Karen Armstrong on "Qutbian Terrorism"

The following article is one I found through the blog, Isla Meets World. Karen Armstrong is the author, and the article was published last July in The Guardian. I debated briefly as to which blog I should put it in: my main blog, Dunner's, or this one; in this case, I chose my Learn About Islam blog because I felt the article presents a lot of correct information about Islam (especially in relation to the preconceived, incorrect notions of Islam that so many Western non-Muslims have about the religion). I have added some links to the original article to provide more information to my readers.


Last year I attended a conference in the US about security and intelligence in the so-called war on terror and was astonished to hear one of the more belligerent participants, who as far as I could tell had nothing but contempt for religion, strongly argue that as a purely practical expedient, politicians and the media must stop referring to "Muslim terrorism." It was obvious, he said, that the atrocities had nothing to do with Islam, and to suggest otherwise was not merely inaccurate but dangerously counterproductive.

Rhetoric is a powerful weapon in any conflict. We cannot hope to convert Osama bin Laden from his vicious ideology; our priority must be to stem the flow of young people into organisations such as al-Qaida, instead of alienating them by routinely coupling their religion with immoral violence. Incorrect statements about Islam have convinced too many in the Muslim world that the west is an implacable enemy. Yet, as we found at the conference, it is not easy to find an alternative for referring to this terrorism; however, the attempt can be a salutary exercise that reveals the complexity of what we are up against.

We need a phrase that is more exact than "Islamic terror". These acts may be committed by people who call themselves Muslims, but they violate essential Islamic principles. The Qur'an prohibits aggressive warfare, permits war only in self-defence and insists that the true Islamic values are peace, reconciliation and forgiveness. It also states firmly that there must be no coercion in religious matters, and for centuries Islam had a much better record of religious tolerance than Christianity.

Like the Bible, the Qur'an has its share of aggressive texts, but like all the great religions, its main thrust is towards kindliness and compassion. Islamic law outlaws war against any country in which Muslims are allowed to practice their religion freely, and forbids the use of fire, the destruction of buildings and the killing of innocent civilians in a military campaign. So although Muslims, like Christians or Jews, have all too often failed to live up to their ideals, it is not because of the religion per se.

We rarely, if ever, called the IRA bombings "Catholic" terrorism because we knew enough to realise that this was not essentially a religious campaign. Indeed, like the Irish republican movement, many fundamentalist movements worldwide are simply new forms of nationalism in a highly unorthodox religious guise. This is obviously the case with Zionist fundamentalism in Israel and the fervently patriotic Christian right in the US.

In the Muslim world, too, where the European nationalist ideology has always seemed an alien import, fundamentalisms are often more about a search for social identity and national self-definition than religion. They represent a widespread desire to return to the roots of the culture, before it was invaded and weakened by the colonial powers.

Because it is increasingly recognised that the terrorists in no way represent mainstream Islam, some prefer to call them jihadists, but this is not very satisfactory. Extremists and unscrupulous politicians have purloined the word for their own purposes, but the real meaning of jihad is not "holy war" but "struggle" or "effort." Muslims are commanded to make a massive attempt on all fronts - social, economic, intellectual, ethical and spiritual - to put the will of God into practice.

Sometimes a military effort may be a regrettable necessity in order to defend decent values, but an oft-quoted tradition has the Prophet Muhammad saying after a military victory: "We are coming back from the Lesser Jihad [ie the battle] and returning to the Greater Jihad" - the far more important, difficult and momentous struggle to reform our own society and our own hearts.

Jihad is thus a cherished spiritual value that, for most Muslims, has no connection with violence. Last year, at the University of Kentucky, I met a delightful young man called Jihad; his parents had given him that name in the hope that he would become not a holy warrior, but a truly spiritual man who would make the world a better place. The term jihadi terrorism is likely to be offensive, therefore, and will win no hearts or minds.

At our conference in Washington, many people favoured "Wahhabi terrorism". They pointed out that most of the hijackers on September 11 came from Saudi Arabia, where a peculiarly intolerant form of Islam known as Wahhabism was the state religion. They argued that this description would be popular with those many Muslims who tended to be hostile to the Saudis. I was not happy, however, because even though the narrow, sometimes bigoted vision of Wahhabism makes it a fruitful ground for extremism, the vast majority of Wahhabis do not commit acts of terror.

Bin Laden was not inspired by Wahhabism but by the writings of the Egyptian ideologue Sayyid Qutb, who was executed by President Nasser in 1966. Almost every fundamentalist movement in Sunni Islam has been strongly influenced by Qutb, so there is a good case for calling the violence that some of his followers commit "Qutbian terrorism." Qutb urged his followers to withdraw from the moral and spiritual barbarism of modern society and fight it to the death.

Western people should learn more about such thinkers as Qutb, and become aware of the many dramatically different shades of opinion in the Muslim world. There are too many lazy, unexamined assumptions about Islam, which tends to be regarded as an amorphous, monolithic entity. Remarks such as "They hate our freedom" may give some a righteous glow, but they are not useful, because they are rarely accompanied by a rigorous analysis of who exactly "they" are.

The story of Qutb is also instructive as a reminder that militant religiosity is often the product of social, economic and political factors. Qutb was imprisoned for 15 years in one of Nasser's vile concentration camps, where he and thousands of other members of the Muslim Brotherhood were subjected to physical and mental torture. He entered the camp as a moderate, but the prison made him a fundamentalist. Modern secularism, as he had experienced it under Nasser, seemed a great evil and a lethal assault on faith.

Precise intelligence is essential in any conflict. It is important to know who our enemies are, but equally crucial to know who they are not. It is even more vital to avoid turning potential friends into foes. By making the disciplined effort to name our enemies correctly, we will learn more about them, and come one step nearer, perhaps, to solving the seemingly intractable and increasingly perilous problems of our divided world.

See What the Booze Can Do

One aspect of Islam that I think is misunderstood is the reason why certain activities (e.g., pre-marital and homosexual sex), foods (e.g., pork) and beverages (e.g., alcohol) are prohibited. All of these things are listed as haram (forbidden) in the Qur'an. I think that the one common denominator for all of these various prohibitions is that Allah (swt), through the Qur'an, encourages us to lead healthy lives and to minimize the chances of us coming down with various diseases and ailments, let alone losing our lives too early. In this post, I'm going to refer to why alcohol is haram.

The Qur'an says:

"They ask thee concerning wine and gambling. Say: "In them is great sin, and some profit, for men; but the sin is greater than the profit." They ask thee how much they are to spend; Say: "What is beyond your needs." Thus doth Allah Make clear to you His Signs: In order that ye may consider-" (2:219)

and

"O ye who believe! Intoxicants and gambling, (dedication of) stones, and (divination by) arrows, are an abomination,- of Satan's handwork: eschew such (abomination), that ye may prosper. Satan's plan is (but) to excite enmity and hatred between you, with intoxicants and gambling, and hinder you from the remembrance of Allah, and from prayer: will ye not then abstain?" (5:90-1)

We all know of incidents where the consumption of alcohol has caused harm to peoples' lives, whether to those who drink the alcohol themselves or to others whom they affect in one way or another. (I myself survived an accident after being hit by a drunk driver.) However, if you don't believe that drinking alcohol is bad enough, consider the following article, from the Herald Sun (Australia). This woman, Nicky Taylor, in conducting an experiment for BBC3, had literally lost her looks in one month's time.

You wanna drink? Go ahead and become a fat cow.


NICKY Taylor, 39, is stumbling around a nightclub dance floor in the early hours of the morning, clutching a bottle of Smirnoff Ice.

In five hours, she has drunk equal to four bottles of wine in a potentially fatal mix of cocktails, spirits and beers.

She is drunk. She has vomited once, but Nicky carries on, determined to keep up with her female companions.

This ugly scene is not a typical night for Nicky. In an experiment for a British TV documentary, the single mother spent a month matching the bingers drink-for-drink to see what it did to her body and mind.

Over 30 days, going out five nights a week, Nicky consumed a staggering 516 units of alcohol -- 17.2 units a day. Guidelines say women should drink no more than two or three units a day, and a maximum of 14 a week.

One unit is 8g of alcohol, or a small glass (125ml) of wine, half a pint (284ml) of beer or a pub measure of spirits. But stronger beers may contain 2.5 alcohol units per half pint.

Nicky hopes her experiment will open people's eyes to the gravity of binge-drinking in the same way Morgan Spurlock's film Super Size Me (in which the American filmmaker ate McDonald's for 30 days) did to the dangers of junk food.

"What I discovered shocked me to the core," says Nicky, who was monitored by medical experts during the experiment.

She was chosen because her bosses wanted a responsible woman in her 30s. She went into it with gusto, but emerged depressed and exhausted. Her home and professional lives were suffering and she developed an increased risk of liver problems and alcoholism.

Her body fat increased from 37.4 per cent to 38.9 per cent, she put on more than 3kg, and her skin became so damaged she had the complexion of a 50-year-old.

Over time, with the dehydrating effects of alcohol no longer taking their toll, her skin will return to normal. But doctors said that in another five months she might have seen signs of cirrhosis.

"I lost my jaw line and I developed chipmunk cheeks," she said.

"I was drinking the equivalent of about 2000 calories a night and developed a big tyre of fat around my stomach. I also became really depressed."

Nicky describes meeting a generation of women for whom casual sex and alcohol-induced fighting is the norm.

"On average, to match the girls I was drinking with, who were in their 20s and 30s and worked in jobs ranging from city professions to nursing, I had to drink upwards of 30 units of alcohol a night. I never went out without having a big bowl of pasta to line my stomach," Nicky says.

"They all drink on empty stomachs so that the alcohol is absorbed more rapidly.

"On my first night out with student nurses Ceri, 30, and Lorna, 21, I drank in one night twice what the (British) Government recommends for a week.

"I ended up collapsing on the pavement and passing out in the back of a taxi. I never went anywhere without my film crew. But I dread to think what could have happened had I not had anyone looking after me."

The next day, with the hangover from hell, she went to a club with the same group of girls.

"I was so drunk I fell asleep in the club, but the girls kept waking me up to give me more. I ended up drinking 11 double vodkas," she says.

After another binge, her film crew "took great pleasure in reminding me of embarrassing things I'd done, such as dancing on a podium in a gay bar and dancing provocatively with an empty beer bottle."

Turning Muslim in Texas

A wonderful little video: Turning Muslim in Texas. This is a 24-minute British documentary that looks at the lives of seven white American reverts to Islam and their families. Softy that I am, I actually started to get a little teary-eyed when the one woman (not one of the intervieweees) announced that she wanted to take the shahadah right then and there. This is a MUST SEE!

Pondering the Ways and Whys of Islam

The following article appeared recently in the Monterey County (California) Herald. Although I'm not particularly fond of naming talks or articles "Entering (or Inside) the [Insert Group's Name Here] Mind," I liked what Mr. Provost had to say. It's refreshing to see a (presumed) non-Muslim giving accurate information about Islam to the public instead of misinformation presented by yet another hysterical Islamophobe.


Would David Koresh be considered a representative Christian? Are members of the IRA Christian terrorists?

These comparisons are worth pondering when looking at how Islam is often portrayed by the news media, according to John Provost, philosophy instructor for Monterey Peninsula College's Gentrain program, who spoke Wednesday at MPC on "Entering the Muslim Mind."

News reports of the fiery deaths that culminated in the FBI siege of Koresh's Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas, in 1993, and the ongoing war between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland, didn't link Christianity and terrorism, he noted, but the actions of Muslim fanatics, and conflicts between Shia and Sunni Muslims, are joined in the phrase "Islamic terrorism."

That's a mistaken view, Provost said, and holding it won't help get a clear view of the problem or work toward a resolution of the conflict between Islam and western secularism.

The fact that a suicide bomber believes that his act makes him a martyr bound for heaven doesn't make that belief true, Provost said, and most Muslim scholars reject that doctrine as "a gross distortion of the Qur'an."

Martyrdom isn't foreign to Christianity either, he said, and suicide bombers represent "a dark side of Islam that is hard to explain."

But it is the hallmark of the fanatic to seize on a particular aspect of doctrine and apply a literal interpretation that justifies such an action, he said.

"We need to be careful how we speak about religion and politics," he said.

Islam, Judaism and Christianity all sprung out of the Middle East and all trace their lineage to Abraham, but as they have spread to other areas of the world, all three changed as they assimilated into other cultures, Provost said.

Islam began in Arab culture, and its sacred language is Arabic, but a Muslim in Indonesia, Iran, Pakistan or Afghanistan is not like a Muslim from Arabia, Iraq, Syria or Egypt. All adhere to the "Five Pillars of Islam" -- the fast of Ramadan, recitation of the creed that "There is no God but God and Mohammed is His prophet," prayer fives times a day, the giving of alms and making the pilgrimage to Mecca.

Islam does not recognize a separation of church and state, he said. Islam is society and culture, and therein lies the root of conflict and misunderstanding between Muslim and Westerner.

"How can you be Muslim in a modern, secular society?" Provost asked rhetorically. "It isn't easy. It's not easy to be Christian or Jewish either."

He noted that Islam enjoyed its Golden Age under the Caliphate, advancing in art, literature, philosophy, science, mathematics and medicine, while Europe floundered in the Dark Ages.

Islam then entered its own dark age as Europe became resurgent after the Renaissance, and by the 1800s, nearly all Muslim nations had been colonized by Europeans, Provost said. Now they are independent and trying to find their own way.

Europe's example, he noted, isn't particularly admired by Muslims, who cite the 100 million killed in the wars of the 20th century as a path they don't want to follow.

Muslims feel threatened by Western capitalism and culture, the flood of goods and ideas that they feel undermine their own civilization.

"You don't need troops to invade a country," Provost said. "You can do it with MTV, advertising, Marlboros, Levis, Kentucky Fried Chicken and McDonald's."

Muslims find this cultural imperialism "very offensive. It destroys their culture and what they feel is important. It's why they feel attacked. There's a reason why they call us the Great Satan."

A strong belief system with rules and laws can be a source of comfort and support to those caught up in the rapid changes of modern life, he said.

While liberal westerners decry the status and treatment of women in Muslim countries, Provost said a study of Mohammed's writings shows a relatively progressive view of women for his time. It was he who first preached their rights to education, inheritance, property, a dowry as a hedge against divorce, and he limited marriage to four wives in a highly polygamous culture, and then only "if the husband could treat each wife the same."

The practical result, he said, is that 95 percent of Muslim marriages are monogamous.

While news media portray women clad in burqas, Muslim women in many countries dress as stylishly as any westerner. The Quran only requires "modesty," Provost said, not the complete cover-up that some adherents of Islam demand. Cultures change the observance of all religions.

It has been less than 100 years since American women got the vote, he noted, and Christianity allowed slavery for 1,900 years before it was abolished.

"To live up to the founders of your religion, you have to be changed. You have to walk the talk."

Source

The Qur'an...A Way of Life

MENJ has a good post with 60 rules of behavior derived from the Qur'an. Please see: The Qur'an...A Way of Life.

Inside the Muslim Mind and the Qur'an

Below is most of a short interview with Michael Sells, Professor of Islamic History at the University of Chicago, and author of the book, "Approaching the Qur'an" (think "Controversy in 2002 at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill"). The interview appeared in the Minneapolis-St. Paul StarTribune.


Q Some Americans would see the title of your lecture, "The Politics of the Qur'an," as synonymous with the politics of terrorism. How do you respond?

A: One of the big problems in the American society is that people do not have a sense of what the Qur'an is. So when someone commits an act of violence and cites a verse from the Qur'an, which seems to justify violence, then it's easy for people to make the assumption that the Qur'an is a document of violence. So one thing that needs to happen is for people to have a general sense of the sacred texts of religious traditions and to see that there is violence and peace in all of the sacred texts and that people have justified violence by quoting all of the sacred texts.


Q Is there a fundamental gap in understanding between Islam and the West?

A: There are translation gaps. Muslims approach the Qur'an primarily through hearing it in Arabic. It's a very different experience than reading the Bible, and it makes it very difficult for people, when they pick up a Qur'an and read it, to understand the spirituality that Muslims feel and sense when they hear the Qur'an.


Q Does that translate into anything practical in terms of our understanding of the Muslim world?

A: What's often lost are the deeper feelings of tenderness, of solidarity with other human beings, of subtlety, of the ability to have many interpretations. All of these things when they are lost lead then to a very stereotypical sense ... a narrow, more rigid sense of what the tradition is.


Q There was lively controversy after the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill assigned students in 2002 to read your book, "Approaching the Qur'an." Critics said you sanitized Islam by leaving out passages commanding violent behavior in jihad. How do you respond?

A: It's a category mistake. If someone were presenting to Muslims aspects of the Bible that most Christians and Jews find deeply personal in their private religious lives, ... you would probably present something like the Book of Genesis. ... You probably would not present the Book of Joshua, in which God requires his people to exterminate all of the people of the Palestine area. ... I took the part of the Qur'an that Muslims learn first, that they memorize most often, and I translated that.

The Beauty of the Qur'an

Question: How do you explain the beauty of the Qur'an?

Answer: Saidina Ali k.w. pointed out that:

"Al-Qur'an presents to you in the way that you approach it."

If one approaches the Qur'an with evil and ugly intentions, closed paradigms and limited understanding, he will understand the Qur'an with his limited, ugly understandings. If one approaches the Qur'an with love and mercy, the Qur'an will build upon them castles of mercy and compassion.
--Dr. Khaled Abou El Fadl, Interview with the Editors of "Inabah" magazine, p. 5

Comment: After reading this answer, the image I got was of the Qur'an as a mirror. The Qur'an is certainly more than just a book; likewise, our relationship with the Qur'an is not one-way, but two-way. The Qur'an not only provides us guidance generally, in the form of various rules and legislation, but also seems to provide individual guidance, in part through its ability to "read the reader." ("There comes a moment in the reading of the Qur'an, as for example in personal study focused on understanding the meaning, whether reciting out loud or reading it silently, when readers start feeling an uncanny, sometimes frightening presence. Instead of reading the Qur'an, the reader begins feeling the Qur'an is 'reading' the reader! This is a wonderfully disturbing experience, by no means requiring a person to be a Muslim before it can be felt." -- Fredrick Denny, Islam, p. 88)

But everyone is not able to partake of the Qur'an's wisdom. I have come across many people online who have demonstrated their inability to grasp all or a part of the Qur'an due to their mindset. And this metaphor, of the Qur'an as a mirror to one's soul, strikes me as particularly apt. The mind that is clouded and opaque has no ability to see the Qur'an's beauty. That soul, as Dr. Khaled pointed out, will have nothing more than "limited, ugly understandings." However, if one's mind is the least bit transparent, then the Qur'an will reflect back its beauty upon that person's soul. Insha'allah, the soul will continue to grow and become more beautiful the more it reads the Qur'an.

The Jizya or Poll Tax

Here is another excerpt from Dr. Khaled Abou El Fadl's writings, this being on the topic of the jizya or poll tax. In 9:29, the Qur'an says:

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

This is one verse hostile non-Muslims like to point out, whining that we Muslims would inflict upon them the jizya if we were able. (Hey, everyone's gotta pay their taxes, ya know? ;) )

On page 27, Dr. Khaled addressed this topic in his article, The Place of Tolerance in Islam." (To read the entire article, click on the Inabah button at the top of Masjid Khadijah's website, then click on the Issue 21 icon. The article, in PDF format, is on pp. 21-27 (pp. 19-25 on Adobe Reader). This excerpt is another good reason why everyone (Muslims and non-Muslims) need to understand the historical context underlying the revelation of the Qur'an.

The other major issue on the point of tolerance in Islam is that of the poll tax (jizyah) imposed on the People of the Book (Christians and Jews) who live in Muslim territory. When the Qur'an was revealed it was common inside and outside of Arabia to levy poll taxes against alien groups. Building upon the historical practice, classical Muslim jurists argued that the poll tax is money collected by the Islamic polity from non-Muslims in return for the protection of the Muslim state. If the Muslim state was incapable of extending such protection to non-Muslims, it was not supposed to levy a poll tax. In fact, 'Umar, the second Rightly Guided Caliph and close companion of the Prophet, returned the poll tax to an Arab Christian tribe that he was incapable of protecting from Byzantine aggression.

Aside from the juristic theory justifying the poll tax, the Qur'an does not, however, pronounce an absolute and unwavering rule in favor of such an institution. Once more, attention to historical circumstance is essential. The Qur'an endorsed a poll tax as a response to particular groups in Arabia who were persistently hostile to the early Muslims. Importantly, the Prophet did not collect a poll tax from every non-Muslim tribe that submitted to Muslim sovereignty, and in fact, in the case of a large number of non-Muslim but non-hostile tribes, he paid them a periodic sum of money or goods. These tribes were known as "those whose hearts have been reconciled." Furthermore, 'Umar entered into a peace settlement with Arab Christian tribes pursuant to which these tribes were obligated to pay the Islamic annual tax known as the zakah and not the poll tax. Reportedly, although they refused to convert to Islam the Christian tribes contended that paying the jizyah (poll tax) was degrading and, instead, asked to pay the zakah, and 'Umar accomodated their request.

In short, there are various indicators that the poll tax is not a theologically mandated practice but a functional solution that was adopted in response to a specific set of historical circumstances. Only an entirely ahistorical reading of the text could conclude that it is an essential element in a Divinely-sanctioned program of subordinating the non-believer.

Jihad versus Violence

The following excerpt comes from Dr. Khaled Abou El Fadl's article, "Peaceful Jihad." Dr. Khaled is a Professor of Law at the UCLA School of Law. He was recently in Singapore, and Inabah magazine, a publication of Masjid Khadijah, was given permission to publish a number of his articles. (To read the entire article, click on the Inabah button at the top of Masjid Khadijah's website, then click on the Issue 21 icon. The article, in PDF format, is on pp. 18-20.)

I've chosen this particular excerpt because I think Dr. Khaled provides a very good distinction between the concepts of jihad and qital. The concept of jihad is often confused by non-Muslims with what we Muslims call qital, or fighting. Jihad and qital, as Dr. Khaled shows, are quite distinct concepts from each other and jihad, which is a positive value, should not be confused with qital.

I've also included two additional paragraphs to this excerpt because it helps to illustrate some of the limitations that are placed on qital that we Muslims are to follow:

"Jihad is a core principle in Islamic theology; it means to strive, to apply oneself: to struggle, and persevere. In many ways, jihad connotes a strong spiritual and material work ethic in Islam. Piety, knowledge, health, beauty, truth, and justice are not possible without jihad - without sustained and diligent hard work. Therefore, cleansing oneself from vanity and pettiness, pursuing knowledge, curing the ill, feeding the poor, and standing up for truth and justice even at great personal risk are all forms of jihad.

"The Qur'an uses the term jihad to refer to the act of striving to serve the purposes of God on this Earth, which include all the acts mentioned above. Importantly, the Qur'an does not use the word jihad to refer to warfare or fighting; such acts are referred to as qital. While the Qur'an's call to jihad is unconditional and unrestricted, such is not the case for qital. Jihad is a good in and of itself while qital is not. Every reference in the Qur'an to qital is therefore restricted and limited by particular conditions, but exhortations to jihad, like the references to justice or truth, are absolute and unconditional. Consequently, the early Muslims were not allowed to engage inqital until God gave them specific permission to do so. The Qur'an is careful to note that Muslims were given permission to fight because they had become the victims of aggression. Furthermore, the Qur'an instructs Muslims to fight only those who fight them and not to transgress, for God does not approve of aggression.

"In addition, the Qur'an goes on to specify that if the enemy ceases hostilities and seeks peace, Muslims should seek peace as well. Failure to seek peace without just cause is considered arrogant and sinful. In fact, the Qur'an reminds Muslims not to pick fights and not to create enemies, indicating that it is a Divine blessing when one chooses to make peace. God has the power to inspire in the hearts of non-Muslims a desire for peace, and Muslims must treat such a blessing with gratitude and appreciation, not defiance and arrogance.

"In light of this Qur'anic discourse, Muslim jurists debated what would consitute a sufficient and just cause for fighting non-Muslims. Are non-Muslims fought because of their act of disbelief or only becase they pose a physical threat to Muslims? Most jurists concluded that the justification for fighting non-Muslims is directly proportional to the physical threat they pose to Muslims. In other words, if they do not threaten or seek to harm Muslims, then there is no justification for acts of belligerence or warfare. Similarly, relying on precedents set by the Prophet, classical Muslim jurists held that non-combatants - children, women, people of advanced age, monks, hermits, priests, or anyone else who does not seek to or cannot fight Muslims are inviolable and may not be targeted."

Now if you really want to emulate the Prophet (pbuh)...

Prior to the start of Ramadhan, my ustaz had asked me how many how many years I have fasted, and I said that this would be (is now) my sixth Ramadhan. He replied that I have almost caught up with the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), who fasted for eight years. (The command for Muslims to fast during Ramadhan is located in verses 2:183-5. According to Maududi, "The greater part of Al-Baqarah was revealed during the first two years of the Holy Prophet's life at Al-Madinah.")

However, if we really wish to emulate the Prophet (pbuh) in his fasting, we need to fast a lot more than just eight Ramadhans. From Saiyid Sulaiman Nadwi's book, "Muhammad, The Ideal Prophet: A Historic, Practical, Perfect Model for Humanity" (translated by Mohiuddin Ahmad), page 101:

"The Prophet commended keeping of fasts throughout the month of Ramadhan. But, in addition to these, he punctuated every week with a fast or two. 'When he took to the keeping of fasts,' says 'Ayesha, 'it appeared as if he would never give them up.' The Prophet forbade his followers to prolong the voluntary fasts beyond a day at a time, but he himself used to fast continuously for days together without even taking anything during the night. If his companions tried to emulate him, he dissuaded them saying: 'Who amongst you is like me? My Lord provideth sustenance to me.' Normally, he kept fast for the whole of two months during Sh'aban and Ramadhan, the 13th, 14th and 15th of each month, the first ten days of Muharram, six days following the 'Id-ul-fitr, and on Mondays and Thursdays in every week. In this manner did the Prophet teach his followers how to keep fasts."

'Adi bin Hatim

A few months ago, I purchased Saiyid Sulaiman Nadwi's book, "Muhammad, The Ideal Prophet: A Historic, Practical, Perfect Model for Humanity" (translated by Mohiuddin Ahmad), and had promptly lost it. (Meaning, it had disappeared somewhere in my tiny flat. :) ) The other day, I found the book hidden by some bigger books in one of my bookcases, and I started reading it for the first time. The book, a series of lectures given in India in 1925, has been a great read so far. The following paragraph (from p. 82) is one of the book's many gems. When I first read this paragraph, I gasped (twice) and felt the start of tears forming, I was so touched by the beauty of this passage:

'Adi, the son of Hatim, the famous chief of the tribe of Tay, was still a Christian when he called upon the Prophet in Madina for the second time. He saw, on the one hand, the deference paid to the Prophet by his devoted companions and, on the other, the preparations being made for the holy war. Unable to decide whether Muhammad was a prophet or a king, he was still in two minds when he saw a slave girl coming to seek the Prophet's advice in private. "Come on," he heard the Prophet replying, "I'll go wherever you want." 'Adi at once saw that no king could be so modest and unassuming. He threw away the cross hanging from his neck and embraced Islam."

A Reminder for Ramadhan

A reminder for fellow Muslims about just how good life is for us, even while we fast during this holy month of Ramadhan:

"Abu Talha relates that once he saw the Prophet [pbuh] lying in the mosque. He was, at the time, hungry and restless. Some of his companions, on another occasion, complained of hunger to the Prophet and showed him the slab of stone each had tied to his stomach to mitigate the aching void. They found the Prophet [pbuh] still more famished for he had tied two slabs of stones to his stomach. At times his voice showed that he was starving. Another time, when he had had nothing to eat for quite a few days, he went to see Abu Ayyub Ansari who immediately brought some fresh dates and got some meals cooked for him. Before taking anything brought to him, he sent a bread with some meat to Fatima who had also not taken anything for the last two days."

-- Saiyid Sulaiman Nadwi, "Muhammad, The Ideal Prophet: A Historic, Practical, Perfect Model for Humanity," Translated by Mohiuddin Ahmad, p. 104

The 9/11 Terrorists and Shirk

The following is a comment I've made on Lost Budgie's blog. I felt that this topic (shirk) was an important one to discuss, both for the education of non-Muslims and to warn any forgetful Muslims not to engage in that most foolish of behavior, one that they would ultimately regret.

Lost Budgie wrote: "So, how about it? In as unequivocal a manner as possible, and with no weasel words, please clearly state that those Muslims who crashed the airplanes on 9/11 were NOT martyrs to Islam and that they are burning in hell."

I had been asked to respond to certain of your comments on this thread and, originally, I was going to do that; however, I then decided not to because I felt your post and comments were just too silly and islamophobic to argue with. Plus, it's Ramadhan and I would rather keep to the theme of the month; namely, practicing self-restraint. Still, this last comment of yours deserves a response, if only to educate you and other non-Muslims on an important point of Islam.

What you've asked us to do, in the above quotation, is - quite simply - extremely sinful behavior. In Arabic, the sin is known as shirk, or the association of others with Allah (swt). This is the one sin Allah (swt) has told us that he will never forgive. The fact of the matter is that we cannot say one way or another whether *anyone* (let alone the 19 highjackers of 9/11) is or will be in heaven or hell. We cannot even say whether a person is in or out of Islam. These decisions are Allah's (swt) alone; we do not have the prerogative, authority nor ability to make such pronouncements. To think that we can is to think that we have some of the powers of Allah (swt), and that is shirk, because we are setting ourselves up as Allah's (swt) equal - and that, of course, can never be. After all, no human being is a god. Astagfirullah!

Study: Unwed Mothers 'Tend to Not Marry Well'

In Islam, zina, or sexual intercourse between a man and woman who are not married to each other, is strictly forbidden. Of course, in Western society today, the sin of zina is rampant; however, the following news item may be of interest. Published by livescience.com, a recently published study shows some of the negative consequences for women who conceive children after having committed zina:

Women who have children out of wedlock are about 30 percent less likely to get married than childless single women, according to a new study.

When unwed mothers do marry, they are more likely to land husbands who are significantly older and less educated than those of women who don't have children.

"It's more difficult for unwed mothers to get married, and if they do, they tend to not marry well," said Zhenchao Qian, associate professor of sociology at Ohio State University.

More than a third of female-headed families with children live in poverty compared to only 6 percent of married couples with children, Qian said. Marriage may not help unwed mothers economically, however, because their partners tend to lack education and are less likely to have opportunities for good-paying jobs.

The study drew from data collected in the Current Population Survey between 1980 and 1995. The sample included 102,722 women aged 18 to 34.

Their results are detailed in the current issue of the journal Social Forces.

(Emphasis mine.)

One more reason to follow Islam!

The 114th Basmallah

I've been meaning to write about this. A few weeks ago, after taisir class, the ustazah pointed out to Milady and I a little gem in the Qur'an, an ayat that is hidden in plain sight. I was so excited at learning about this ayat that I could hardly go to sleep that night. Anyhoo...

As Muslims, we know that the Qur'an has 114 suwar (pl. of surah) and that there are 113 basmallah, the only surah not having a basmallah being the ninth (At-Taubah, Repentance). However, my ustazah asked, did you know that there is a 114th basmallah in the Qur'an? And there is:

"It is from Solomon, and is (as follows): 'In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful: (27:30)

I've been thinking about this verse since I heard about the connection (114 suwar, 114 basmallah). Obviously it could be "coincidence" that there is a 114th basmallah to make up for the one missing at the beginning of At-Taubah... But I've come not to believe in "coincidences" when it comes to the Qur'an. The Qur'an is far too subtle a work to be governed by mere coincidence. This to me is a sign (ayat) from Allah (swt) that shows once more the divine authorship of the Qur'an.

Alhamdulillah!

The problem isn't Islam, it's the extremist Muslims

Excerpts from a good article, touching on some of the topics that Lost Budgie and I were discussing earlier in the week. By Nancy El-Gindy.


"Why is it that Islam is always brought into question when a small minority of Muslims actually commits crimes of aggression? Why is it assumed that Islam itself is actually driving these murderers to such levels of hatred and ignorance? Islamic terrorism has no roots in the religion itself; rather it grows out of individuals' own interpretation of it, personal intolerance and hate, and in some cases, perhaps even insanity."

...

"If enough people read the teachings of Islam they would understand that it promotes tolerance, patience, kindness and understanding toward both Muslims and non-Muslims. The killing of innocents has been and always will be a major sin, as in any other religion or belief system. Some religious leaders, however, take liberties in interpreting certain verses of the Koran or sayings of the Prophet Mohammad, taking them out of context to suit their own political agendas, and sometimes managing to brainwash others with false promises of paradise in the afterlife. Islam itself does not sponsor or condone the terrorist acts of Muslims, and thus should not be held responsible for them.

"Islam is not uncivilized, outdated or intolerant; it is people who promote radical, unconventional beliefs and practices of Islam. Reforming Islam itself is not going to solve the problem of terrorism perpetrated by extremists, because no matter how much theology and doctrine change, people themselves probably will not. Reinterpreting holy texts would fail, first because of the widespread and strong opposition it would receive, and second because extremists will always manage to find something in the texts of Islam that they can twist to fit their agendas.

"Unfortunately, it seems that in all societies there exists a minority of narrow-minded fanatics. For example, Christianity is widely seen as a moderate religion which promotes peace, and is what it is today because of many periods of reformation, schism, and soul-searching. However, there are still groups of people all over the world who promote extreme views in its name, for instance the once powerful Ku Klux Klan, a self-proclaimed Christian organization. What changed was not the religion, nor interpretations of core religious texts; rather, popular support for the organization eroded as the hearts and minds of the population at large turned against bigotry and discrimination of all kinds, thanks in large part to the civil rights movement in the United States.

"Mindsets are the problem, not what is written in Islam's holy texts. Altering this state of mind should be the focus of intellectual efforts to end terrorism, not modifying or reforming Islam.

"What gives rise then, to this unfortunate and misplaced perception? Simple lack of knowledge about Islam. There is a vital need to raise the awareness in Western countries on some simple facts about Islam. The states of the Middle East and the Muslim world should do much more in terms of public diplomacy. Their current utter lack of the most basic public relations skills is one of the biggest reasons the teachings of Islam are hardly known, much less properly understood, in the West. Western journalists and analysts often know no more than their audiences, making it difficult, if not impossible, for them to put events in the Middle East and acts of terrorism in their proper context.

"Credible intellectual and religious figures should also make more efforts to reach out to national and local media in the West. Scholars, sheikhs and other religious figures should swallow their pride and pay special attention to more conservative media outlets such as the Fox News Network, often criticized for its bias, to reach those sectors of the American population that tend to be unthinkingly anti-Islam. They will need to have a strong grounding in Western history and politics so they can help define for Western audiences the difference between Islamic principles on the one hand, and the actions of a few on the other, in terms they will understand. And they should not let Westerners forget that dangerous, extremist movements claiming to draw on religion have existed in the West as well."

Does Islam require 4 witnesses for rape victims?

MENJ has a nice, concise refutation of the assertion that Muslim women who were raped require four witnesses. Check it out.

Response to Steve regarding Sania Mirza

This is a response I made to "Steve" regarding my Sania Mirza post on my main blog. I've decided to post my response here, in addition to the main blog, as I thought my comments might be helpful for those who are interested in learning about Islam.


Steve wrote: "I think a reasonable person can debate what kind of clothing is acceptable under Islam. I know dozens of Muslims who ruitinely wear shorts and skirts, and at the same time affirm most of the basic principles of Islam."

Those shorts-and-skirts Muslims must be young. :) Yeah, I've heard of cases up in Malaysia where a young woman might go out in public wearing something skimpy but also wearing a hijab. Go figure. Still, there are clearly defined dress codes for both Muslim men and women. Those women who wear the shorts and skirts are not following the dress code. While they may "affirm most of the basic principles of Islam," Islam is not a "pick and choose," cafeteria-style religion. Muslims should (ideally) follow all aspects of Islam as much of the time as possible. As my wife would say, "We strive to be better Muslims."


"That being said, whats at issue is whether or not the actions of this tennis player is worthy of a 'fatwa.'"

A fatwa in and of itself is merely an opinion, and does not necessarily have to be obeyed. Most people who ask for a fatwa normally ask for themselves (i.e., they have a particular situation they would like resolved, and they are looking for guidance in the form of a fatwa). That someone asks, "What about the type of clothing a female tennis player wears in public, like Sania Mirza?" seems a little odd, but is still not out of the realm of the ordinary. In that regard, Ms. Sania is worthy of a fatwa, as is any other Muslim in the world.


"I completely agree that an Islamic council should be more worried about things like Wahhabism or the Mujahadeen than tennis attire."

In all honesty, the vast majority of fatawa that are issued deal with very mundane, daily life issues. There's nothing wrong with an Islamic council dealing with the bigger issues (many Muslims wish they would), but most of their work deals with very small issues.


"However, it is the position of some Islamic scholars that if the purpose of rules and regulations regarding attire is to not attract attention to ones self, then covering up in conditions such as western society and or tennis courts might actually defeat the intended purpose of such modesty..."

Possibly, but... The purpose of the dress code, of course, is for modesty; it's not necessarily to not attract attention to one's self. While a pro female tennis player might attract attention initially by, say, wearing a sweat suit instead of a skirt and blouse, don't you think the fuss might die down fairly quickly (within a year's time at the most)? Is women's beach volleyball popular because we value the women as athletes...or because they wear bikinis? Was Anna Kournikova as popular as she was because of her tennis skills (her having never won a Grand Slam tournament) or because of her looks?

Some more comments regarding apostasy...

This is more of a conversation I have had regarding the topic of apostasy. The Non-Muslim Lost Budgie appears to be the type of Christian who assumes that Muslims would convert in droves to Christianity if only they didn't fear being executed by other Muslims for apostasy. In fact, I believe Ann's comments (mentioned and linked at the very end of this post) are quite true.


Lost Budgie wrote: "Unfortunately, many Islamic scholars do not share your interpretation of Islamic scriptures and laws."

And many do. Read my last post [referring to what I have posted in my last entry on this blog].


"Whether apostates are killed by countries or individuals, the killings perfectly illustrate that this interpretation of Islam is held by many of the faith."

Many people of all faiths will have different interpretations regarding their religions. Some interpretations are held in ignorance; others are held as a result of correct study. Christians and Jews all supposedly follow the Ten Commandments, but that doesn't mean that they obey them (particularly the sixth).


"(For a tiny sample of what can be found on the web, click here for the photos and names of ten Iranian women who were all hung together for apostasy in 1983. Many since that time, of course. This was just a busy day.)"

Personally, I don't agree that these women were apostates; I believe they were murdered for following a different religion (their murders I condemn). If you want to argue that Baha'i's are Muslims (and thus apostates), then you're following a Shi'a perspective, which I don't think many people around the world (including Sunni Muslims) would agree with.


"References? Well, let’s start with Abul Ala Mawdudi and his book “The Punishment of the Apostate according to Islamic Law”. An English translation can be found here.

"Mr. Mawdudi was, of course, a founding father of Pakistan and has been described as 'the most widely read Muslim author of the 20th Century, contributing immensely to the contemporary resurgence of Islamic ideas, feelings and activity all over the world.'"

This is one person's view on the topic and, as such, doesn't carry much weight within the Islamic community. Even if Mawdudi's work is accepted within one of the madhab, that doesn't necessarily mean that any of the other madhahab would also accept it.


"Mr. Mawdudi also provided the introduction to A. Yusuf Ali’s 'The Holy Qur’an, Translation and Commentary'."

Not in any of the three volumes my wife and I have of Yusuf Ali's translation (including original version and revised). Not that, even if Mawdudi's introduction appears in some limited edition printings of Yusuf Ali's translation, would his work make a speck of difference.


"On the web today, you can find many Islamic websites that agree with the position that apostates should be killed. Try here or here to start."

You do know that you can't always trust what you read on the Internet, right? :) Why are you bringing up non-scholarly works?


"So JD…. you disagree with Mr. Mawdudi and others who hold the position that both the Koran and Hadith command (ie: COMMAND, not “recommend”) the execution of Muslim apostates."

You obviously didn't read my earlier post or the article I linked to. The Qur'an forbids the execution of apostates. The one hadith that supposedly forms the basis for the execution of apostates is, in fact, ignored for the imposition of a death penalty for apostates. As the article I linked to pointed out, "The Shari`ah has not fixed any punishment for apostasy." Just because other people may think differently doesn't mean that they're correct or that their thoughts supersede the Qur'an.


"Respectfully, I point out that the disagreement on this issue between Muslims of good faith well illustrates the problem confronting modern-moderate Muslims as they try to reconcile the foundations of Islam with contemporary living."

You crack me up. If you think that Muslims are struggling with some sort of "reconciliation" between Islam and contemporary life, then you obviously don't know Muslims very well. We live within the contemporary world very well, thank you very much.

In the meantime, this entire conversation about Muslim apostasy is largely moot for the most part. It rarely happens. As another Muslim on another blog recently wrote on this topic: "To be honest, this [contemporary apostasy] is not something that really comes up often. The missionaries would have you believe that this is because converts would be killed, as if masses of Muslims are yearning to be Christian, but they’re afraid. In fact, they have a very hard time converting Muslims, and when they occasionally do, it’s Muslims who are not very knowledgeable about Islam in the first place." (Source)

Apostasy

Safiyyah's got another comment from a non-Muslim visitor (the so-called "insta-expert," who thinks they understand Islam after reading what are undoubtedly anti-Muslim propoganda). Anyhoo... Today's comment was, “For instance… The Koran says that Muslims who convert to another religion must be killed. A modern-moderate Muslim has difficulty arguing against this, for to deny this is to deny the correctness of the Koran, or to admit that passages have, what, expired?”

The problem with this person's comment, of course, is that nowhere in the Qur'an is it said that apostates are to be killed. In fact, it's just the opposite. Allah (swt) tells us that we humans are to leave apostates alone, that not only shall Allah (swt) “punish them with a grievous penalty in this life and in the Hereafter” (9:74), but that Allah (swt) alone will punish them.

“And leave Me (alone to deal with) those in possession of the good things of life, who (yet) deny the Truth; and bear with them for a little while. With Us are Fetters (to bind them), and a Fire (to burn them), And a Food that chokes, and a Penalty Grievous.” (73:11-3)

Muslims have no problem in arguing against the false notion that apostates must be killed. A number of Muslim scholars have argued thus:

“A number of Islamic scholars from past centuries, Ibrahim al-Naka’I, Sufyan al-Thawri, Shams al-Din al-Sarakhsi, Abul Walid al-Baji and Ibn Taymiyyah, have all held that apostasy is a serious sin, but not one that requires the death penalty. In modern times, Mahmud Shaltut, Sheikh of al-Azhar, and Dr Mohammed Sayed Tantawi have concurred.” (Source)