Bismillahirrahmanirrahim,

Over these past few weeks, I’ve had a few run-ins with some friends of mine over some matters that are not worth mentioning here. That made me thinking, people (that I know, at least) usually think that if they have justification, they can do whatever they want to do, even if their justification has yet to be examined. It is a rather interesting, to me, since it does show how people work.

Justification

A close friend of mine always complains that he as an outsider should not comment excessively on the workings of an organisation. I always replied by saying that an outsider usually has insights that an insider can never get. After all, any action might be understandable, but it might not be justifiable. An unbiased outsider can usually reason out what’s understandable and what’s justifiable, hence giving a particular action a fairer judgement. Understandable would mean that one is able to understand the reasons as to why a particular person might do something, while justifiable would mean that something can be shown to be reasonable or have adequate grounds for doing it. Hence, one might have a justification for doing something, but if it is inadequate, then it might not be entirely justifiable. Therefore, some actions might be understandable but not justifiable, whilst some might be justifiable but not understandable. For example, it is understandable that Palestinians would want to shoot rockets into Israel, but it might not be entirely justifiable, though perhaps part of the argument might be.

The problem is that any justification has to fit into a larger framework in which one will have to operate, and in order to do that, one needs to think hard about what one wants to do and why. Let me try to illustrate this with an example. Lets assume that there is a person A bringing persons B and C shopping on a High Street. On the way, they met with person 1, who is known to be a religious person with ambitions for a global Islamic order. 1 then joins the party, and after everything is bought, 1 asks B and C to follow him to his house for dinner, whilst giving a signal to A that he is not invited. A, B, C and 1 are all Malays.

Malays

That is the stage in which this story is set. It is not a true story, mind you (though perhaps inspired by one). Any sane outsider can see that 1 has done something horrible to A, namely, by excluding him from 1’s invitation to 1’s house. It is, however, true that it is 1’s house, therefore, it is his right to include or exclude anyone from his invitation. Let us then assume that there are other reasons for 1 to not include A in his invitation, and that there are perhaps other ulterior motives for 1 to invite only B and C to his house (which is probable, given the situation). Now then, there is a moral question here; can the action be justified in a larger context?

Given the situation, we can safely assume that 1’s ulterior motives on B and C excludes A. In terms of rights, there is no question that 1 is operating within his rights as a citizen of any country, but the action itself could amount to an affront to A, since  A was the one who brought B and C shopping initially. Hence, legally, there is no problem and the problem would lie in moral terms. In this case, in my view, we will need to analyse the situation in terms of etiquette and manners. Etiquette, loosely translated, can mean the rules governing social behaviour. These rules are usually unwritten, but some aspects of it has been codified over time. Manners, according to Wikipedia.org, are the unenforced standards of conduct which show the actor that you are proper, polite and refined. The question then, is whether or not what is done is acceptable within the unwritten rules of conduct in those circumstances. There is also the question of the moral teachings of Islam and whether or not such behaviour adhered to it, and this question is particularly valid since 1 professes to an Islamic ambition, in which case a deviation from the Islamic moral code could mean that the entire action be unjustifiable in a this context.

Oxford street

To make life easier, let us assume that such behaviour is socially acceptable and that it is perfectly normal in Malay culture  for 1 to disregard A and only invite B and C to his house in this case. The question then is, is it acceptable for a person professing to fight for Islam to do this? Even if we assume that there is not enough food for 4 people, I do not believe that the invitation should not be extended to A. It is only natural that one invites everyone in the party to one’s house, but even if one does not want to, to give a signal that one does not welcome another person in the party while openly inviting the others can be considered a slight to anyone. I do not know of anyone who would think otherwise. Hence, by doing that, 1 alienated A and perhaps made A feel as bad. Slight means to treat someone indifferently or contemptuously, and I seem to recall a particular story during the Prophet’s time of how the Prophet was reprimanded by God for ignoring a blind person to talk to a few nobles.

What, then, can we say about 1? Perhaps he has his justification; perhaps A is a non-Muslim or an Atheist, hence unworthy of his invitation. Perhaps A is an old enemy or rival. But by treating A with such contempt, even if it is only perceived, 1’s action might not justifiable or even understandable. There is, strictly speaking, no restriction in acting courteously, even in war. Caution and courtesy are 2 different things, and it is not mutually exclusive. To be cautious does not mean that one is not courteous, and to be courteous does not mean that one cannot be firm with one’s stand. But that is war, this is not. The reader can decide for him/herself whether or not such actions are justifiable.

It is okay

I will here make a small note on a side issue that is quite culture specific - the idea of saying ‘it’s okay’. There sometimes is this tendency to say that ‘it is okay’ as long as the outcome is favourable. In the case above, it might be ‘okay’ if A had other things to do, and hence moral judgement should be reserved. Here’s my reply - it should not be reserved. If something is wrong, it is wrong, and that’s that. Just because the outcome is favourable does not mean that one should not recognise that it is wrong and say that it is wrong. This tendency to say that it is ‘okay’ sometimes bring injustice to people, since we seem to almost excuse the wrong doer because the outcome is not something bad. For example, say that I have promised Ali that I will stay over at their place in the weekend. Suddenly, at the train station, Ahmed, another friend of mine who has a car, came to meet me, even though Ali was there. Ahmed then took my hand and manhandled me to his car (assuming that this is possible) and I could not talk a lot to Ali to apologise. In this case, even though the purpose of my coming is fulfilled and that no one got hurt - hence ‘okay’ , Ahmed’s actions were inexcusable and morally wrong (this story is also inspired by a real story, by the way). Therefore, what is wrong is wrong and should not be excused.

Coming back to the original topic of the article, even though one might think that one has justifications for whatever one does, one will need to check with other overarching and fundamental principles so that one’s justifications and reasoning are justifiable in a larger context, and be ready to admit that one has been wrong. From my experience, it is quite hard to do so.

Wallahua’lam