January 23, 2006
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!
January 06, 2006
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
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
November 23, 2005
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.
November 16, 2005
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.
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.
November 09, 2005
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.
Answer: Saidina Ali k.w. pointed out that:
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.
November 04, 2005
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.
"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.
October 31, 2005
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."
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."
October 25, 2005
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."
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."
October 19, 2005
'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."
'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."
October 17, 2005
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
"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
October 10, 2005
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!
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!
October 05, 2005
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!
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!
September 26, 2005
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!
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!
September 23, 2005
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."
"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.
September 19, 2005
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?
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?
September 16, 2005
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)
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)
September 15, 2005
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)
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)
September 14, 2005
Separate Entrances
A non-Muslim visitor to Safiyyah's blog (SAFspace) questioned why mosques had separate entrances for men and women. The answer is simple, really. The women's entrance leads to the women's bathroom. Everyone, male and female, must wash themselves prior to prayer. (These are ritual ablutions, known as wudu.) The separate entrances not only allow both sexes the privacy they need; they also allow men and women not to come into contact with each other prior to prayer. In one Islamic school of thought, the Shafi'i, any man and woman who touch each other, even accidentally, after doing wudu but prior to prayer, must both do wudu again. So the separate entrances minimize any potential contact. Finally, having separate entrances to the prayer hall allows men and women to begin focusing on the activity at hand - prayer (salat) - instead of focusing on each other. For Muslims, salat is something Muslims take seriously. One's concentration must be on Allah (swt), not the opposite sex.
September 07, 2005
Islam and same-sex marriages
Someone has come to my blog looking for a response to the topic, "Islam and same-sex marriages." Not knowing what this person was looking for exactly, I assume he or she was wondering whether a same-sex marriage is allowable (halal) in Islam. The answer, of course, is "no." Homosexuality by itself is haram (forbidden) in Islam, so we would not condone a same-sex marriage either. This does not mean that two people of the same sex could not live together (e.g., such as roommates), but homosexual activity (whether male or female) would not be permitted between them (this being a major sin), and their marriage by civil authorities would not be recognized by the Muslim community.
Should the gay community feel that Muslims are treating gays harshly by not allowing homosexuality, they should also remember that for Muslim heterosexual couples, pre-marital sex is also not allowed within Islam (this being known as zina or adultery, with its own severe punishments), nor are couples allowed to live together prior to marriage.
Should the gay community feel that Muslims are treating gays harshly by not allowing homosexuality, they should also remember that for Muslim heterosexual couples, pre-marital sex is also not allowed within Islam (this being known as zina or adultery, with its own severe punishments), nor are couples allowed to live together prior to marriage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
