olah boleh diperturunkan (reductionist) kepada juzuk itu – semata-mata ingin memenuhi dan menuntut penyesuaian kepada perubahan zaman.

Walhal mereka tiada sedar yang arus perubahan yang dibawa ini sebenarnya, seperti kata Prof. Al-Attas bersifat ketamadunan[7], tiada ianya bebas nilai dan harus benar-benar cermat memahami dan membanding beza apa yang sebenarnya milik kita atau tiada mampu dimiliki kita[8] kerana perbezaan dasari yang amat luas malah bertentangan pula dengan pandangan alam Islam.

Golongan ini seperti yang ditempelak oleh Prof. Al-Attas sering memberi alasan dan mengambil enteng para ulamaʾ dan Imam terdahulu[9] yang disangka huraian mereka itu sudah tidak “relevan” kerana konteks berbeda dan hujjah-hujjah yang sewaktu dengannya. Golongan ini pada hemat saya tidak mempunyai pandangan alam Islam yang teguh khusus dalam memahami zeitgeist zaman moden dari pucuk akarnya yaʿni Ketamadunan Barat seterusnya bertindak “menyalahkan” sejarah lampau – menyalahkan taṣawwuf, menyalahkan pintu ijtihād telah tertutup, walaupun tidak dinafikan ada beberapa hal yang betul berkenaan dakwaan ini tetapi telah dianjalkan ke peringkat paling ekstrim yang kononnya menatijahkan kemunduran umat Islam masani.

Seolah-olah slogan “hum rijāl wa nahnu rijāl aiḍān” (they are men and we are men too) boleh dijadikan alasan untuk menyama ratakan ulamaʾ terdahulu ke tahap mereka kini yang sudah tentu lebih rendah daripada maqamat ulamaʾ terdahulu. Ini adalah maʿna kehilangan adab yang dihujjah panjang oleh Prof. Al-Attas.[10] Maka slogan “perubahan” itu sering didendangkan tetapi mereka ini tiada memahami benar apa itu perubahan pada hakikatnya.

Adakah dakwaan saya ini kosong tanpa bukti? Tidak, kerana saya sedang merenung secara mendalam memahami setiap tokoh-tokoh besar dikalangan ulamaʾ dan aktivis daʾwah yang mengaku sebagai pembawa perubahan (reformist) tatkala fajar modenisasi milik Barat baru menyinsing di dunia Islam bermula pertengahan abad ke-19 hinggalah awal abad ke-20 Masihi.

Saya sedang menelaah kisah Ibn ʿĀshūr[11] dalam makalah yang dikarang oleh Basheer M. Nafi, juga beberapa buah buku yang mengkaji pertembungan budaya antara kaum Muslimin ketika bermulanya arus modenisasi secara besar-besaran di dunia Islam seperti karyanya Rifāʻa Rāfiʿ al-Ṭahṭāwī,[12], Khayr al-Dīn Pasha al-Tūnisī[13], Ibrahim Abu-Lughod[14], juga tesis MA Dr. Bazlie Shafie tentang Muhammad Abduh[15].

Dapatan awal bagi saya setakat ini memang amat menarik dan benar-benar mengabsahkan kritikan Prof. Al-Attas terhadap golongan modenis ini. Cukup sekadar ini dan harap para pembaca dapat fikir-fikirkan.

Wan Ahmad Fayhsal

16 Mei 2012, 6.00pm

---

[1] Baghdādī, ʻAbd-al-Qāhi. al- Farq baina 'l-Firaq wa-Bayān al-Firqa al-Nājiyah minhum. (Bairūt: Dār al-Āfāq al-Ǧadīda, 1973) terj. Kate C. Seelye. Moslem Schisms and Sects: (al-fark Bain Al-Firak) Being the History of the Various Philosophic Systems Developed in Islam. (New York: AMS Press, 1966)

[2] Murād, Barakāt M. Al-Amīr ʿAbd al-Qādir Al-Jazāʼirī: Al-Mujāhid Al-Ṣūfī. Madīnat Naṣr [Cairo: al-Ṣadr li-Khidmāt al-Ṭibāʻah, 1990)

[3] Bayyūmī, Muḥammad A. Sanusiyyah: A Sociological Study of an Islamic Movement. (Beirut: Dar An-Nahda Al-Arabiya, 1981), rujuk juga El-Horeir, Abdulmola S. Social and Economic Transformations in the Libyan Hinterland During the Second Half of the Nineteenth Century: The Role of Sayyid Aḥmad Al-Sharīf Al-Sanūsī. (PhD Dissert. 1981), juga Vikør, Knut S. Sufi and Scholar on the Desert Edge: Muḥammad B. ʻalī Al-Sanūsī and His Brotherhood. (Evanston, Ill: Northwestern University Press, 1995)

[4] Walī, Allāh, and Marcia K. Hermansen. The Conclusive Argument from God: Shāh Walī Allāh of Delhi's Ḥujjat Allāh al-Bāligha. (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1996) rujuk juga Muhammad, Ghazali. The Socio-Political Thought of Shāh Walī Allāh. (Islamabad: International Institute of Islamic Thought, 2001)

[5] Aislahi, Abdul A. Stages of Socio-Economic Development: Shah Wali-Allah's Concept of Al-Irtifaqat. , 1989. http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/29628/1/MPRA_paper_29628.pdf 

[6] Rujuk  Şükran, Vahide, dan Ibrahim M. Abu-Rabiʻ. Islam in Modern Turkey: An Intellectual Biography of Bediuzzaman Said Nursi. (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2005), juga Turner, Colin. “I seek refuge in God from Satan and politics..."- A Nursian perspective on the role of religion in state and society.http://nursistudies.com/teblig.php?tno=447, juga Zeynep Akbulut Kuru, Ahmet T. Kuru. Apolitical Interpretation of Islam: Said Nursi's Faith-Based Activism in Comparison with Political Islamism and Sufism, Islam and Christian–Muslim Relations Vol. 19, Iss. 1, 2008

[7] “Prof. Al-Attas alluded to this shift of semantics happening due to us – the Muslims – are flowing in the same stream that ‘another civilization’ has created, swimming in the fast current of change. This ‘another civilization’ that is dominating in the world today is none other than Western civilization that made freedom as a ‘belief’ in itself. The human rights itself is the result of deification of Man – where man himself is the measure of all things.” rujuk Wan Ahmad Fayhsal, Revisiting “Meaning and Experience of Happiness in Islām” http://hakim.org.my/blog/?p=248

[8] Rujuk Goody, Jack. The Theft of History. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006) yang menceritakan bagaimana ilmuan Barat khususnya Orientalis mendakyahkan faham kebenaran dan hakikat ke atas ilmu-ilmu dari tamadun lain seperti pendakyahan faham masa dan ruang dalam persejarahan ketamadunan dunia.

[9] Rujuk temubual Hamza Yusuf dengan Prof. Al-Attas di Youtube minit 8:02 http://youtu.be/L5pyXqZq4E0?t=8m22s

[10] Rujuk kritikan tajam Prof. Al-Attas dalam Risalah Untuk Kaum Muslimin (Kuala Lumpur: ISTAC, 2001) ms. 144-167; sebahagian daripadanya boleh dirujuk dalam nukilan blog saya ini: http://rausyanfikir.com/2011/08/keseluruhan-penjelasan-ini-dipetik.html, juga rujuk Islām and Secularism (Kuala Lumpur: ABIM, 1978) ms. 123-126.

[11] Basheer M. Nafi, Ṭāhir ibn ʿĀshūr: The Career and Thought of a Modern Reformist ʿālim, with Special Reference to His Work of tafsīr, Journal of Qur'anic Studies Vol. 7, No.1 (Edinburgh Univ. Press, 2005), ms. 1-32 boleh dibaca di sini: http://abdullahhasan.net/?p=130

[12] al-Ṭahṭāwī, Rifāʻa Rāfiʿ,  Takhlīṣ al-Ibrīz fī Talkhīṣ Bārīz aw al-Dīwān al-Nafīs bi-īwān Bārīs terjemahan Daniel L. Newman. An Imam in Paris: Account of a Stay in France by an Egyptian Cleric (1826-1831). (London: Saqi, 2004)

[13] Khayr al-Dīn al-Tūnisī, Aqwām al-masālik fi maʿrifat aḥwāl al-mamālīk (Tunis: Official Press, 1867). Rujuk juga terjemahan L C. Brown. The Surest Path: The Political Treatise of a Nineteenth-Century Muslim Statesman : a Translation of the Introduction to the Surest Path to Knowledge Concerning the Condition of Countries. (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1967) dan laman Saudi Aramco World “On The Surest Path”http://www.saudiaramcoworld.com/issue/201103/on.the.surest.path.htm

[14] Abu-Lughod, Ibrahim A. Arab Rediscovery of Europe: A Study in Cultural Encounters. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1963)

[15] Ahmad Bazli Shafie, “The Educational Philosophy of Shaykh Muhammad Abduh”, (Kuala Lumpur:  ISTAC-IIUM, 2004)

Syeikh Uthman dan Fodio: Interview with Dr. Abdullah Hakim Quick

By: Shireen Ahmed

http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Uthm_Fodio.html

Uthman ibn Fodio was one of the Foulani people, who were nomadic people who most likely originated from Senegal. They moved throughout west Africa, taking their cows to different pastures and using them for trading purposes sometimes. The Foulani people lived in a symbiotic relationship with the Hausa people, who were farmers and blacksmiths. Thus, the two groups traded their wares to survive. In the 18th century, the Foulanis developed a clerical group and this clerical group had a nomadic base while focusing on scholarship. The islamic body they formed, torodbe scholars (a Foulani word) continued to move throughout west Africa, and some of their scholars even went on to become leaders of the great jihad movements of the 18th century.

Syeikh Uthman dan Fodio

This was the actual movement that Sheikh Uthman ibn Fodio gained his knowledge, through the mulazama method. The society at this time was not doing very well. A series of corrupt kings had developed, and Islamic ideals were indistinguishable from local superstitions and practices. There was also a great deal of overburdening people with taxes, government corruption, dynastic rules, oppression, tribalism, and heavy oppression of women.

Now picture Uthman dan Fodio entering into this picture. He was around old 20 years old when he began to teach the people, and he did daw'a for 30 years. Allah gave him the ability to express himself well at an early age, and he would move through different areas of Hausaland teaching in a number of different areas. He focused on giving the masses of the people basic islamic education, and he was well-versed in classical Arabic, Hausa, Foulani language, and Tuwadic language, which made him more capable of speaking to masses of people in their own language.

He espoused many different new islamic concepts to the people, which he taught them. He focused on basic islamic education: learning fiqh, learning tawheed, also understanding the life of the Prophet (pbuh) and the basic rudiments for a sound Islamic education, following the Maliki school of thought. Then he worked on the scholars of the time themselves, striving against extremism within them (i.e. taking extreme positions on tawheed, which dealt with heavy philosophy that people were not emphasizing - eg. "where is Allah?" & anyone who couldn't answer was declared a kafir by this group) Uthman ibn Fodio wrote a book showing them how their extremism was wrong.

He also taught that all madhabs (schools of law), were correct so that people should respect them and the people within each school. He also tried to rectify the position of Islamic scholarship with sufism. Actually, he was also considered to be a leading part of the Qadarwi Sufi order. Yet, at the same time he made it clear that anybody who went into tasawaf should only go into it for knowledge of the heart. Any whirling around, musical playing, or extremism that was not withing Shari'a he was against. His followers practiced a sober, individual type of Sufism that was more into heavy reflection. Anyone wishing to study sufism more in depth was told to know their fiqh first, so that they would recognize any sufi practices that crossed the Shari'a border.

Another area Sheikh ibn Fodio was strongly vocal in was women's education. During his time, there were either two extremes: women were either walking around in nothing but a waist-cloth, or on the other extreme they were locked into their houses against their will. They were all generally ignorant of Islam. What the sheikh did was he brought the women out of their houses, and put them in one area and the men in another area and began to regularly lecture them. However, the extremists of the time strongly disapproved. "They said 'fitna, you are mixing men and women!'", Abdullah Hakim explains, and even went on to a modern example: "The Muslim Students' Association (MSA) brings a question to me every year, 'Brother Abdulla, can we have brothers and sisters in the same room?' Every year. Every time there is new leadership in MSA they are asking the same question." The Sheikh answered these extremists by saying that they were not educating the women before, they were simply using them like a dish..eating out of it and then throwing it away, having no further use for it. He went on to say that he had brought these women out of their houses and was educating them, and they were covering themselves up. Men and women were always kept in separate areas, and because we were talking about people with high morals coming together to learn and practice Islam - there was no fitna there. He even used examples from the early days of men and women in the Prophet's mosque. The way men dressed was also addressed by the Sheikh, as he encouraged them to wear turbans and long, loose clothing. Thus, all his followers were readily distinguishable.

Another aspect that he educated the men about was taharah. Surprisingly enough, this Sheikh went into intimate details on various subjects like this one. Apparently at the time, the men had a harmful practice for their method of purification which the Sheikh stopped. Another personal issue he addressed was the relationship within a marital relationship, and how to strengthen the bond between these two people. He took it to the point where he actually spoke to people about the sexual relationship between a man and his wife, which one would usually not expect from someone talking about fiqh. But these were realistic things that he was doing for society. As stated in Abdullah Hakim's thesis, it is clear that Uthman dan Fodio was not only the jihad leader, but that he also affected the social-intellectual situation in Hausaland, as he radically changed the society. Sheikh dan Fodio has written a book called Yahya al-Sunnah which talks about bringing the sunnah to life again by going into points like these.

Female circumcision was another major social issue the Sheikh delved into. This practice was in the Sudan, Somalia and was going across to his country and he stopped people from doing it. He brought the hadith of the Prophet showing that only a little bit was allowed to be removed from the tip of the clitoris, but was by no means necessary as it wasn't really part of Islam. His argument against it, once again went into graphic details of how if men allowed this to happen then a woman would not be able to achieve her climax in a physical relationship, which would then cause their relationship to deteriorate. To have a more fulfilling relationship, they should allow her to retain what Allah gave her. This obviously was a heavy argument for the Sheikh to be making, especially in the 18th century!

"Uthman ibn Fodio went into common events people faced, for instance how to set up masjids, sunnah ways of eating food, describing the benefits of cleaning up your plate, eating with your right hand, washing your hands..all these different social benefits." He went through the sunnah and explained why they would benefit and the reasons behind these practices. Uthman ibn Fodio also spent a great deal of time concentrating on cleaning of the heart. So a number of his texts deal with rea, showing off, jealousy, arrogance, anger, and other general diseases of the heart which are so rampant today in the muslim world. "Basically, I was concluding that he was more than just a scholar, that he was a social reformer in his time and he's still relevant up until now." stated Abdullah Hakim.

Gradually, the number of Sheikh Uthman ibn Fodio's follows grew, until he was at a point where whenever he travelled he took 1000 of his scholars with him. The kings became nervous because of the number of people he drew away from them. The Sheikh demanded that the laws be changed to become more islamic. Later he was attacked by order of the kings, and his group made hijrah, then made jihad and won despite their smaller numbers - thus establishing a khalifah. When the battle was won he stepped down from his Amir position, and went to a small village to teach until he died. This shows that the Sheikh wasn't into power, because he had just won the battle that would have given him ultimate control and yet he chose to step down.

His relevance up to today makes it conceivable for us to consider the types of lessons from him. "The issues he handled were actually very crucial to our own existence today." Abdullah Hakim pointed out. He went further to mention that many of his khutbahs that he gave at the Jami Mosque between 1985-1990, and many of the positions that he came to on various issues, were actually based on what he had discovered through reading the writings of the sheikh. "That is why the whole experience for me, has been more than an academic one. It has changed me as a person." He has even visited Nigeria and visited the sheikh's grave, and also visited his family. Even the fact that Sheikh Uthman don Fodio had special classes for women and children after Asr prayers, so that women would have a forum where she could ask for help from the Sheikh, inspired Abdullah Hakim "..that was one of the things that helped me even to develop this office here, ISSRA. There has to be a place where women can come and youth so they can express themselves. So that was one of the inspirations for me for some of the things we are doing here."

As students, we can all learn from Sheikh ibn Fodio's experiences. There are several points to note, for instance the importance of a sound islamic education (i.e. knowing the meaning of the Qur'an, basic fiqh, a broad-based education), avoiding extremism and having balance, believing in authentic traditions, and putting much less emphasize in culture and superstition - especially in unislamic concepts.