Bannos

Utter Disgust!

2008-03-08T12:32:00.015+02:00

Eight Israeli seminary students were killed on Thursday night, shot by a Palestinian from East Jerusalem who sprayed them with hundreds of rounds of bullets before being killed himself. Ten other students were wounded, three of them are in critical condition. Most of the victims killed were teenagers - 15 or 16 years old – and another nine wounded three in critical condition.

What happened to [6.151] ... and do not kill the soul which Allah has forbidden except for the requirements of justice; this He has enjoined you with that you may understand.

Just how can it be justice to kill children? How can that be Jihad?

But what was much worse was this:

And this:

And sadly this seems to be the norm, as it has happened before. According to an Israeli news source Palestinians in Gaza celebrated the double suicide attack in Dimona by passing out flowers and candy, while giving praise to Allah. As news of the attacks spread, drivers honked horns and passersby laughed with joy. A Hamas spokesperson thanked Allah the attacks were successful, calling the bombings a 'glorious act.' Islamic Jihad took the same approach.

I just do not get it and I am utterly disgusted. While the Palestinians have been wronged by Israel for decades, and the situation in Gaza now is beyond acceptability, I simply cannot accept nor understand that killing children (be they Palestinian or Israeli) would help anybody on either side.

What happened to: [2.190] And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits.

Do the children fight? Isn't killing children more "exceeding the limits" rather than Jihad?

What happened to [6.151] ..... and do not kill the soul which Allah has forbidden except for the requirements of justice; this He has enjoined you with that you may understand.

Is it justice to kill children? And then to celebrate that too?

Remember this? [5.2] ...and let not hatred of a people incite you to exceed the limits,

Retaliation here and retaliation there, reminds me of a quote by Mahatma Gandhi: "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind".

Poetic Justice?

2008-03-03T12:19:00.011+02:00

When Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab first started his movement, one of the main ideas he espoused was to purify Islam once again and bring it back to the way it was practiced during the time of the Prophet. He was very adamant about vehemently cleaning up Islam and removing what he perceived as bad innovations (bid’a) which resemble t he Jahiliya times. One of his first actions was to level the the grave of Zayd ibn al-Khattab, a companion of the Prophet and brother of the second Caliph, on the grounds that Islamic teachings forbid grave worship.

Many recent Saudi fatwas by various Wahhabi sheikhs have echoed the same belief and have gone down the same route calling for the destruction of shrines, even outside of the borders of the Kingdom. Maybe there are none left there to destroy? A fatwa called for the destruction of the Shia shrines in Iraq on the grounds that "they are symbols of shirk and worship of idols". Amongst the "scholars" who have issued such fatwas are: Sheikh Abdel- Rahman al-Barak, Sheikh Mamdooh al-Harbi, Dr Nasser al-Omar, Sheikh bin Jibreen, Dr Safar al-Hawali, Shaikh Abdul Aziz Ibn Abdullah Ibn Baz and Hamed al-Ali.

Another article mentions that Saudi religious "scholars" have been issuing fatwas calling for the destruction of the great Shi’ite shrines in Najaf and Karbala in Iraq, some of which have already been bombed like Samarra's Askariya shrine, also known as the Golden Mosque, which holds the tombs of two revered 9th-century Shia imams Imam Ali al-Hadi and Imam Hassan al-Askari, father of the "hidden imam," al-Mahdi.

According to BBC Monitoring Middle East on Jul 23, 2007, other shrines have also been listed and urged to be destroyed "in order to save the Muslims from falling into polytheism". Mentioned were the shrines of Sayyida Zaynab, in Syria, and the shrines of Al-Sayyida Zaynab and that of Al-Sayyid al-Badawi in Egypt.

Apparently this has already happened once in 1802, when the Wahhabis assaulted the city of Karbala where more than 9,000 men, women and children were killed and the shrines in Karbala were first desecrated and then set alight.

The ironical thing is that Sulayman Ibn Abdel Wahab, brother of Muhammad Ibn Abdel Wahab, was rather distressed by his brother’s extreme opinions regarding who is or is not a believer. So Sulayman wrote a book "Al-Sawa`iq al-Ilahiyya fi Madhhab al-Wahhabiyya" ("The Divine Thunderbolts Concerning the Wahhabi School") that rejects Wahhabism and criticises those extreme views. He wrote : “Intercession occurred during the time of the companions when one dreamed that he had complained to the Prophet about drought. The Prophet ordered him to seek the help of Umar. In this case, neither Umar nor the companions denied intercession, yet you Wahabis claim those who ask for intercession are unbelievers." He continued: "Similar actions occurred at the time of Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal. Although some scholars might have had reservations, none ever accused anyone of being a kafir, labelled them apostate or permitted them being killed as mushriks.”

Sulayman Ibn Abdel Wahab even managed to find a Hadith (prophetic tradition) to argue that intercession was not prohibited anywhere: "In one hadith a blind man came to the Prophet to asked him to pray for the return of his eyesight. The Prophet replied, ‘If you wish, I will pray for that, but you must be patient.’ ‘Please,’ the man asked, ‘Do pray for me’. The Prophet ordered he perform Wudu, pray two Rakaats and then ask, ‘O Allah, I ask and beseech you in the name of Muhammad Messenger of Mercy, O Muhammad, I beg you to intercede for my request to be fulfilled, O Allah, please accept his intercession’. Uthman bin Hanif, the narrator of this report said, ‘We did not separate from our meeting until the blind man returned to us with his sight fully restored.’ " (As found in Sunan ibn Majah Vol. 1 p. 441, Mustradak al-Hakim Vol.1 p. 313 and Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal Vol.4 p.138)

Sulayman Ibn Abdel Wahab argues that this Hadith not only provides clear evidence that the Prophet not only accepted the concept of intercession, but that he himself complied with a request to intercede, giving instruction on how Allah should be asked so that his intercession can be accepted.

Sheikh Abdul Aziz Ibn Abdullah Ibn Baz’s opinion about Ibn Abdel Wahab’s the demolition of shrines equates it to removing polytheism. He writes: “One day, the Shaikh said to the governor, 'Let us demolish the dome at the grave of Zaid Ibn al-Khatab (Zaid Ibn al-Khatab was the brother of Umar Ibn al-Khattab t and a martyr, who died in the fighting against Musailimah Khaddhab in 12 A.H, he was buried and later on people built a dome on his grave). It is erected on deviation and the Prophet has forbidden building domes or mosques on graves. Moreover, this dome has destroyed the people's belief with polytheism. So, it must be demolished.' Then the Shaikh took the action of demolishing and removing the dome. Allah removed it by his hands and Al-hamdulillah, none of its traces remains now. Similarly, there were other domes, caves, trees, etc. that were also destroyed and removed.”

That much for demolishing shrines and purifying Islam. Now the other day I was watching a program on Al Jazeera, which can be viewed here:

And I couldn’t help it but burst out laughing watching this program. So after all this destruction, demolition and ruin and the deep-seated aversion to any kind of shrine, what happens to the Wahhabi Mujahideen? They get their own shrines, without even an intercession with Allah. Their graves have alleged baraka and karamat, which make barren women have children, heal the sick and generate special visits to ask for special favours because of the purported miracles as the bbc has reported last month.

Now that’s what I call poetic justice!

No condolences for women! - La "Azaa' lelsayedat!

2008-01-28T12:35:00.000+02:00

(picture from 'Me and The Mosque' - Zarqa Nawaz)

At times of loss in any family, condolences are offered to help the family members deal with their grief and offer solace and consolation to them in their bereavement. Losing my father was a heavy blow to me and I wanted to stand up for him, honour him in his death, as I tried doing in his life. Unfortunately I am a daughter, an only one at that! So it was a bit of a problem to get the condolence event at the mosque going the way I thought my father would have wanted it to go.

I could have chosen to have the traditional condolence event at my house, but the whole family decided that it would be better and more convenient for everyone to have it at the mosque and that was when I was confronted with the fact that being a daughter meant that I should have known better than to try standing up for my father.

When I called to book the hall at the mosque I asked if we could have one hall for women and men together and not the usual division of two halls, one for each gender. The man on the phone answered that it was totally unheard of, and when I insisted that there is nothing at all to stipulate or condone that division, he told me that I would still be paying for both halls even if I use only one. I agreed and all was set … or at least so I thought!

When we went to the mosque after maghrib prayers we discovered that they had indeed arranged both halls and made the relevant signs to direct people to their expected places divided by gender. I asked for the person in charge and reminded him of our phone conversation. He simply told me to go speak to the Sheikh, because he was the one who refused to recite the Qur'an if there were any women in the same hall with men.

I went to speak to the Sheikh, because nothing and nobody would have prevented me of standing at the door next to my uncles, sons and cousins to receive everyone who came to pay their respects to MY father.

There were two sheikhs inside the hall, who would be reciting the Qur'an interchangeably. One of them had a kind face and looked at me with an encouraging smile, while the other one had a very stern expression and gave me a disapproving look for daring to venture inside the hall reserved for men – and without permission too.

I greeted him and asked him what the problem was about having a mixed gender condolence event. He replied, averting his eyes so he didn’t have to be looking at me, that having women in the mosque was haram (forbidden). I replied that this was not a mosque, it was only a hall affiliated to a mosque to hold events at and that the presence of women in the mosque was not haram at all. I quoted a few hadiths to him, namely:
Narrated Ibn Umar: One of the wives of Umar Ibn Al-Khattab used to offer the Fajr (dawn) and the Isha (evening) prayer in congregation in the Mosque. She was asked why she had come for the prayer as she knew that Umar disliked it, and he has great ghaira (self-respect/possessiveness). She replied, "What prevents him from stopping me from this act?" The other replied, "The statement of Allah's Apostle 'Do not stop Allah's women-slave from going to Allah s Mosques' prevents him."

And: Narrated Salim bin 'Abdullah: "My father said, "The Prophet said, 'If the wife of any one of you asks permission (to go to the mosque) do not forbid her."

And: Narrated Abu Huraira said: The best rows for men are the first rows, and the worst ones the last ones, and the best rows for women are the last ones and the worst ones for them are the first ones.

And: Abu Huraira reported: The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: Glorification of Allah is for men and clapping of hands is meant for women (if something wrong happens in prayer).

I told him that all these prove beyond any doubts that women have as much right to pray in mosques as do men and that we were not going to be praying now in any case, but gathering together to remember a good man in a hall even and not a mosque.

He kept his stern expression and told me that he wouldn't be reciting if women entered the hall, because it was not right. My answer: "that allowing women to go to colleges and to work in public places and to vote in elections, go to the markets or use public transport, all while mixing with men, is not considered a source of some horrific 'fitna', so how could being in a hall, affiliated to a mosque, 'God's house', be considered such a dangerous threat?" went totally under his narrow minded obstinacy. So I tried a different track. I recited the hadith to him namely:

Narrated Umar Ibn Al-Khattab: "Allah's Apostle said, "The reward of deeds depends upon the intention and every person will get the reward according to what he has intended."

And then I further poked him by asking if he wasn't sure of his own intentions while reciting the Qur'an if women where in the same hall?

That got a reaction out of him and he got angry and exclaimed: Sharrul Umoori Muhadathaatuhaa, wa kulla Bid'atin dhalalah, wa kulla dhalalatin fin-naar" (Translation: Every innovation is a misguidance and every misguidance leads to Hell fire.)

So I told him that this entire condolence event was a bid'a and the correct Islamic way was just to offer condolences at the gravesite saying: inna lil-laahi wa inaa ilayhi raaji'oon (We are Allah's and to Him we shall return), so since it was all a bid'a anyway, even with separating genders, then we might as well as do it the way we originally wanted.

He told me angrily that the customs and traditions are set and cannot be changed. I replied back that there should not be any dirrar or darrar (damage or inconvenience) and that if the urf (customs) contradicted the maslaha (benefit / interest) then the maslaha should rule and our family's maslaha was to have a condolence event where the entire family was allowed to be together and not separated by walls for no reason, neither religious, nor logical nor even commonsensical in this day and age.

I find it extremely offensive that, in our time, any Sheikh can prohibit a female from doing anything as normal as to attend her own father's condolence event, solely based on his own misogynist and outmoded patriarchal opinion. Is it not cruel to prevent a daughter from doing the last service to her father for no reason? To tell a woman that for whatever reason she cannot attend a service is to discriminate in a fashion that is totally removed from Islam. We seem to forget that the Qur'an states: "[6.119] ... and He has already made plain to you what He has forbidden to you..." If we cannot find a direct prohibition in the Qur'an, then no Sheikh, and no other single person, has a right to enforce any prohibition of any kind.

The argument that women 'distract' men from any spiritual endeavours or any other endeavour for that matter and that they arouse sexual urges rests on a completely wrong understanding of what it means to be human. This line of reasoning rests on the fallacy that men are too weak and merely seeing women lets them be overcome by an irresistible uncontrollable sexual urge which makes them forget anything and everything else, never mind the location or situation, in our case here honouring a decent and good man on his last journey. By such lopsided reasoning they imply that men are incapable of taking any moral responsibility for their behaviour and hence women must be invisible and hidden away and prevented from participating in the simplest of services just to allow men to keep their control. What does this say about men's ability to take full responsibility for themselves and others? On what understanding of human nature are these silly arguments based?

I was so angry and ready to launch another offensive on that Sheikh, when the second Sheikh intervened by saying softly : yassir wa la to'assir (make things easier instead of complicating them). Finally the stern Sheikh, muttering a whole barrage of astaghfirullahs under his breath, decided to allow the women to enter the hall, but only in a certain section.

I considered this a victory of progress and reason over blind taqleed and went and took my rightful place next to the men of my family, with the certainty that the time has come when women have to make up their minds that they should stand up to end the dictatorship of narrow-minded Mullahs ruling over their lives and to insist on doing what they deem correct as long as there is nothing (not nobody!) prohibiting them outright from doing so.

The Crime of Obeying God! - Part 2

2007-03-03T12:51:00.000+02:00

I received many responses and comments after publishing the first article about Kareem Amer and his blog. One of the comments inspired this article. The comment said amongst other things: “But Kareem did write some very explosive articles. In an ideal world that should not have landed him in jail, but by posting them on his blog, he took a huge risk in the current climate in Egypt, where radicalization is on the rise and the government is weak and trying to portray itself as the guardian of religion and morals. In one article he describes the University of Al Azhar - where he was enrolled as a student - as "the other face of Al Qaeda.”

Therefore today I would like to analyse this particular post, which as Kareem Amer’s title tells us was based on “Contents of a mail from another Azharite student - Al Azhar and Al Qaeda - two sides of the same coin.”

His post was about a debate on a discussion forum online between him and another fellow student of Al Azhar whom he sarcastically calls "enlightened”. The debate was about the gender segregation of students in Al Azhar, its effects on them, such as heightened sexual tension leading to violence, discrimination, hate and vindictiveness. The fellow Azharite declared him to be a non-believer or rather an apostate and threatened to kill him. Kareem Amer asks if Sheikh al-Tantawi knew that inside his own university were students adopting the very same line of thinking, which he himself condemned while performing the funeral prayers for the slain Egyptian Ambassador to Iraq. Ihab al-Sherif was killed, according to a statement released in the name of al-Qaeda in Iraq “because he was an apostate, who had betrayed his faith.” Kareem further writes that this line of thinking is not only advocated by many students, but also by a number of faculty members, especially in the departments of fiqh and sharia, using the same arguments like Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Kareem concludes that when violence and threats replace logic and reasoning, a solution needs to be found very fast. For Kareem the similarity between Al Azhar and Al Qaeda comes from this fanaticism, parallels in behaviour and outlook, a comparable disregard of life and frankly very little concern towards basic kindness and compassion to other human beings.

Declaring another human to be a kafir or an apostate is an extremely serious theological charge and should never to be carried out lightly. Not only did Al Azhar itself condemn that practice, but a select group of Muslim scholars, representing all eight different mazhabs, of the Sunnis as well as the Shias, denounced the same thing at the end of the recent conference held in Oman.

Given the rather extreme reactions by the almost illiterate fanatics to these accusations (we have seen too many people killed in various Muslim countries after being accused of being apostates), it is surprising that we see this very same behaviour repeatedly coming from the eminent institution itself.

Al Azhar has not only figured as a major player, but has also continually declared many an intellectual as overstepping the lines by using examples of their art, literature, speech or other forms of expression.

In an article titled “Ban.. Ban..” published in French, Tunisian columnist Zyed Krichen condemns the censorship and denial of free speech implemented by most Arab states and Islamist groups since the introduction of printing. In the second part of his article, he lists examples of censorship and persecution in the name of Islam from various Muslim countries, including banned works and artists who have been imprisoned, flogged, and/or killed. He writes: “As for literature the list of banned books is so long that it would be easier to name the ones that are permitted and approved. This is true even in large countries like Egypt, and even for masterpieces of our cultural heritage, like the ‘One Thousand and One Nights’. Works by Abu Nawas, Bashar Ibn Bord, Al-Isfahani, Al-Madari, and hundreds of others were banned from bookstores in the 20th century.”

Sadly Al Azhar has participated in this heavily. In the Name of Islam many books have been banned. Starting in 1925 with ‘Islam and Principles of Government’ by Al Azhar’s very own Sheikh Ali Abdel Raziq, which was termed heretical, because it advocated the separation of religion and state as a principle of proper governance. Ali Abdel Raziq was then expelled from Al-Azhar University. Since then this has happened almost regularly. In 1926, Taha Hussein’s book ‘On Pre-Islamic Poetry’ was banned and he too was later expelled from the university for his rationalist interpretation of pre-Islamic literature and the Qur’an. In 1959 Naguib Mahfouz’s ‘Children of the Alley’ was condemned by Al-Azhar as blasphemous. In 1975 Al-Azhar censored books, including previously published works, by Tawfik Al Hakim and Youssef Idris. In 1981, ‘History of the Arabic Language’ by Fikri Al Aqad was also banned for claiming that certain words in the Qur’an are of Egyptian origin. Four years later in 1985, three thousand copies of ‘One Thousand and One Nights’ were destroyed and the publisher was sentenced to jail for corrupting the morals of the younger generation. In 1990, Nasr Hamed Abu Zeid proposed a reformist approach on reading and interpreting the Qur’an and later received death threats and was declared an apostate. He felt he had to flee the country and settled down in the Netherlands. In that same year Farag Foda's book "To Be or Not to Be" was banned and he was prosecuted for offending religion.

Book banning increased and in 1992 Al-Azhar scholars demanded the banning of eight books on Islam. In the very same year Farag Foda was shot. Al Azhar’s Sheikh Muhammad al Ghazali had previously declared Foda an apostate and said that Islamic law would condone his killing. Al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya accepted responsibility for the murder, saying “al-Azhar issued the sentence and we carried out the execution.” Though Al Azhar scholars later deplored the way in which Foda was murdered, they nevertheless still considered him an apostate who deserved a death sentence.

In 1994, Egyptian Nobel Laureate Naguib Mahfouz was stabbed in the neck and seriously wounded after Sheikh Omar Abdul Rahman, the spiritual leader of the fundamentalist group al-Gama'a al Islamiyya, issued a fatwa 'excommunicating' him. 196 books were to be banned on moral and religious grounds in 1997, according to a compilation by Al Azhar. However that same year saw the release of author Alaa Hamed after serving a year in prison for writing a novel that 'insulted Islam'.

The year 2000 sees the writer Haydar Haydar being declared an apostate for writing ‘A Banquet for Seaweed’, in which a character says: ‘The divine Bedouin laws and the teaching of the Qur’ran are all shit.’ Al Azhar University called for a public burning of the book. A year later journalist Salaheddin Mohsen and female preacher Manal Manea are each sentenced to three years in prison for atheism and blasphemy. In 2004, al Azhar’s Islamic Research Council recommended banning Nawal el-Saadawi’s novel ‘The Fall of the Imam’, which had been on sale in Egypt since 1987.

Beginning with Law Number 102 of 1985, President Mubarak’s various governments gave Al Azhar’s Islamic Research Council (IRC) the power to advise on the banning or censoring of any book it judged as heretical. Minister of Culture Farouk Hosni later gave the increasingly potent body a boost when he was quoted as saying, “Al Azhar is the supreme authority; when it states an opinion, we must all fall silent.” Paradoxically Minister Farouk Hosni said recently that “the headscarf is a symbol of backwardness”, which caused him a lot of trouble in Egypt, yet he was not accused by Al Azhar of anything at all.

The IRC at Al Azhar University had the legal authority to censor, but not to confiscate any books, but unfortunately the Center was given the authority to confiscate books and audio and videotapes that they believe violate Islamic teachings by Minister of Justice Faruq Seif al-Nasr. The minister’s order led to the confiscation of hundreds of publications from bookstores.

Not only were books affected by that, but also the range of academic research was rigidly restricted. The case against Nasr Abu Zeid began as a response to his interpretation of the Qur’an and resulted in an implied decision in all Arab language and philosophy departments to ban registrations of any theses involving an interpretation of the Qur’an that might lead to the same problem. Any academic researcher thinking of a thesis on a religious subject no longer has complete freedom to decide the subject. Yet in 2006, Al Azhar not only allowed, but also granted, a doctorate to an obvious fanatic. The thesis listed who all he thought are apostates, with one of Egypt’s first female journalists, Rosa Al-Youssef, in the lead.

What I find very puzzling is that the government clamps down so very hard on Islamists and Muslim Brothers, yet allows their constant meddling in intellectual affairs. This is very strange, because it is exactly this intellectual backwardness disguised as religious zeal, which is the core challenge to President Mubarak’s ostensibly secular state. In the Human Rights Watch Report of 2005 it was noted: “The Egyptian government must create an environment where academic freedom is respected, i.e., restore autonomy to the universities and cease violating the rights of individual members of the community. Such steps would make it harder for those who challenge academic freedom to achieve their goals. The state should also actively oppose intolerant individuals or groups who carry out attacks against academic freedom. For example, it should reject calls to censor books and allow students to choose their own thesis topics. Rather than combating Islamists’ attempts to limit academic freedom, Egypt has allowed them to deprive others of their rights.”

In an explosive interview in September 2004 Nabil Abdel Fattah, a political analyst with Al Ahram Political and Strategic Studies Center wrote about how Politicians have used religion to gain legitimacy, how extremists have used it to condone murder and how religious institutions have been more than happy to play the power game to win some control of their own. Welcoming the reader to twenty five years of religious politics in Egypt, he said: “Al-Azhar has been censoring books and, worse, we’ve become accustomed to reading about one Islamist lawyer or another calling for movies to be banned because the posters were ‘suggestive’. Instead, the state over-used religion in its political war and it over-used Al-Azhar. We can’t ignore the fact that there are extremists inside Al-Azhar itself, which put additional burdens on people and society.” This was published in Egypt Today, a famous Magazine in Cairo. The words are not very much different from Kareem Amer’s conclusion now are they?

Islam is intrinsically a moderate religion. Yet, today the biggest problem it faces is the extremism of its advocates. Al Azhar, as one of the oldest universities and Islamic institutions should be the first to ensure that Muslims stay on the middle path. Islam neither teaches extremism nor rejection, neither arrogance nor ignorance. In fact, it condemns them all. My parents and teachers never taught me this. I do not recognise many aspects of this violent intolerant behaviour. What then does Islam teach? The Islam I learned teaches people to be kind and forgiving, to be open hearted and modest in behaviour. It teaches a beautiful middle way, a critical balance between two unhealthy and unworthy extremes. "And it is thus that We appointed you to be the community of the middle way, so that you might be witnesses before all mankind and the Messenger might be a witness before you." (Qur’an 2:143)

The Crime of obeying God!

2007-02-23T13:30:00.000+02:00

Newspapers all over the world are replete with articles about the sentence for Egyptian Blogger Abdel Karim Nabil Suleiman, who blogged under the name of Karim Amer.

The last entry on his unfortunate blog dates back to October 28, 2006 where he mentions that he received a summons to appear at the police station for an investigation. The charges against him, he writes, are the ghost of Al Azhar haunting him, despite him receiving his dismissal paper from Al Azhar university already. He mentions other luminaries and intellectuals that were touched by Al Azhar’s curse, as he calls it, and who were forced to either abandon their ideas or flee the country or paid with their life, such as Nasr Hamed Abu Zeid, Dr. Ahmed Sobhy Mansour, Nawal El Saadawi or Ahmed El Shahawy and the late Farag Fouda. He writes that this only strengthens his courage and resolve.

Since that last entry he has been arrested and detained and has no doubt gone through hell. We have all seen enough videos on YouTube of what goes on in Egyptian Police Stations to know that his detention there was probably a nightmare – to say the least. Visits from his family and lawyers were forbidden.

The charges against Karim were those of insulting Islam, harming the peace and insulting President Hosni Mubarak.

According to the articles of the international press – for some strange reason the Egyptian press has remained rather silent about Karim – he is supposed to have said: "I don't see what I have done, I expressed my opinion...the intention was not anything like these charges."

Let us take a look at his blog and see what he wrote and whether or not he indeed insulted Islam or harmed the peace.

Karim starts blogging in February 2004 about love, hardly harming peace unless his own peace of mind. In June 2004 he writes about honour killings and how the hymen is an affliction women are cursed with and how this insignificant piece of skin becomes a curse. Strangely enough just this week Ali Gomaa, the Grand Mufti of Egypt, issued a fatwa making hymen reconstruction surgery for women who have lost their virginity before marriage as halal.

In his next posts also in June 2004, Karim criticised the use of religion to suppress women in all spheres of life. He objects to not educating girls, of not allowing them to work in certain professions and fields. He condemns female circumcision and genital mutilation as yet another form of repression. He criticises marrying off girls at an early age and is very passionate about discontinuing domestic violence. All his criticism has been dealt with before by Al Azhar and the Grand Mufti. Just this month Egypt's top Grand Mufti declared that Islam does not bar women from becoming heads of state. So if this position is theoretically open to women, what other position could be forbidden?

Al Azhar held many symposiums on the education of Muslim women, which affirmed women’s rights to education. Al Azhar even went as far as saying that misleading social norms and traditions which impede the development of Muslim women should be corrected.

In a recent conference in Cairo, sponsored by a German human rights group and held under the patronage of the Grand Mufti of Egypt, ten of the highest ranking scholars from all over the world met. Their final statement pronounced the custom of female genital mutilation (FGM) as a punishable aggression, an attack on women and a crime against humanity. As a result, the custom can no longer be practiced by Muslims. The conference appeals to all Muslims to stop practicing this habit, according to Islam's teachings which prohibit inflicting harm on any human being.

In his next post Karim writes about the increasing phenomenon of black niqabs on the streets. He criticises them and calls them black shrouds. That too neither insults Islam nor Al Azhar. Just recently Mohammad Hamdi Zaqzouq, Egypt's Religious Affairs Minister said that the niqab is not a religious object. Zaqzouq said: "Nor is the niqab a duty deriving from the Sharia. I know I will be criticised for my words but I think some Muslims are committing a fundamental error, focusing on external and superficial aspects, without exploring more relevant themes, and hence providing a distorted image of Islam." Zaqzouq went a few steps further a few weeks later by rejecting the appointment of niqab-clad women to work as counsellors in his ministry on the grounds that this would just promote "the culture of the niqab". According to Zaqzouq: "The niqab is a matter of custom and not the faith -- it has nothing to do with the religion".

So far so good! Until now I have not seen anything that insulted Islam or even went against any of Al Azhar’s decisions, fatwas, conferences, symposiums or teachings.

Karim blogged sporadically, about once or twice a month for the next few months. He wrote about his neighbour, about Chechnya and more about love and he even started writing poetry. He wrote about Biblotheca Alexandria and about Cleopatra and Mark Anthony, about educating women, about decreasing women illiteracy, how language can be used to disguise intentions and about escaping reality. He also wrote about dictators such as Saddam Hussein and George Bush and about the behaviour of a certain group of young Muslims who have been brainwashed into taking matters into their own hands to implement an Islamic society. He describes how they harass people on the streets, allow themselves to stop music, separate girls and boys and generally promote what they perceive as honourable Islamic values and combat what they perceive as vice. He criticises the blind following of so-called enlightened individuals who have a magic hold on many young people by means of lectures distributed via cassette tapes. He writes about the elections, about Ayman Nour, the Kefaya Movement, about Nawal Sadawi and Inas El Deghedi, a female movie director with many controversial and highly critical films.

I went through the entire blog. It took me a couple of days, but I seriously read each and every blog entry. I had to find out why he will be robbed of four years of his life. Why he was denied the right to complete his education. Why he was dismissed from University. Why he was silenced and used as an example to perhaps frighten other bloggers into silence.

The posts that allegedly insult al Azhar only appeared much later. In November 2004 he wrote a long entry about the segregation in al Azhar between female and male students and how this heightens tension. He explicitly describes the questions asked in fiqh classes about sexual matters and how this whole separation leads to all sorts of sick fantasies.

In November 2005 he wrote another entry about the cooperation between mosque and state, in other words between Al Azhar and the government and adds pictures of President Hosni Mubarak in various meetings with top clerics, and of Gamal Mubarak meeting Pope Shenouda, pictures - mind you - that have been posted all over newspapers. The post discusses the relationship between figures of state and clerics (Muslim and Christian) in a historical context and how the two exchanged legitimacy and power from that relationship. Again nothing that cannot be found in various history books. The contention probably comes from extending the link to modern times and writing about a group calling themselves “Ansar Al Sunna” and how this radical and fanatic group was supporting the President in the elections, as per ads they published condemning other candidates and portraying the President as a just and impartial figure akin to the ancient concept of Amir-ul-mu’minin (Prince of the believers).

The next contention comes from his analysis of the failure of Sheikh Al Tantawi to obtain the support of the clerical staff of Al Azhar to support the President in his election campaign, on the grounds that they are men of religion and teachers and shouldn’t be getting involved in politics, another fact that was published in various opposition papers. His only crime here could perhaps be writing passionately about the hypocrisy of politicising religion.

In August he wrote an open letter to the President. He posed many questions to him about forgeries in elections, about his long time rule, about whether or not he intends to fight discrimination in Egypt on religious grounds, about providing job opportunities for young graduates and about the rumours of appointing Gamal Mubarak as a successor. All his questions come from the President’s own campaign speeches and slogans or from articles previously published in opposition papers. Again nothing new here! Perhaps the only thing was that he actually urged the President to reconsider running. But that was also nothing new. The Kefaya Movement has made that its slogan.

In another post in August 2005 he criticised the statement made by Al Azhar to allow enrolment of Coptic students under the condition that they memorise the Qur’an. Personally I can see the double standards evident in such a permit.

In March 2006 he blogged about receiving a letter from Al Azhar temporarily barring him from continuing his education there. He then wrote about Taha Hussein, Abdallah Al Qussaimy and Ahmed Sobhi Mansour who were all expelled from the university at some point, either as teachers or students, for wanting a reform and for asking for it. This very emotional post discusses his decision of not leaving the university but rather waiting to be expelled. He argues that if everyone left a problem without trying to solve it or attempting at least to draw attention to it then nothing will ever be corrected. He further explains that Al Azhar is a state university funded by taxes collected from both Muslims and Copts and that it was high time to stop its discriminating practices, both on gender and religious grounds.

In a following post he described the disciplinary council he was summoned to attend for his writings on the internet. He attended it accompanied by Raymon Youssef, a writer for Copts United, and Mamdouh Nakhla, a lawyer and director of AL Kalima (Words for Human Rights). The accusations levelled against Karim transformed personal writings to slandering Al Azhar, labelled his criticism and call for reform as hate inciting and apostasy.

In March 2006 he got summoned to the Dean’s office and the accusations continued - and so did his blogging, which then took on a political bent. He wrote more about demonstrations, the charade democracy, persecution of demonstrators, police brutality against demonstrators, about religious fanaticism on the rise and about curbing freedoms. Again nothing new that couldn’t have been read in various opposition papers before.

Perhaps the only thing that could be taken against Karim on religious grounds is a post titled “No God but Man”. The post, unlike its title though, deals with the law and whether or not the law is there to curb freedoms rather than guarantee them and concludes with a metaphor that the law becomes a god to enforce certain powers reserved for certain humans.

Amazingly, Chapter Three of the Egyptian Constitution which deals with Public Freedoms, Rights and Duties says in Article 47: “Freedom of opinion shall be guaranteed. Every individual shall have the right to express his opinion and to publicise it verbally, in writing, by photography or by other means of expression within the limits of the law. Self criticism and constructive criticism shall guarantee the safety of the national structure. “

This is exactly what Karim has done. He exercised his freedom of opinion. He took his right of expressing his opinion seriously and believed enough in it to write it on the internet in a publicly accessible blog. In my opinion Karim lived up to both his own true self and principles as well as his religion. In his profile Karim wrote that he was looking forward to helping humanity against all forms of discriminations. The Qur’an implores believers to speak up against injustice, which is precisely what Karim has done.

Once again a religious institution is confusing itself with God: instead of seeing that they are part of the problem, they interpret any criticism of the institution as criticism of Allah, whereas Karim only did what Allah has told every Muslim to do: [4:135]: “O you who believe! be maintainers of justice, bearers of witness of Allah's sake, though it may be against your own selves or (your) parents or near relatives; if he be rich or poor, Allah is nearer to them both in compassion; therefore do not follow (your) low desires, lest you deviate; and if you swerve or turn aside, then surely Allah is aware of what you do.”

Shshsh - don't laugh! We're Muslims!!

2007-02-13T22:08:00.000+02:00

From little mosque on the prairie to a little masquerade on the prairie

to a little laughter on the prairie ...

I received the article "Little Masquerade on the Prairie" by Tarek Fatah and Farzana Hassan of the MCC, which was published in The Toronto SUN in my email.

The article sharply criticised the show "Little Mosque on the Prairie" aired by CBC. The criticism ranged from not being funny, to being shallow, to painting a false picture of the Muslim community in Canada and that it does not reflect the diversity of Canada's Muslim society.

For me the criticism that the show focuses "singularly on the most conservative segments of the Muslim community" and that it shows "conservative Muslims vs. ultra-conservative Muslims" really made me laugh, for I do not agree with this assessment at all. It is hardly conservative when a young Muslim woman sits out there at night on the steps (even if they are the steps of a mosque) talking to a young man (even if he is an imam) without a chaperone / mehrem (a male relative). It is definitely not ultra-conservative to show a Muslim wife being "disobedient" to her husband and withdrawing marital relations until a conflict is solved.

Strangely enough on another, more traditional, Muslim mailing list, the equally harsh criticism against the show was because it portrays too many progressive Muslims, showed a husband kissing his unveiled wife in public, presented unorthodox verbal exchanges and discussions thereby encouraging women to speak up against and defy their fathers and husbands. Furthermore, it accused the show of reducing Muslims to sad caricatures and many a time the dialogue bordering on blasphemy. I guess that nobody can please everybody and it all boils down to one’s sense of humour and more so to one’s definition of words such as progressive, orthodox and conservative.

I on my part found the four episodes to be a breath of fresh air, showing that Muslims can indeed laugh about themselves and do possess a sense of humour. I watched them all on YouTube.

The insider jokes might sometimes go above the head of a lot of viewers who do not have sufficient information about Islam, like for example one of the female characters saying something to the effect that this or that can be found in Sura 115 of the Qur'an, which obviously does not exist, since the Qur'an only has 114 Suras or the play on words calling it Halal-oween.

Personally I find the accusation that the script-writer is playing "a deft hand in attempting to sanitize what really goes on in the typical Canadian mosque" namely the "hijacking of Islam, by politicized clerics affiliated with Saudi Arabia or Iran", to be rather ludicrous and if anything at all I think that the humour in it was missed. The conservative character "Baber" is not really representative of the kind of clerics affiliated with the virulent string of Wahabi Islam, but rather an elderly family man who is desperately trying to control his nuclear family, and perhaps by extension the small Muslim community in that little town. He is portrayed in such a way that his attempts of control – even his discussions with the new and much younger imam about issues such as women praying in the same open space like the men or having an open day at the mosque – end up being exposed as pathetic and laughable.

As an example in episode 4, he started off being very much opposed to celebrating Halloween on the grounds that it is un-Islamic and for witches and by being totally against his children participating in any of the events associated with it, like trick & treat. He ended up having to go as a Muslim escort for his teenage daughter and enjoying himself even more than his children. I for one, found myself feeling sorry for him at times. Despite his apparent conservatism, he does, like any other doting father, have a soft spot for his daughter and indeed even repeatedly goes against his own traditional beliefs when it comes to her.

Muslim lives, especially in non-Muslim countries, do indeed not revolve around mosques, but for crying out loud, this is a comedy not a documentary or a reality show. And ideally the mosque should provide a lot more services to a community than only providing prayer space or room for Friday sermons. The New York Times portrayed a progressive imam, Mr. Shata, who said that he wishes to return the function of a mosque and its imam to what it used to be, by providing a space for interactions and other services. He for one runs some sort of a Muslim dating service from his mosque and chaperones prospective brides and grooms. He lectures at the mosque, settles disputes, makes house-calls to his community members whispering the call to prayer in the ears of newborn babies and “spends hours listening to women’s worries and confessions, their intimate secrets and frank questions about everything from menstruation to infidelity.”

The show does attempt to show some of the good - if not ideal - sides, like the discussions between the various community members regarding issues of conflict, presenting various opinions ranging from conservative to progressive. It also shows the "ideal" relationship, that should be, between the imam and the small town's priest, where their respective religions do not stand in the way of helping one another out, even if only by listening and offering a shoulder or a cup of tea and thereby co-existing friendly and peacefully. In some ways it also touches upon some of the complicated matters that could lead to convoluted fiqh questions, like for example if a man was gay, does that still necessitate a woman to cover her hair in his presence, despite the fact that it will in no way make any difference to him at all?

The cherry on top of this article was the statement: "Indeed all of the depictions point to an Islamist agenda that seeks to justify inequities that pervade Muslim communities under the pretext of progress."

Oh please! To imply that a comedy show has a political objective and some hidden agenda, predictably using the catchphrase of Islamist for emphasis, is really a bit too much and for me only shows seeing all sort of 'comical' conspiracies where none exist. A sense of humour is a very personal thing. What people choose to find funny or not is a personal choice, but if someone fails to see through the show to see it as a comedy, as is intended, then I must wonder about a possible own hidden agenda.

I am happy I watched the four episodes aired so far and I will be watching the next ones to come, provided they are uploaded somewhere like the previous ones. Personally I think that Zarqa Nawaz has managed to create a show that is both entertaining and also helpful in removing the fear of the unknown, those Muslims, who in a lot of other places, especially after 9/11 and in too many Hollywood movies are all lumped together and depicted as uncultured, ignorant brutes, terrorists, fanatics or worse.

A recent poll measuring the level of "Islamophobia" in each nation reported Canadians to be least prejudice against Muslims. Only 6.5% of the two thousand Canadians surveyed, said they wouldn’t like to have a Muslim neighbour. Perhaps it is shows like “Little Mosque on the Prairie” that help in removing deep-seated prejudices and show that at the end of the day Muslims are as human as everyone else, fighting their own demons of temptations and misunderstandings and rigid interpretations and long ingrained traditions, all that while trying to find a middle ground between keeping and practicing their faith and fitting in and making a new home in a country of their choice.

And if someone would make a "Little Gurdwara on the East Coast" or a "Little Mandir on the Oil Sands", I would most probably like to watch them as well, as I have no clue about what Sikhs or Hindus might or might not find funny or how being in the temples could be shown in a way that breaks the ice and removes prejudices.

In the New York Times article, Mr. Shata said: "The surprise for me was that the qualities I thought would not make a good sheik — simplicity and humour and being close to people — those are the most important qualities. People love those who smile and laugh. They need someone who lives among them and knows their pain."

Zarqa Nawaz, thank you for making me laugh!

Extreme Interpretations of Islam: A Step Too Far!

2006-11-17T10:41:00.000+02:00

My cousin, a professor at Cairo University told me about an incident that happened to her. One of her best students, an extremely polite and well-mannered shy veiled girl came into her office crying. Asking her about the reason she said she was asking her professor a question in class, when a colleague of hers wearing the niqab, told her that a good Muslim female student is not supposed to ask her male professor any questions in class to avoid eye contact and raising her voice. My cousin told me that her student wearing the niqab was also one of her good students and therefore she called her to the office and told her how disappointed she was about the comment she made. She patiently explained that this was because it meant that she did not see this person as a professor who spent years and years of his life for the sake of research and knowledge and then more years towards transmitting and sharing it. She did not see him as a professor or a father or perhaps as an elder brother. All what she saw in him was that he was a man. She also did not see herself as a willing student nor a daughter or a younger sister. She only saw herself as a female, which is very humiliating to them both. I thought that this incident was very significant and needed to be written about.

Never mind, that learning was called a form of worship and Hadith asked believers to seek knowledge all the way even to China, while the Qur'an placed great emphasis on learning as per Sura [39.9]: "... Say: Are those who know and those who do not know alike? Only the men of understanding are mindful…."

Not engaging in any personal, active, immediate, face to face discussions and not even answering or asking questions seems to be based on the misconception that a woman's voice is "awra", meaning that women should lower their voice to whispers or preferably even complete silence, except when they speak to their husbands, male relatives or other females. Many Mullahs have issued fatwas about the act of communication from and by a female as being a source of temptation to the poor male who cannot seem to be able to control himself.

Sadly, the example of this particular student is not representing an isolated case. Her views are shared by many, way too many. Unfortunately this student represents the new generation, the so-called future hope of the Muslim Ummah. I wince at such mentalities. I flinch at taking every small straight forward concept stated to ensure decency in human exchanges way too far and imposing narrow-minded intolerance on it. What really upsets me the most though, is the jump from the injunction of good behaviour and observing decency to prohibiting something which Allah has allowed and imposing new false rigid ways of behaviour which lead to much harm. It just makes me angry. The student does not realise that not replying to teacher's questions is a form of treatment that is rather impolite and insulting, to both of them. A female student with a male teacher and vice versa, a male student with a female teacher should be focusing on the curriculum at hand and not on their respective genders. An old Arab proverb says “the teacher is almost a prophet.” So were does that leave us today?

Women were teachers even during the Prophet's time and the believers were allowed to engage them in discussions to learn from them. The Qur'an specifically and clearly mentions that those seeking knowledge or any information from the Prophet's wives were to address them (from behind a screen yes, but still address them (33:53)). Since questions require an answer, the Prophet's wives answered questions to those who asked and also narrated Hadiths. This to me certainly implies a conversation. I hardly think that sign language was used as the curtains would surely have prevented that.

Furthermore, women were allowed to question the Prophet even in the presence of men. A whole collection of hadiths proves that fact. This naturally shows us that they were neither prevented from being heard nor from speaking up and neither from participating in an exchange with men. There is one particular case I would like to mention, the case when Caliph Umar was challenged by a woman during his khutba on the minbar. He did not deny her nor cut her off nor ask her to remain silence, despite the embarrassment to him in public, but instead he admitted that she was right and he was wrong.

There are many more examples of women speaking up in public and having their voices heard in the Qur'an, such as the two daughters of the Sheikh mentioned in (28:23) and the Queen of Sheba in (27:44). All these examples, even those predating Islam, support the fact that women are allowed to speak up and to voice their opinion publicly, for whatever has been prescribed to those before is prescribed to us now.

Taking the words rigidly and stopping at their literal meaning, while denying their underlying principles was never Islam. Twisting definitions and explanations to serve some personal agenda promoting discrimination and denying anyone some rights already granted was never Islam. Injecting personal prejudices and imposing fanatical views was never Islam. Reducing a religion and a living text to becoming only dead words on useless paper was never Islam. Selectively applying words and heartlessly and mindlessly and missing their meanings was also never Islam. The choice of not listening to a professor and not replying back even if it was solely related to the curriculum denies learning and its value. What happened to tolerance and lenience? What happened to equity and niyyat? The first word of the Qur'an was "Iqra'" (read) and that means learning, acquiring knowledge. It does not mean read the Qur'an only, and then it most definitely does not mean to read it with only your eyes and shut off your mind and thinking. First the niqabs so women shouldn’t be seen and now this, so women shouldn’t be heard. Denying females the rights to be heard is imposing restrictions on half the Ummah. Seeing everything in black and white like this reduces every noble value to something ridiculous and downright outrageous.

The second United Nations Arab Development Report examined the methods available to Arab states to overcome the knowledge deficit in their societies. The report noted the high levels of illiteracy among women and highlighted the fact that many children do not have access to basic education. The authors of the report made reference to the fact that an alliance between some oppressive regimes and certain types of conservative religions has led to an interpretation of Islam which serves governments but is detrimental to human development, particularly with respect to freedom of thought, the interpretation of judgements, the accountability of regimes to the people and women's participation in public life.

The report concluded, on the optimistic note, that there is sufficient human capital in the Arab world for a knowledge renaissance, a return to a society where the acquisition of knowledge is valued and encouraged, but that there are constraints hampering the acquisition. Well, when students behave in this way, then why are we surprised when we see such results and conclusions published?

Sometimes I really think that some Muslims are their own worst enemies.

Dr. Niqab - Comedy or Tragedy?

2006-11-13T22:22:00.000+02:00

My doctors suggested a pneumonia vaccine for me. I suffer from Asthma and with winter approaching this was a sensible precaution.

After running around all over the place trying to get the vaccine for several days, I had to admit my defeat. My doctor advised me to try getting it from Vacsera. Vacsera is a government owned company that works under the umbrella of the Ministry of Health and has a department which specializes in producing and supplying vaccines and serums. Happy to get some pointers, I went to get my vaccine.

Being a government owned company, I was confronted with bureaucracy and red tape and sent from one counter to another, one room to the next, receiving slips of paper to be signed and stamped and what not, but that is not why I am writing this. Finally after about half an hour I was sent to the last room to get the vaccine with the added bonus of getting the injection right then and there to avoid transportation issues.

I walked happily into the room where three nurses were chatting animatedly. I was informed that the doctor will be there momentarily. Before the sentence was complete, something entered the room. It was a bit of a shock to me to see this mass of black!

A black niqab, where even the two tiny holes where the eyes would be were covered in black gauze, entered the room. Thick black gloves sticking out of two wristbands attached to the shapeless black garb, tightly fastened, allowing only the black gloved hands up to the wrists to escape the dark cloud were placed the right hand on top of the left one on the chest, as if in a silent prayer. Only a faintly menacing air escaped. I sighed and thought, even God would have difficulty in peering through that entire black sinister garb all the way through to her heart.

I started wondering how this woman was going to get her injection and where she would start to unravel the various black layers to bare an arm. But before I could complete my imaginative answer to that question in my head, the three nurses said in unison: "good morning doctor." I should have taken the first opportunity to escape, because I didn’t think for even a split second that this was the doctor everyone was waiting for. Doctor? This perfect image of the angel of death is a life giving healing angel of mercy? A doctor!

For a few more panicky minutes I was trying to figure a way to flee without insulting the doctor and making a complete fool of myself. The shapeless formless black niqab rattled down a few question with a very low and muffled voice, almost a like a strangled whisper of a machine gun staccato: "name, age, type of vaccine."

I was too speechless to answer and my mind was racing frantically in dread, trying to come up with a dignified way to flee from this scene, which more and more resembled a farce from a surreal play. I mumbled and stuttered my name and age to the black back, as she had turned towards a closet. In utter shock and complete terror I witnessed her extracting a pair of latex gloves from the closet and putting them on, right over the thick black woolen gloves she was wearing when she came in. I just couldn’t believe this and more and more the surreal farce was turning towards becoming a horror movie. To me it seemed like trying to do open heart surgery while wearing welding gloves and a deep sea diving suit.

Before I could pull myself together and run away, the latex gloves snatched the box with my precious vaccine from me and proceeded to 'load' the injection. I managed to stammer something that sounded like: "I will take that back thank you, I have to go home now." The barely audible muted whisper answered me with a long lecture of which I could only make out a few words, sounding like: "…out of the refrigerator…not more than 20 minutes…transportation…on ice… not allowed to freeze…better here and right now…only a minute…over before you know it…no need to be afraid."

This torrent of words washed over me while I was trying to seize my valuable vaccine from the double gloved clutches of the black creature and murmuring defiantly: "How can you even feel what you're doing with those thick gloves on under the others, I simply refuse..."

Alas, it was too late and I watched wide-eyed as the prized yellowish vaccine was being sucked into the syringe held by that black creature. My resistance faded into nothingness as that black being, now dangerously armed, suddenly and very forcefully grabbed my arm and 'shot' – the vaccine right into it.

The black niqab then turned to the next victim and I was free to go. I almost ran out, happy to have escaped with only a pitiless poke. I will spare you all the now boring and tedious debate about the niqabs, but I have come to understand how it feels like to stand opposite a faceless black creature with a muffled voice and hardly a personal indication of any kind hinting at the humanity and compassion of a doctor, let alone the gender or the living person. The only thought which was in my head now was that this was more a graveside manner than a bedside manner, specially when clad in that monstrous outfit. An Arab proverb eloquently puts it as: "so sad, that it becomes funny."

The Tafseer of the Qur'an

2006-11-11T14:26:00.000+02:00

The word tafseer means to explain and is a commentary (exegesis) to the Qur’an, written by a mufassir. Sometimes the word ta’weel is also used to mean an explanation of the Qur’an. Early commentators, such as Tabari, used the terms tafsir and ta’weel interchangeably. With the passage of time and the development of schools of thought, the two terms came to mark two different branches of the science (ilm) of Qur’an.

The difference between tafseer and ta'weel came to mean that tafseer is the explanation of what is intended by the wording and ta'weel is the explanation of what is intended by the meaning.

Tafseer means uncovering or unveiling and illuminates the various meanings of a verse and includes the background of the occasion or reason for the revelation of the verse, its place in the sura to which it belongs and its story or historical reference. Ta'weel on the other hand came to mean the final end of a matter, the final purpose, meaning or end of a thing.[i] Tafseer was needed because the Qur’an said about itself: “[3.7] He it is Who has revealed the Book to you; some of its verses are decisive, they are the basis of the Book, and others are allegorical; then as for those in whose hearts there is perversity they follow the part of it which is allegorical, seeking to mislead and seeking to give it (their own) interpretation. but none knows its interpretation except Allah, and those who are firmly rooted in knowledge say: We believe in it, it is all from our Lord; and none do mind except those having understanding.”

How did Tafseer develop through the ages?

The first person to comment on the Qur’an was the Prophet himself, as the Qur’an assigned this role to him.[ii] So in the early days the revelation he received needed clarification by him. [iii] Early tafseer began as an oral tradition of hadith transmission from the prophet and afterwards the analysis and interpretations of his companions, their successors followed by the successors’ disciples. According to a critical modern orthodox sunni view, the material which was transmitted from the Prophet on tafseer, as was that which was transmitted from the companions, was rather little.[iv] The companions of the Prophet passed on his explanations and, because of their understanding of the language, their knowledge of the circumstances of revelation and their insight into the religion, they supplemented them with their own explanations.[v] The companions and other mufassirun did not begin with their tafseers until after Mohamed’s death.[vi] Subhi al Salih bluntly says: “They would not dare explain the Qur’an while he (the Prophet) was among them”.[vii]

Written commentaries on the Qur’an began to appear during the period of the successors and especially during that of their students and disciples. These early commentaries were, for the most part, straight forward hadith transmission. With the passage of time disagreement started to occur as people became interested in details and in asking many questions that could not be answered with certainty. Legacy and traditions introduced by Jewish converts into tafseer, known as Judaica (Israiliyyat,) played a major role. One advantage of this interest in details was that it contributed greatly to the growth of tafseer into a vast literary body.

As Islam spread with the expansion of the Muslims into all parts of the Near East, distinct schools of tafseer arose in several centres of learning. Most important among those were Mecca, Medina and Kufa. Each of these schools traced its origin to one of the companions of the prophet or one of their immediate successors.[viii] Another factor that contributed to difference and variety in tafseer was the growth of different schools of thought, sects and legal schools in the Muslim community, so commentaries began to reflect the different training, education, religious affiliation and interest of their writers, such as grammarians, jurists, mystics, philosophers and theologians, who wrote commentaries representing their points of view.[ix]

Tafseer Types:

There are basically two types of commentaries:
Tradition based (Tafseer bel ma’thur)
This type of tafseer is based on preserved traditions from Muslim scholars, as well as scholars from among the people of the book, i.e. traditions from Christian and Jewish scholars. These tafseers included stories and information from all sorts of sources without a solid basis to examine their authenticity and truthfulness.

There are four traditional sources for this type of commentary of the Qur'an:
a) The Qur'an. This is regarded as the highest form of tafseer, as the first and most important source for the interpretation of the Qur’an is the Qur’an itself. Thus whenever a verse, phrase or word of the Qur’an needed to be explained, another phrase or word from the Qur’an was used and no other source was required.[x] This was believed because:
- the Qu'ran is the word of Allah
- the Qur’an is authoritative when it explains itself.
- the Qur’an is free of contradiction, and that apparent inconsistencies in its message are inevitably resolved through closer study of the Qur'anic text.
Furthermore “[18.54] And certainly We have explained in this Qur’an every kind of example, and man is most of all given to contention.”

Ibn Taymiyah was quoted to say: “If you ask what the best method of tafseer is, the answer is that the best way is to explain the Qur'an through the Qur'an. For, what the Qur'an alludes to at one place is explained at another, and what it says in brief on one occasion is elaborated upon at another. But if this does not help you, you should turn to the sunna, because the sunna explains and elucidates the Qur'an.[xi]

b) The Hadith. As the Prophet was sent, among other reasons, to explain and clarify the Qur'an to people, as per “[16.44] With clear arguments and scriptures; and We have revealed to you the Reminder that you may make clear to men what has been revealed to them, and that haply they may reflect”, his teachings recorded in the hadith collections thus contain some commentaries on the Qur'an.

The function of Hadith in Exegesis has been said to include[xii]:
· disclosure of the reasons of revelation (asbab al nuzul)
· explanation of the meanings of obscure words
· demonstration of the application of qur’anic verses to situations from the life of either prophet or his companions
· reflections by the Prophet or his companions on verses, as all hadith containing the Prophet’s clarification of the Qur’an are told on the authority of his companions.[xiii]
· explanation of verses in response to questions
· details of ritual practice and social behaviour as the Sunna details that which is general in the Qur’an (examples are five times of prayer, number of prayer units (raqaa), amounts due of zakat and its beneficiaries, rules for pilgrimage, etc)
· elements of Qur’an science (different recitations, names of suras etc)
· some restrictions of that which is absolute in the Qur’an (such as cutting off the hand of a thief only if the value of the stolen items exceeds a certain amount)

c) The reports of the Companions (Sahaba). The companions also interpreted and taught the Qur'an, especially after the Prophet’s death. If Qur'anic clarification was absent, and there was no Hadith, then a consensus (ijma) of the companions was used to interpret a certain verse.

d) The reports of those who learned from the companions (tabi’un). These people grew up in an environment with other people who had known the Prophet, so their insight is the next in line of the sources of tafseer.

Reason based (Tafseer bel ra’y)

This type of tafseer is based on reasoning and it includes all groups of tafseer such as the mystics, the Mu’tazalites the philosophers, Shi’as, the esoteric approach, the spiritual approach, the Sufi approach, etc. The Mu’tazali form of tafseer is rather literal and places a big importance on deciding for one’s self on the basis that humans are very much capable to decide for themselves, which is the ethical basis for rewards and punishments in the world as well as in the hereafter. All leaders of political Islam follow this reason based method and so do all reformers. Schools seeking a certain support for their ways or attitudes or ideologies from the Qur’an use that as well. The draw back of that would be that they more or less formulated their ideas first and then interpreted the Qur’an accordingly. They were affected by different factors such as for example Greek philosophy, Judaica (Israiliyyat) or traditional stories and myths . Sometimes they would even borrow from the tradition based (tafseer bel ma’thur). This form of tafseer is rather subjective. It was claimed that such procedure could result only in unlikely or sectarian exegesis.[xiv]

Some Drawbacks or weaknesses:
Interpreters using reason based tafseer (tafseer bel ra’y) were thought to risk grave error because:
· they ignored the background knowledge of linguistic facts, legal principles, the facts of abrogation of certain qur’anic passages and the accounts of the circumstances and reasons of revelation
· they ignored the context of the verses
· they considered only part of the evidence furnished by the context and overlooked the rest
· they interpreted the Qur’an to support a particular doctrine, school of thought, political party or ideology
· they took into account only the lexicographical sense of obscure words, ignoring the explanations of their meaning given by the authorities who lived closer to the time of revelations
· they isolated one meaning of several possible interpretations in order to give it undue emphasis either knowingly or ignorantly
· they misapplied verses, even when they knew better, simply because they desired qur’anic justification for a warning or a teaching they wished to emphasise[xv].

Practically speaking even that great monument to tradition based interpretation, namely the commentary of Al Tabari, includes much that can be termed as tafseer bil ra’y.[xvi] Not only was reason based tafseer restricted, but in the eyes of many Muslim scholars any endeavour to interpret the Qur’an in this way bordered on Blasphemy.[xvii] Nevertheless the existence of it shows that academic and intellectual freedom was encouraged and recognised.

Ibn Taymiyah critiques ideologically oriented tafseers sharply and says that this approach is used by people who believe in certain meanings and wanted to identify them with those themes found in the Qur’an. [xviii] This explanation is to some extent true of the Mu’tazali school as well as Sufi and early Shia tafseer. On the other hand philosophical tafseer is in some ways guilty of the opposite tendency, as it often reads more into the Qur’an than the literal sense can sustain.

As we can see there are various and very different methods producing different results. The problem is not with the text itself, but rather in the various interpretations, exegesis of it, as it includes the mufassir’s own understanding of the text, a reflection of the political climate of his time, evidence of the thoughts and trends prevailing during his time and other outer influences.

Hence there should be an agreed upon criteria and certain standards which interpretations should follow:
· Qur’an is a text and therefore linguistic rules should apply to it as well as all known language formula used
· the metholdology of the Qur’an itself , i.e. certain moods of presentation of certain concepts, need to be taken into consideration
· the influence by the mufassir should be very limited
· global literary advances in should be considered in the interpretation
· external factors and dubious sources like Israiliyyat (Judaica) should be filtered out as the would render the tafseer subjective
· general concepts should be kept general, while details should be kept detailed
· knowing that every language has its limitations and like with any other text the author is on one side and the reader (recipient) on the other side, still the own opinions of the mufassir should never be enforced on the text
· the objective of text is to be kept in mind throughout (focal points – emphasis)
· the starting point of the interpretation should always be only the text itself

The agreed upon necessary qualifications of a muffassir:
1. belief
2. ability
3. knowledge of the language
4. knowledge of the history
5. knowledge of the tools

According to Ibn Taymiya knowledge of the religious sciences is the first necessary qualification of a good mufassir. Sincere piety and depth of intuition are requisite qualities if the mufassir is to be able to discover the many levels of inner meaning of the Qur’an.[xix] Al Suyuti gives three other essential qualifications for a muffasir. According to him the mufassir must have first sound faith and must strictly observe the teachings and tenants of Islam. He must avoid invalid views and unauthentic traditions and must take the book of Allah in his trust very seriously. Secondly he must have a good reason, namely that his aim should only be to serve Allah and not to acquire wealth or status. A mufassir must therefore be totally detached from the world. Thirdly, a mufassir must be an authority on the sciences of the Arabic language.[xx]

Qussas (Storytellers)
As most of the confusions and problems with tafseer started with the storytellers (Qussas) we shall devote a paragraph about them. The Qussas were a group of people resembling preachers, attempting to influence their audience. They had no limitations and no methodology of any kind. All they wanted (next to fame and fortune) was to make people accept what they were saying. Being mostly pious people, they believed that they were doing this for the listeners’ own salvation and they believed they had good intentions.

Oral traditions were transmitted by means of stories and talks in social gatherings. The problems came about from some interpretations of the Qur’an and the sunna being fabricated. For example, they interpreted verse “[17.16] And when We wish to destroy a town, We send Our commandment to the people of it who lead easy lives, but they transgress therein; thus the word proves true against it, so We destroy it with utter destruction”, as referring to conquering Constantinople. The conquests were a very important political concern for the Ummayids and the storytellers took that sura as a prediction, which is a very imaginative and non-founded interpretation with no justification at all, but it pleased the audience to no end.

If the storytellers could shift the meaning in this way, then they could say anything at all. They were not considered scholars. Some were even appointed by the state, as they shared the culture of the people and the society at large. They started inserting hadith and tradition and tafseer to make or validate their points, even if they had to make them up. There is a hadith saying “fadael al A’mal yatasahal fiha” and that is why the scholars accepted what these Qussas were doing. The hadith means be lenient with those good deeds, hence the examination of their authenticity was neglected as they meant no harm and lead to none. If traditions told were related to a moral issue (improvement of society) or to the promotion of good and fighting evil, then it was accepted as an incentive for the people to lead to a favourable conduct. But this is what opened the doors to all sorts of confusions. The result was obscuring what was genuine from that which was fake and once the sight was lost it was never regained and one was never able to retrace it again.

The Qussas had a huge influence on the fabrication of the sunna. Starting from the times of Ali Ibn Abi Taleb, the Qussas endeavoured to influence the people using all tools available to them to sway public opinion, either in favour or against Ali. The Qussas tended to reduce the abstract norms in the Qur’an to physical images. They also included popular stories related to their objectives, as they were mainly propaganda machines for religion, and this confused a lot of material used by respected commentators. Al Ghazali accused the Qussas of starting bida’s. Al Suyuti was very much against the Qussas, so that he wrote a book entitled “Tahzeer al Khawas min Akazeeb al Qussas”. Another book was written by El Hafiz Zaynaddin Al Iraqi entitled “ Al Ba’ith ala el Khalas min Hawadeth al Qussas”. The existence of two such books show how the Qussas were perceived and that their danger was recognised.

Conclusion

From the above, we can safely conclude that all interpretations, in both forms, are mainly ijtihad. Reconstructions of the early history of tafseer are all based on a preliminary assumption that the authors of the late second and third century AH were merely passing on the material of older authorities.[xxi] But the tradition based tafseer are rather time limited, as this method can only be adopted accurately and with absolute certainty and trust in the real authenticity only for a limited time after the death of the prophet and his companions. As we have seen, the longer the time period which elapsed between the prophet’s time and that of his companions, the greater the risk became of including unsubstantiated and fabricated explanations.

Mulla Muhsin Hayd al Kashani, an eminent Shi’a scholar who authored Tafsir al Safi, suggested that the first transmitters of the tradition from the Imams were restrained by taqiya (concealement of one’s principles in the face of persecution), which meant that much of the tradition may consequently have been lost.[xxii] This of course leaves great possibilities for new ideas to be included in tafseer in the name of recovering that lost tradition, as well as making any excuses for the omission of any explanations expected to have been included.

So we can conclude that tafseers were never free from the influence of opinions, thoughts and attitudes of the time or of the commentators writing them. What becomes apparent from the examination of the tafseers, through the different ages since the time of the Sahaba until now, is that the tafseer of the Qur'an in every age was influenced by the scholarly movement of that time. Seldom were there tafseers that were free from the influence of opinions, thoughts and rules of the time.

We have seen modern tafseers which border on the bizarre. I am thinking of Zaghloul El-Naggar's lectures, books and articles about the scientific importance of the Holy Qur’an.[xxiii] I am also thinking of Rashad Khalifa’s computerised research of the Qur’an that led him to believe that the i’jaz of the Qur’an lies in a consistent mathematical code system based on the number 19, which, he argues, is the proof of the miracle of the Qur’an unveiled by him in printouts that he industriously produces as visual presentation of a long hidden secret.[xxiv] I am also thinking of Harun Yahya, which is a pen name used by Mr. Adnan Oktar, who believes in miraculous characteristics of the Qur'an which he terms as ‘mathematical miracles’, such as the number of repetitions of certain words in the Qur'an, such as the word yawm (day) occuring 365 times and the plural of it occurring thirty times, drawing the conclusion that this represents the number of the days in a month. I tend to agree with Issa Boullata[xxv] that scientific principles and discoveries are forcefully read into the qura’anic text and imposed on it, so as to say that all modern science is being deduced from it, just to claim that the Qur’an foretells modern science and to ascribe yet another needless miracle to the Qur’an, besides its linguistic beauty and perfection.

Knowledge grows very fast, especially in this day and age with all the available technologies, which make information available at one’s finger tips in a moment. Constant renewal is the very nature of knowledge. Another reason for the acceptance of individual interpretation is the need to make the Qur’an relevant to every time and situation[xxvi] and for every believer.

If one adopts the logic of the people criticising reason based tafseers and takes it to its logical end, then the sole document which is left as an unchanged authority is the Qur’an itself. But then the same criticism can be use against tradition based tafseer. Needless to say, given the increasing amount of knowledge and understanding of linguistics, history, sociology, and other fields which have developed, any tafseer which increases the understanding of the holy Qur’an should be welcomed. After all, every tafseer is just another view by a believer on the Qur’an and can be seen as his or her way of making the Qur’an ever relevant and alive.

We can say that all the honourable scholars and learned commentators had the right interpretation for their time, but in my opinion there is no single right interpretation and all interpretations can be considered parts of a whole. The Qur’an with all its general principles is allowing a great deal of flexibility to allow our own sensibilities, preferences, characteristics and imagination to fill in the blanks or to provide comfort. After all belief is a very personal matter between the creator and his creations. Anybody who tries to impose rigid and strict rules on the perception and understanding of the Qur’an is limiting its interaction. I close with a quote by Helmut Gätje: “When someone maintains that the Qur’an has no other meaning than that expressed by the outer aspect of exegesis, then by doing so he manifests his own limitations.”[xxvii]

[i] Dr. Mahmoud Ayoub, The Quran and its Interpreters, p. 20
[ii] R. Maston Speight, The Function of Hadith as Commentary on the Quran, as seen in Six Authoritative collections, p. 64 of the book Approaches to the History of the Interpretation of the Quran, Edited by Andrew Rippin
[iii] Fred Leemhuis, Origins & Early Development of the tafsir tradition, p. 13 of the book Approaches to the History of the Interpretation of the Quran, Edited by Andrew Rippin
[iv] ibid, p. 14
[v] ibid, p. 14
[vi] Jane Dammen McAuliffe, Quranic Christians: An Analysis of Classical and Modern Exegesis, p.17
[vii] Subhi al Salih, Mabahith fi ulum al Quran, p.289.
[viii] Dr. Mahmoud Ayoub, The Quran and its Interpreters, p. 27
[ix] ibid, p.32
[x] ibid, p.22
[xi] Ibn Taymiyyah, An Introduction To The Principles Of Tafseer, Chap 1
[xii] R. Maston Speight, The Function of Hadith as Commentary on the Quran, as seen in Six Authoritative collections, p. 68 of the book Approaches to the History of the Interpretation of the Quran, Edited by Andrew Rippin
[xiii] ibid, page 64
[xiv] R. Maston Speight, The Function of Hadith as Commentary on the Quran, as seen in Six Authoritative collections, p. 67 of the book Approaches to the History of the Interpretation of the Quran, Edited by Andrew Rippin
[xv] ibid, p.68
[xvi] ibid, p. 67
[xvii] Jane Dammen McAuliffe, Quranic Christians: An Analysis of Classical and Modern Exegesis, p.20
[xviii] Dr. Mahmoud Ayoub, The Quran and its Interpreters, p. 33
[xix] Dr. Mahmoud Ayoub, The Quran and its Interpreters, p. 24
[xx] Dr. Mahmoud Ayoub, The Quran and its Interpreters, p. 33
[xxi] Fred Leemhuis, Origins & Early Development of the tafsir tradition, p. 14 of the book Approaches to the History of the Interpretation of the Quran, Edited by Andrew Rippin
[xxii] Mahmoud Ayoub, The SpeakingQur’ran and the Silent Qur’a: A Study of the Principles and Development of Imami Shia Tafsir, p. 186 of the book Approaches to the History of the Interpretation of the Quran, Edited by Andrew Rippin
[xxiii] Gamal Nkrumah, Zaghloul El-Naggar: Scientific being, Al Ahram Weekly, Issue No. 769, 17 - 23 November 2005
[xxiv] Issa Boullata, The Rhetorical Approach of the Qur’an: Ijaz and Related Topics, p. 149 of the book Approaches to the History of the Interpretation of the Quran, Edited by Andrew Rippin
[xxv] Issa Boullata, The Rhetorical Approach of the Qur’an: Ijaz and Related Topics, p. 149 of the book Approaches to the History of the Interpretation of the Quran, Edited by Andrew Rippin
[xxvi] Dr. Mahmoud Ayoub, The Quran and its Interpreters, p. 24
[xxvii] Helmut Gätje, The Quran and its Exegesis, p. 228

Reform, Reprogram, Reset: Islam's Fifth Stage?

2006-09-30T22:27:00.000+02:00

In my last fiqh class the professor explained the development and evolvement of Muslim thoughts with regard to fiqh and arriving at a useful and workable methodology to be used in fiqh. He identified 4 stages which are as follows:

Stage 1 – The time of the 4 rightful caliphs when the sahaba (companions) mainly practiced shura (consultation)

Stage 2 – Afterwards by the end of the first century of Hijra, different schools were established in various cities, which also used shura to arrive at a local ijma (consensus)

Stage 3 – Abu Abdullah Muhammad ibn Idrīs al-Shafie (or in short Imam Shafie) (767 – 820), who distinguished between what was agreed upon in various local schools and that which was agreed upon by all schools unanimously, i.e. between local and universal/uniform ijma (consensus) and he placed more importance on universal ijma, which was evidently much more restrictive.

Stage 4 – At the turn of the twentieth century with the emergence of reformers such as Syed Ahmad Khan (1817-1898), Jamal al-Din al-Afghani (1839–1897), Muhammad Abduh (1849-1905) and Muhammad Iqbal (1877-1938) who refused blind taqleed (imitation of and adherence to what was established before) and called for reopening the doors of ijtihad (independent interpretation or personal reasoning)

With that I received a shock to my system. For an entire millennia nothing happened? All the thinkers, scholars and intellectuals were doing nothing much but reinventing the wheel? It seemed like they were just busy coming to the same conclusions again and again no matter how they phrased or rephrased any question. It was as if there was one and only one way to proceed - as if there was simply no choice. They seemed to have imposed some sort of a self-censorship on thoughts and in turn progress in any direction.

I kept going back to the word taqleed in my mind. The literal meaning is defined as: Taqleed is a verbal noun of the root ‘Qa' 'la' 'da’ in the second form. The verb Qalada means to place, to gird or to adorn with a necklace. When used in conjunction with human beings, it refers to the wearing of a necklace, pendant or any other such similar ornament. And technically it means: the acceptance of a statement of another without demanding proof or evidence on the belief that the statement is being made in accordance with fact and proof. And I kept thinking that what was placed on our collective ummah’s neck was not a necklace but rather a yoke. This yoke did not only affect the intellectuals and thinkers, but it seems to have had an influence on everything else as well.

In 935 the Qur'an was regarded as being in its final written form. Ja'far Muhammad al-Tabari (838-923) was for Quranic exegesis what Imam Shafie was for fiqh. At that time the unity of the Ummah was completely disintegrating, with 3 different caliphs focusing more on rivalry than anything else, the Mutazilites (Rationalists) had given up to the Traditionalists and (too) many scholars began to consider the "gates of ijtihad" as closed. And that also was the end of what has been known in history as the Golden Age of Islam (which lasted roughly 750-950).

I keep wondering if there was a relationship between the decline of sciences and achievements and the stagnation of thought and intellectual discourse. There must be. In those last two hundred years the Muslims followed the instruction of the Prophet "to seek learning as far as China", which eventually they did. They published books thanks to the introduction of paper and the establishment of a paper mill. They translated and kept Greek scientific and philosophical manuscripts at Bayt al-Hikmah (House of Wisdom) and later on many other manuscripts. They focused on mathematics, contributed to geometry and initiated algebra. They worked on medicine, gynaecology and ophthalmology. Engineers perfected the waterwheel and constructed elaborate underground water channels. And travellers contributed heavily to geography. Between Baghdad and al-Andalus it was a time of great achievements in all sorts of different avenues including literature, poetry and music. And then not only a decline in all sorts of different discourse and output happened, but seemingly a total standstill.

Until the turn of the twentieth century, there appears to be a deep hibernation up to Abduh and his colleagues Jamal al-Din al-Afghani, along with Syed Ahmad Khan and Muhammad Iqbal, who all rejected blind adherence to tradition (taqleed) and independently called for reopening of the "doors of ijtihad" as the chief way to modernise Islam.

Syed Ahmad Khan is quoted to have said: “Acquisition knowledge of science and technology is the only solution for the problems of Muslims.” And: “Look forward, learn modern knowledge, do not waste time in studies of old subjects of no value.”

Muhammad Abduh aimed at modernising Islam and bringing it into line with rational thought. Together with al-Afghani he founded the Salafiyyah movement (from the phrase, salaf as-salihiin, 'the pious ancestors'), a reform movement calling for modernisation based on Islamic principles. Included in its ranks were the Islamic world's first feminists, prominent among them was Qasim Amin, who wrote the then two very controversial books, ‘The Emancipation of Women’ and ‘The New Woman’.

Qasim Amin is often credited for having been the first to address the question of women's role in society. He accused the religious luminaries and conservative political leader of resisting any attempt to change the old and by now outmoded social norms. He urged his fellow men to understand that certain traditions had served their purpose and had been established to cater to the interests of their predecessors but must now be seen as incompatible with the 1900s. He insisted that Sharia was based on social and human praxis; and very much capable of accommodating new conditions without violating the fundamentals of Islam. He believed that the line between “Islamic” and “un-Islamic” was obviously drawn by the then dominant Islamic orthodoxy, and not by Islam itself and argued strongly for the equal treatment of women as mandated by the spirit of egalitarianism and equality in Islam. Muhammad Abduh in turn called for reinterpreting the Sharia in favour of women to conform to the spirit of Islam which he perceived as a liberating force for women not a means of repressing them.

Muhammad Iqbal has been called: “the best articulated Muslim response to Modernity that the Islamic world has produced in the 20th century”. While he is primary noted for being a poet, he has also been called “the most serious Muslim philosophical thinker of modem times.” His book: “Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam” consists of seven lectures on religion and philosophy originally held in English in 1928 at the universities of Madras, Hyderabad and Mysore. The book is characterised by outstanding lucidity, accuracy and passionate thought, reconstruction of religious deliberation. He wrote: "The task before the modern Muslim is, therefore, immense. He has to re-think the whole system of Islam without completely breaking with the past". And one of the most important requirements for this re-thinking process he defined as a critical reception of modern knowledge: "The only course open to us is to approach modern knowledge with a respectful but independent attitude and to appreciate the teachings of Islam in the light of that knowledge."

These revered reformers tried to reawaken Islam and at the same time prove that it was compatible with modern times. That was a century ago. What happened since? Hasan al-Banna, Sayyid Qutb and Sayyid Abul-Ala Mawdudi! And not to forget Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab! With them, the small step forward changed radically into a u-turn.

What amazes me the most is, that Al-Shafie was considered then as having his own revival movement. He urged people to follow the Sunnah after a lot of confusion had spread among them. He wrote his famous book, Al-Rissalah towards establishing the fundamentals of jurisprudence and was committed to relying on evidence, and rejected blind imitation. He said: "If you see that my words contradict the hadith, then apply the hadith and disregard my words." He was the first to distinguish and separate between the application of istihsan (equity/discretion in legal matters), and qiyas (juristic reasoning by analogy). But then his revival movement became the yoke that strangled every new thought or reform attempts after him. His rejection of local ijma as insufficient and his insistence on universal ijma turned out to be more of a problem than a solution. In theory a universal ijma is easy and makes sense as there is only one Qur’an and one Prophet with one Sunna, but in practice trying to find conformity between so many different and diverse cultures with different traditions, customs, political climates, social structures and societal norms is downright impossible.

We need “stage 5” now. We require it desperately. We need tools that are more useful than historically rooted. Tools that would and could help us fly rather than tie us down and chain us to medieval times. We have situations now that the historical scholars of fiqh couldn’t have dreamed about. We also have many tools available to us that were not even conceived during their times. Therefore we should not merely accept any thought as dogma or doctrine, but ask how this was developed and whether this was the best possible method and the only achievable result. We should consider whether this still fits our time or whether it can be developed further and made compatible with the 21st century. Al-Shafi'I was trying to build something that was fit for his time, but his time has passed and now is our time, which is so very different from his. We are now able to operate on embryos in the womb, walk on the moon and photograph the surface of mars and we are still stuck in medieval thoughts. Instead of living in the past (in more ways than one) and eternally moaning and whining about the lost glory of the golden age of Islam, we should start working at least towards a lead age and then move on to aluminium then Copper, then tin and perhaps one day we will again reach silver or even gold or regain some of the lost splendour and sparks.

Where is He?

2006-09-30T14:26:00.000+02:00

temporal wrote...

the ground beneath
the wail from the minaret
has lost its lustre
and does not move
those on the ground
who go about their business
the minaret misses
bilal and those who heeded his calls
the wail from the minaret
does not move the tree
the mountain
only the deaf flies
over the date seller

where is He?

(incomplete)

My reply:

Where is He?

He is between the pages
of a book no longer lived
only read, by blind eyes
recited to deaf people

He is buried in the hearts
of lonely masses
not knowing where to turn to
missing his presence, yet ignoring it

He is in the minds
of all those not allowed to think
just expected to perform
empty movements, without passion

He is in the whispers of the wind
making veils and hair flutter equally
caressing exposed faces
trying to find a way into a burqa

He is in the glaring warm sunlight
warming skins, coaxing plants to grow
and in the soft moonlight
sheltering weary servants

He is in every smile
granted to sad eyes
and parched hearts
on a long journey of search

He is in every gesture
extended to alleviate sorrow
not asking for much in return
except acknowledgement
of his existance

He just IS
no matter what
everywhere
always
regardless

Islamic Fascists – Give a dog a bad name!

2006-09-02T20:43:00.000+03:00

They are the new, sizzling catchphrases in America, after George W. Bush said: "The recent arrests that our fellow citizens are now learning about are historical reminders that this nation is at war with Islamic fascists who will use any means to destroy those of us who love freedom, to hurt our nation," commenting on British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s announcement about the arrest of 21 British Muslims, charged with plotting to blow up planes while flying to the U.S.

This new phraseology, turned into a battle cry, as it was picked up all over the world by different people to be used either in the same way or implicitly. Canadian Conservative MP Jason Kenney, the Prime Minister's parliamentary secretary compared Lebanon's Hezbullah to the Nazis; BBC presenter Kirsty Wark stated that "we face a global Islamic threat and the West needs to take on 'reactionary Islam' once and for all".

Another person to take it up was Ibn Warraq, a pseudonym for a bestselling author of several books and articles on Islam, which some term as anti-Islamic, while others see them as promoting secular humanism. Ibn Warraq chose to use Umberto Eco’s article in The New York Review of Books published eleven years ago titled UR-Fascism for an article titled “Islam, Middle East and Fascism” to “show” that Islam is indeed a form of fascism.

While Umberto Eco “opposes both the believers of a superior elitist culture and those who are so fascinated by mass culture that they have lost their critical judgment”, Ibn Warraq appears to be simply opposing Islam, as he is quoted saying: “There may be moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate. There is no difference between Islam and Islamic fundamentalism: at most there is a difference of degree but not of kind.”

As we shall see, the article uses partial data, ignores historically proven facts, confuses tradition with religion and has frequent blanket statements and contradictions. An evaluation of modern Muslim thought that only mentions Banna, Qutb and al-Maududi is one-sided and unconvincing and opens up charges of omission and superficiality, especially in a twenty page article. His use of quotations from the Qur’an is quite one-sided and he has a tendency to take them out of context, ignoring that quotations from the Qur’an should be kept within their historical context and reasons for revelations, as some of the verses were revealed after a particular incident. Furthermore quoting a well known Islamophobe Daniel Pipes makes one wonder about objectivity.

For example, with regard to Muhammad’s behaviour towards the Jews he writes: “The treatment of the Jews by Muhammad is certainly not above reproach. The cold-blooded extermination of the Banu Qurayza (between 600 and 900 men), the expulsion of the Nadir and their later massacre (something often overlooked in the history books) are not signs of magnanimity or compassion.” I am sure that with a bit of concentrated research into history Ibn Warraq would realise that Banu Nadir were not massacred, but were exiled from Medina after a two-week siege following a battle. Muhammad even married Safiyya bint Huyayy of the Banu Nadir tribe after giving her the option of embracing Islam, which she chose to do.

As for Banu Qurayza they committed high treason by dishonouring a treaty drawn up with Muhammad. It was Sa’ad bin Moa'z, an ally to them from the Aws tribe of Medina, who passed the judgement. Sa'ad ruled that all the adult males of the Banu Qurayza should be killed. One report says Muhammad approved the ruling, as it was based on Banu Qurayza’s very own book. It was based on Deuteronomy 20:12-14: “12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies.” So the punishment of the Jewish tribe was done under Jewish Law, and most certainly not because of a whim of Muhammad, but because of a serious charge of treason, punishable by death even in liberal democracies today. In an article by W. N. Arafat the entire episode involving Banu Qurayza is questioned with regard to its historical authenticity.

Another example would be what he wrote about Sharia: “The Sharia or Islamic Law is based on four principles: The Koran; the sunna of the Prophet, which is incorporated in the recognized traditions (hadith); the consensus (ijma) of the scholars of the orthodox community; and the method of reasoning by analogy (qiyas).” I am afraid the principles of Islamic jurisprudence show that they are many more, not only four. Furthermore Hadith and Sunna are not one item, but two, as the classification of a Hadith also depends on the relevant behaviour to be taken from the Sunna. Other sources in addition to the Qur'an, Sunna, Hadith, Ijma and Qiyas are Ijtihad (personal reasoning), Istihsan (equity), Maslahah Mursalah (consideration of public interest), Urf (custom), Istishab (presumption of continuity).

Writing a point by point complete rebuttal to Ibn Warraq’s article would be far too long. A more rigorous approach would be to take Umberto Eco’s framework (his fourteen characteristics defining fascism) and using exactly the same epistemological framework that Ibn Warraq used, it will be seen that Islam cannot be considered to be a form of fascism.

Umberto Eco: [1]: The first feature of Ur-Fascism is the cult of tradition.

Ibn Warraq claims in this section that Islam is static, rigid and inflexible and tied immutably to a sacrosanct Qur’an and an untouchable Sunna, as well as the words of the ulema, mullahs and Muslim scholars reflected in the deriving and application of the Sharia laws. Unfortunately this is not so. Interpretations and re-interpretations of the Qur’an happened many times. For example, there are so many tafseers circulating which is a proof of a certain flexibility. To name a few, Ibn Kathir, Jareer at-Tabari, Qazi Abu Saud al-Hanafi, Abu Abdullah al-Qurtubi, Ibn Taymiyyah, Abu Bakr ibn al-Arabi, Mahmud Alusi al-Hanafi all interpreted the Qur’an differently. Furthermore in modern times Sayyed Qutb, Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi, Amin Ahsan Islahi, Muhammad Al-Ghazzali also reinterpreted the Qur’an. In addition, Amina Wadud and others have recently reinterpreted the Qur'an from a woman's (or even feminist) perspective. Historically there have been grammatical tafsirs, mystical tafsirs, philosophical tafsirs, theological tafsirs, shi’a tafsirs, sunni tafsirs, etc. In any case, if Islam was indeed inflexible, then different sects and different schools of Islamic jurisprudence would not have arisen.

Umberto Eco: [2]: Traditionalism implies the rejection of modernism.
Umberto Eco: [3]: Irrationalism also depends on the cult of action for action's sake.
Umberto Eco: [4]: The critical spirit makes distinctions, and to distinguish is a sign of modernism.
Umberto Eco: [5]: Besides, disagreement is a sign of diversity.

Ibn Warraq adds features [2] to [5] together and says: “I shall show that, mutatis mutandis, Islam also rejects modernism, is hostile to reason, critical thought, fears disagreement, and is terrified of ‘intruders,’ though Islam’s form of exclusion is based on religion and not race.”

Space constraints prohibit a thorough debate on each of these points, hence I am concentrating on only one – rejection of modernity. A Hadith says: "The difference of opinion among the Companions of Muhammad is a mercy!", which shows that differences of opinion are not just accepted, but also encouraged. If Islam truly rejected modernism we would certainly not have the problem with terrorism and the impacts of the fundamental Wahhabi doctrine today. It was Ibn Abd al-Wahhab who decided to use his own ijtihad to purify Islam of what he thought were un-Islamic influences. But there were other modernists and reformers who emerged throughout history and I would like to mention a few for balance. Muhammad Abduh taught that modern scientific thought could be accepted without damage to Islam. He opposed taqlid (tradition) only and promoted the legitimacy of reinterpreted Islam. Qasim Amin fought against the subjugation of Muslim women and called that un-Islamic. He denounced the veil, seclusion and arranged marriages arguing that equality of the sexes exists in Islam. Jamal al-Din al-Afghani blamed the ulema for their backward views of Islam. Muhammad Iqbal generated his own synthesis and reinterpretation of Islam, promoted the adoption of Islamic versions of Western concepts and institutions such as democracy and parliamentary government. Sadly, for Ibn Warraq only Banna, Qutb and al-Maududi make it to his list of modernists, whereas they are much better suited to join Ibn Abd al-Wahhab.

As for exclusion of ‘others’ based on religion as Ibn Warraq argues, the Qur’an says: 3:84. Say (O Muhammad): "We believe in Allah and in what has been sent to us, and what was sent to Ibrahim, Isma'il, Ishaque, Ya'qub and Al-Asbat and what was given to Musa, 'Isa and the Prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between one another among them and to Him we have submitted." (Additional references 5:69, 4:136, 2:136, and 5:5)

Umberto Eco: [6]: Ur-Fascism derives from individual or social frustration.

In this section, Ibn Warraq focuses on the economic hardships endured by Muslims in their countries, the corruption and ineptitude of the governments which he then blames for the ‘Islamists’ success in pulling the Muslims towards their doctrines. While I agree to the fact that many governments of Muslim countries are corrupt and incompetent, I would like to point out that none of these governments actually practices the Islamic teachings of collecting zakat and redistributing it to the poor as prescribed, which one way of reducing poverty is. Concentrating on economic hardships endured by Muslims alone is strange, as non-Muslims in many countries also suffer from the same poverty. Poverty is caused by bad economics, bad governance, corruption, lack of investments, etc. If poverty was indeed caused by Islam, then one wonders why Hindu India, Communist/Buddhist China, Christian Africa are relatively poor (in terms of individual earnings)?

Moreover, US government statistics showed that the country with the most terror fatalities was India. Most attacks were perpetrated by secessionist groups from the Northern provinces and the Communist Party of India. In second place was Colombia, a country with a population of over 90% Roman Catholic. Following in fifth place were the victims of secular Maoist terror groups in Nepal. University of Chicago's Robert Pape found that the group leading the world in suicide attack numbers between 1980 and 2004 was the Tamil Tigers, a secular group drawing its adherents from Sri Lanka's predominantly Hindu population. Saying that frustration leading to terrorism is a result of some deep flaw in Islam is a blanket statement and not valid.

Umberto Eco: [7]: To people who feel deprived of a clear social identity, Ur-Fascism says that their only privilege is the most common one, to be born in the same country.

Ibn Warraq chooses in this section to focus on a part of the explanation of the point, rather than the point itself and concentrates on conspiracy theories abound in the Muslim world. I think that his choice stems from the fact that Muslims have a clear identity, namely as Muslims. In addition, it is this very identity that allows for diversity, as Muslims are Muslims regardless of their nationality or their country of birth. As Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen argues in his book ‘Identity and Violence: The Illusion of Destiny’ every person on this planet has multiple identities and prioritizing one identity over the others can result in a very simplistic understanding of the person and what they really represent. In other words the same person can be, without any contradiction, an American citizen, of Latino origin, a Muslim, a liberal, a woman, a vegetarian, a dancer, a historian, a feminist, a heterosexual, etc. There is simply no evidence that Muslims lack a social identity.

Umberto Eco: [8]: The followers must feel humiliated by the ostentatious wealth and force of their enemies.

I do agree with Ibn Warraq on the point that Muslims and Arabs in particular do have a sense of humiliation. He mentions the countless defeats suffered by the Muslims in the Middle East. He blames this humiliation for the hostility towards what he terms ‘the enemies of Islam’ in form of ‘Jewish or Imperialist conspirators’. Most countries in the Middle East have great wealth in terms of resources, be they oil, coal, cotton or advantageous geographical locations facilitating trade. These caused the long years of colonial exploitation in the past and neo-colonialism in present times. It is the resentment with occupation and meddling in local affairs that increases frustration and the urge to resist it, all the way to hostility and bloodshed.

Umberto Eco: [10]: Elitism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology, insofar as it is fundamentally aristocratic, and aristocratic and militaristic elitism cruelly implies contempt for the weak.

This feature is the easiest one to debunk, as Islam focuses on social justice for the weak and vulnerable such as the poor, the hungry and the orphans (for references check the Qur’an ([74:42-44] [93:9-10] [69:33-34] [107:1-3] [4:10] [17:34] etc.). One of the five pillars of Islam is the payment of zakat (religiously mandated and predefined amount of charity) which is also called “the right of the poor on the rich”. Moreover Islam doesn’t encourage elitism as everyone was created equal; the only distinction is by piety and righteous conduct (49:13).

Umberto Eco: [9]: For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life but, rather, life is lived for struggle.
Umberto Eco: [11]: In such a perspective everybody is educated to become a hero.

In this section, Ibn Warraq discusses the concept of Jihad, the Holy War, whose ultimate aim, according to him, is to conquer the entire world and subjugate it to the laws of Allah. The point that he misses, is the distinction between the greater and lesser jihad. The bigger struggle is not a holy war and endless destruction and bloodshed, but the struggle against the self and its desires to commit sins. All religions ask the believers to struggle and fight against evil and uphold virtue. Islam permits fighting in self-defence by those who have been expelled forcibly from their homes or in defence of justice, or to protect rights and freedoms and fight corruption and oppression. (References: 2:190, 4:75, 42:41-43, 26:151-152).

Furthermore, long before the Geneva Conventions, Islam laid down strict rules of combat, which included prohibitions against harming civilians, destroying infrastructure as in crops, trees, water-wells and livestock. The Qur’an also instructed that if any enemy declared his desire to end hostilities and seek peace at any time, Muslims must do the same. The Qur’an commands every Muslim to be a hero by being a good person, upholding virtue and fighting injustice. That is not fascism. This is simply being a good human being and good citizen.

Umberto Eco: [12]: Since both permanent war and heroism are difficult games to play, the Ur-Fascist transfers his will to power to sexual matters.

Ibn Warraq argues here about the subjugation and suppression of Muslim women. He supplies endless quotes from the Qur’an and Hadith to prove that women are regarded as inferior and that both Qur’an and Hadiths are denigrating and degrading women. Unfortunately, these quotes are taken out of context, therefore much too literal. Women were given full rights (such as the right to divorce their husbands, keep their dowry, receive alimony and child-support, choose their husbands, reject arranged marriages, go out to work, own property, keep their own money and inheritance and much more). If these rights appropriate to women are not applied the way the Qur’an denotes and in accordance with Islamic teachings, be it due to tribal customs, patriarchal societal norms or obsolete traditions one should not blame the religion, but rather the misguided followers for their misapplication.

Umberto Eco: [13]: Ur-Fascism is based upon a selective populism, a qualitative populism, one might say.

Here Ibn Warraq tries to show that there are no individual nor human rights or freedoms in Islam. A comparison between the Qur’an and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights would show this to be incorrect. Article 1 (All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood) is compatible with 49:13 (O you men! surely We have created you of a male and a female, and made you tribes and families that you may know each other; surely the most honorable of you with Allah is the one among you most righteous), Article 18 (Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance) is compatible with 2:256 (There is no compulsion in religion) as well as 34:46 (Say: I exhort you only to one thing, that rise up for Allah's sake in twos and singly, then ponder). Article 16 (Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family.) is compatible with 30:21 (And one of His signs is that He created mates for you from yourselves that you may find rest in them, and He put between you love and compassion; most surely there are signs in this for a people who reflect). It would be much too long to go through all the articles and compare, but that is for another article, another day.

Umberto Eco: [14.] Ur-Fascism speaks Newspeak.

Newspeak is characterised as the use of an impoverished vocabulary, and an elementary syntax, in order to limit the instruments for complex and critical thinking. Ibn Warraq argues about the limitations of Arabic with regard to grammar and vocabulary. While Arabic is indeed the language of the Qur’an, it is not the only and universal language spoken by all Muslims. In fact, most Muslims do not have Arabic as their mother tongue. Moreover it has often been argued that the Qur'an is the highest linguistic achievement of the Arabic language, representing a level of eloquence unattainable even by their most articulate speakers. Attempts to imitate the Qur'an by the finest poets of their time failed miserably. The Qur’an embodies linguistic and literary beauty, introduced stylistic innovations and made extensive use of illustrations, imagery, and metaphor. It was also admired by linguists, Muslims and non-Muslims alike, for its rhythmic patterns. Moreover Muslim philosophers used Arabic to translate and comment upon Aristotle and Plato for thousands of years have not found it to be lacking. Starting from the time of the Abbasid rule there was a vigorous effort to translate all the works. Al-Kindi laid the foundation fof studying philosophical works. Al-Farabi was the firts to formulate philosophy in a manner that would be palatable to Muslim tastes and to use Islamic terms. Ibn Sina (Avicenna) is the one who popularised his writings and also laid an important groundwork in every major field of philosophy and most importantly political philosophy. And there are many others such as Al-Ghazali and Ibn Tufyal. There is even a Dictionary of Islamic Philosophical Terms in Arabic. How one can argue about impoverished vocabulary and an elementary syntax is beyond me, especially as he does not show on what basis he compares the various languages in the world with respect to vocabulary and syntax.

As can be seen from the above arguments, based on Umberto Eco’s criteria of defining or characterising fascism, Islam is not fascist at all. One could have taken Ibn Warraq’s claim seriously, if it did not have serious methodological issues, omissions, and mistakes. In these days of propaganda, polemics and polarity amongst people, it is even more important that objectivity be maintained. Yes, there are terrorists who abuse Qur’anic verses to justify their heinous crimes. Yes, Muslims have to clearly state that these interpretations are wrong. Blaming the religion or calling it fascist for the fault of some of these pathological and disturbed terrorists is like blaming the car for car-accidents. Islam is a means to achieve oneness with Allah. It is a path to God and a way to live, so that the followers are good virtuous people. Do not mistake the path to God with a terrorist’s ideology, because they are certainly not the same. The challenge for humanists around the world is to find other means which do not rely on dividing the world, but rather uplifting us all. But the final judgement rests with you, kind reader.

For more readings on Fascism:

- The 14 Characteristics of Fascism by Lawrence Britt

- The Big Lie About 'Islamic Fascism' By Eric Margolis

* My gratitude goes to Dr. Omid Safi for his invaluable pointers.

To shake or not to shake? Is that even a question?

2006-03-26T00:51:00.000+02:00

Yvonne Ridley’s article: “Sheikh Tantawi’s Handshake” is making the rounds of the internet. An intriguing and interesting viewpoint indeed! What would Ms. Ridley, a fresh convert to Islam and celebrated Muslima, converted by the Taliban whilst in captivity, have to say after she went to see Sheikh Tantawi? Sadly the article is not about some profound message about religion or religious discourse, nor is it about a pending or former insightful fatwa. It was all about just a simple handshake. You might wonder about me wondering about it, but the Muslim world apparently is wondering about it and why shouldn’t I? After all, this is so earth-shakingly important in the annals of Islamic adab. The bottom line of the article is that Ms. Ridley went to meet Sheikh Tantawi and he wanted to shake her hand and she got totally affronted about it. Don’t tell me you haven’t heard all about it? If not, here’s my take on it.

First of all it was Ms. Ridley who refused to shake Sheikh Tantawi's outstretched hand, offered in greeting and not the usual other way around, when a Muslim woman would jump over her patriarchal traditionalist teachings and extend a shy hand to a man in greeting, only to have the humiliation of it being refused, which amounts to a bucket of cold icy water dumped on her, frequently veiled, head.

Just why would any Muslim, or Muslima for that matter, shake in fright when faced with a situation of shaking a woman’s or a man's hand? A handshake can lead to other things it is said. One shakes a hand and before one knows it, one can end up together shaking a bed it is implied. I looked it up and found various rulings saying that: “it is prohibited to shake hands with a woman if there is fear of provoking sexual desire or enjoyment on the part of either one of them or if there is fear of temptation.” These rulings are apparently based on the general rule that blocking the means to evil is obligatory, especially if its signs are clear. But were the signs really that clear in this particular situation? These rulings are also based on a questionable Hadith narrated by Abu Hurairah that the Prophet (pbuh) said, “…The hands fornicate. Their fornication is the touch...”

Even so, if this is indeed the reason, I was taken aback. So in other words, Ms. Ridley accused Sheikh Tantawi of impure thoughts? Notwithstanding that he pointed out to her his age and standing as a scholar and a teacher, she actually thought that a handshake between them might provoke desire and temptation. I further wonder who and what she was so worried about? Her own or the venerable old Sheik’s desire? In either case, it is a bit strange. If the former, that is rather interesting, because it just makes me question the purity of Ms. Ridley’s thoughts in this case. That of course leads me right to ‘niyyat’. Isn’t religion and Islam mainly all about niyyat?

The first Hadith recorded in Bukhari’s Collection Volume 1, Book 1, Number 1 reads: “Narrated 'Umar bin Al-Khattab: I heard Allah's Apostle saying, "The reward of deeds depends upon the intentions and every person will get the reward according to what he has intended...”

This was the first Hadith recorded by Bukhari in his book. It was used as an introduction to all Hadiths to come afterwards. This particular Hadith indicates, that all deeds are judged and rewarded according to their intention. 'Abd al-Rahman bin Mahdi is reported to have said that: “Were I to compose a book comprised of various chapters, I would place the Hadith of ‘Umar regarding deeds and intentions in each chapter. This is one of the firm Hadiths, which serves as an axis of Islam.” Al-Shafi'i said that it comprises a third of all religious knowledge. Ahmad bin Hanbal said that the principles axes of Islam, in terms of Hadith, are three: the Hadith narrated by 'Umar that "deeds are judged only by intention," the Hadith narrated by 'Aisha, "Whoever introduces into our affairs that which does not belong, it is rejected," and the Hadith narrated by al-Nu'man bin Bashir, "The licit is clear and the illicit is clear." And all these Hadiths relate to our situation here, but I digress. So let us go back to niyyat. If I understand it correctly you get a reward for a thought of a good deed, even before it is done. So just the thought, coming from an arising niyyat, is enough to grant you a bonus point, and shake the balance of your judgement day deed sheet. But in this case the niyyat of a believer (Sheikh Tantawi) is assumed by another believer (Ms. Ridley) to be bad. My next question would have to be: what happened to Sura [64.4] He knows what is in the heavens and the earth, and He knows what you hide and what you manifest; and Allah is Cognizant of what is in the hearts.

So if Allah knows what is in the heart, Ms. Ridley seems to share that knowledge for some unknown and inexplicable reason. Just what is it that Ms. Ridley sees that I cannot? Or is it perhaps that she thinks that her irresistible form, covered in a modest veil is enough to shake the good old sheikh by merely shaking her hand? Or is it perhaps that she is afraid of shaking his hand, so that her own faith is not shaken? Does Ms. Ridley not believe that Allah created man and woman equal? And that for Sheikh Tantawi to allow her some of his valuable time was raising her to his scholarly level rather than assuming a desirable and tempting form under her modest veil?

If Sheikh Tantawi is secure enough to be in a meeting with Ms. Ridley, in the safe presence of an interpreter, discussing some religious issue or other or even granting her an interview about some of his thoughts, why shouldn’t she be secure enough in taking a greeting as it was meant, rather than how it was perceived after being interpreted by her? Is it interpretation rather than niyyat that is the problem?.

Many scholars have interpreted women mixing with men as the root of all evil. So a handshake, in their view, would most certainly lead to evil. I seem to recall that men and women mix in the haram in Mecca for pilgrimage. They do not shake hands there, granted, but they pray side by side in very close proximity. They eliminate worldly thoughts while performing their rituals and are in audience with Allah. So it is not interpretation but their niyyat which matters.

I also recall the prophet visiting Um Haran bint Milhan, wife of Ubada bin As-Samit, on his own. She would offer him meals and sit with him and he enjoyed her hospitality as per Hadith 47, narrated by Anas bin Malik in Bukhari’s collection. So he mixed with her and there were no shakes there. Nobody would allege an evil niyyat to the prophet. But then again that is what Ms. Ridley seems to have alleged to Sheikh Tantawi's, despite the presence of a third party, namely the translator. And that is what everyone else alleges, who refuses an outstretched hand.

Why does a hand cause so much fear? Is Islam all about evil and its prevention, rather than good and its implementation? A gesture of goodwill goes a long way, even if it is just a kind word, as per Sura [2.263]: Kind speech and forgiveness is better than charity followed by injury; and Allah is Self-sufficient, Forbearing. And Ms. Ridley knows that too, for she writes in her own words: “it is permissible to go for the least line of resistance, rather than embarrass others.”

Yet Ms. Ridley ends her article with “If I ever meet Sheikh Tantawi again I will not be extending my hand, unless it’s clutching a frying pan.” Is this what peace and Islam has been reduced to by Ms. Ridley, to drive your point across threatening someone with a frying pan? And that too on the revered head of a renowned and respected Sheikh of Al Azhar? What happened to ‘adab’? What happened to setting a good example? What happened to good behaviour and decency? What happened to Islam as a way of life? And then one wonders about terrorism and murder? Isn’t a hand clutching a threatening frying pan in defence against a simple handshake alleging that it is almost leading to ‘zina’ very akin to a hand clutching a gun in defence against an alleged insult of the faith like Theo van Gogh had to feel? Why do we not keep things in proportion? Why do we have to interpret all sorts of things into simple gestures that aren’t really there except in the imagination? Why are women reduced (and in this case even by a woman) to sexual objects, without brains and uses other than evoking sexual desires, leading to temptation and ultimately shaking a bed rather than a hand?

Ms. Ridley wrote in her article that she consulted “all sorts of Islamic authorities and they unanimously told her that the Sheikh of Al-Azhar was wrong”. Be that as it may, I suppose those "all sorts of Islamic authorities" had a live conduit into Sheikh Tantawi's brain and could see and ascertain his evil niyyat. They also found out that he, despite his age and the decades of scholarly years on his shoulders studying theology, would be transported into delight by merely shaking Ms. Ridley’s hand, which would undo his ablutions and lead to other very evil things. But then only Allah knows what's in Sheikh Tantawi's head and heart.

But I still have to wonder about those "all sorts of Islamic authorities". Who are they? Sheikh Tantawi is an authority of his own. Many other Islamic authorities care deeply about his thoughts and try to emulate his behaviour and adopt his thinking. But now those unnamed “all sorts” question his niyyat? Perhaps we should then turn to those “all sorts”, unidentified as they are, for guidance? Why weren’t they identified, if their opinion outweighs that of an Azharite, and not just any Azharite mind you, but THE Azharite?

Could it be because they are maybe some obscure mullah or other? And what are their arguments against the simple innocent handshake as a greeting? Ms. Ridley doesn’t tell us that either, because she was too busy stringing angry words in a three page article about the handshake itself. So what could their reasoning be? Sexual enticement leading to zina? A western custom that should be shunned by the pious Muslims, so they don’t fall into the trap of imitating a bida'? Impure thoughts and wicked imagination leading to unrestrained immoral deeds? Perhaps even the propagation of germs causing disease? Or is there something in the Hadiths or Suras which they are relying on and which Sheikh Tantawi missed?

I am sorry, but I fail to understand all these reasons, because for me it stops at niyyat. If niyyat is good enough for a reward by Allah to a deed still undone, it should be good enough. Or do they know something more than Allah revealed in his book or the Prophet uttered in his Hadiths? If that is the case, I would really like for Ms. Ridley to identify them, so we can all benefit from their profound wisdom.

In conclusion, Ms. Ridley who converted in August 2003, and after verifying her own opinion with those obscure unidentified “all sorts of Islamic authorities” thinks she knows more than Sheikh Tantawi the Sheikh of Al Azhar. In her closing paragraph she wrote that Sheikh Tantawi asked: "Who is teaching her? She can shake my hand, why she is like my daughter. This is the problem with Muslims in Europe today, they listen to extreme voices." So Ms. Ridley thinks she knows more than the good Sheikh, while Sheikh Tantawi thinks that European Muslims are extremists. If it was a question of who is more grounded in Islam, I will most certainly take Sheikh Tantawi's word, because if I use my own mind, which Allah has given me, I will most certainly arrive at the logical conclusion that most ‘normal’ men and women can’t really get that excited from a handshake.

Ms. Ridley’s shaking article can be found on Muslims Weekly

Where is a good fatwa when one is needed?

2006-01-02T11:24:00.000+02:00

With the recent hullabaloo about the twelve cartoons featuring the Prophet, published in the Danish daily newspaper ‘Jyllands-Posten’ and which presumably have deliberately provoked and insulted Muslims, demands from apologies, to retractions to fatwas were heard all over the world. These days, there are so many fatwas issued against anything and everything, that it is getting hard to keep track of them all. Issued by a mufti, a sheikh, a muslim scholar or a mullah, a fatwa is a legal ruling in Islam, requested or required in cases where an issue may be ambivalent or vague. As there is no central Islamic “priesthood” (for lack of a better word), there is also no commonly accepted system to determine who can or cannot issue a fatwa, leaving many Islamic scholars complaining that way too many people feel qualified to issue a fatwa at any time about anything at all. In some Islamic countries it has evolved so far, that one can even dial a fatwa on the mobile phone or log onto a ‘fatwa-bank’ in the internet for an immediate online fatwa. In both theory and practice, different Islamic clerics have been known to issue contradictory, conflicting and even competing fatwas. And to complicate the issue even more, Sunni Muslims would not accept the fatwa of a Shiite cleric and vice versa. Let’s take a look at some of the fatwas relating to publishing, writing and the arts in general.

Salman Rushdie is perhaps the most famous writer to have had a fatwa, like a halo over his head, but he is not the only one. I read “The Satanic Verses” myself and didn’t think it warranted all that fuss. Without that fatwa in 1989, “The Satanic Verses” would have been published without fanfare, would probably have received mixed reviews, and would have been largely forgotten by now. Rushdie himself says in an interview: "What can you do if you find yourself stuck in the middle of a historical event like that? I think that the fatwa is noisier than most literary careers so of course it got the part of 'what people know about me as a writer.' My interest as a writer now is to get past it, so that people stop thinking of me in that box. I think, in a way, that it was the greatest damage done to me as a writer; that people categorized me in some box called Islamic fanaticism, which really, is not what my work is like or about."

I think such fatwas do raise important questions about what qualifies as blasphemy or even warrants censorship cases. It most certainly highlights the importance of context, because all it did, contrary to its original aim, was to catapult that book (not even one of his best) into the top of the international bestseller lists and made Salman Rushdie a household name, even among people who normally do not buy or read books.

Another writer to benefit from what I call ‘the fatwa celebrity syndrome’ is Kola Boof, born in Sudan as Naima Bint Harith. In 2002, a fatwa was issued against her and a year later her publisher Russom Damba was bombed in Morocco for printing her story collection, "Long Train to the Redeeming Sin". To date, Boof has authored six books, which were translated and published in eight countries. Personally I don’t think that these books are worth half the noise made about them, but the fatwa over her head, resulted in providing her with American publishers and a much larger audience than those types of books would normally earn.

Taslima Nasrin also got a fatwa issued against her for allegedly challenging and criticising Shariah (Islamic law). I have not read any of her works myself, so I cannot judge whether or not the fame and fortune that befell her were justified or whether it was another case of the fatwa celebrity syndrome.

I did not make up this fatwa celebrity syndrome. It exists and is real and is also being used calculatingly by various authors who know that the content of their books is neither very strong nor deep enough to transform them from obscurity to fame. Some examples of those who used the fatwa celebrity syndrome would be Irshad Manji who has beaten her own drum and claimed fear of a fatwa, asking for protection. Yet she has never been ‘blessed’ with a fatwa. Asra Nomani claims in her book to have also suffered from fatwa fear, so badly that she had to: “brace herself with the only weapon she had: knowledge.”

Another author riding on the wave of the fatwa celebrity syndrome is the ‘wannabe mystery’ Nedjma, which is a pseudonym for an unknown Arab woman. Her book, “The Almond” has been described as the first erotic novel by an Arab Muslim woman. For all the hoopla about "The Almond" presumably reconciling feminine sexuality with Islam, there is almost no evidence whatsoever in the text of anything Islamic, apart from a few meagre references to Allah and performing prayers. Nevertheless since its first publication and the related publicity, this book sold more than 50,000 copies, and foreign rights have been sold so far to publishing houses in 17 countries.

The reason I am so aggravated with this whole furore is that today this slogan of "I'm an oppressed Arab / Muslim woman telling the West about my predicament or offering a knowledgeable ‘insider’ view about my religion" is what sells these kinds of books, regardless of their real content or value. After all any Western publisher wants to cash in on that as well, because nothing rouses a controversy like mixing sex and religion together in the same pot, to ensure brisk and massive book sales.

The problem though is not with these women. The problem is with the fatwas. If there were no such fatwas in the first place, then this opportunistic behaviour wouldn’t exist. It is simply a cause and effect relationship. Some of these women are Muslim, some are Arab and some are both. Some are oppressed or abused and some are just sly or conniving with some hidden agenda. Some of their stories may be lacking in truth, content, depth or intellectual worth. Some may be showing their ignorance or lack of character or morality. Some stories may be undermining their own credibility. But in the end, be they right or wrong, good, bad or ugly, it is their very own story they are telling. Why shouldn’t they use an opportunity presented to them? Who would look a gift horse in the mouth? It is the fault of the muftis, mullahs and clerics for giving them such an opportunity or tool.

Moving to another field, namely that of journalism, we find the fatwa celebrity syndrome there too. Isioma Daniel, a very young (in her early twenties) junior, fashion writer on her first job for ‘This Day’, a daily in Nigeria, was given the assignment to cover the Miss World pageant. As per her own words about her assignment, published in ‘The Guardian’, she struggled to write a 600 word piece which would be informative and still light enough, befitting the subject. Writing about the pageant she chose to mention the Prophet writing: "What would Mohammed think? He would probably have chosen a wife from one of them." This flippant comment in a country that just introduced Sharia Law, landed her the ‘prize’ fatwa. It also resulted in the cancellation of the pageant after religious riots broke out, which left more than 200 people dead and dozens of villages destroyed. And what does Isioma Daniel do today? She gets interviewed on CBC, writes her take on the events in ‘The Guardian’, is offered a column in a Norwegian Daily, writing reports about her life in Norway as well as a series of journal entries for CBC News on Sunday. Quite a jump from an obscure beginner to an international celebrity, isn’t it?

Moving from the press to the sound of music, we see many singers drawing the ire of Islamic religious authorities around the Muslim world. The spotlight sought out Abdullah Ruwaished, now a leading Kuwaiti pop singer, when a Saudi cleric issued a fatwa against him for insulting the Quran, by singing its opening chapter to music. The main Kuwaiti Islamic groups declared that fatwa illegal. Nevertheless Abdullah Ruwaished left Kuwait for the United States, enjoying his new found and stronger established fame. A Lebanese singer Aasi al-Hellani was banned because of allegations that he had sung verses from the Quran to music. In 1995, Marcel Khalife, a famous Christian Lebanese singer got his fatwa, also for allegedly insulting Islam, by singing a song called ‘Oh Father, I am Yusuf’. The song was based on a poem by the Palestinian poet and writer Mahmoud Darwish, and was inspired by the story of Yusuf (Joseph) and his brothers, quoting a verse from the Quran. Four years later a Lebanese court found Marcel Khalife innocent of blasphemy.

Two Pakistani singers (Akram Rahi and Naseebo Lal) became famous almost overnight and their song climbed the charts beyond their wildest expectations, just because the mullahs in Kashmir issued a fatwa against them. The song had one line in it saying that Allah has written the fate of man with a fragile pencil, which is what angered and drove the mullahs to waste their long years of theology studies to focus on semantics declaring that this was blasphemy and sacrilege. A frothing and foaming fatwa was issued a condemning the song and banning it. They even went so far as to appeal to the people to throw away the cassettes. But what was the result? After all that fuss and hoo-ha, the song has become even more popular than it already was.

Moving from the world of music to the silver screen, a particular film deserves a mention. “Submission” is the film that cost Theo van Gogh, the director, his life and left his corpse with a death threat against Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the scriptwriter, pinned to it by a knife. In an interview with ‘Der Spiegel’ Ayaan Hirsi Ali says: “I felt stunned. Only now has it become clear to me how concrete and deadly the threat is. But I also understood that this fatwa isn't just directed against me, but against Holland, against the entire Western world. Now that I've already been given the maximum sentence, at least I can act freely. If Islam is to develop peacefully, words or images will be necessary. Even radical Muslims have had access to the Internet and satellite television for a long time. We must have answers to this. In other words, there will be a "Submission II," and also a "Submission III."

Personally I did watch the film, which is said to deal with violence against women in Islamic societies. In it, four women, show their scarred, bruised, abused, naked bodies visible through a transparent veil and with verses from the Quran painted on them and get to tell their grisly stories. I found the movie to be shocking, but not for its intended message, but rather for its lack of taste and lopsided portrayal of local traditions being branded as Islamic rules. I wouldn’t even consider it art, but rather a cheap shot at a publicity stunt with pornographic content sold as a reforming wake-up call.

There are many more fatwas of the same ilk, for example the fatwa in the United Arab Emirates against the popular children's game Pokemon, because of fears that it promotes gambling. Saudi Arabia's mufti, the kingdom's highest religious authority, banned Pokemon cards completely. The Sheikh of Cairo's Al-Azhar University, one of the highest authorities in Sunni Islam, issued a fatwa saying that game shows offering big monetary prizes are legitimate, thereby contradicting an earlier fatwa by Egypt's Grand Mufti, stating that shows modelled on the British show “Who Wants to be a Millionaire” were un-Islamic, as offering large cash prizes was a form of gambling, and therefore contrary to Islamic law. The controversial US Arabic-language TV channel Alhurra is winning viewers as a news source in the Arab world despite rising anti-American feelings in the region, because a fatwa was issued against the channel in Saudi Arabia.

So where does this discussion leave us? Fatwas or religious edicts remain part of Islamic law and still have considerable influence on many Muslims. It really does not matter that many of these fatwas accomplish exactly the opposite of what they set out to achieve in the first place. Maybe the mullahs, muftis, sheikhs or Muslim clerics should really consider changing jobs and going into promotion, marketing or advertising. At end of the day, the fact that there is a fatwa against a book, a song, a movie or anything else is translated to “there is something to hide”. People being naturally curious, want to explore that hidden something and uncover it. All the fatwas mentioned here were more of successful publicity campaigns and sales boosters rather than deterrents. Perhaps if these mullahs join the sales teams of those wannabe ‘stars’ it could end up as a very lucrative avenue of revenue for them and much more rewarding than just issuing fatwas. After all the sales team gets a percentage of sales or a commission, while the various muftis sink into oblivion as soon as the fatwa is uttered and the ‘fatwa-recipient’ starts his / her remarkable rise into stardom.

Adjectivising Islam

2005-11-21T10:49:00.000+02:00

The other day I was reading a bit in the Quran and I stopped at a sura, namely: [3.67] Ibrahim was not a Jew nor a Christian but he was an upright man, a Muslim, and he was not one of the polytheists.

I started thinking. Ibrahim was way before Islam, but still he was called as a Muslim. It is just one word. Muslim! That was enough to encompass everything and include the whole lot of values and principles Islam was known for. Just one word; and it was good enough for him! It was also good enough for Mohamed and all the Sahaba. And it was sufficient. That lead me to think about all the different classifications and adjectives we have today defining, explaining or rather setting apart one Muslim from another. Any article we read in any newspaper today will definitely have a few adjectives before the word Muslim. I went back and checked a few on various newspapers and I ended up with a long list of those I found. I found a nice collection which I am listing here: rationalist, secularist, apologist, feminist, progressive, moderate, jihadist, militant, talebanist, islamist, liberal, modernist, fundamentalist, revivalist, ikhwangist, ijtihadist, mullahist, quranist, pluralist, reformist and activist.

I started thinking about it and trying out the sound of them, rolling them around. A rationalist Muslim is someone who relies on reason as the best guide for his beliefs and actions. Yes, true! But then so should a Muslim as per [13.3] And He it is Who spread the earth and made in it firm mountains and rivers, and of all fruits He has made in it two kinds; He makes the night cover the day; most surely there are signs in this for a people who reflect. As well as per: [3.190] Most surely in the creation of the heavens and the earth and the alternation of the night and the day there are signs for men who understand. So why the redundancy and repetition? Why the need to stress on the usage of the mind? An implicit defence perhaps?

A secularist Muslim is a bit of an oxymoron for me, since Islam is not just a religion but a way of life, but then again everyone is free to define themselves as they like. An apologist Muslim, is someone who would argue in defence of or to justify something. I never knew that Islam was under attack and needed to be defended. Kind of a funny adjective to choose really, if you ask me. I would think it would be used in inter-faith debates and then by the other side! I wouldn’t think a Muslim would describe himself as an apologist. Whatever does anyone like that feel the need to apologise for?

Then we also have a feminist Muslim. Usually this adjective has recently been used in conjunction with women writers advocating equal rights for women, or those who are interpreting or even re-interpreting the Quran with an emphasis on the Suras dealing with women and offering their perspective. I remember reading a book which claimed that the Prophet was the first feminist in the World, yet he was only called as a Muslim. Simply a Muslim.

Then we have the progressive Muslims, quite an impressive sounding adjective, yet a bit strange when applied to Islam. Progressive is to move forward and to advance in some positive direction, the dictionary told me. Yet Islam is a progressive religion in itself and adaptable to all times in all places for all the people. Why do they need to add this repetitive adjective? Is it perhaps because they are promoting modern values that were not really Islamic and need a cover for that? What then sets them apart from the modernist Muslims? The modernists are defined, again by the dictionary, as those deliberately departing from tradition and applying innovative ideas and practices. So I don’t really get the distinction between them and the progressive.

Then we have the moderate Muslims, who stay between reasonable limits, aren’t violent or excessive, but are defined by being temperate and calm. In my readings of the Quran, this is exactly how a Muslim should be, avoiding extremes and walking the middle path, which is said to be the best, so again it is a redundancy in terms. Perhaps the need for this one came about to distinguish them from the militant Muslims, who are aggressive fighters, combative and destructive. But then again this in itself contradicts Islam, so how can they call themselves Muslims in the first place and then use a contradictory and conflicting adjective to distinguish themselves?

What is the difference then between them and the jihadist Muslims? I thought about it and then came up with a possible explanation that the jihadists consider themselves freedom fighters and not rebels. They think they are fighting for the right side, but then again someone’s freedom fighter is someone else’s terrorist, depending on which side we are looking from. So where does that leave us with the adjectives? And what again distinguishes these two from the fundamentalist Muslims? The word fundamentalists formerly used to mean those who advocate a return to the fundamental core principles. Sadly today it means being intolerant and downright cruel to a great extent. So in today’s language there is not much difference between all of them, the fundamentalist or militant Muslims and the jihadists. But then why do we need three adjectives to describe more or less the same thing?

We also have the liberal Muslims, namely those who are not limited to traditional views as per definition. They are not strict nor do they take anything literal. Well, I thought about it and didn’t find that much difference between them and the progressive Muslims, who also don’t take the traditional views and do not restrict themselves to literal readings of the scriptures. So what distinguishes those then?

Then we have the revivalist Muslims, who promote the return to practices of earlier times. I suppose those have replaced the term fundamentalists, since that word has now acquired a negative connotation, but again there isn’t much difference between them. The ijtihadist Muslims promote ijtihad and innovations, totally disregarding the fact that ijtihad has rules and can’t be just engaged in by any Ahmed, Mohamed or Hussein. To do ijtihad, one has to have a solid background of the primary sources of Islamic law by means of studying them, namely the Quran, Hadith and the Sunna. The definition of ijtihad states clearly that the primary sources should be used to arrive at an interpretation. But today everybody who wants to promote something or other terms it as ijtihad, even if it clearly contradicts the primary sources. So in other words the ijtihadist Muslims are more or less progressive or modernist, as well as liberal, so why again do we need yet another adjective?

I shouldn’t forget the activists, who are also viewed by some as militant reformers, as they try to change things by the use of force or generally by forceful means. And I shouldn’t forget the pluralist Muslims either, those who, according to my dictionary, hold and defend philosophical views claiming that any existing phenomenon has no single explanation. In my own opinion, this is also an oxymoron, because as Muslims we are told [36.82] His command, when He intends anything, is only to say to it: Be, so it is. How can there be more than one reason or explanation?

I shall not get into the various adjectives relating to certain sects, because then this wouldn’t be an article but rather a book. The adjectives like ikhwangist, talebanist, wahhabist, alawist etc are self explanatory in any case and don’t really deserve more space here, which will only complicate things. So before I come to an end with my list I just have to mention the quranist Muslims. They are also called as Quran-Only Muslims. They do not take the various collections of Hadiths as a primary source and stick to the Quran. Many regard them as unbelievers. And this is why I saved the best for last, as it is the point which I want to address.

Don’t all these adjectives just create more differences between Muslims? Don’t they just create more reasons for the Muslims to fight amongst themselves? Don’t these differences result in each group using them to differentiate themselves from the others and set themselves apart? Don’t these adjectives just encourage each group to argue that their path is the better one? What happened to the feeling of an Ummah, where all Muslims are the same and belong together? Why do we need all those adjectives when they really serve no purpose other than to complicate things and when [29.11] And most certainly Allah will know those who believe and most certainly He will know the hypocrites. Why do we need all these distinctions when Islam is one religion as per [21.92] Surely this Islam is your religion, one religion (only), and I am your Lord, therefore serve Me. Isn’t it deeds rather than words which set the Muslims apart? [9.105] And say: Work; so Allah will see your work and (so will) His Apostle and the believers; and you shall be brought back to the Knower of the unseen and the seen, then He will inform you of what you did. Then why do we need so many words instead of focusing on the deeds that bring us together as Muslims rather than adjectivising Islam which will only set us apart? I know that I am a Muslim, and I am proud to be a Muslim, with no added adjective needed.

Theory versus Practice

2005-10-05T23:24:00.000+02:00

I was thinking about discrimination, which sadly is abundant in this day and age. Discrimination occurs for various reasons like colour, social standing, wealth, gender, health, education, ethnicity, religion, age, etc. Islam is strongly opposed to discrimination of any kind. We find many suras in the Quran which address the issue of discrimination and warn against it. Let us take a look at what Islam says in theory and what is practiced today.

Islam does not discriminate against women. The first believer was a woman, Khadija. She devoted herself and all what she possessed to this new faith. The third believer was also a woman, Fatma Bint As'as, the mother of Ali, the second Muslim, and it was a woman who converted Umar, the second of the four rightful Caliphs. Throughout the Quran, women have been addressed in equal terms. In fact it emphasises the equality of women and men. They may be different in nature, but that does not make one better than the other, just different. The Quran says: [4.1] O people! be careful of (your duty to) your Lord, Who created you from a single being and created its mate of the same (kind) and spread from these two, many men and women; and be careful of (your duty to) Allah, by Whom you demand one of another (your rights), and (to) the ties of relationship; surely Allah ever watches over you. Being created from a single being and being mates of the same kind negates any difference in value. Both are equal. There is no single criterion that differentiates between men and women, except their deeds in this world. [3.195] So their Lord accepted their prayer: That I will not waste the work of a worker among you, whether male or female, the one of you being from the other; they, therefore, who fled and were turned out of their homes and persecuted in My way and who fought and were slain, I will most certainly cover their evil deeds, and I will most certainly make them enter gardens beneath which rivers flow; a reward from Allah, and with Allah is yet better reward. So women are supposed to labour and work and strive and they will be rewarded, in the same way men are, that means that they play an equal role in society and are equally responsible. [33.72] Surely We offered the trust to the heavens and the earth and the mountains, but they refused to be unfaithful to it and feared from it, and man has turned unfaithful to it; surely he is unjust, ignorant; [33.73] So Allah will chastise the hypocritical men and the hypocritical women and the polytheistic men and the polytheistic women, and Allah will turn (mercifully) to the believing women, and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

The Quran goes even further and provides men and women with equal opportunities to collect rewards for the same deeds, in the same ways [33.35] Surely the men who submit and the women who submit, and the believing men and the believing women, and the obeying men and the obeying women, and the truthful men and the truthful women, and the patient men and the patient women and the humble men and the humble women, and the almsgiving men and the almsgiving women, and the fasting men and the fasting women, and the men who guard their private parts and the women who guard, and the men who remember Allah much and the women who remember-- Allah has prepared for them forgiveness and a mighty reward. So the Quran does not discriminate against women in any way, it is Muslims who do that and also Muslims who allow it. Islam is innocent of such discrimination and the results thereof. Perhaps these Muslims, both genders actually, those who discriminate and those who are discriminated against and allow it for whatever reason other than Islam, like tradition or society or customs, need to take a closer look at [33.36] And it behooves not a believing man and a believing woman that they should have any choice in their matter when Allah and His Apostle have decided a matter; and whoever disobeys Allah and His Apostle, he surely strays off a manifest straying. Islam is a far cry from what the mullahs of say the Taliban or the Islamic Republic of Iran would have us believe.

But it is not only discrimination due to gender that is practiced, but also due to religion and belief. Muslims brand others as non-believers. They reject the people of the book (Christian and Jews) as enemies, whereas the Quran says: [4.150] Surely those who disbelieve in Allah and His apostles and (those who) desire to make a distinction between Allah and His apostles and say: We believe in some and disbelieve in others, and desire to take a course between (this and) that. [4.151] These it is that are truly unbelievers, and We have prepared for the unbelievers a disgraceful chastisement. [4.152] And those who believe in Allah and His apostles and do not make a distinction between any of them-- Allah will grant them their rewards; and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. So all Prophets are equal and no distinction is made. Why then do Muslims discriminate against Christians, Jews, Hindus etc? Why do they discriminate against other Muslims with different beliefs from their own? We have seen too numerous fatal clashes between Shias and Sunnis, between both against Ahmadis and many others, whereas the Quran demands peace between the believers [49.10] The believers are but brethren, therefore make peace between your brethren and be careful of (your duty to) Allah that mercy may be had on you. Who can judge what these people have in their hearts? Whether their beliefs are right or wrong? They say they are Muslims, so why are they discriminated against? All believers are brothers, equal parts of the same faith and therefore should not be killing one another over faith questions [4.93] And whoever kills a believer intentionally, his punishment is hell; he shall abide in it, and Allah will send His wrath on him and curse him and prepare for him a painful chastisement.

Race, ethnicity and colour are other aspects of discrimination. And perhaps the saddest one of all, because the Quran tells us: [49.13] O you men! surely We have created you of a male and a female, and made you tribes and families that you may know each other; surely the most honourable of you with Allah is the one among you most careful (of his duty); surely Allah is Knowing, Aware. Differences in colour, tribes, race, ethnicity, or traditions are not to be used as excuses for unjust behaviour or treatment. We are all the same, of the same origin. The differences are there for a purpose, the purpose of identification and exchange, of learning and knowledge. The only difference that distinguishes humans is their degree of piety and the strength of their belief, which is only known to Allah.

During his final pilgrimage, the Prophet delivered his last sermon and made sure to remind the believers, all of the believers, of their equality despite their differences. He is reported to have said: 'O people listen carefully, your Lord is one Lord, there is no doubt about it. Your ancestor, is one ancestor, there is no doubt about it. Listen well to my words: no Arab has any superiority over a non-Arab, and no non-Arab is superior to an Arab. No black is superior to a brown or red, and no red superior to any black. If there is any superiority in anyone, it is due to his God-fearing qualities. Have I conveyed the message?' the Prophet asked the people. The people answered from all corners, 'Indeed so! God be witness.' Then the Prophet said: 'Let him that is present tell it unto him that is absent.' And yet the discrimination continues.

Another very despicable and vile form of discrimination is the one due to health, or rather lack thereof, namely the discrimination against people with special needs, with some form of disability or other. In Islam a disability is not a punishment, but is considered a test. Nevertheless the Quran says [2.286] Allah does not impose upon any soul a duty but to the extent of its ability; for it is (the benefit of) what it has earned and upon it (the evil of) what it has wrought: Our Lord! do not punish us if we forget or make a mistake; Our Lord! do not lay on us a burden as Thou didst lay on those before us, Our Lord do not impose upon us that which we have not the strength to bear; and pardon us and grant us protection and have mercy on us, Thou art our Patron, so help us against the unbelieving people. What matters in Islam is the heart and mind, but not any other body part. Disabled persons are relieved from many a duty and arduous ritual. Most duties and rituals are asked of able people with sound minds. Muslims are instructed to treat disabled people with mercy and compassion [48.17] There is no harm in the blind, nor is there any harm in the lame, nor is there any harm in the sick (if they do not go forth); and whoever obeys Allah and His Apostle, He will cause him to enter gardens beneath which rivers flow, and whoever turns back, He will punish him with a painful punishment.

The Prophet himself was chastised in the Quran for being short-tempered with Abdullah ibn Umm Maktum, who was blind, but still among the first to accept Islam. He was so eager to memorise the Quran that sometimes he seemed to be trying to control all of the Prophet’s attention. The reason for the chastisement came about because the Prophet was conversing with a group of notables from Mecca trying to invite them to join Islam. Abdullah barged in and requested a certain verse of the Quran to be told to him, so he could memorise it. The Prophet frowned and turned away from him because of the interruption and an entire Sura was revealed to address this issue, the Sura of Abasa [80] to remind Muslims not to be short with disability, to show mercy, patience and compassion. On a different note, Abdullah is remembered today, not for his disability but for his bravery. Despite being exempted from fighting and going to war due to his disability, he still insisted on finding a role for himself to participate. He asked the Prophet to allow him a place on the battle field and said: “Place me between two rows and give me the standard. I will carry it for you and protect it, for I am blind and cannot run away.” He died the death of a shaheed protecting the flag and is now remembered for his bravery, not his blindness.

And another form of discrimination is the one due to age. In this busy competitive world, the elderly are not taken care of as they used to be a few hundred years ago. People get busy and some immigrate to other countries in search of better economic conditions and the elderly are left alone to tend for themselves. In the Middle East and South East Asia the idea of homes for the elderly has not been implemented like it has been in Europe and America, so many of these elderly people are left alone and lonely, not being able to really look after themselves. It is perhaps the most selfish form of discrimination practiced and stands opposed to what the Quran asks of us: [31.14] And We have enjoined man in respect of his parents-- his mother bears him with faintings upon faintings and his weaning takes two years-- saying: Be grateful to Me and to both your parents; to Me is the eventual coming.

One of the gravest sins in the Quran, second only to shirk (associating partners with Allah), is zulm (oppression, injustice). The Quran and the Sunnah are replete with texts and examples describing zulm in all forms as the most abominable of all sins. [22.71] And they serve besides Allah that for which He has not sent any authority, and that of which they have no knowledge; and for the unjust there shall be no helper. As well as [40.18] And warn them of the day that draws near, when hearts shall rise up to the throats, grieving inwardly; the unjust shall not have any compassionate friend nor any intercessor who should be obeyed. But this still doesn’t stop the discrimination against servants at home or hired help in the house. We hear horror stories about how foreign servants are treated in Saudi Arabia. When the Prophet saw one of his Companions treating his servant roughly, the Prophet said, “They are your brothers whom Allah has entrusted to your care; so be careful how you treat them. Remember, Allah has power over both of you!” What would the Prophet have told all those families abusing their servants today?

Sura [9.91] says: It shall be no crime in the weak, nor in the sick, nor in those who do not find what they should spend (to stay behind), so long as they are sincere to Allah and His Apostle; there is no way (to blame) against the doers of good; and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful; and this clearly shows that ALL are equal in front of Allah, regardless of their strength, health, wealth or any other criterion. The only thing that matters is their sincerity and what is in their hearts.

Although the world today tends to view Islam in terms of schools and creeds, I believe that there is a much more fundamental conflict. It is between those who cling to the literal letter without applying their minds and compassion and those who stress inner values, the understated Islamic ones, now almost forgotten in the changing world of Islam. I do hope that we go back to the word of Allah and apply it using our hearts and try to fight all those different forms of discrimination.

Standing Alone ....

2005-08-03T10:43:00.000+03:00

The first time I ever heard the name Asra Nomani was in a yahoo discussion group. It was in the context of her Islamic Bill of Rights for Women in the Mosques. And as I read her 10 points I felt that here is one woman, who is finally doing something for the rest of the women and trying to ascertain their rights. The discussion on the newsgroup was very heated and it was mainly about her other Islamic Bill of Rights for Women, this time in the bedroom. I looked at the 10 points and though I could relate to some, others left me wondering, while one made me angry. She doesn't supply the quranic basis for this bill of rights and her wording is ambiguous enough for me not to take it at face value.

The discussion extended to her book “Standing Alone in Mecca: An American Woman's Struggle for the Soul of Islam” and I am afraid there was no grey area here. People either loved her book or hated it. There was no in-between. I became very curious and wanted to judge for myself. The first step was to look at her official website and to read a few excerpts from the book and reviews. I was struck by the fact that all reviews online were very favourable and all praise and admiration. Where were some of the negative samples I saw in my discussion group to present both sides? Wouldn’t that have given a more balanced picture and shown honesty and decency of the author?

Something else struck me about the website, the desperate need of the author to liken herself to the great women in history in a very transparent and in my opinion a rather undignified way, great women in pre-Islamic time as well as after Islam. I felt that she had some axe to grind and was suffering from a massive attack of some kind of insecurity, perhaps about her being an "un-wed" mother. Before jumping to any more conclusions I decided to buy and read the book, so I could make up my mind whether she was indeed an enlightened courageous leader as many praised her to be, or just an insecure ignorant opportunistic woman with her own hidden agenda as others accused her of.

I started reading the book. In fact I read it twice. Once just reading it and once seriously paying attention to every word, almost like an editor. And I must admit that it left me completely split. I still couldn’t make up my mind whether to clap for her and cheer enthusiastically or to shake my head and sigh. Even now I am still split.

I was impressed with certain parts, her honesty about her own experience, her frankness about her own thoughts and feelings, her courage in taking up the fight for her right to pray in the mosque, opening the way for other women to follow. I was especially impressed with her bluntness about her feelings of self-hate and self-loathing. It takes a lot of courage for a person to write so openly condemning one’s self.

In quite a few ways I could identify with her. Being the result of a mixed marriage between a European Christian mother and a Muslim Arab father, I could relate with her own identity crisis, the feeling of being torn between two cultures and sometimes belonging to neither one. I suffered from that for a long time and went on my own quest reading about different religions and trying to find my own path, till I found it at some point and chose to be a Muslim wholeheartedly and not just in name, without any coercion. My family has long been active as Islamists and my grandfather published an encyclopedia of Islam. My uncle was declared a heretic by the fundamentalists for his reformist book "The Sad Muslim's Guide', so I could relate to her fears as well. In fact, I could relate to other issues as well, but this is not about me, so back to Ms. Asra Nomani and her controversial book.

When I first started reading the book, a sentence in the preface struck me: "This book is a manifesto of the rights of women based on the true faith of Islam.” I felt quite hopeful and encouraged that an American Muslim woman would adhere to the “true faith of Islam”, especially that the rights granted to women by Islam seem to have gotten lost down the ages. But the more I read, the more I felt that maybe this “true faith of Islam” needed a definition first. True faith according to whom? True faith by whose standards and rules? By which classification?

On page 20, talking about hudud laws, Ms. Nomani writes: “To me these laws emblemized a deeper crisis of self-determination for women in Islam. Women in Islam are so very much defined by hudud. These hudud are used to control everything about our lives, from our sexuality to where we can pray in the mosque that are our places of worship. By other names, these types of boundaries have also defined women throughout time in other cultures and religions, including Judaism and Christianity. So often religion is used to impose boundaries that ultimately deny women rights that have now been articulated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: the right to self-determination, the right over our bodies, the right to travel freely.” I started wondering about what happened to using the tools of the true faith of Islam? Was the declaration of human rights Islamic then? I am not a fan of hudud laws myself, and the way they are practiced in this day and age is not even Islamic, actually far from it, but that was a contradiction, one of many I found while reading the book and which left me a bit uncomfortable about her motives to say the least.

On page 25, Asra writes: “According to the rulebook of Islam and most of the other religions, I had sinned. I had broken the moral code of my religion.” This came as a surprise to me; I mean this proves that even for Ms. Asra Nomani zina is a sin after all? Then how come she wants to advocate it as in the women’s bill of rights in the bedroom, where she says in Point 8: “Women have an Islamic right to exemption from criminalization or punishment for consensual adult sex.” I mean according to the “true faith of Islam” consent is not enough as a criteria, there needs to be a marriage contract which fulfils certain rules, or perhaps I am using a different criteria?

Further down on page 25 she writes: “I had started reading about a woman named Hajar. She was one of the few hits I got when I did a Google search of “Islam and single mother.” That threw me a bit. Are we equating Hajar here with a zaniyah? Or am I misunderstanding the definition of single mother? It again revived the feeling I had while reading the website, the desperate attempt of Ms. Nomani to liken herself with the historical female figures. Why is she so desperately trying to compare herself to all these women, when there is no comparison? She calls Hajar as well as the prophet's mother as "single mothers", and even Ms. Amina Wadoud does not escape this comparison for on page 203 she is introduced as: “She was a single mother and a Muslim feminist." What does this have to do with anything? One was a widow, the other an abandonned wife, the third maybe divorced? Why do these honourable female figures end up being compared when this comparison is neither needed nor fair? What gain could be made from this comparison? What was the purpose?

I started getting a strange feeling the more I read. This “true faith” seemed to be rather selective and perhaps restricted to what Ms. Nomani believed to be essential or true. On page 39 she writes: “Still, I washed myself before prayers, if not with conviction about the necessity or even the symbolism of the rite.” Uhmmm, necessity? I thought the Quran was the rulebook, even Ms. Asra Nomani’s rulebook, just like everyone else who calls himself a Muslim. So what happened to: [5.6] O you who believe! when you rise up to prayer, wash your faces and your hands as far as the elbows, and wipe your heads and your feet to the ankles; and if you are under an obligation to perform a total ablution, then wash (yourselves) and if you are sick or on a journey, or one of you come from the privy, or you have touched the women, and you cannot find water, betake yourselves to pure earth and wipe your faces and your hands therewith, Allah does not desire to put on you any difficulty, but He wishes to purify you and that He may complete His favor on you, so that you may be grateful. Here it clearly defines that this is necessary before prayers.

On page 49 I read: “We passed the sign that marked our entry into this sacred zone. Haram Boundary, it read. For me haram, which means forbidden, has a negative connotation.” I could excuse this mistake, for after all Arabic is not her native tongue, so she wouldn’t know that this was a wrong translation, because the word harram is sacred and haram is forbidden or sinful. They are both rather close in transliteration, and have the same root, so her ignorance of Arabic is affecting her here. But then again as an author, one has the moral obligation to supply correct and accurate information, so it would have been easy to check that out. There are online dictionaries, there are translators and I am sure there are many native Arabic speakers even in Morgantown, in the foothills of West Virginia.

I think that she tries to explain or perhaps even excuse that on page 50 saying: “Arabic isn’t my language, and I don’t subscribe to the logic of those who want to declare Arabic the language of all Muslims. Many Muslims think that Arabic is the language of God.” Be that as it may, it is too bad really, for the Quran itself is in Arabic and there is nothing one can do about that. Nobody said that Arabic is the language of God, but fact remains that it is the language of the book:

[12.2] Surely We have revealed it-- an Arabic Quran-- that you may understand.

[13.37] And thus have We revealed it, a true judgment in Arabic, and if you follow their low desires after what has come to you of knowledge, you shall not have against Allah any guardian or a protector.

[20.113] And thus have We sent it down an Arabic Quran, and have distinctly set forth therein of threats that they may guard (against evil) or that it may produce a reminder for them.

[26.195] In plain Arabic language.

[41.3] A Book of which the verses are made plain, an Arabic Quran for a people who know

[43.3] Surely We have made it an Arabic Quran that you may understand.

I know that there are many people, who don't like the fact that Arabic is given what they think a priority, specially when dealing with the Quran, but translations do weaken some of the nuances. Perhaps I will write a blog entry on that at some point.

Again we have a wrong translation on page 53: “Labayk (Here I come!)" Unfortunately labayk is not really here I come, the real meaning is “at your service” literally “answering your call” or “obeying”.

On page 57 I was startled to read: “This was the point that marked the beginning of each round of the tawaf, and this was where we were supposed to do a ritual called istislam – kissing the Ka’bah, touching it, or simply facing it to honor its divine history.” Which haj manual is she using here? Perhaps one coloured with local traditions rather than required steps? Kissing and touching it? I know that this is forbidden in Islam, or are we both on two different religions here or what? What about this sura then that even at the times of Ibrahim it was said [14.35] “And when Ibrahim said: My Lord! make this city secure, and save me and my sons from worshipping idols.” More and more I was beginning to feel that Ms. Nomani was talking about a different Islam from the one I grew up with, studied and believed in, an Islam, perhaps coloured with some local traditions she inherited from her Indian roots.

On page 58 she writes: “The frenzy was not very different from the rush that filled the air when I’d watched Buddhist pilgrims stampede the stairs of the Ki Monastery in the Himalayan mountains of India just to set their eyes on a holy mandala, a circular creation of geometric designs that symbolize a blessed circle of protection. When I closed my eyes, I could see the dust storm kicked up by two hundred naked Hindu yogis, called naga babas, as they bolted for their holy ritual bathing in the Ganges river during the Maha Kumbha Mela. It was the same devotion that sent Jews and Christians to their pilgrimage sites. I had to admit that I didn’t feel the surrender to my faith that I was told I should feel at a moment like that. I somehow wished that I could be like them. But I wasn’t.” I don’t know, but here I felt that she was a journalist reporting, rather than a member of the faith participating in one of the most important rituals required. The only thing that came to my mind here is from the Quran: [4.142] “Surely the hypocrites strive to deceive Allah, and He shall requite their deceit to them, and when they stand up to prayer they stand up sluggishly; they do it only to be seen of men and do not remember Allah save a little.”

Then on pages 59 & 60 she writes: “Like most religions, Islam came from a pagan tradition that revered the power of a feminine divine. I had learned this while studying Tantra, a philosophy rooted in goddess worship. From Egypt to Babylonia, Greece, Rome, Asia, Africa and the ancient cultures of the Americas, ancient people related to God in feminine as well as masculine terms. Some Jewish scholars and followers of the Kabbalah Jewish spiritual tradition even believe that Yahweh, the Hebrew God, can be traced to a goddess, Shekhina. Some historians say it is very likely that the Ka’bah was originally a source of astral worship, a common theme in goddess traditions. The symbol of Islam in the modern day – a crescent and star – captures the spirit of that early devotion to the heavens.” I seem to have lost it a bit here, how can Islam come from a pagan tradition, when the Quran says about 216 times that it was revealed, hereby stating implicitly and explicitly that it is the word of God and his will and not some pagan tradition which has evolved. I mean what about this: [2.136] Say: We believe in Allah and (in) that which had been revealed to us, and (in) that which was revealed to Ibrahim and Ismail and Ishaq and Yaqoub and the tribes, and (in) that which was given to Musa and Isa, and (in) that which was given to the prophets from their Lord, we do not make any distinction between any of them, and to Him do we submit. Not just that, but if anybody wants to draw some line of development then one should be using this Sura: [3.84] Say: We believe in Allah and what has been revealed to us, and what was revealed to Ibrahim and Ismail and Ishaq and Yaqoub and the tribes, and what was given to Musa and Isa and to the prophets from their Lord; we do not make any distinction between any of them, and to Him do we submit. Ibrahim has an entire passage in a Sura, describing how he faught against paganism, and even if there is no 'book' revealed to Ibrahim as such, the Quran tells us what was or wasn't revealed to him. Maybe a blog entry about that would be in order one day.

Again on page 60 Asra rewrites history: “In Islamic history, Abraham married her as a second wife, a co-wife. Unable to have a child, Sarah told Abraham to have sex with Hajar so that he could have a child, making her an early surrogate mother.” I know that authors do write what comes to their mind and that fiction is an acceptable genre, but I always thought that authors had a moral obligation to state facts and research their information properly before claiming something or other. I thought that authors needed to verify their statements, unless they were stating their own opinions and maybe views, which should be preceeded by words like "in my opinion", or "I believe", but with history it is a bit different isn’t it? History can be looked up and researched. In this case I need to know just what Islamic history is she reading here? And since when did Ibrahim take orders from anyone but Allah? And isn't Abraham the Jewish name, while Muslims call him Ibrahim? Weren't we asked not confuse him? [2.140] Nay! do you say that Ibrahim and Ismail and Yaqoub and the tribes were Jews or Christians? Say: Are you better knowing or Allah? And who is more unjust than he who conceals a testimony that he has from Allah? And Allah is not at all heedless of what you do.

On page 61, speaking about Hajar and Sarah, Ms Nomani writes:“The Quran doesn’t speak about this rivalry, but maybe God could predict what would happen next in the story, having after all created human nature. Jealous of Hajar, Sarah ordered Ibrahim to banish the servant to the desert. Abraham complied.” Sighs, first of all Hajar was not his servant but his wife, a second wife, but nevertheless still a wife, as Ms. Nomani says herself on page 60. I sense a mix up here between Islam and Judaism. And what is this “maybe God could predict”? Isn’t it: [36.82] His command, when He intends anything, is only to say to it: Be, so it is. And he is all-knowing.

On page 61 Ms Nomani writes: “In the Quran Hajar made the choice to accept Abraham’s decision. She could have clung to him. Instead she chose to turn her back on Abraham and walk away from him.” I don’t know which Quran Ms. Asra is quoting here? The Quran I read has no mention of Hajar whatsoever. And even Ms. Nomani knows that, because on page 62 she writes: “Hajar should have had a revered place in Islam. Instead, even her choice of bride for the son she raised was rejected. She is not mentioned by name in the Quran.” This makes me therefore wonder how then does Ms Nomani know so much about Hajar’s choice or lack therof? Where did she come up with the statement from before? Perhaps I should do a blog entry on the 'real' story of Hajar one day.

On page 64 we find another one of the Arabic mis-translations: “This run is called sa’y or “struggle. To represent the struggle we all endure over faith and life.” Struggle is jihad and sa’y is literally a mission or an undertaking.

And again another mis-translation on page 65: “Dawah means to educate others about Islam”, because dawah literally is an invitation. Maybe Urdu rather than Arabic affects this point a bit?

Again on page 66 she returns to the subject and writes speaking about Hajar “I had made a choice, like her, to raise my son alone, contrary to the traditions of our cultures.” I was beginning to get a bit annoyed with this constant harping on the 'imaginary' similarities between them for Hajar was a wife and Ismail was no ‘bastard’, furthermore Hajar had no choice. And frankly speaking neither did Ms Asra Nomani. She didn’t make the choice, her boyfriend made it for her and dumped her, so what real choice was there?

On page 67 still speaking about Hajar she writes: “.. but maybe this young woman was merely seeking legitimacy from the father of her child. These days her sa’y could have been a lifetime of the night shift behind the cash register of the local 7-11, supporting herself and her baby.” I must have missed something somewhere. Just who ever said that Ismail was not legitimate? Maybe in Judaism Hajar is just a concubine or servant, but in Islam she isn't, she is a wife, which makes her offspring legitimate. And why in Allah’s name would anyone say that? Ismail is given the same rank in Islam like Ishaq and even Ibrahim himself: [2.133] Nay! were you witnesses when death visited Yaqoub, when he said to his sons: What will you serve after me? They said: We will serve your God and the God of your fathers, Ibrahim and Ismail and Ishaq, one God only, and to Him do we submit.

Sighs heavily, the more I read, the more I became convinced that we are talking about two different religions here. On page 74 she writes: “At the end of the second rak’ah of this prayer, as in the final rak’ah of all prayers, we sat and said another required chapter. During this chapter we raised our index finger while we said a particular part of a chapter that captures the shahada, or testimony of Islamic faith.” I am not a scholar of Islam, but I know about the “tashahud” it is not a chapter of the Quran at all, it comes from the Sunna, but definitely not from the Quran. Actually it is reported that it was the dialogue, which took place between Prophet Mohamed and the angels during the ascension at the night of Isra'a and Miraj.

On page 82 Asra writes speaking about the prophet’s mother: “Although the history books don’t cast her this way, his mother, Amina, entered motherhood as a single mother.” Sadly she was not Amina, she was Amna Bint Wahb bin Abd-el-Munaf and she was a widow, not a single mother. No wonder the history books don't cast her that way, simply because historian do not have this fixation. In my opinion, this obsession with turning every woman of some meaning in Islam to a single mother is starting to become a bit pathetic now.

On page page 100 Ms Nomani writes: “Today nearly half of the Islamic jurisprudence of the Hanafi school of thought, which is followed by 70% of Muslims, is based on the theology and jurisprudence communicated by Aisha to her students.” Ummm, I can only ask oh really? And since when was it 70%, perhaps this is the case in Pakistan or India, the native land of Ms. Nomani, but certainly that is not the case in the Middle East. Perhaps we need to see some evidence of that? Perhaps figures published in a study or something close to that? What is the source of this figure or is it just an assumption? I will look into that myself and perhaps try and find something to prove or disprove it.

On page 101 Ms. Nomani again rewrites history: “After the prophet’s death, Aisha’s brother, Abdullah bin Umar, a leading companion of the prophet and a son of Umar bin al-Khattab, the second caliph of Islam, reprimanded his son for trying to prevent women from going to the mosque.” I am sorry, but either she means Hafsa, daughter of Umar and also a wife of the prophet and sister of Abdullah, or she has no clue what she is talking about, or has a bad editor, since Aisha’s father was Abu Bakr.

On page 123 Asra asks a question: “When I became sexually active, I began to understand the power of sex, but I didn’t see why we attach stigma to adults having sexual relations.” I am not sure whether she really doesn’t know the answer to that, which would simply be because Sura [4.24] Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess: Thus hath Allah ordained (Prohibitions) against you: Except for these, all others are lawful, provided ye seek (them in marriage) with gifts from your property,- desiring chastity, not lust, seeing that ye derive benefit from them, give them their dowers (at least) as prescribed; but if, after a dower is prescribed, agree Mutually (to vary it), there is no blame on you, and Allah is All-knowing, All-wise” tells us to have sex only in marriage??

Again on page 124 Ms. Nomani writes: “I felt the pressure of the weight I carried on my back for the sin of having had sex as a single woman. According to the sheikh’s logic, with the hajj I would become a reborn virgin. Did I need that in order to feel good about myself? To feel pure? To feel worthy?” Another contradiction? So having sex out of wedlock is a sin? Furthermore I was taught that Haj was one of the pillars and not to be performed to feel pure and worthy or did I miss something here? Furthermore there is nothing that says "a reborn virgin", all it says is that all previous sins will be erased or forgiven.

On page 125 Ms Nomani writes: “And the Quran speaks eloquently about the concept of sacred sexuality between husband and wife.” I have read the Quran numerous times, and I am sure I read it with concentration, but I seriously cannot recall anything descriptive about the sexuality of a married couple. Where? Maybe Ms. Nomani’s first book “Tantrika” coloured her writing here? I would certainly like to read those passages of the Quran. In my understanding, marriage as such is spoken about, but not so much the sexual part of it other than perhaps define certain rules. Maybe some day I will write a post about that.

On page 128 she writes: “The story of Eve underscores the issues of sin and redemption that Muslim women face in a religion that defines every aspect of their lives, from the way they dress to how the have sex.” I don’t know where she gets this from, because Islam is the only religion that makes Eve and Adam equal in the sin of disobeying and eating the apple. Furthermore it is not the HOW to have sex that is defined, but the with WHOM rather, which Asra Nomani seems to be missing all the time.

I am not really sure where Ms. Nomani gets her knowledge about Islam and the Quran from. On page 135 she writes: “There was one jinn that we were particularly supposed to fear: Iblis.” Since when is Iblis a jinn? What happened to: [2.34] And when We said to the angels: Make obeisance to Adam they did obeisance, but Iblis (did it not). He refused and he was proud, and he was one of the unbelievers. Even Christianity calls him a 'fallen angel'.

I couldn’t even find a suitable comment for what I read on page 137: “talking about stoning the shaitan ritual or rajm “Samir saw the shape of the Washington Monument in the stone pillars. I saw giant phallic symbols rising to the sky.” Bit of a one-track mind here? Aren't believers supposed to be concentrating on the spiritual aspect of Haj, on being closer to Allah? Then people laugh about comments that are made about mixed gender prayers, saying that a raised female butt would distract the praying men. Double standards? If prayer and Haj are performed correctly, then the only thing people would concentrate on would be their rituals and nothing else.

On page 144 Ms Nomani writes: “According to the rituals of Islam, we hadn’t completed the hajj, because my family, for safety reasons, didn’t do the final circumambulation of the Ka’bah. I had to think about what complete means. There were actually 2 relevant concepts of completedness to think about – the physical and the spiritual. I didn’t think about the former : though I felt uneasy about not physically completing the hajj, I knew I was doing the right thing for my niece, my nephew and my son. To me, spiritual completion was more important.” Are we now haggling about haj? Why doesn’t she just start a new sect, the Nomanis or something and defines her own rules instead of bending the “true faith of Islam” like that, the one she stated in the prologue she was going to use.

I couldn’t help but chuckle when I read on page 150: “My honor as an author was that my book would be tucked in alphabetical order in the autiobiography section at Barnes & Noble between Queen Nour’s autobiography and Azhar Nafisi;s “reading Lolita in Tehran.” What about the author’s responsibility to accurate research and supplying the truth to the readers? Wouldn’t that contribute more to this so-called sense of honour??

I found another bit very amusing, namely what she wrote on page 167 writing about her fear of a fatwa: “I braced myself with the only weapon I had : knowledge.” I couldn’t help but ask if rewriting the Quran as well as history and the Sira of Prophet Muhamed can at all be called knowledge? It is not a shame not to know, but for me it is a shame not to know and then to state things as if they were facts without going through the pains of verifying any information one is not sure of.

On page 169 Ms Nomani writes: “To punish mothers seemed to me to be not only cruel but a violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states in Article 25, section 2: “Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.” From what I know about Sharia as well as hudud laws, to punish a zaniyah there has to be a certain detailly stated proof. The proof should be supplied by four adult male witnesses. Furthermore there is more to it than even seeing it happen, there is further needed proof using a human hair to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that there was a 'penetration', but I digress. Nowhere have I seen anything about punishing the child. Furthermore did she not say that she uses the Quran and the true faith of Islam? Since when was the Declaration of Human Rights quranic? What did I miss? If she is going to use the declaration of human rights, then she should change the statements about using the tools of the true faith. Perhaps one day I will make a comparison between the declaration of human rights and what is stated in the Quran, regardless of what the followers practice and post it on my blog.

On page 171 Ms Nomani writes: “It seemed obvious to me that zina laws are not a humane, fair or judicious response to social realities. Because it is difficult to find the 4 witnesses required by the Quran to prosecute zina, the men are usually released. Pregnancy, however, is telling, so pregnant mothers are imprisoned even though majority shia opinion concludes that pregnancy is circumstantial evidence.” I think that Ms. Nomani is making a big mistake here equating the hudud laws for zina as revealed in the Quran, to the practiced (patriarchial) ways of mankind. In my personal opinion, from what I have read and studied in Sharia and Fiqh, I firmly believe that the hudud laws regarding zina were revealed as a deterrent rather than to be followed literally. I mean using common sense and logic one would think that having a sexual experience, specially an illegal one, would happen in private and would not happen in front of witnesses, four adult male witnesses at that. Say those witnesses walk in suddenly, seeing it still does not constitute proof. There is further proof required, namely that of passing a human hair between both bodies to proove an actual penetration. I have not heard ore read of any man able to sustain an erection in cases of extreme stress or fear. So I believe firmly that Allah is indeed merciful and forgiving, because when one thinks about it logically there just can be no proof furnished according to these guidelines. Furthermore according to the Quran [4.15] And as for those who are guilty of an indecency from among your women, call to witnesses against them four (witnesses) from among you; then if they bear witness confine them to the houses until death takes them away or Allah opens some way for them so even in the unlikely even that proof can be supplied, this does not mean to kill these women or stone them to death. Who wants to keep a decaying corpse at home? Doesn’t the Sura explicitly ask to confine the guilty parties to their houses? Then we also have two other Suras saying: [24.2] (As for) the fornicatress and the fornicator, flog each of them, (giving) a hundred stripes, and let not pity for them detain you in the matter of obedience to Allah, if you believe in Allah and the last day, and let a party of believers witness their chastisement.[24.3] The fornicator shall not marry any but a fornicatress or idolatress, and (as for) the fornicatress, none shall marry her but a fornicator or an idolater; and it is forbidden to the believers.There is a huge difference between the words of the Quran and the practices of mankind today. I think one should make that distinction. I know that religion is judged by the way the followers behave, but that should not be the case. I don’t think it is right or even fair to judge using malpractice.

On page 176 Ms Nomani writes: “My experience with Buddhism and Hinduism didn’t leave me believing in many gods and goddesses. Instead, the way I looked at it, they had simply deified the many expressions of one divine force. Islam, after all, has 99 names for Allah.” Perhaps my logic is flawed, but no matter how much I try, I still fail to see the connection here. Names are one thing, but gods and their images or manifestation as idols is a totally different issue. Names are labels, just a different way to identify the same, after all: [112.1] Say: He, Allah, is One.”

On page 183 I was very surprised to read: “In one corner was Aisha, the young and favored wife of the prophet. Her father was Abu Bakr, an elder statesman. After the prophet died in 632, his companions sided with Aisha and elected Abu Bakr the first caliph of Islam. The line of caliphs starting with Abu Bakr had the allegiance of people who later became the roots of the Sunni sect, the majority of believers in Islam. Ismaili Muslims, on the other hand, as part of the minority sect of Islam called Shi’a, believe that the first rightful caliph of Islam should have been Ali, the husband of Fatima, the prophet Muhammad’s daughter and his only child to survive infancy… Although she lost the battle over succession, Fatima became the namesake for the Fatimid line of caliphs, which traces its lineage to her and Ali.” Apart from the fact that this is a completely new reading of how the shia and sunni chasm came to be and it being attributed to merely a power struggle between two jealous females, regardless of their position in the Prophet’s household, namely Fatima and Aisha, I am afraid that Ms. Nomani missed three daughters of the prophet here. All three, Zainab, Um Kalthoum as well as Ruqaya survived infancy and two of them even married the same man, Uthman Ibn Affan who was therefore given the title ‘Dhun Nurayn’, which literally means 'the possessor of two lights'. Maybe one day I will write a post on the rivalry between Aisha and Fatima. Gosh, I should really be grateful for Ms. Nomani for giving me so many topics to write about.

On page 189 I read: “As Shibli grew, I didn’t really know if I believed enough in my faith to initiate Shibli into it. After all, some Muslims invoked Islam to label me a criminal. For that reason, I couldn’t throw a naming ceremony, called the aqeeqa, which Muslim parents usually host for the Muslim community days after a baby’s birth.” I found this statement a bit hard to swallow. The reason was not the aqeeqa ceremony, which in my understanding is more local tradition than an Islamic ritual, even though the Prophet shaved his grandson Hussain's head seven days after his birth and gave the weight of his hair in silver as charity for him, but the statement that she was not sure if she believed enough in her own faith, yet embarked on a journey to fight for the rights of the women granted by that faith. What does that say about the motives of Ms. Nomani? This made me question a lot of things I read in her book; after all she started off the book wanting to defend the rights of women according to the true faith. Now it all looked different. It seems to me now, after reading thus far in the book, that Ms Nomani is not really on any journey other than perhaps one to find herself and to perhaps understand where she fits into the greater scheme of things. I started feeling very sorry for her and a quote by Eleanor Roosevelt came to my mind: “No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.” For someone writing that she feels no guilt and no shame, she is just defending herself too hard. Maybe her biggest accusation comes from within herself.

On page 204 Ms. Nomani writes: “Salafi is an ideology related to Wahabism. Its proponents fancy themselves as pioneer, the literal meaning of Salafi.” Sadly this is another one of the wrong translations, because salafi comes from aslaf and those are the forefathers or the grandfathers so to speak, so literally salafi means founders.

And another wrong translation happens again on page 217 where Ms. Nomani writes: “awrah [forbidden] and fitnah [conflict]”, both again are wrong translations from Arabic, where going back to the root of the word awrah literally is nakedness or that which needs to be hidden and fitnah is not conflict but desire.

What I read on page 223 left me a bit speechless: “I closed my eyes to meditate. In the midst of troubles, the prophet Muhammad had gone within himself to find a divine answer. I could at least seek out human insight.” And I am still not really able to put my feelings about this sentence into words, because I am hoping that I misread it. In any case, who am I to judge, after all only Allah knows what is in the hearts of everyone: [64.4] He knows what is in the heavens and the earth, and He knows what you hide and what you manifest;and Allah is Cognizant of what is in the hearts.

On page 249 Ms. Nomani writes: “For all of the judgement against Muslim women who have premarital sex, how many men do as well? For all of the judgement against Muslim women as sexual beings, how many Muslim men have affairs or use polygamy, temporary-marriages and other forms of religious cover to get extra action in the bedroom?” I can’t help but ask when do two wrongs make a right? Aren’t we asked explicitly to adhere to a certain behavioural norm? What does this have to do with others following it or not? Do Muslims measure themselves by the behaviour of other Muslims or other people of different faiths even? Since when was religion a comparison or a competition?

This very same concept came up again on page 262, where she writes: “That’s in the Quran he insisted. But it wasn’t. It was just in his interpretation of the Quran.” So if some people misinterpret the Quran, does this give anybody the right then to re-interpret it as he/she pleases? To sort of implicitly advocate that consent is all that is required for any sexual relationship between adults?

If what she writes on page 281 is true: “We are trying to question defective doctrine from a perspective based on the Quran, the traditions of the prophet and ijtihad.”, then how come the bill or rights for Muslim women in the bedroom seems to be advocating zina?

Ijtihad is a term used for Islamic law and means the process of making a legal decision by independent interpretation of the primary sources of the law, namely the Quran, Hadith and the Sunna, without relying on the views of other scholars. The opposite of ijtihad is taqleed, imitation. The person who applies ijtihad, the mujtahid, must be a scholar of Islamic law. I am not sure whether Ms. Nomani qualifies as a scholar of Islamic law or not, I know that I don't, but the definition of ijtihad states clearly that the primary sources should be used to arrive at an interpretation. I do not think that taking the opposite point of view to something that is clearly stated in the Quran can be acceptable , not even as an ijtihad.

Apart from all the mistakes in historical facts, religious points, linguistic issues or matters of translation, there were the contradictions in her very own biography. On page 20 she writes: "He arrived at night, and I took him to my bedroom.”I am carrying your baby," I told him, sitting on the edge of my bed. He looked at me stunned. In a pause that I filled with so many dreams, he sucked his breath in hard and said, "I have to go." The truth revealed itself. He didn't want me to keep the baby, and all of his fanciful talk about marrying me disappeared." So far so good, but then later on she writes on page 67: "10 years later I chose to leave the father of my baby after it became clear that the relationship would be unfulfilling and tumultuous." Then later on page 124 she writes: "I wanted to free myself from my self-loathing over the errors in judgement that had led me to love and trust a man who left me hurt, sad and alone." Then yet again on page 173: "Harris interrupted me. "What? He abandoned you?" I stammered. I realized how uncomfortable I was admitting the truth. "Well - you want to - you don't want to be so - you know , you hope that." I paused to collect my thoughts. "I am not answering you clearly, because - I am struggling with it aren't I?" So which one is it? Did he dump her? Did she leave him? Struggeling with being abandoned is perhaps an excuse for all those contradictions, but then I suppose that publishing houses have editors who go through a book before sending it to be printed.

Then there is also the contradiction about the baby and the concept of sin. Ms Nomani writes on page 11: “The next year I crossed the most sacred of boundaries of a woman’s body and consummated my love, but it wasn’t my wedding night. I wept in confusion over the truths of my physical and emotional urgings and the expectations of my religion and tradition.” A few pages later, namely on page 20 she writes: "I was consumed by the shame of ignoring the rulings of sharia, the "divine Islamic law.", whereas on page 123 she writes: "Sheikh Abdullah guided us to repeat after him: "Oh God forgive us." I whispered the words underneath my breath, but I didn't utter them from my heart. This concept of forgiveness eluded me.... I asked "What's the point in asking for forgiveness for decisions that can't be changed? Why live with regret?" Again on page 124 with regard to the same issue Ms Nomani writes: "Was creating Shibli the sin for which I had to seek forgiveness? I knew I had to resolve this question.... Even though I wished I had a resolution I didn't." So which one is it? Was having a sexual relationship outside the boundary of marriage a sin or not? If it is a sin then one should ask forgiveness, as per the guideline Ms Nomani herself chose as the tool of her faith. Doesn’t the Quran say explicitly [2.199] Then hasten on from the Place from which the people hasten on and ask the forgiveness of Allah; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. Furthermore the Quran gives Muslims yet another assurance: [4.31] If you shun the great sins which you are forbidden, We will do away with your small sins and cause you to enter an honorable place of entering.

I am no Islamic scholar, but I have studied enough of sharia and Islamic history to have been able to point out those mistakes I found. I feel compelled to write this review because of: [4:135]: O you who believe! be maintainers of justice, bearers of witness of Allah's sake, though it may be against your own selves or (your) parents or near relatives; if he be rich or poor, Allah is nearer to them both in compassion; therefore do not follow (your) low desires, lest you deviate; and if you swerve or turn aside, then surely Allah is aware of what you do.

I sincerely hope that Asra Nomani revises her book, should there be a second edition and correct the mistakes. I would also like to see someone more learned than me and much more at home with more intricate details of fiqh and Islamic jurisprudence and history read her book with concentration and no biases, to correct any other possible mistakes that I have not seen. Perhaps Asra Nomani herself should read the book thoroughly one more time now, after the initial excitement with it becoming a bestseller has died down and she should try and supply the sources for her claims and maybe try to bear this Sura in mind: [2.42] And do not mix up the truth with the falsehood, nor hide the truth while you know (it).

It is perhaps out of ignorance that she made those mistakes, but then the first word of the Quran was “Iqra” literally to read, a command to seek knowledge and combat ignorance. I would most certainly like to urge Ms Nomani to do just that, to read about her religion and try and remove her ignorance about certain aspects of it and fill the voids in her knowledge about it. I chose to think that she is rather ignorant about her own faith and religion over the other option, namely that this book is a distortion of Islam in the name of reformation and ijtihad with malicious intent.

After 9/11 there was a surge in Islamophobic books and all sorts of books claiming to explain this or that aspect about Islam. Irshad Manji and many others. These books started selling like hot-cakes, mostly bought by non-Muslims seeking information on Islam. What pains me is that these interested readers who really want to learn something about a religion they fear or know nothing much about, get controversial if not even distorted information instead of the real and accurate information they are looking for and they deserve to get.

Finally I do admire what Ms. Nomani did for the women who want to pray at the mosque. Every woman deserves to do just that if she wants to and Islam has granted her the right.

For not giving in to the fanatics who were trying to shut the women out of the mosque in Morgantown I salute Asra Nomani.

For looking for love, classically in all the wrong places and making wrong choices and settling for lust and not love, I pity her.

But for making those mistakes in history and language and not checking them out and verifying the information she was not sure of, while she has the use of vast resources on the internet (as per her own words in the book) I have to criticise her. An author has the moral obligation towards his readers to research his information accurately and only supply correct facts, after all this is not fiction. I do not regret reading the book, but it was not at all what I thought it would be. At the end I hope that those mistakes get edited out of the next edition.

Friday Prayer

2005-03-31T14:53:00.000+02:00

Amina Wadud led Friday prayer Friday before last and I attended Friday prayer for the first time in my life in a mosque last Friday. On the surface, the two events are not related, but delving deeper, they are. For Amina Wadud it was leading prayers to a mixed gender congregation, for the first time in her life and for the first time since a century has passed. I can’t speak for Amina Wadud, so I will just speak for myself. I was raised in a way that religion was important, but was a private matter between the person and God. Friday prayers were important and even if one didn’t pray five times a day, Friday prayers at the mosque were kept. But this applied to the men in my family and women were told that as a special concession they were not asked to go to the mosque but could pray in the comforts of their own homes if they wanted to. I was always not very enthusiastic about big crowds, so this seemed like “heaven-sent” for me. My first time praying “jummah” in a mosque came about because I met with friends, who were all enthusiastic about doing it together. Perhaps it was fate or just that the time had come for me. Regardless of the reason, it was a memorable experience.

It was a lovely choice to attend it at the Sultan Hassan Mosque in old Cairo, one of the extremely wonderful Islamic monuments. What I liked in particular about it was the background to it, namely that it was designed so that each of the four main Sunni schools (Shafite, Malikite, Hanifite and Hanbalite) had their own space, while sharing the mosque, which for me enhances the feeling of tolerance, unity and accepting differences of opinion in the name of learning. I also liked the fact that women were allowed to pray in the main hall with the men, in one of the alcoves reserved previously for one of the four madrassahs.

Leaving my shoes outside with the mosque servant, like so many other people, I entered the mosque with joyous anticipation and a sense of excitement, drinking in the beauty of the architecture and the lovely fountain in the courtyard around which the four alcoves are arranged. Making my way to the alcove reserved for the women, I looked at the faces around me, noticing the diversity, different ages, different social backgrounds and social classes, different ethnic origins and nationalities even, but all united in this place for the same reason. Arriving to the women’s alcove I noticed a heap of shoes at the foot of the three steps leading to the alcove and wondered about that. Why wouldn’t they leave their shoes outside just like everyone else? What has it come to, if one can’t trust a mosque servant with one’s shoes. But I quickly dismissed this thought as I had no intention of indulging any negative thought that would tarnish my first Friday prayer ever in a mosque.

I settled down in a row looking at the ornaments and paintings on the lanterns and waited for the imam to call for prayers when a young girl approached me. I smiled at her and she didn’t smile back, but said to me very harshly: “Do you know that your prayer will not be accepted because you are wearing pants?” I was startled and kind of hurt. Isn’t it all about what is in the heart? Isn’t it all about niyyat? What happened to compassion? What happened to a kind word is better than charity? Who made her mother keeper of the Islamic dress code? Why didn’t her mother feel courageous enough to approach me herself instead of sending that little girl to deliver a message of intolerance and judgement? Why does everyone feel the need to be a mufti and decide what is acceptable and what isn’t? Why does everyone feel the need to judge others and determine what is acceptable to Allah and what isn’t? When did Allah delegate judgement to all and sundry? What happened to mercy and compassion and forgiveness? When was prayer reduced to pants, skirts or jilbabs? All these thoughts crowded my mind, but I dismissed them all and decided that I will not let this negativity permeate my thoughts and tarnish my first experience. I answered the girl saying: “Don’t worry about it, if anybody will be punished it will be me and not you, so go back to your row and stop worrying about whether or not my prayers will be accepted or not and focus on yours.”

Personally for me, prayer is a sense of inner peace, a closeness to Allah, a humbleness and in a sense also a sacrifice. I sacrifice my time and shut everything else out for as long as I am praying. It’s not about pants or skirts or bending down at a certain angle or even touching the floor with my nose or forehead. It is not just a ritual and a certain collection of movements to be ticked off a to-pray list. It is more of a conversation with Allah which I am having with my heart and my mind and after all Allah knows exactly what is in my heart.

[64.4] He knows what is in the heavens and the earth, and He knows what you hide and what you manifest; and Allah is Cognizant of what is in the hearts.

Before I could explore this any further the imam called out the azhan and started his khutba. Fittingly it was about the promotion of good and the fighting of vices. He quoted many suras and he was reciting them nicely and slowly. But I missed a few things. I missed the passion in his khutba. I missed feeling enthusiasm and emotions that should have come with a plea for people to change to the better. I looked around me at the faces of the people gathered in the mosque. I wanted to cry for the wasted feelings, for the power of prayers, for the sense and feelings it should have give. It was only a small number of people who concentrated and listened attentively, sometimes nodding in agreement and sometimes reflecting on what they had heard. I was a bit disappointed and I also started wondering about why people would come to a mosque to pray when they didn’t really feel like it deep inside? Surely praying is not just some ritual to be followed without any feelings at all and just an automated movement.

[4.142] Surely the hypocrites strive to deceive Allah, and He shall requite their deceit to them, and when they stand up to prayer they stand up sluggishly; they do it only to be seen of men and do not remember Allah save a little.

The imam didn’t prolong his khutba unnecessarily, but still the many children in the mosque became restless and started moving around, some started crying, some started talking amongst themselves. While I can see both sides of taking children to a mosque perhaps because there is nobody to mind them or to make them get used to participating in Friday prayers at an early age or whatever other reasons, I also somewhat resented the distraction. But then little children are children and despite the khutba not exceeding the 20 minutes designated by the government, they are allowed to be restless. It is not their fault. But I remembered what I grew up with.

[7.204] And when the Quran is recited, then listen to it and remain silent, that mercy may be shown to you.

[73.4] Or add to it, and recite the Quran as it ought to be recited.

Prayer and reading of the Quran for me was always a time of humility and some sort of privacy, which is impossible to achieve when screams and cries pierce my ears. For a second I missed the solitude of my own prayers at home. Be that as it may, the imam started his dua for the ummah and for Islam and the unified response of “Ameen” made me smile again. One voice by all, with a delicate echo by the women. Then finally the prayer. At the iqama everyone got up and quickly closed ranks, shoulder to shoulder. Shaking hands after prayers and wishes of “taqabal Allah” were exchanged. Even if they weren’t meant from the heart, because I was wearing pants and in the eyes of those who shook my hands my prayer would probably not be accepted anyway, I still felt good. A sense of belonging permeated me and a sense of being a part of some greater something, even if to me it felt like this greater something was not as sincere as it should have been. But I stopped that thought quickly too for I also don’t know what is inside people’s hearts and who am I to judge. I resented being judged and sentenced for my pants, so I was not going to fall into the same trap and unfairly judge people by what I see and not what is in their hearts. How would I, a mere mortal, know what they were thinking when they judged my pants, perhaps it was a well meant advice and not a judgement. I should stick to the “do to others as I want others to do to me”. May everyone be humble and sincere in their prayers so that “Taqabal Allah” from all of them indeed.

For some strange reason when I went home afterwards I felt the urge, no, the need to pray alone. Perhaps I wanted to find the spirituality in the prayer and not the mere ritual performance that I missed in the mosque. I was always more comfortable praying alone than in crowds. Perhaps this is due to my upbringing or relates to the fact that our house was always an oasis of calmness in the busy teeming beehive that is Cairo. Be that as it may, I have learned quite a bit about myself, so all in all, it was a memorable experience indeed.

Justice, and only justice, you shall pursue...

2005-03-12T22:30:00.000+02:00

(Deuteronomy 16:20)

William Gaddis, the novelist said : “Justice? - You get justice in the next world, in this world you have the law.” But what did Mukhtar Mai get in this world and what did she get from the law? But first things first, who is Mukhtar Mai and what is her story?

From her own website, the summary of the story is: "In June 2002, 30-year-old Mukhtar Mai was gang-raped on the orders of a council of tribal elders from her village of Meerwala, Pakistan. Mai herself was not charged with any wrongdoing, but a rumour had spread through the village that her 14-year-old brother had been seen in public with a girl from a rival tribe. In remote areas of Pakistan, tribal codes often take precedence over both Islamic law and the secular law of the land. Understanding the power of the tribal councils, when Mai heard that the rival clan was going to put her brother on trial she rushed before the self-appointed councillors to plead for mercy on his behalf. The elders heard her plea. With the logic of wanton cruelty, they spared Mai's brother and ordered that she should be raped, explaining that the rape would shame her family and thus restore the offended tribe's honour. Four volunteers carried out the sentence in the presence of a cheering mob, taking turns, and Mai was thrown into the street, where her father covered her beaten body with a shawl and walked her home through a village of staring eyes.”

The local imam heard about her ordeal and condemned it during prayers at the neighbourhood mosque. He acknowledged revenge is a tradition in the area, but said, "Something like this had never happened, this is cruelty." At least one man who has not lost all sense of shame nor of his own religion. If it wasn’t for the imam and her friends’ encouragement Mukhtar Mai said that she wouldn't have come forward because she received threats that she would be harmed.

So Mukhtar Mai reported the rape a week later to the police. The rape was ordered by a tribal "panchyat" or village council in the village of Meerwala, where there is no electricity, running water - or even law! How can a tribal council order something like that and get away with it? "Pakistan is a patriarchal society, where the power of feudal lords and tribal leaders has ugly manifestations in controlling women, such as cutting off their noses or simply shooting them to protect the honour of the family or the tribe," says Farzana Bari, director of the Women's Study Center at Quaid-e-Azam University in Islamabad. The controversial Hudood Ordinance and Blasphemy Law were first promulgated in the name of Islam by former military dictator General Ziaul Haq in 1979. Many Pakistani politicians, including President Pervez Musharraf, say the laws should be reviewed, some more courageous ones go as far as to say they need to be repealed, since they have a disproportionate effect on women, specially the poor. But in the past 26 years, the laws seem to have become as unalterable as the Koran itself, and activists say the only way to bring equal justice to Pakistani society will be through a sustained campaign of pressure and resistance. So kudos to Mukhtar Mai.

But leaving these laws aside for now, what about tribal decisions such as the one taken by that panchyat court? Are they in any way even remotely Islamic? Since when was rape Islamic? Since when was indignity Islamic? Since when was cruelty Islamic? Islam asks men to lower their gazes and behave modestly and kindly towards women : [24.30] "Say to the believing men that they cast down their looks and guard their private parts; that is purer for them; surely Allah is Aware of what they do." Islam asks men to treat their women kindly :[4.19] “O you who believe! it is not lawful for you that you should take women as heritage against (their) will, and do not straiten them m order that you may take part of what you have given them, unless they are guilty of manifest indecency, and treat them kindly; then if you hate them, it may be that you dislike a thing while Allah has placed abundant good in it.”

Islam asks for no punishment without witnesses: [4.15] “And as for those who are guilty of an indecency from among your women, call to witnesses against them four (witnesses) from among you; then if they bear witness confine them to the houses until death takes them away or Allah opens some way for them.”

Islam asks for kindness and mercy: [2.263] “Kind speech and forgiveness is better than charity followed by injury; and Allah is Self-sufficient, Forbearing.”

But Mukhtar Mai was punished for a crime she didn’t commit. Not only that, but she was punished for a crime her own brother didn’t even commit. It was later revealed in a conventional court that the victim, whom her brother had allegedly assaulted, had in fact been kidnapped and sexually assaulted by the same men who later made up his jury and later carried out the sentence on Mukhtar Mai. So poor Mukhtar Mai was raped in revenge for her brother's supposed crime, a crime he didn’t commit, a crime she didn’t commit.

What about Islam’s call for justice? Didn’t the tribal elders in that panchyat ever read: [4.58] “Surely Allah commands you to make over trusts to their owners and that when you judge between people you judge with justice; surely Allah admonishes you with what is excellent; surely Allah is Seeing, Hearing.”

Didn’t they ever read: [9.71] “And (as for) the believing men and the believing women, they are guardians of each other; they enjoin good and forbid evil and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, and obey Allah and His Apostle; (as for) these, Allah will show mercy to them; surely Allah is Mighty, Wise.”

And what about : [24.23] “Surely those who accuse chaste believing women, unaware (of the evil), are cursed in this world and the hereafter, and they shall have a grievous chastisement.”
Now they didn’t just accuse poor Mukhtar Mai. Of that they are innocent indeed. They didn’t accuse her, but instead sentenced her and punished her for a crime that never was committed, neither by her nor by her brother. So what about them? To steal a woman's virginity in Pakistan is in many cases to steal her future and her dignity. They didn’t only steal it, they heaped indignity after indignity over the poor innocent girl. After the gang rape, Mukhtar Mai was forced to walk home, half-naked, in front of the entire village. It was another degrading punishment because she would now be seen not as a victim, but as an outcast.

How can one ever heal the wounds inflicted on Mukhtar Mai? President Musharraf ordered that bodyguards protect her 24 hours a day, and awarded her more than $8,000 to help her rebuild her life. $8.000? Admittedly it is a princely sum in Pakistan, where the average annual income is $2.000. What can this sum do? Can it ever buy back her honour? Can she ever buy it back in that kind of cruel tribal society? A society that allowed these men to rape her for no reason in front of the entire village? What can $8.000 do for Mukhtar Mai?

“In a region where illiteracy is the norm, Mukhtar had been educated and was herself a teacher of Islam. She understood her rights as arising not only from the esteem in which she was held by others, but also from her own understanding and abilities and from an innate value bestowed by God on all humans and codified in the Koran.”

She used the money given to her not to try and buy back her lost honour or destroyed reputation, but to build schools to try and make sure that her fate will never be visited on another person in her village again. In her own words: "I hope to make education more readily available to girls, to teach them that no woman should ever go through what happened to me, and I eventually hope to open more school branches in this area of Pakistan. I need your support to kill illiteracy and to help make tomorrow's women stronger. This is my goal in life."

But what happened to those who ordered this most heinous crime? What happened to those who carried it out? Now after their acquittal in the court, they are currently able to escape punishment and that shows the total failure of the Pakistani justice system and its impotence to ensure justice as well as its double standards and hypocrisy. But yes, enforce Hudood laws and Blasphemy Laws indeed!

To them I can only quote: [9.68] “Allah has promised the hypocritical men and the hypocritical women and the unbelievers the fire of hell to abide therein; it is enough for them; and Allah has cursed them and they shall have lasting punishment.”

Notes about the Lecture on “The Position of Women in the Muslim World”

2005-02-28T08:21:00.000+02:00

Organised by: Dr. Hind Khattab UNFPA United Nation Population Fund

(Cairo – February 19th, 2005)

Speakers: Dr. Amna Nosseir, member of the Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs and a professor of Islamic philosophy at Al-Azhar University and Dr. Abdel-Mo'eti Bayoumi, professor of Islamic Philosophy at Al- Azhar University.

- - -

Dr. Amna started the lecture with questioning the position of women in Islam, caught between jurisdictions and applications. She explained that a total equality between the sexes is not only a wrong assumption but also not possible as there are certain differences between the two genders. She added that these differences would hamper a total equality, but equality per se was granted. In her opinion the now almost demeaning position of women in Islam comes from three factors:

1. Patriarchal societies.

2. Ignorance of women of their own rights.

3. The influx of different traditional practices and habits from various cultures and societies over time (Ottomans, Fatimids, Mameluks, Bedouins etc).

She continued explaining that women are by no means the weaker gender and quotes Omar Ibn Al Khattab telling the women in his family how many more rights they gained now with Islam and that has made them even stronger than ever before, to the extent that he himself has to be careful now.
She mentioned the much abused Hadith:

Volume 1, Book 6, Number 301: Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:

“Once Allah's Apostle went out to the Musalla (to offer the prayer) o 'Id-al-Adha or Al-Fitr prayer. Then he passed by the women and said, "O women! Give alms, as I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-fire were you (women)." They asked, "Why is it so, O Allah's Apostle ?" He replied, "You curse frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you. A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you." The women asked, "O Allah's Apostle! What is deficient in our intelligence and religion?" He said, "Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?" They replied in the affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her intelligence. Isn't it true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?" The women replied in the affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her religion."”

She explained that this particular Hadith is taken out of context and that the context in which it was said was actually more of a light conversation before a joint prayer, it happened in front of a mosque and there were many women present waiting for prayers, and that it would be very wrong to take this particular Hadith as a basis for implementing some jurisdiction or rule. She explained that this jocular tone was frequently used by the Prophet, sort of like a father scolding his children and should in no way be taken in any other manner.

She also quoted another frequently abused Hadith:

Volume 9, Book 88, Number 219: Narrated Abu Bakra:

“During the battle of Al-Jamal, Allah benefited me with a Word (I heard from the Prophet). When the Prophet heard the news that the people of the Persia had made the daughter of Khosrau their Queen (ruler), he said, "Never will succeed such a nation as makes a woman their ruler."”

In her opinion this particular Hadith is to be taken in the historical context related to Buran (spelling?) the daughter of King Kesra only and not to be extended to any other woman and conclude from it that a woman is not allowed to be Grand Imam or leader, which is not forbidden anywhere in the Quran. She added that in the times of the Prophet women were considered equal in many ways, even in fields that were reserved for men like warfare. She mentions Nassiba, Rafida and Umm Hany (Ali’s sister) who used to fight alongside the men and were given shares in the loot like the men.

Furthermore she adds that Mullahs and Sheikhs, essentially men, usually resort to a too literal meaning of the Quran to remain patriarchal, and sometimes even twist the words a bit to mean what they think is right. She added that the door of Ijtihad was open until the end of time and anybody who would engage in it would get some kind of reward, even if he / she arrived at a wrong conclusion, but still the effort would be rewarded. She based that on a Hadith (which I couldn’t find in English, sorry).

Hence sticking too rigidly to outmoded fiqh and rigid fatwas is not to be done and taking them as a given should also not be done, because certain fatwas are time and incident dependant and should be taken in their very own special context and not used to enslave women centuries later.

She ended her part of the lecture by quoting Omar Ibn El Khattab again, who said that women are to be protected as well as respected and only the wicked would humiliate them.

Next to speak was Dr. Bayoumi, who started his part of the lecture saying that it was time to change certain understandings which have long been outmoded and replace them by new ones, or rather older ones that existed long before and somehow got lost in the course of history. He said that reformists were almost equal to prophets and mentioned a metaphor used by Gamal Eddin El Afghany who likened Islam to a huge tree, sort of a banyan tree where there happened to be so many branches that the core ended up being hidden. Dr. Bayoumi said that this was the case now and that one needs to cut off some branches to allow the sun to reach the core again. He added that many fatwas and fiqh questions were issued in historically very weak times and during decaying periods where the jurists were bought to serve the caliph and hence ended up more coloured by personal power struggles as well as traditions, habits and local practices than by the teachings of Islam. He stated that if Islam was applied correctly, the way it should be, then the Muslim woman would be the most cultured amongst women.

He went on to discuss equality between men and women in the Quran and unlike Dr. Amna mentioned that equality exits in almost a total way. If one compares both genders one finds that both have certain responsibilities as well as rights, duties and privileges, even if they differ in nature, they are still balanced. He mentions that women have a right to work and even choose their own husbands if they prefer marriage. He gave the examples of Asma’ Bint Abu Bakr and Maimunah bint Al Harith. He also based the equality concept on Sura [30.21] “And one of His signs is that He created mates for you from yourselves that you may find rest in them, and He put between you love and compassion; most surely there are signs in this for a people who reflect.” And on Sura [4.1] “O people! be careful of (your duty to) your Lord, Who created you from a single being and created its mate of the same (kind) and spread from these two, many men and women; and be careful of (your duty to) Allah, by Whom you demand one of another (your rights), and (to) the ties of relationship; surely Allah ever watches over you.” And on Sura [7.189] “He it is Who created you from a single being, and of the same (kind) did He make his mate, that he might incline to her; so when he covers her she bears a light burden, then moves about with it; but when it grows heavy, they both call upon Allah, their Lord: If Thou givest us a good one, we shall certainly be of the grateful ones.” His explanation is that the word yourself means that there are no differences, that the words “one single being” means equality as they are then basically the same (of like nature).

Furthermore he quoted the Hadith:

Volume 4, Book 55, Number 548: Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah 's Apostle said, "Treat women nicely, for a women is created from a rib, and the most curved portion of the rib is its upper portion, so, if you should try to straighten it, it will break, but if you leave it as it is, it will remain crooked. So treat women nicely."

He explains that this “rib-thing” has been abused to make it seem like women are inferior to men because they were created from a rib, a part, whereas he believes that the base of that is not inferiority but linguistic perfection and metaphors, because the rib is curved and rounded. He bases this opinion of his on a tafseer by Ibn Katheer and to take it to mean inferior is biased and wrong. He adds that being curved means it can withhold higher pressures as it is already bent and wouldn’t snap and break like a straight item would.

On the topic of tafseer, he mentions the many differences found between the tafseer of Ibn Katheer and the one by Ibn Hazm. While Ibn Hazm shows extreme positions (even in all other of his declaration that any type of analogy (qiyas), or imitation (taqlid), or legislative opinion (ra'y) was outside the pale of Islam), Ibn Katheer shows much more tolerance, in all issues and specially the issues pertaining to women. In his opinion this is due to the upbringing of both men. Ibn Katheer was born in Basra. His father was the local Imam and the deliverer of the Friday Khutba in his village and he died when Ibn Katheer was only four years old. He moved to Damascus at the age of five and was raised mainly by his mother who engaged mostly female tutors for him for starters to tutor him in Quran, Hadith and Sunnah. This gave him the necessary respect for women and their abilities and knowledge. Ibn Hazm on the other hand was born into a princely family in Cordoba and was raised very strictly by a harsh authoritarian father, which resulted in his extreme (if not even rigid and arrogant) views.

He then moves to touch upon the subject of polygamy and explains that Islam permitted it as a solution to certain social problems and not as an absolute right for men. He rests his opinion on the fact that the issue of polygamy was mentioned in the Quran within the context of dealing with orphans and not as a topic in itself. He emphasized again that Suras should be taken in context of both the text and the reason for the revelation. As per Sura [4.3] “And if you fear that you cannot act equitably towards orphans, then marry such women as seem good to you, two and three and four; but if you fear that you will not do justice (between them), then (marry) only one or what your right hands possess; this is more proper, that you may not deviate from the right course.” In His opinion this permission was due to the Sahaba starting to fear being unjust to the Orphans and refraining from taking care of them.

He also continues with mentioning Sura [4.129] “And you have it not in your power to do justice between wives, even though you may wish (it), but be not disinclined (from one) with total disinclination, so that you leave her as it were in suspense; and if you effect a reconciliation and guard (against evil), then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.” In his opinion this is a negation of marrying more than one and the permission granted is for certain reasons only.

He used the Prophet’s long monogamous life with Khadiga as an example (the normal state of affairs rather) and explained that his other wives were all taken in marriage for specific reasons and not for the purpose of diversifying wives in general. He mentions Aisha and argues that his marriage to her was to bond with Abu Bakr, as ‘in-law relationships’ were highly valued during those times. He mentions Maimunah bint Al Harith who wanted to be one of the wives of the Prophet and offered herself and her proposal was accepted. The reason being to show that women can make their own choices about whom to marry. He also mentions Zaynab bint Jahsh, who married the Prophet after her divorce from Zayd. The reason being to demonstrate beyond doubt that in Islam an adopted son is not regarded in the same light as a natural son, and that although a father may never marry a woman whom his natural son has divorced, the father of an adopted son is allowed to marry a woman who was once, but is no longer, married to that adopted son. He also mentions Safiya Bint Huyay from the Beni Nadir tribe. The reason being that she was Jewish and this would show that Muslim men can marry Jewish women, which is the same for Maria Al Qibtiya who was originally a gift from the King of Egypt then. The reason being that Muslim men can marry slaves as well as Christian women. (People of the book) So for every additional marriage there was a social reason or a message behind it rather than simply for marriage’s sake.

He picked up on the issue of the Grand Imam being a woman and said that in the Quran there was no Sura prohibiting this. In his opinion even the Hadith about Kisra’s daughter should be taken as a prohibition of totalitarian and despotic rule rather than the rule of a woman per se, as ruling should always be based on shura and council, almost a democratic concept. According to Dr. Bayoumi, Ibn Rushd, Ibn Khaldoun and Imam Malik were early advocates of democracy. He added that the interpretation of every Hadith has to be related to the reason why it was said, and if the reason in the past, and the reason now, coincide then we could apply the Hadith. In this particular case the Prophet was referring only to the queen, Kesra’s daughter, who was a tyrannical ruler, while the Queen of Sheba for example was highly respected and accepted as a ruler.

He then touched upon the subject of female circumcision and denied any Islamic roots to it but attributed it solely to traditions and local practices. He mentioned the only two Hadiths about this subject :

Mohamed is recorded as speaking of the sunna circumcision to the Ansars' wives, saying: "Cut slightly without exaggeration, because it is more pleasant for your husbands". Again, this appears to be related to the least intrusive method of circumcision.

And

"Circumcision is sunnah for men, and makrumah for women" And in another reported version “Circumcision is sunnah for men.” He argues that the phrasing “for men” means that it is exclusive for men only and not including women.

He said that the authenticity of both Hadith and their versions are weak, and that some scholars have refuted them. Even if true, they only permit the practice; they do not mandate it. He added that Mahmud Shaltut, former director of al-Azhar University, stated that they are neither clear nor authentic, hence offer little credibility.

He ended by reiterating that some people interpret Islam in the way that suits them, whereas it was evident during the Prophet's time that women enjoyed all their rights. He repeated that people affected Islam with their traditions and cultures and used a metaphor of Islam being like the Nile, pure in its origin and adding impurities along the way till it reaches the Mediterranean Sea, the impurities being traditions, Bedouin practices, tribal laws, patriarchal rules and the like. He believes firmly that if we want to get things straight, we need to stick to the Quran and clear out the interpretations derived from the peoples’ own and different cultures which are only misconceptions and far removed from the real Islam.

The lecture was followed by a question and answer session, where the questions were divided up between both lecturers.

Personal comments:

I was very disappointed with the reaction of the women. I expected them to be happy and ecstatic because both lecturers slayed their dragons. They destroyed all that these women have heard and were made to believe in since their birth. Personally I think they have been in this position of being regarded as second class for too long to really care and all what they said will be ignored the moment they step out.

I was also very disappointed with the type of questions asked. Mainly they were very silly questions about specific issues in inheritance laws or travelling without a mehrem for studies or work. They all related to very specific personal issues instead of anything to do with the lecture.

What I found extremely interesting (so as not to use the word shocking) was the conclusion that the fate of perhaps all Muslim women seems to be dependent on the upbringing of the men writing the various tafseers. There are like hundreds of different tafseers floating around and all seem to be coloured by the author's own experiences, upbringing traditions, location etc.

What encouraged me was the fact, that a man like Dr. Bayoumi, who has gone through all the traditional studies of theology at Al Azhar, holds such progressive (almost feminist views). His repetition of promoting a more literal reading of the Quran instead of the various tafseers was encouraging. His assertion, as well as Dr. Amna’s, that the door to ijtihad was open until dooms day, is also very encouraging. Both their affirmation that women were granted so many rights by Islam, and that those rights were being abused by the men, patriarchal societies, tribal rules, traditions and cultural colourings gives me hope that one day, we shall possibly be able to overcome all that, perhaps not by reform, but rather by taking a few steps back to the basics. (No, I don’t meant fundamentalist Wahabi views, but rather the fundament of Islam, the Quran, as well as all the Hadiths proven to be sahih, rather than a complete collection of weak and planted and fake ones).

Cain and Abel … again and again

2004-11-26T22:14:00.000+02:00

The recent carnage in Pakistan and Iraq during Ashoura (March 2004) killed hundreds of Shia Muslims in both Iraq and Pakistan. Hundreds more were wounded physically and thousand more emotionally.

Sunnis and Shias agree on the core fundamentals of Islam, the five Pillars. The question of unity between sunni and shia schools of thought has been debated for centuries. Slander, hate-crimes, wars, and many other extreme measures have often taken precedence over intelligent discussion and dialogue. Why is it that the schism between the Shia and Sunni Muslims has never been successfully bridged and how did it come about?

The root of this schism dates back to the days right after the Prophet’s death. The Prophet had not nominated anyone after himself to lead the Muslims. So a group of his followers congregated to decide that they should all vote to see who would be the best person to guide the Muslims. Sunnis call the leaders after the Prophet Caliph, the very first was Abu-Bakr. It is at this point, where the Shia and Sunni divide implicitly, though not yet explicitly. The reason was that that a group of people, which later on are referred to as the Shias or Shi'ites, didn’t agree on Abu-Bakr becoming the first Caliph. Nevertheless he was elected to assume the post. The Shias preferred Ali, the Prophet’s cousin, who was eventually elected to be the fourth of the rightful Caliphs. But how did the first explicit split occur?

Ali is the central figure at the origin of the Shia / Sunni split immediately following the death of the Prophet in 632. Sunnis regard Ali as the fourth and last of the "rightly guided caliphs", successors to the Prophet. (Abu Bakr 632-634, Omar 634-644 and Uthman 644-656. Shias feel that Ali should have been the first Caliph and that the Caliphate should have passed down only to direct descendants of the Prophet.

The third caliph, Uthman, came from one of the aristocratic clans of Mecca, the Umayyads. Many Muslims resented the choice, preferring the more humble Ali, the Prophet's cousin and husband of his daughter Fatima. Opposition to Uthman grew, aggravated by his nepotism and his favouritism toward the leading Meccan clans, as well as his determination to having only one authorized version of the Koran. Uthman's murder in 656 by Muslim dissidents, the first assassination of a Muslim Caliph by Muslims, was a turning point in Islamic history. It did not only gravely weaken the religious and moral prestige of the office, but ended the then still existing unity in Islam. The new caliph, Ali, was soon challenged by, among others, the Prophet's widow Aisha. In 656 Aisha herself led a battle against Ali, because she accused him of being too lax in bringing Uthman’s killers to justice. At the Battle of the Camel, Ali defeated her. This battle is the beginning of the covert rivalry, which divided the Muslims into two opposing camps, the first battle to take place against Koranic teachings, as well as the first battle to be between Muslims.

The story continues with even more wars and the beginning of the political fragmentation, which the Prophet had always feared. In 657, Mu’awiya, the late Caliph Uthman's cousin, a fellow Umayyad and then governor of Syria, challenged Ali's forces at Siffeen, another full-fledged civil war. The battle was inconclusive as Mu'awiya's soldiers raised the Koran on the ends of their spears and swords, with the result that Ali and his pious supporters refused to fight them. Ali tried to seek a compromise with Mu'awiya, but this angered some of his supporters, who regarded it as a betrayal, specially after the trick used by Mu’awiya. His supporters were so badly infuriated, that he was struck down by one of his own men in 661. Although Mu’awiya and his successors established the Umayyad dynasty and proved to be able rulers, expanding the empire from their new capital, Damascus, Ali's followers denounced the Umayyad Caliphate as illegitimate. And it is from that time that Ali’s followers became known as Shia, or Shiites. In 680, Ali's son Hussayn, the Prophet's grandson, led Shia forces against the Umayyads in yet another round of the civil war, this time at Karbala in Iraq, where he and almost his entire family were slaughtered. To this day, Shias mourn the "martyrdom" of the Prophet's grandson Hussayn in a day of atonement called Ashoura.

An opportunity for Muslim unity arose in 750, when almost the entire Ummayad aristocracy was wiped out, following a battle in Egypt, during a revolt led by Abu Al Abbass al-Saffah and aided by considerable Shia support. The Shia spiritual leader Jafar Al Siddiq, great-grandson of Hussayn, was to be installed as Caliph. But when Abbas died in 754, this arrangement had not yet been finalized and Abbas' son Al Mansur murdered Jafar, seized the Caliphate for himself and founded the Abbassid dynasty, which prevailed until the fall of Baghdad to the Mongols in 1258.

This division in Islam into Sunnis (those who stood with Mu’awiya and followed the Sunna), and Shias (the followers of Ali) would never heal. But what are the differences between them? Sunnis and Shias agree on the core fundamentals of Islam, the five pillars, and recognize each others as Muslims. In 1959 Sheikh Mahmood Shaltoot, Head of the School of Theology at Al Azhar university in Cairo, the most eminent seat of learning of Sunni Islam and the oldest university in the world, issued a fatwa (ruling) recognizing the legitimacy of the Jafari School of Law, to which most Shias belong. As a point of interest, the Jafari School is named after its founder Imam Jafar al Siddiq, a direct descendent, through two different lines, of the Sunni Caliph Abu Bakr. Another funny thing is that Al Azhar University, though now Sunni, was actually founded by the Shia Fatimid dynasty in Egypt in 969.

So the original founder of the Shia School is a Sunni descendant, while the supreme Sunni authority was originally established by Shias. So what makes them so different today that they cannot reconcile? There is no vital difference between the Shias and Sunnis concerning articles of faith. There is however a disagreement between the two in the shehadah (Islamic confession of faith), the practice of rituals as well as in two other areas.

The Sunni shehada says: "There is no God but Allah, and Mohamed is His messenger" , while the Shia shehada says :"There is no god but Allah, Mohamed is His messenger and Ali is the friend of Allah, the successor of the messenger of Allah and his first Caliph." The two areas of disagreement are :

1. The Caliphate (succession of leadership)

2. The Islamic rule when there is no clear Koranic statement, nor a Hadith.

The second issue has its root in the first one. The Shia bound themselves to refer to only the Prophet’s family (ahl al bayt) for deriving the Sunna of Prophet. The disagreement about the Caliphate should not be a source of division between the two. Muslims agree that the Caliphate of Abu Bakr came through election by a number of people, but came as a surprise for some of the companions. On the other hand, election implies choice and freedom, and that every Muslim has the right to elect the nominee. Whoever refuses to elect him does not oppose Allah nor the Prophet, because neither appointed the nominated person. Election, by its nature, does not compel any Muslim to elect a specific candidate or it would be coercion.

It is reported that Ali had refused to give his allegiance to Abu Bakr for six months and only gave it when he found that the only way to save Islam’s unity was to leave the isolation which occurred due to his refusal of giving the oath of allegiance. If refusal to give allegiance to an elected nominee was prohibited in Islam, Ali would not have allowed himself any delay in giving his allegiance. It was also reported that Ali claimed he had some rights to the Caliphate, which were not honoured, and he complained why Abu Bakr did not consult him in deciding upon becoming ruler.

On a daily level, Shias have a different call to prayer, they perform the washing for prayers as well as the prayers differently. Shias place their forehead onto a piece of hardened clay from Karbala or a stone, not directly onto the prayer mat when prostrating. They also tend to combine prayers and pray three times per day instead of five. The Shias also have some different Hadith and prefer those narrated by Ali and Fatima to those related by other companions of the Prophet. Due to her opposition to Ali, those Hadith narrated by Aisha count among the least favoured. Shia permit muttah marriages (fixed-term temporary marriage), which are banned by the Sunnis for opposing the purpose of marriage as such. A significant practice of Shia Islam is that of visiting the shrines of Imams or martyrs. These include the tomb of Imam Ali in Najaf and that of his son Imam Husayn in Karbala, since both are considered major Shia martyrs, while Sunnis do not erect shrines. The Sunnis believe in Caliphate whereas the Shias believe in Imamate. The Sunnis say that a Caliph can be either elected, or nominated by the preceding Caliph, or selected by a committee, or may attempt to gain the power through a coup if it was for the benefit of the Muslims. The Shia say that an Imam must be appointed by God, that this appointment may be known through the declaration of the Prophet or the preceding Imam. The line of the Prophet (through Ali) became extinct in 873, when the last Shia Imam, Al-Askari, who had no brothers, disappeared within days of inheriting the title at the age of four. The Shias however refused to accept that he had died, preferring to believe that he was merely "hidden" and would return eventually. When after several centuries this failed to happen, spiritual power passed to the Ulema, a council of twelve scholars, who elected a supreme Imam. The best known modern example of the Shia supreme Imam is the late Ayyatollah Khomeni. The Shia Imam is attributed with Pope-like infallibility and the Shia religious hierarchy is not dissimilar in structure and religious power to that of the Catholic Church within Christianity. Sunni Islam, in contrast, more closely resembles the independent churches of Protestantism. Sunnis do not have a formal clergy, just scholars and jurists, who may offer non-binding opinions. Shias believe that their supreme Imam is a fully spiritual guide who is believed to be an inerrant interpreter of law and tradition. Shia theology is distinguished by its glorification of Ali. In Shia Islam there is a strong theme of martyrdom and suffering, focusing on deaths of Ali and particularly Hussayn, his son.

Just like the rest of the Muslims, Shias too believe that the sources of Islamic law are mainly Koran and the Sunna. And as mentioned above, al Azhar's official position, vis a vis the propriety of following any of the Madhahib (schools of law), including the Shia Imami school, is permissible and has remained unchanged since Sheikh Shaltoot's declaration in 1959. It is interesting to note that a few decades ago, a group of Sunni and Shia scholars together formed a center at al Azhar by the name of "Dar Taqreeb al Madhahib al Islamiyyah" which translates into "Center for bringing together the various Islamic schools of thought". The aim, as the name of the center indicates, was to bridge the gap between the various schools of thought, and bring about mutual respect, understanding and appreciation of each school's contributions to the development of Islamic Jurisprudence, among the scholars of the different schools. In turn these scholars should guide their followers toward the ultimate goal of unity, as the Koran asks: [3:103] "And hold fast by the covenant of Allah all together and be not disunited, and remember the favor of Allah on you when you were enemies, then He united your hearts so by His favor you became brethren; and you were on the brink of a pit of fire, then He saved you from it, thus does Allah make clear to you His communications that you may follow the right way."

However, the two groups still continue to try and prove one another wrong and maintain that their way is the only right way, despite the Koran saying : [31:23] "And whoever disbelieves, let not his disbelief grieve you; to Us is their return, then will We inform them of what they did surely Allah is the Knower of what is in the breasts." And still despite the Koran’s teachings they continue to kill each other not fearing hell or eternal damnation just for the sake of power on earth: [4:93] "And whoever kills a believer intentionally, his punishment is hell; he shall abide in it, and Allah will send His wrath on him and curse him and prepare for him a painful chastisement." Sadly it looks like the killing will continue and it will always be Cain and Able all over again.

Bloodstained Honour

2004-10-04T22:08:00.000+02:00

The Parliament in Jordan has overwhelmingly rejected a proposed law imposing harsher punishments on men who kill female relatives in what are paradoxically termed as "honour killings" in September 2003. They claimed that the proposed amendments to the original law were superficial and did not deal with the root of the issue. But what is the root of the issue?

Many a dictionary defines honour as the good name, an excellent reputation, and relates it to dignity and distinction. I fail to see the connection between plain murder and the above mentioned exalted words. Social scientists have studied the concept of honour and concluded that it evolved into being a symbol of value and identity. This is quite prevalent, more so in the oriental world, where honour and ‘saving face’ still mean so much more than anywhere else. But why is it that honour is related solely to women? I believe that attributing all this importance to keeping a reputation from being sullied by mere accusations is just another way of oppressing and controlling women. In addition these accusations are to a large extent unproven, yet oddly enough still acted upon. Killing these women places such weight on the men’s honour, yet shows no regard whatsoever of their victims lives. Quite a contradiction in terms isn’t it? These so called honour killings occur for a variety of offences, including allegations of premarital or extramarital sex, refusing an arranged marriage, attempting to obtain a divorce, or simply talking with a man.

Let’s take a look at the Jordanian case and try to see where the misconception about murder being honourable, let alone Islamic came from. Jordan, a signatory to the “Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women” and the “International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights”, both of which proscribe discrimination based on sex, still practices discrimination within its borders. The Jordanian Penal Code considers “honour killings” of Jordanian women a lesser crime and in many cases even justified. This has become something akin to an open invitation or a Carte Blanche to murder women for other reasons such as inheritance battles, greed, hate and covering up incestuous rape, hiding it conveniently as an honour saving measure. Sadly this has resulted in the fact that ‘crimes of honour’ constitute about one third of the total number of Jordan’s homicides. Article 340 of the Jordanian Penal Code exempts or reduces the punishment of the individuals convicted of murdering women in the name of so called honour. Article 98 reduces the sentence for the perpetrator of a "fit of fury" crime committed in response to a wrongful and serious act on the part of the victim. The bizarre thing is that none of these laws specify what an illegitimate or wrongful act might be, yet they have been used to justify minimizing the punishment of offenders for so called honour crimes.

These vigilantes are sentenced to as little as six months in prison, if at all. This reduces the punishment to being only a ridiculous symbolic farce. On the other hand many potential victims are placed in prison, in protective custody, as the only means to ensure their safety, side by side with convicted criminals. Statistics show that in 2001 almost half of all female prison inmates were there as a protective measure, some as long as three years. The irony of it all lies in the fact that according to Jordanian law, a woman cannot be released from prison unless a male relative comes to sign her out. But it is those very relatives that these women were trying to escape from. Some families sign a pledge not to harm the woman, but they nevertheless slit her throat as soon as she is released back into their custody. Official statistics indicate that the majority of the women killed in honour crimes were teen-agers, who were never allowed to have a life, but were sentenced to death by slander. The autopsies on the victims revealed more than 90% of them to be virgins, yet they were killed for an imaginary crime. For the most part the innocent victims were buried quietly in unmarked graves, still disgraced for no reason, even in death.

In an attempt to protect his female population, King Abdullah passed a temporary bill imposing harsher penalties for perpetrators of honour killings. Sadly the Jordanian Parliament voted to dissolve the bill. Jordanian members of parliament argued that “more punishments would violate religious traditions and damage the fabric of Jordan's conservative society, where men have the final say”. Obviously this final say includes whether women should be allowed to live. Attributing this alleged right to religion is absolutely preposterous. Let’s take a look at how Islam deals with this matter and then we can judge whether it is really due to religion or only because in some societies women are still seen as “only commodities owned by men” as Carolyn Hannan, director of the United Nations Division for the Advancement of Women, said.

One of the first cases of an accusation against a married woman in Islam occurred right in the Prophet’s own family, a century and a half ago. Aisha, his wife, was herself accused of sullying her husband’s honour. But how did he react to that? Let’s hear the story. Aisha was accompanying her husband with a caravan on an expedition. During the preparations to leave, she discovered that she had dropped her necklace while she had gone into the desert earlier to relieve herself. So she went back to recover it. In her absence the caravan had set off towards Medina, not realising that she was not inside her houdaj, (a seat fitted with a canopy, placed on the back of a camel). When Aisha returned to the site of the camp with her necklace, she found that the caravan had already left. She decided to wait, thinking that they would eventually notice she was missing and come back for her. She waited and even slept the night in that same spot. A young soldier, Safwan Ibn al Mu’atill, a rearguard, whose duty it was to follow the caravan to retrieve any lost object or straying animal, found her the next day. Safwan had her mount his camel and led it to Medina, walking on foot all the way. They arrived after some time under everyone’s stare, which soon started lots of gossiping that rapidly turned to scandal. The gossip didn’t just originate from people who were lukewarm towards Mohamed, but also came from some of his ardent supporters. Some even suggested he divorce her to end this shameful episode. Mohamed, the man, was very much disturbed by all of this, as he favoured Aisha. Being human, he perhaps had his own nagging suspicions, though he believed her when she vouched for her innocence. To try and cool off the emotions running high, Aisha left for her parent’s home and stayed there for a month, while Mohamed was trying to come to terms with his problem and find a solution and Aisha was waiting for something to exonerate her. She was vindicated through a revelation of a Koranic verse. Not only that, but the Koran also dealt with those who started to gossip and all those who would start any similar action henceforward, demanding their punishment in this life as well as later by saying : [24.4] “And those who accuse free women, then do not bring four witnesses, flog them, (giving) eighty stripes, and do not admit any evidence from them ever; and these it is that are the transgressors”. And also [24.23] “Surely those who accuse chaste believing women, unaware (of the evil), are cursed in this world and the hereafter, and they shall have a grievous chastisement”.

Pretty clear isn’t it? A mere accusation should result in flogging and curses the accuser in this life and thereafter. So what about those who don’t only accuse, but judge, sentence and carry out the punishment themselves, based on nothing but an allegation, a rumour, idle gossip or unfounded doubts?

So, is honour killing in any way related to Islam? Yes and no. It depends on what you mean by that question. If you mean that is it a practice in predominantly Muslim countries, then the answer is “yes”. Honour killings have been reported from Jordan, Palestine, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Kurdistan and also recently from Europe, mainly carried out by Muslim immigrants. If you mean that the perpetrators of these crimes look to Islam and the Koran for justification, then the answer is “no”. Many conservative Muslims who won’t even dream of committing murder themselves believe the alleged conduct of those women (the victims) to be abhorrent to Islam. They go one step further and accuse the NGOs who support these victims and try to do something about this problem, as aiding in the degeneration of morality. Unfortunately this group is much larger than those who kill women for “honour” and also those who try to help end it. The saddest part is that the truth about attempting to justify this crime is not Islamic, but only based on tribal tradition.

This practice dates back to pre-Islamic times, when women were viewed as property, not much different from camels, sheep and sacks of flower. Tribes would engage in battles and among the spoils of war were the women. The loss of women to another tribe was a grave shame and an absolute dishonour. History tells us that in a lot of Arab tribes women were mistreated. Some tribes even resented the birth of daughters so much that they buried them alive as infants. The men could only think about the possible future shame should their women be lost in tribal skirmishes to other tribes. The Koran tells us about that too [16.058 – 059] : “And when a daughter is announced to one of them, his face becomes black and he is full of wrath. He hides himself from the people because of the evil of that which is announced to him. Shall he keep it with disgrace or bury it (alive) in the dust? Now surely evil is what they judge.” And also [81.007 – 009]: “And when the female infant buried alive is asked. For what sin she was killed.” Islam prohibited this practice and asked all fathers to accept all children given to them, male or female, equally.

So to conclude, the practice of honour killing is certainly not an Islamic one. And it is not a problem of morality or of ensuring that women maintain their ‘virtue’, but rather it is a problem of male domination and power. Women are reduced to nothing more than objects or servants to the family, both physically and symbolically. And as we can see the Islamic legal safeguards and injunctions to protect women from such discrimination seem to have been forgotten. In fact the law enforcement agencies including police officers, judges and prison guards have all aided in keeping this despicable crime alive, through their lenience towards those men who have disgraced honour by committing such acts in the name of it. Confronting the problem requires a deep change in attitude to pervade all levels of society. In addition a legal reform must be implemented to protect the possible victims and punish the perpetrators severely to set an example. Only when those societies, who have carried over ancient practices from centuries ago into the twenty first century, start paying attention to meeting the basic human needs, will trends of discrimination start to fade.

Let him who is without sin cast the first stone ...

2004-08-22T22:03:00.000+03:00

In the first half of 2002, four stoning verdicts against women in Islamic states were announced: two in Nigeria, one in Sudan and one in Pakistan. Each woman had been charged with adultery and sentenced to stoning, "the ultimate form of torture” as it has been called by Amnesty International.

One of the most incomprehensible aspects of this stoning business reported in the various papers is, that in every case of adultery mentioned, it is invariably the woman who is to be stoned to death. The man on the other hand does not get as much as a reprimand. Doesn’t it always require two? This has happened in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan and now in Nigeria. Let’s take a look at where this came from and whether Islam stipulates this atrocious punishment or not and if it differentiates between men and women.

Does religion prescribe the punishment of stoning for adultery? The Jewish answer to this question would be 'yes'. The Old Testament describes various adulterous acts and stipulates that those indulging in them should be "put to death" (Leviticus 20:10-21).

The Christian answer to this question was more compassionate and merciful. According to John 8:1-11, it was only for those who were free of sin themselves, resulting in that it did not take place.

But how does Islam deal with it? Obviously we have to consider that in Islam all three Abrahamic religions are to be viewed as a continuation of each other, so it is not logical to reverse a formerly allowed leniency once it was established, is it? There are different stipulations about stoning in Islam. Hadith (the collection of the prophet’s sayings) has one, Sharia (the body of doctrines regulating the lives of all Muslims and arrived at from two principal sources, the Koran and Sunna) has another and the Koran has yet a third.

It is an acknowledged rule in reading Hadiths, that if a reported Hadith records something which is contrary to the Koran, it should be disregarded, since the Prophet did not act contrary to the revelations. Having said that, looking at the Hadiths, we find two instances dealing with stoning for adultery.

In the case of Maiz bin Malik, according to Hadith Number 4205, Book 017 of al-Bukhari, Maiz went to the Prophet and asked to be purified from the sin of committing adultery. The Prophet advised him to repent and ask Allah for forgiveness, then sent him away. Maiz came back three more times, only to have the same advice repeated. After the fourth time the Prophet asked him if he was insane. Maiz attested to his sound mind. The Prophet tried again and asked him if he was perhaps drunk. Maiz denied it. This started a bit of a controversy. Some of the Prophet’s companions concluded that his confession as well as his request to die were enough to show his repentance. Others argued that he should be granted his wish to die. The Prophet is reported to have asked all of them to pray for forgiveness for Maiz. Yet Maiz insisted on being stoned and ultimately he was. Unlike the practices in Afghanistan, Iran and Saudi Arabia today, he was not buried up to his waist nor tied to anything. He stood there receiving the stones. In the middle of the stoning he ran away, but he was brought back and then stoned to death. Upon hearing this the Prophet reprimanded the men saying : "if you had let him go, then it would have been entirely possible that Allah would have granted him forgiveness".

The woman’s story is similar. She went to the Prophet and confessed her sin and asked for punishment. He also turned away from her. She told him she was pregnant with the consequence of her sin, so he then sent her away asking her to come back after giving birth. She didn’t take the hint and came back saying that she has given birth and wanted to be absolved of her sin. The Prophet sent her away again asking her to go nurse her child for the prescribed two years and then come back. And she did yet again miss the hint and came back. After her fourth confession she was stoned to death too.

What both stories have in common is not only the reluctance of the Prophet to hear the confession and sending them both away so many times, but that the Prophet read their funeral prayer and prayed for both of them. One of his companions was reported to have asked in disbelief why he would bestow such honour in praying himself for such worthless sinners. Hadith reports that the Prophet then said that “the person had sought such profound forgiveness that if it was spread over the entire community its blessing would be enough for all“.

So we have only two cases mentioned in all of the many recorded Hadith. Both were used as examples of extreme penitence and amends and can hardly be used to illustrate a tradition prescribing stoning. Furthermore these incidents have also not been fixed in time, so it is not only possible, but highly likely that these incidents took place before the verses ordaining the Koranic punishment for adultery were revealed, after all the revelation of the Koran took 23 years.

In Sharia law stoning “married” adulterers and adulteresses to death is part of the group of severe punishments called as ‘Hadd’. Stoning to death has been emphasized time and again as law, yet we find different versions. For example, the Maliki School accepts evidence of pregnancy as proof that a single (widowed, unmarried or divorced) woman has either committed adultery or been raped. The other schools, namely Shafi, Hanbali, Hanafi and even the Shia do not recognize evidence of pregnancy as proof of adultery. So which one should be applied? The only thing all schools agree upon is that a conviction requires a minimum of four male pious witnesses with a good and solid reputation, who openly observed the act at the same time, or a freely-given confession by the accused, repeated four times without any coercion. Sharia has been translated to be harsh extreme treatment. It isn’t. After all Sharia is only to be used in Islamic societies that have eliminated poverty and corruption. Neither condition has yet been achieved in any of the countries where stoning is still practiced or any other country for that matter.

But what does the Koran say? The Koran actually does not prescribe stoning as the punishment for adultery at all, neither for married nor for single Muslims of both genders. There is not a single verse to this effect. Not a single one. However there are many dealing with adultery. Let’s look at some:

004.015 : And as for those who are guilty of an indecency from among your women, call to witnesses against them four (witnesses) from among you; then if they bear witness confine them to the houses until death takes them away or Allah opens some way for them.

004.016 And as for the two who are guilty of indecency from among you, give them both a punishment; then if they repent and amend, turn aside from them; surely Allah is Oft-returning (to mercy), the Merciful.

004.025 ……and when they are taken in marriage, then if they are guilty of indecency, they shall suffer half the punishment which is (inflicted) upon free women…..

024.002 (As for) the adulterer and the adulteress, flog each of them, (giving) a hundred stripes, and let not pity for them detain you in the matter of obedience to Allah, if you believe in Allah and the last day, and let a party of believers witness their chastisement.

024.003: The adulterer shall not marry any but a adulteress or idolatress, and (as for) the adulteress, none shall marry her but a adulterer or an idolater; and it is forbidden to the believers.

So what does this tell us then? According to the Koran, adultery has to be proven with absolute certainty before any penalty can be imposed. If and only if four witnesses of a good and solid reputation can testify to having seen the act simultaneously, then and only then can the charge be sustained. False accusations should be punished. Adulterous men and women should be flogged. Guilty women should be placed under house arrest until death or until they repent. Adulterers should marry each other.

In other verses If there are no witnesses and a husband accuses his wife of adultery he has to repeat his testimony four times. The punishment is averted if the wife similarly swears four times. (24:8-9). Therefore the Koran here places greater reliance on the testimony of the woman. She gets the final say in that matter.

Now looking at all of the verses, at Sharia and Hadith as well, we can logically conclude that the Koran makes no distinction whatsoever between married or single persons. “Zina”, adultery is sex outside of a marriage and that’s that. The idea of flogging the guilty couple in public is to disgrace them for the shameful act they committed - and not to inflict physical damage. And thinking about it logically it is actually only a deterrent and not a real punishment, because it is next to impossible to prove the crime. Who would invite witnesses to this most private act, be it legal or illicit? And looking at the verses it becomes even more apparent that stoning to death is actually not to be done. The punishment for a slave girl is half that of a free woman. How can one halve a death sentence? Adulterers are to marry each other. The question is: how on earth can they ever do that if they are dead? One should think that in order for marriage to take place, both partners have to be alive. Women should be confined to their homes. Who would like to keep a decaying corpse at home?

This, of course, indicates absolutely, and without the slightest shadow of a doubt whatsoever, that God never prescribed stoning as punishment for adultery. Hadith and Sharia are man made, and therefore fallible. Should we place our total confidence on man’s deductions and conjecture or hold on solidly to the commands of God in the Koran? Furthermore the Koran says : 004.171 "O followers of the Book! do not exceed the limits in your religion …", hence increasing any punishment over that which has been prescribed in the Koran would be exceeding a limit, wouldn’t it? God’s law on punishment for adultery is clear. Once adultery is proven with absolute certainty, punishment is to be 100 lashes for both and that is that. Punishments can be reduced but not exceeded. The Prophet is reported to have said "Avert the infliction of prescribed penalties on Muslims as much as you can, if there is any way out let a man go, for it is better for a leader to make a mistake in forgiving than to make a mistake in punishing."

For those who take it upon themselves to rewrite the ordained rules, I can only quote the Koran : 004.105 "Surely We have revealed the Book to you with the truth that you may judge between people by means of that which Allah has taught you; and be not an advocate on behalf of the treacherous."

sab ko sanmatee de bhagwaan - god, give peace to everyone

2004-08-05T22:25:00.000+03:00

So I was reading the news in the morning like I usually do and then one news item hit me.

Excuse me a moment while I go grab a veil to write in a mullah-acceptable-way from behind or rather from under a burqa. Ok, now I am back and of course I am looking like a bad imitation of a Halloween ghost and having a bit of trouble breathing from under this contraption, that makes me feel like suffocating and wishing I could have one of those punkah wallahs. But for more effect I just had to subject myself to this sacrifice to get in the mood to write about those clerics in Kashmir who have condemned a pop song. Shakes my head, whatever next?

Left! Forget for a moment (if you please) that the song is by two (yes, sorry about that, but anyway) Pakistani singers (even they do sing and get into trouble!). So just try to forget about all the other problems about Kashmir, Indian-Pakistani rivalry, the partition, decade long hate etc and try to focus on these mullahs for a few minutes (or at least as long as it takes you to read this post, if you can force yourself to finish it that is).

So what are these mullahs on about? What pissed them off? For crying out loud, it can’t be just the line in the song, kachi pencil. I mean why the heck would those mullahs object to the line saying that Allah has written the fate of man with a fragile pencil? Don’t they have anything better to do than banning a song? And have they wasted long years of theology studies to focus on semantics?

I mean hey, they didn’t mind the kashmiri militants hiding under purdah’s and veils, posing as women just to be able to get around (if they don’t suffocate first) without the observant eyes of the watchful jawans, seeing them for what they are, but they mind one simple adjective? And such a delicate one too (pun intended) “FRAGILE”.

Well fact remains that in the Quran, the word “written” appears 14 times (yes! You can take my word for that. I did a quick search, and then dropped on my knees to thank Allah for internet-search-machines that locate words in a jiffy without you having to go read the entire book with a notepad and pencil [pun intended] on the side to mark down the number of occurrences). Anyhow of those 14 times not once was any description or further account given about the process of writing itself, pen, pencil, ink, fragile, thick, red, black or blue. (and you can go check yourself)

I mean I am a mere insignificant picayunish mortal, not a theologian, and not just that but also 'only' a woman, and not a mullah or anything remotely resembling a black cloacked, bushy eyebrowed and wild bearded guy (nobody ever heard of a mullahesse or imamess have they?) but common sense and my mind (as warped as it is) tells me that this is absolutely pathetic and downright ridiculous. Allah gave us a mind and asked us to use it, but are these revered mullahs using theirs?

What happened to: “[36.82] when He intends anything, is only to say to it: be, so it is.” That doesn’t require a pencil now does it? Fragile or not as the case may be. So these esteemed mullahs, after long reflections, deliberations and considerations (well one can at least hope so can’t one?) have decided that this is blasphemy and sacrilege and therefore they have issued a nicely worded fatwa condemning the song and banning it. They even went as far as to appeal to the people to throw away the cassettes. (Anyone know where I can buy one?)

I suggest that they change jobs (grins very wickedly from under the temporary purdah). They should really consider going into promotion and marketing or advertising at least. After all that fuss and their hoo-ha and hullabaloo, the song has become even more popular than it already was. (Anyone watching it climbing the charts?)

Akram Rahi and Naseebo Lal (the two singers) should really consider hiring these mullahs for their publicity campaign and find a talented mullah able to froth and foam perfectly to head their sales team. The fatwa has catapulted the song way up to be all the rage! (Anyone remember Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses and that old fatwa?) See? See? Saw? The mullahs elsewhere (namely in Iran) have already tried their hands at marketing and just like Rushdie’s verses sold like hot cakes, the cassette is selling vigorously. Someone should really consider this suggestion about changing jobs! It’s much more lucrative than issuing fatwas, after all the sales guys get a percentage of sales, don’t they?

(peels herself out of that damned thing, shakes her auburn curls and takes a deep breath) Does anyone think that God/Allah really worries about what songs we listen to or whether or not we picture him/her sitting there with a pencil or pen?

I close this post with a bible quote Luke 23:34 “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.”

Relevant news item to be found at BBC

The Good, The Bad And The Confusing

2004-05-19T21:58:00.000+03:00

Shortly before he died on November 23, 1976, André Malraux (French novelist, adventurer, art historian, and statesman, Minister for Cultural Affairs 1958-1969) said, "The twenty-first century will be religious or it will not be at all." He didn't live to see 9/11, the day the world would change.

And ever since this fateful day Islam as a religion has been looked upon differently by the West. Swiftly it became the focus of interest, whether for knowledge purposes or merely to be able to attack it. Polls were conducted, reports written, lectures given and hate-crimes against Muslims took place. The Koran was introduced into many a curriculum, universities received funds to start an Islamic Studies Program, stereotyping happened, the media demonised or justified events. Numerous books were printed and both, Muslims and non-Muslims alike, seemed to be competing for a place to voice their viewpoints about Islam. It became a point of debate whether Islam is a peaceful religion after all, or only a means to supply terrorists with a reason to kill, destroy and maim. This didn't only happen in the USA, but also in Europe: "September 11 has in some cases merely acted as a detonator of feelings that we have failed to adequately address," Bob Purkis, the EUMC (European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia) chairman, said in Brussels.

Two trends seem to have developed or even matured simultaneously. On one hand we saw a rising Islamophobia against all things Islamic, and on the other hand Islamophilia became the other side of the coin, perhaps as a stubborn reaction. But where does the truth about Islam lie?

Perhaps we should start by defining both terms. Wikepedia defines Islamophobia as "the fear or hatred of Muslims or Islamic Culture. Islamophobia is characterized by the belief that Muslims are religious fanatics, have violent tendencies towards non-Muslims, and reject, as directly opposed to Islam, such concepts as equality, tolerance and democracy. Given the strong association between Arabs and the religion of Islam, Islamophobia often expresses itself as a form of anti-Arab racism, though not all Arabs are Muslim and the majority of Muslims are in fact not Arab."

Hence the term 'Islamophobia' seems to be just another form of prejudice. While phobia shouldn't be confused with racism, as only phobias against people because of their race and not their ideology or religious beliefs are racism (like xenophobia), it is still a form of discrimination. Islamophobia is based upon an 'unfounded' hostility towards Islam. It may be directed against individuals or groups because of their actual or perceived religious background or identification and results in unfair discrimination and harassment, such as the exclusion of individuals or groups from the mainstream areas of social, economic or political life.

But the term wasn't coined after 9/11. In the early 1980s and 1990s there was a popular anti-Muslim prejudice, reflected in the 'mad mullahs' stereotypes, perhaps due to Khomeini's Islamic Revolution in Iran. Yet the term Islamophobia was not used until 1997, when the race relations think-tank The Runnymede Trust published their report, Islamophobia: A Challenge For Us All. The section called 'The Nature of Islamophobia' suggests a very broad notion of prejudice - "examples of Islamophobia included people seeing Islam as inferior to the West, rather than just distinctively different; seeing Islam as monolithic and static, rather than diverse and progressive; seeing Islam as an enemy, rather than a partner to cooperate with." But despite the word "Islamophobia" being new, the underlying sentiments are not. The negative image of Muslims and Islam began as early as the Crusades, when Christian and mercenary soldiers marched to Jerusalem in order to "free" the Holy Land, the birthplace of Jesus, from Islamic influence and authority. Songs were then sung by marching Crusaders characterizing Islam and Muslims not only negatively, but as infidels and idolaters. Ever since the early Crusades, Islam and Muslims have been portrayed in a derogatory fashion. Leaving aside the political and economic aspects of the crusades, they still appeared to be the logical religious move then, as Christianity was the major religious power in the world until Islam burst onto the scene. Christianity naturally feared a loss of its followers to Islam and needed to respond. More so, since the Koran challenged the Christian notions about the nature of God and Jesus. So, anti-Muslim prejudice and discrimination were based upon claims that Islam is an 'inferior' religion and a threat to the dominant values of the Christian society. This has been more confirmed and has taken deeper roots with the ever rising numbers of Muslim immigrants in the 20th century to Western countries, which made the difference between both religions and mentalities even more apparent. However, Islamophobia is not restricted to a hatred of Islam, but also prejudice and hatred directed against people who are or who are perceived to be Muslim. As such, Islamophobia today cannot be entirely separated from the problem of anti-Muslim discrimination.

Looking at the other side of the coin, "Islamophilia", I have failed to find a published definition in any encyclopaedia I have access to, but the closest one I can devise would be a strong tendency towards Islam or an irrational or even obsessive attraction to it. We can see this trend increasing by reading about the statistics of numerous new conversions to Islam, the growing numbers in women who take the veil and other such acts. But Islamophilia also had its roots long before 9/11, even if it was not called as such then.

Mohamed Kotb, an Islamic scholar and brother of the infamous Sayyid Kotb, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, identified and wrote about this phenomena as early as the 1960s saying : "The best way to counteract hostility to Islam and Muslims is through faith. Faith is what let early Muslims win battles against impossible odds such as 300 to 1. It was the faith of the early Muslim warriors that defeated the more politically sophisticated and better-equipped Roman Empire and also the Persian Empire. Then, a Muslim soldier entered any battle with the idea that he would either die a martyr or win a victory."

But the nostalgic glorification of earlier Islam, which comes with Islamophilia, does not stop at praising the Prophet's time, but goes on to remind the Western World over and over again that they owe their progress and culture to the Islamic World. They are reminded ad nauseum of how the European scholars escaped the dark ages by translating the Arabic manuscripts (of preserved translated Greek originals nonetheless) into Latin. They are told how they copied the principles of Islamic scholarship and academic organizations in building their own. They are prodded to remember that the language of algebra and the concepts of "zero" and decimal numbers were also vital to the growth of Europe and were essentially based on what Arab mathematicians had learned and transferred from the scholars of India, another part of the Muslim Empire then. Mathematics, astronomy, geography, philosophy, medicine and many more subjects were said to have been transferred from the Arab Islamic World to Europe, via Spain, then part of the Muslim Empire. There are many other examples, including the Arabic roots of European music and musical instruments, and the rich Islamic/Arabic influence spanning the people and cultures of southern and eastern Europe, to name but two. The common view is that, during the so-called dark ages of European Christendom, Islam preserved the philosophical, literary, and scientific wisdom of the classical period to be used later by the Western world. Islamophiles go on and blame the Western world for repaying their teachers with hostility and bloodshed in the Crusades.

But even some islamophobic writers, such as Bat Ye'or, a Jew born in Egypt, who now lives in Europe, implicitly acknowledge the Arab/Islamic contributions to the European World, albeit colouring it with her own interpretation. In the book The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam: From Jihad to Dhimmitude first published in 1991, we read : "Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians, conquered by nomadic bands, taught their oppressors, with the patience of centuries, the subtle skills of governing empires, the need for law and order, the management of finances, . . . the sciences, philosophy, literature and the arts, the organization and transmission of knowledge-in short, the rudiments and foundations of civilization. Later, some of those whose civilizations had been ravaged by the barbarians went into exile. The elites who fled to Europe took their cultural baggage with them, their scholarship and their knowledge of the classics of antiquity. Thenceforth, in the Christian lands of refuge-Spain, Provence, Sicily, Italy-cultural centers developed where Christians and Jews from Islamized lands taught to the young Europe the knowledge of the old pre-Islamic Orient, formerly translated into Arabic by their ancestors." The author's view still does not diminish the role the Arab/Muslim World played in the transfer of knowledge.

But where does this leave us? Trying to divide Islam into good and bad, moderate and fundamentalist, harmless and poisonous does not help us bridge the gap between the religions. The fear of things unknown can only be battled through knowledge. So let us try and get to know Islam a little bit better without judging it or labelling it as good, bad or ugly. Perhaps it would be repetitive of me to write that the word 'Islam' is significant to a Muslim, for it has a two-fold meaning: peace and also submission, surrender or commitment to Allah, as this has been written many times before. But I would like to draw attention to the fact that Islam is not just a religion, rather it is an all-encompassing way of life that must be practiced continuously for it to be Islam. Every Muslim is asked to practice the five pillars of the religion: the declaration of faith in the oneness of Allah and the prophet-hood of Mohamed, five daily prayers, fasting the entire month of Ramadan, alms-tax or "zakat", and the pilgrimage for those who can afford it; as well as believe in the six articles of faith: belief in God, all three holy books, all the prophets and messengers, all the angels, judgment day and God's decree, whether for good or bad.

It was a lot easier back in the days of Prophet Mohamed, for then there was only one Islam for all, unlike today where we have too numerous sects and divisions to count. Nowadays there exist many different sects and many different schools of jurisprudence, each with their own interpretations of how Islam should be practiced and they are not necessarily the same. For the purpose of not confusing anybody, I shall stick to the original version of Islam, as practiced during the times of the Prophet before the many different interpretations crept into it. Since I am not a Muslim scholar, but just a scholarly Muslim trying to explain my religion, I would like to take you with me and look at some of the news stories emerging from or about different countries in the Islamic World since that fateful day in 2001, and the reactions to them in the Western World, as well as the basis of them in original Islam, which will be the subject of this series and might perhaps give some insight to my religion.

The Cry Of A Muslim

2004-03-12T21:55:00.000+02:00

There have been many reactions from all over the world to the speech by the Prime Minister of Malaysia Mahatir Mohamed, at the opening of the tenth session of the Islamic Summit Conference. Reactions were as diverse as the nationalities who voiced them or the points they reacted to, be it fundamentalism, militancy or anti-semitism to name a few. However leaving the reactions aside, there was one very important point made by him, namely that Islam is no longer the way it used to be.

Mahatir said :

-"From being a single ummah we have allowed ourselves to be divided into numerous sects, mazhabs and tarikats, each more concerned with claiming to be the true Islam than our oneness as the Islamic ummah."

-"We ignore entirely and we continue to ignore the Islamic injunction to unite and to be brothers to each other"-"But this is not all that we ignore about the teachings of Islam. We are enjoined to Read, 'Iqra' i.e. to acquire knowledge."

-" But halfway through the building of the great Islamic civilisation came new interpreters of Islam who taught that acquisition of knowledge by Muslims meant only the study of Islamic theology."

This is the root of all problems we have with Islam today. Islam needs desperately to be reformed, like all other religions before it, Christianity as well as Judaism, which stripped away bad interpretations and ostentatious rituals. To name a few : the Catholic Reformation in 1451, Lutheran Reformation in 1518, Protestant Reformation in 1533, Calvin Reformation in 1844 as well as both reforms of Judaism in 1819 and 1842.

Reform does not necessarily mean a change towards something unknown and unfamiliar and therefore to be rejected. In Islam's case it should be a change back to its roots and foundations. It means going back to Islam the way it was meant to be, before it was hijacked by politics, personal gains and power struggles. A true reform should do away with all the additions that were artificially introduced into it and which were not part of the original. It also needs to re-adopt the elements that drowned in all the different interpretations and re-interpretations yet again and again. Once we eliminate the superfluous additions we can then expose its original glory again.

Take for example democracy. Recently there has been a long standing debate about how Islam and democracy cannot exist together and are incompatible. If by democracy we mean government by elected leaders, then yes, Islam started off electing its leaders! A look at the four rightful caliphs and Omar in particular would make that apparent. Omar Ibn al-Khattab ruled, but he had a government to rely on, comprising of elected and appointed, male and female cabinet members. Aisha was appointed to deal with religious matters. So even in case of the appointed members, he did that with a public reason, which was accepted widely. His point being that who else would be more knowledgeable than the person closest to the prophet's heart and life.

Take Sharia as another example of required reform. Omar questioned the practice of cutting off a thief's hand when there was famine and he felt responsible for people stealing to satisfy the hunger of their children. Didn't he then ask that it should be rightfully his hand to be cut off instead because he failed to provide for his people? Didn't he seek answers to his questions and follow the practice of arriving at a Sharia ruling as it should be done? Sharia is supposed to be arrived at from the Quran first and foremost. Then if there was nothing in it to help, the next chronological sources to be used are the Hadith and Sunna. The fourth step, if there was still nothing that satisfied the querent’s mind, would be ijtihad (deduction) to be decided by ijmaa’ (consensus) and following qiyas (analogy to similar events already ruled on). If this was still practiced today then how come we have incidents such as with Amina Lawal?

Take the rights granted to various minorities or groups, such as women. Didn’t Islam allow them to work, insist on their education as they would be raising the next generations? Didn’t Islam grant them the right to keep their own wealth, assure them of fair treatment and respect by their husbands whom they are allowed to chose? Are they not permitted by Islam to ask for divorce and still keep their dignity and their children and receive alimony and a place to live in a dignified way? What happened to all these rights? How is it that rulings such as in Afghanistan and Iran, where women are not granted even the basic human rights, are attributed to Islam? When pressed on the Islamic justification of these rulings, they say its tradition. How can it be tradition when it was never part of Islam but reminds of Jahiliya practices?

What we have now is sadly not Islam. Today we seem to have four versions of Islam. -Islam the way it should be and is not-Islam the way it is practiced by the moderate Muslims, which is close but still not right -Islam the way it is practiced by fanatics, fundamentalists, fatwa happy mullahs and ignorant followersand finally Islam as it is perceived by non-Muslims.

What we need to have is just one version for all and by all, Muslims and non-Muslims alike. A version that has no room for vast differences in practices and understandings. How is it that there are such huge differences between Shiites and Sunnis? Bahaiis and Aga Khanis? Ismailis and Ahmadis? Sufis and Mutazalis? Wahabis and Naqshabandis? etc etc. How come all those did not exist 1500 years ago? How come we have three sets of Hadith collections today : a collection of 3.500 said to be the only collection with unbroken links straight to the Prophet, another said to be planted and fake, called Israeliyat and yet a third with 750.000 in total? Why do we have different schools of jurisprudence? Isn’t it one Quran and one prophet with one Sunna for all?

Muslims live in different countries all over the world, with different traditions and customs, which are a part of their daily life and intermingle with religion as well. They live in countries with different political practices and societal norms, varying between monarchy, democracy, dictatorship and theocracy as well as tribal rule within these systems. Education levels vary between people. And all these factors unite to result in their diversity and create different priorities and outlooks. These differences could be the reason why numerous interpretations slowly crept into the original message provided by the Prophet 1500 years ago. These variations are the cause of contention today. However they could be employed gainfully to strengthen the Muslims by allowing unique traits to benefit the whole, as was the case when the Islamic empire stretched from northern Africa to Andalus and into India. The empire that capitalised on all talents and valued learning, prized scholars, maintained great libraries, preserved the works of ancient authors and made innovations.

Shouldn’t we stop fighting each other and amongst ourselves because of these differences? Why can’t we unite as an ummah and fight for Islam itself and not accuse an imaginary enemy for all our woes. We should pursue the jihad that was asked of us as Muslims. This does not mean misusing the true meaning of jihad and translating it to mean waging a holy war against everyone else, including the followers of the other books, our fellow inheritors of the Abrahamic traditions worshipping the same God. True jihad, which is sometimes referred to as the sixth pillar of Islam, means the struggle against one’s own evil and unrighteous inclinations. This is the real jihad. To overcome external enemies, real or imaginary, while leaving one’s own heart steeped in vice is pointless. Jihad is an effort, a diligent endeavour for a better way of life. Jihad has three levels. It starts with the personal struggle within one’s self to achieve higher moral and educational standards, continues to fight against evil, injustice and oppression and ends with a battle against all which prevents Muslims from serving God and knowing Islam.

Muslims should unite in jihad to make Islam a better religion again, reform it and return it to its roots. By having too many different versions of Islam, they can never move forward, but will always move in circles and remain confused and doubtful about which version is the right one. There will always be fights to have one version declared as false and implement another. We saw that in many parts of the Muslim world. Sectarian violence flared in Iraq, Iran and Pakistan. We had riots in Saudi Arabia and tensions in Kuwait. These fights will only dissipate the strength and energy of Muslims better used to improve their lives and conditions.

Muslims should take the first word revealed of the Quran “iqra” and read again. They should start by reading and learning about their own religion, and educating themselves about it to prevent anybody from convincing them of misrepresentations by saying it was ‘written’. Before looking outside they should look within and become confident again. It is only when we are better people that we then can rise to achieve great things. We have to take matters into our own hands and not wait for someone to help us. Don’t take my word for it, take God's word for it [13:11]: “… surely Allah does not change the condition of a people until they change their own condition …”