Book Review
American Muslims: The New Generation by Asma Gull Hasan

This is a frustrating, baffling, infuriating book. The author means well, wanting to paint an image of Muslims in America as Americans like anyone else, not just a bunch of terrorists, but her attempt is unfortunately not as well done as it could be. The book is written in simple, breezy language, which makes it very accessible, and it is only about 180 pages. Unfortunately, it is not very well researched and is quite superficial. I remember reading it right after I converted to Islam and being upset at how little the author seemed to know about Islam. I mean, my knowledge wasn't very extensive either, and still isn't, but I knew enough to know that she didn't seem to know what she was talking about!

For all the author's extolling of Islam as wonderful, enlightened, and promising equal rights for women, her knowledge of the actual sources and teachings of Islam seem to be rather limited. She talks about the Qur'an, making frequent references to how it is the word of Allah, the basis of Islam, and how similar its stories are to those in the Bible, but there are remarkably few quotations from it. And she seems almost totally ignorant of the existence of the Hadiths and Shari'ah, the Islamic sacred law. I can't tell if she's really that ignorant (she has a degree in religious studies from Wellesley College) or if she is being dishonest, though I would choose the former, given my own experience about how ignorant many Muslims in America are of their own religion. There is a part of the book where she complains about how little Americans know about Islam, which was unintentionally funny!

In the chapter about women and Islam, Hasan describes her grandfather claiming that the Qur'an says that men are superior to women, and she denies it. She writes, "When I asked my grandfather to show me where in the Qur'an it says that women are inferior to men, he replied that it would take him some time to find the passage. As he has still not found it, I presume it doesn't exist or isn't clear in its meaning." Well, both 2:228 and 4:34 say as much, and I'll quote them in several translations just to make my point:

2:228:

(Pickthall): Women who are divorced shall wait, keeping themselves apart, three (monthly) courses. And it is not lawful for them that they should conceal that which Allah hath created in their wombs if they are believers in Allah and the Last Day. And their husbands would do better to take them back in that case if they desire a reconciliation. And they (women) have rights similar to those (of men) over them in kindness, and men are a degree above them. Allah is Mighty, Wise.

(Shakir): And the divorced women should keep themselves in waiting for three courses; and it is not lawful for them that they should
conceal what Allah has created in their wombs, if they believe in Allah and the last day; and their husbands have a better right to
take them back in the meanwhile if they wish for reconciliation; and they have rights similar to those against them in a just
manner, and the men are a degree above them, and Allah is Mighty, Wise.

(Yusuf Ali): Divorced women shall wait concerning themselves for three monthly periods. Nor is it lawful for them to hide what Allah hath created in their wombs, if they have faith in Allah and the Last Day. And their husbands have the better right to take them back in that period, if they wish for reconciliation. And women shall have rights similar to the rights against them, according to what is equitable; but men have a degree (of advantage) over them. And Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise.

(Al-Hilali-Khan): And divorced women shall wait (as regards their marriage) for three menstrual periods, and it is not lawful for them to conceal what Allâh has created in their wombs, if they believe in Allâh and the Last Day. And their husbands have the better right to take them back in that period, if they wish for reconciliation. And they (women) have rights (over their husbands as regards living
expenses, etc.) similar (to those of their husbands) over them (as regards obedience and respect, etc.) to what is reasonable, but
men have a degree (of responsibility) over them. And Allâh is All-Mighty, All-Wise.

4:34

(Pickthall): Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.

(Shakir): Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out
of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose
part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not
seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.

(Yusuf Ali): Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all).

(Al-Hilali-Khan): Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allâh has made one of them to excel the other, and because they spend (to support them) from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient (to Allâh and to their husbands), and guard in the husband's absence what Allâh orders them to guard (e.g. their chastity, their husband's property, etc.). As to those women on whose part you see ill­ conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly, if it is useful), but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance). Surely, Allâh is Ever Most High, Most Great.

I suppose it could be said that these verses could be interpreted differently, more in line with the ones about how both Muslim men and Muslim women will both be rewarded by Allah in the afterlife, but the problem is, the Qur'an is not quite as equality-minded when it comes to life on this earth, especially as seen in 4:34. The only good way to deal with this verse especially is to water it down or to ignore it completely (as many Christians do with Paul's rather misogynous statements in his Letters, but those aren't necessarily seen as being the speech of God Himself, the way the Qur'an is).

Here are Hasan's remarks on these verses: "Sure, there are a few passages in the Qur'an that taken out of context, interpreted from a patriarchal perspective, or not updated for our times (which the Qur'an instructs us to do) imply and suggest women's inferiority. They are by no means passages to build tenets of Islam on, however." Pretty weak. First of all, I thought the whole reason Shari'ah was so great was because it was unchanging (as Islamic scholars insist!), not subject to human distortion. Second, the "taken out of context" plea is one of the oldest and most intellectually dishonest--usually the alleged "real" context is never discussed, just that YOUR reading or interpretation is wrong because it's "taken out of context!" And as for context, well... Hasan doesn't even touch on the numerous hadiths, supposed to be from the mouth of the beloved Prophet himself, which denigrate women (which I suspect she may not even know about), some of which I will reproduce here:

Sahih Bukhari,Volume 9, Book 88, Number 219:

Narrated Abu Bakra:

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

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 54, Number 464:

Narrated 'Imran bin Husain:

The Prophet said, "I looked at Paradise and found poor people forming the majority of its inhabitants; and I looked at Hell and saw that the majority of its inhabitants were women."

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 6, Number 301:

Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:

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

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 2, Number 28:

Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:

The Prophet said: "I was shown the Hell-fire and that the majority of its dwellers were women who were ungrateful." It was asked, "Do they disbelieve in Allah?" (or are they ungrateful to Allah?) He replied, "They are ungrateful to their husbands and are ungrateful for the favors and the good (charitable deeds) done to them. If you have always been good (benevolent) to one of them and then she sees something in you (not of her liking), she will say, 'I have never received any good from you."

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 114:

Narrated Abu Huraira:

The Prophet said, "Whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day should not hurt (trouble) his neighbor. And I advise you to take care of the women, for they are created from a rib and the most crooked portion of the rib is its upper part; if you try to straighten it, it will break, and if you leave it, it will remain crooked, so I urge you to take care of the women."

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 54, Number 460:

Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah's Apostle said, "If a husband calls his wife to his bed (i.e. to have sexual relation) and she refuses and causes him to sleep in anger, the angels will curse her till morning."

We needed a hadith from the Prophet himself for this?!?

Abu Dawud, Book 11, Number 2045:

Narrated Ma'qil ibn Yasar:

A man came to the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) and said: I have found a woman of rank and beauty, but she
does not give birth to children. Should I marry her? He said: No. He came again to him, but he prohibited him. He
came to him third time, and he (the Prophet) said: Marry women who are loving and very prolific, for I shall
outnumber the peoples by you.

What does this say about the proper role of women in Islam?

Abu Dawud, Book 12, Number 2218:

Narrated Thawban:

The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: If any woman asks her husband for divorce without some strong reason, the odour of Paradise will be forbidden to her.

But men are allowed to divorce their wives for any reason, according to Shari'ah!

I will conclude with one of my favorites, from a collection by al-Targheeb: "The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: "The rights of the husband on the wife are so great that if pus flows on the husband's body and the woman licks it clean, then too his rights will not be fully fulfilled."

The point of all of this is that Hasan does not acknowledge that any of this even exists, instead blandly insisting, "The debate over the status of women in Islam is probably the best example of how culture affects interpretation. Men like my grandfather have taken a few Qur'anic passages and, coupled with a patriarchal culture, have interpreted them in the most literal and self-serving way possible. It happens in all cultures, not just among Muslims, and such chauvinism existed before Islam, perhaps even before organized religion itself. There is no Islamic basis for demeaning women or oppressing them. Culture is the culprit here, and no one really is immune from that." I am forced to conclude that Hasan has never heard about the hadiths in question, or about the numerous restrictions placed on women in Shari'ah, such as that a woman is not supposed to leave her home without the permission of her husband, that two female witnesses equal one male, that the woman gets half the inheritance of a male, that the woman's right to divorce is very limited as compared with the man's, that she is supposed to not travel without a mahram (male relative or husband), and so on. True, it would be nice if the situation in Islam concerning women was as she describes it, but wishing won't make it so. These Islamic sources and laws have to be dealt with in some manner, instead of being swept under the rug, because you can be sure that Islamic scholars who know them forward and backward will be all over you for your total ignorance of Islam if you do!

Some more choice bits: Hasan believes that hijab is not required, according to her reading of the Qur'an (which is against the opinion of every Islamic scholar, as well as quite a few hadiths mandating covering, and the Qur'anic verses in question can certainly be taken as requiring covering:

24:31 "And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husband's fathers, their sons, their husbands' sons, their brothers or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their women, or the slaves whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex; and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments. And O ye Believers! turn ye all together towards Allah, that ye may attain Bliss."

33:59 "O Prophet! Tell thy wives and daughters, and the believing women, that they should cast their outer garments over their persons (when abroad): that is most convenient, that they should be known (as such) and not molested. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful."

She also believes that premarital sex isn't really such a big sin, or at least shouldn't be seen as such, which makes me strongly suspect that she hasn't read her Qur'an very well, as 24:2 makes very clear: "The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication--flog each of them with a hundred stripes. Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day: and let a party of the Believers witness their punishment." Not to mention other Qur'anic verses, hadiths and Islamic laws mandating that sex can only be practiced inside marriage, or with a "right-hand possession" (slavegirl); see my essay about sex and slavegirls below on 4/28.

Hasan writes, "Islam also grants women the right to participate in political affairs (imagine, if we had all followed the Qur'an, there would have been no need for the suffragette movement)." Well, of course. If we'd all followed the Qur'an, there would have been no development of democracy, hence no need for women to demand the right to vote. The "ideal" Islamic state (according to Sunni law, at least) is the caliphate, with a (usually) hereditary caliph, and of course ruled under Shari'ah, the law of Allah Himself, can't be tampered with by mere human hands, thus ruling out abolishing or changing of any part of it. Democracy never developed independently in any Islamic country, and the only reason that elections were finally adopted in much of the Islamic world was to make them more like the Western democracies. Even today in far too much of the Islamic world they tend to be shams, or else offering little chance of real change, a choice between one mullah and another in Iran.

The few times Hasan does acknowledge the Hadiths, her source turns out to be books and articles quoting them, not the original sources themselves. I can't say I was very impressed with her bibliography, which included Islamic magazine articles, Islamic books written for the general reader, and books about Islam today written by scholars such as Yvonne Yazbeck Haddad and Jane I. Smith, which tend to be quite apologetic in tone. I wished she'd read a little more widely, perhaps some of the books of Hadiths from Sahih Bukhari, or one of the books of Islamic law, but those are totally missing.

I can only conclude after all this that Hasan is a "Qur'an-only Muslim," rejecting the Hadiths, or else that she simply ignores them as well as Islamic law. This is all fine and well, this is America where you can believe whatever you want, but it's something that would get you executed for heresy even today in her ancestors' native Pakistan.

Aside from the references to the Qur'an and Muhammad, the religion Hasan ends up describing has nothing in common with what is normally called Islam. It's more a jumble of Islamic ideas, Protestant Christianity and Reform Judaism. For example, she says that in Islam, every believer should interpret the Qur'an for him/herself ("I understand that we all have to read the Qur'an and make our own interpretation."). Well, that's a concept straight out of the Protestant Reformation; if it were true, it would tear out the rug beneath Islam as currently practiced as well as the historical practice. In addition, it would rend moot the whole idea of Shari'ah and Islamic States--if all Muslims decide for themseves what the Qur'an says, it means that nobody will agree on anything and religion becomes a purely private matter. This is indistinguishable from much of today's American Christianity, but Hasan doesn't seem to see this. If it were as Hasan describes it, then the "Islamic Reformation" so strongly hoped for by many people will already have taken place. But in reality, there are unfortunately more than enough scholars and freaks who will have you declared an apostate and not a Muslim if your ideas are too far out, and of course according to Shari'ah that merits death. Hasan insists that Islam doesn't need to create a Reform Islam, along the lines of Reform Judaism, but the fact is that her version of Islam is already Reform Islam.

The biggest problem I have with the book, aside from the colossal ignorance, is the fact that Hasan simply presents her version of Islam as the Real Islam, the Way Things Are, without noting that this is not actually the case. Then she proceeds as if most or all Muslims agreed with her, or should agree with her, about any number of issues, insisting that it is only those promoting "wrong ideas about Islam" that lead to trouble, whether Muslim or non-Muslim. The problem is, taking her interpretation, it is all the scholars of Islam throughout history who have had the wrong ideas about Islam!

It is a frustrating book because Hasan obviously does believe in American freedoms and equality, yet parrots the same lines about how great Islam is for women and how peaceful it is, without realizing just what it is she is defending. This isn't a case where a Muslim woman talks about how liberating Islam is because now she is being taken care of by her husband and doesn't have to get a job (that is to say, the tactic of using the words"freedom" and "liberty" and "equality" very differently from their normal usage), but Hasan obviously wants more out of life than being the dutiful, submissive Muslim wife and mother. She has already graduated from law school and is working in a law firm. She is already something of a mini-celebrity, having her own website, writing columns for newspapers (some of which are reprinted here) and appearing on TV talk shows, where she wears American-style clothes (no hijab). How does she deal with the assorted misogynist quotes and sayings in Qur'an, Hadith and Shari'ah? Well, as we've seen, she doesn't--she doesn't seem to know about them, or else disregards them. In her chapter about women and Islam, she does demonstrate that she is quite liberal in her views, but doesn't seem to see how Islam as practiced and preached in all parts of the world is antithetical to those ideas, such as abortion rights, the right to pray with the men instead of being segregated, the right to any career she sees fit, and so on.

The portion of her book dealing with terrorisim is, in a word, disgraceful. True, it was written and published before 9/11, but her absolutely cavalier attitude toward home-grown terrorism is dispiriting. She simply denies everything. She brings up Steve Emerson, but she doesn't refute anything he says about Islamist groups preaching the overthrow of the United States. Instead, she only brings up his suggestion that the Oklahoma City bombing was by Muslims, made in the first days after, and she talks about how Muslims were treated with suspicion. Those are points to be made, but she doesn't go any farther with them, instead choosing to whine about Americans seeing Muslims as terrorists. She doesn't refute any of the reports of fanatical Islamists making speeches calling for an Islamic state to replace the US government; she just denies, denies, denies that anything is wrong, that any Muslims are anything other than loyal Americans. It may very well be true that the vast majority of Muslims in America are patriotic citizens loyal to this country, but the refusal to deal with the extremists, or to condemn them, or even to acknowledge their existence, is quite unsettling. Hasan doesn't seem to understand that the way to prove to Americans at large that Muslims are not terrorists is for them to completely and unreservedly disavow and condemn any terrorist actions committed by Muslims, instead of insisting that they have no responsibility to say anything about it, or even defending it. Whining about it is certainly not going to win you any friends!

I suppose one of the reasons I'm so harsh with this book is that it perfectly encapsulates everything I hate about Islamic PR in the US and West today--the refusal to deal with or even acknowledge any valid criticism, the endless whining about discrimination and people not treating them with respect while often refusing to do the same for those of other religions, the complete and total whitewashing of all aspects of Islam and Islamic history. If this were a review of a Karen Armstrong or John Esposito book about Islam, it would be similar in tone. I just do not think that this is the way to go to achieve acceptance for Muslims in the West. It needs to be a two-way street--not only should Americans learn about Islam (the whole truth, not a whitewash), but Muslims should also learn about and assimilate to Western culture and attitudes (separation of religion and state, the agreement to disagree and leave others in peace, etc.).

A letter, early Islamic history, a female Sufi, what Islam might have been, &c.

Here's a GREAT email I received from someone who is also very interested in early Islamic history and archaeology, which I would like to share, since it has so much great information:

I don't make a habit of replying to blogs on the net, or written articles that appear in the broadsheets, but in your case I feel compelled to.

The reason being that I might be able to provide you with further food for thought having myself read many academic works on the themes that seem to be dear to your heart. Some of which you have probably already come across. Let me further explain myself.

I happen to belong to that sad tribe of swots/geeks who have forked out shed loads of cash to pursue our common interest at post-graduate level, only to find on receiving their MA Near & Middle Eastern Studies/ Islamic Studies degree, that all their endeavour hasn't improved their employment prospects one jot. In fact, it has quite the adverse effect to that desired. In short, one becomes somewhat suspect in the eyes of one's peers who cannot fathom why anyone would have a healthy interest in Islam. Not to mention a suspected suicide bomber.

I'm not bitter. Well, not much. I would have still enrolled on the course just to satisfy my geekish cravings. Moreover, what I learnt in the course of these studies, cured me of any philosophical attraction that I might of previously and misguidedly harboured for Sunni Islam. It also made me much more critical in how I approached tasawwuf/sufism. Which was no bad thing.

Three years on, I got up today and realised that I would love to dip into something written by P.Crone. Having failed to lift a copy from the University library before I graduated- an unpardonable oversight on my part I admit- I turned to Google in desperation. The result: self-evident.

Alas, it could not have been otherwise because, casting my mind back, Islamists had defaced every copy of both Hagarism & Slaves on Horses that filled the shelves. If you doubt my self-proclaimed "geekness" bear it in mind that I enjoyed the footnotes most. I rest my case.

Your passion for early Islamic architecture is also one that I share. I studied: The Early Origins of Islam in the Middle East, Early Islamic Art & Architecture and, The End of the Ottoman Empire in the Middle East & Balkans at SOAS University of London. Let me bring the first two of these together.

The first known examples of Quranic verses are, as you no doubt know, found inscribed on the interior of the octagonal Dome of the Rock, laid out in mosaics (691AD). Although scholars are still at a loss to explain the reason for the construction of the complex known as al Haram al-Sharif, what they do agree on, is that the first recorded instance of the shahada does not mention Muhammad. Why not?

It is also a fact that the original qibla was- Jerusalem. A fact borne out by archaeological evidence relating to the mihrabs of some early Umayyad mosques. Make of this what you will. Also bear in mind the sparse evidence supporting the existence of an unidentified monotheism in Arabia (Yemen/Sabea)- in addition to Coptic Christianity and Judaism- prior to Muhammad, that can be found in primary source material and archaeological evidence. Sparse but nonetheless existent.

This could be seen as circumstantial proof for the hunafa (hanifs) mentioned in the Qur'an. A theme of considerable fascination to me. What was the Din Ibrahim chronicled by the Archbishop of Gaza Sozomenos in the 5th century AD practised by local Bedouin? Was it identical to hanifiyya? It was certainly a form of monotheism but it was apparently neither a Jewish or Christian sect. The Archbishop is a fairly reliable primary source because his writings pre-date Muhammad's lifetime and therefore cannot be considered to be a Christian polemic against Islam.

If anyone doubts that what became known as Islam inspired both works of architecture and philosophies that stand at complete variance with what would later come to be meant by the term "Islamic": one need look no further than Khirbat al-Mafjar, or read the words of Rabi'a al-Adawiyya (ob 801 AD) of Basra. The rise of the rabbinical-like scholars in southern Iraq in Abbasid times who insisted on the importance/primacy of the sunnah and hadiths at the expense of earlier more diffuse traditions has had profoundly damaging long term effects on the Dar al- Islam. Just consider the implications for later Muslims of the rout of the Mu'tazilites and their rationalism. Or the execution of Al-Hallaj.

Kind regards,
Eliot.

[Ed. notes: Rabi'a al-Adawiyya was, unusually, a female Sufi saint who was born in 717 in Basra, Iraq, lost her parents in a famine, was captured and sold as a slave, lived what might be termed a "life of sin" dancing for men for her master, and was eventually freed by him. She refused to marry and spent her days in contemplation of Allah and His Mysteries as an ascetic. She died in 801. Much of this would be disapproved of in traditional Islam, which apparently solidified sometime later, especially the refusal to marry, because remaining single for the sake of being closer to God (as in the case of monks and nuns) is considered a big no-no in classical Islam, a heresy thought up by Christians (and of course, women who don't marry aren't under the "protection" and control of men. Whorehouses and nunneries were two places where women could live independently and run things themselves in medieval Europe.) Here is a site where you can read some of her words, and here's another, with links. (Though, as might be figured, most of those websites mentioning or quoting her are Western mystics or feminists, NOT Muslim sites! I had never heard of her before, certainly not from Muslim sources extolling what a good Muslim woman should be.) I hope to write more about her later--the more I read about her, the more I see her as a heroine for me personally, defying earthly authority to be closer to God!

Khirbat al-Mafjar is a palace in the Jordan Valley near Jericho built about 750, and features plenty of sculptures and wall paintings, some of them of naked women, which are prohibited by what is evidently later Islamic law. Here's a list of fun pictures, especially this sculpture of a naked woman! Other palaces of the era also featured similar naked paintings, such as Qasr 'Amra (shown here).

Al-Hallaj was a Sufi mystic who often openly flouted Islamic law and was executed for blasphemy in 922, after saying in a trance, "I am Truth"--which was one of the 99 Names of Allah, "al-Haqq," thereby saying that he was Allah.]

All this depresses me, knowing that Islam could have been more open and diverse than it actually turned out to be, more like Christian or Buddhist ideas of knowing God/The Infinite, instead of locking itself into a straitjacket of Islamic law and endless legal nitpicking. Apparently the Islam, if that's what it can be called, of the Ummayyad period (661-750) was not what we call Islam today, which developed during the Abbasid caliphate, from about 750-1000, when most of the works we have that actually define Islam as we know it were written, such as the books of Hadith and the biographies of Muhammad, and the four legal schools of Islam were defined. It might be noted that in most Islamic histories, the time of the Ummayads is seen as one of degeneracy and disbelief, the only exception being, predictably, Umar II (ruled 717-720), who was something of a Puritan, disbanding his harem, disapproving of wealth and luxury, and, it is said, wanting to return to the ideals of Islam. He, it also seems, is the originator of the (infamous) Pact of Umar (sometimes it is attributed to Umar I, the second caliph, but that is really too early), which really established "dhimmitude"--the second-class status of non-Muslims in an Islamic state. It enumerated that non-Muslims could not build or repair places of worship without permission, couldn't have houses higher than the Muslims', could not show their religious symbols openly, and so on, and also, interestingly, that the non-Muslims would not teach their children the Qur'an. (The Pact is another topic I hope to cover soon.)

Time for someone to write a book: Islam: What Could Have Been.

Very Brief Guide to Islamic Schools of Law

I hold strongly that if you don't know anything about Islamic Law (Shari'ah), you cannot hope to understand Islam or even know much about it. Herewith, the four schools of Sunni Islam:

Hanafi: Founded by Abu Hanifa (c.700-767) who was born in Kufa, Iraq and died in Baghdad. The mosque in which he is buried, the Imam Al-Adham ("the greatest Imam") in Baghdad, was recently the site of a battle between Iraqi troops and US soldiers (I wonder if he was turning over in his grave at that one!). His school is the most widespread. The Turks adopted it, so now it is found everywhere formerly under the Ottoman Empire (Egypt, the Levant, Turkey, Iraq). In addition, it was adopted by the Muslim rulers of India, so subcontinental Islam (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh) is almost totally Hanafi. It is considered to be the most liberal. It uses the Qur'an and Hadiths, but also relies on ra'y (personal opinion) if there is no precedent.

Maliki: Founded by Malik Ibn Anas (c.715-795) who was born and died in Medina, where he is buried. He wrote the book al-Muwatta ("the approved"), which contains sayings of Muhammad, his companinons, and their descendants. His school is mainly followed in the Maghreb (Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia) and northern Africa, and it was also followed in Spain when it was under Islamic rule. It is considered to be rather moderate. It stressed local Medina sunnah (community tradition), as Medina was, after all, where the Prophet and his companions had lived, also making use of ra'y (personal opinion) and qiyas (reasoning by analogy), as opposed to a heavy use of Hadiths.

Shafi'i: Founded by Muhammad Ibn Idris ash-Shafi'i (767-820), who studied under Malik ibn Anas and came up with the extremely important rule that Islamic law should be based on the words and deeds of the Prophet Muhammad. Previously, any of the Companions of the Prophet or their descendants were considered acceptable sources of Islamic law; Shafi'i insisted it had to go back to the Prophet himself. He was born somewhere in Arabia, related to the Prophet, studied in Medina and Baghdad, and died in what is now Cairo, where he is buried in the Mausoleum of al-Shafi'i. His school was popular in Egypt, the Levant, Iraq and Arabia before the Ottomans, and sizeable populations there still follow it. In addition, Muslim traders carried it to the East African coast as well as what is now Malaysia and Indonesia, where it is the dominant school. It is generally considered a moderate-to-conservative school, basing itself on unquestioning acceptance of Hadiths and on qiyas (analogical reasoning) if no precedent chould be found.

Hanbali: Founded by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal (780-855), who was born in Baghdad. He defied the Abbasid caliphs, especially al-Ma'mun, who had adopted the Mu'tazilite idea that the Qur'an was created by Allah and not co-eternal with him, and who had forced all the scholars to swear their agreement with this idea. Ibn Hanbal held to the belief in the "uncreated Qur'an" which was very popular with the masses, and got into some hot water with the caliphs, even being jailed, before being exonerated and honored by the caliph al-Mutawakkil in 847, who rejected the Mu'tazilite ideas and began going after their followers. Ibn Hanbal believed in a very literal reading of the Qur'an, and made his own collection of hadiths, numbering more than 30,000. He died in Baghdad, and is buried there. His teachings were revived by Ibn Taymiya in the 14th century. Ibn Taymiya's works, as well as the Hanbali school of law, were the basis of Muhammad Ibn Abd-al-Wahhab's (1703-1792) puritan/fundamentalist teachings, Wahhabism, which was adopted by the Saudi family (the current rulers of Saudi Arabia) in 1744. The Hanbali school is now found mostly in Saudi Arabia, as well as wherever Saudi influence is found, and, as might be guessed, it is considered the most conservative school. It relies on a literal reading of Qur'an and Hadiths, rejecting ra'y (personal opinion) and qiyas (reasoning by analogy).

All these schools are considered to be "correct": each is based on the opinions of the scholars who founded it and expanded it, and so all are considered valid. It must be noted that these schools differ mostly in small points, such as whether to hold the hands clasped above the waist while reciting the Fatihah during prayer, or to have them hanging at one's side, or whether the zakat given at the end of Ramadan should be given in food or money, or the precise time each prayer begins. The stuff that is not-so-pleasant is there in all four schools, such as: condoning of slavery and concubinage, cutting off of hands for stealing, stoning for adultery, flogging for illegal sexual intercourse, offensive jihad, the third-class status of non-Muslims under Muslim law (dhimmis), the poor status of women, and so on. Hanafi law allows ALL unbelievers to live in an Islamic state, as long as they pay the jizya (tax on non-Muslims), while the other three schools say that this only extends to People of the Book, who are Jews, Christians and the mysterious Sabians (and sometimes Zoroastrians); all others (such as Hindus, Buddhists and atheist) are to be given the choice between conversion and death. (This is what is meant by "liberal.") If you read through the law books of any one school, you will find far more similiarities than differences (Reliance of the Traveler, a compendium of Shafi'i law, is probably the easiest to acquire (here it ison Amazon.com), although it is also possible to get Malik's Muwatta (here on Amazon.com and here online--and other works in English, especially at Islamic bookstores like IslamicBookstore.com, Astrolabe, and so on).

Perhaps a new maddhab (the Arabic term for a school of law) is needed. If I, Fatimah al-Amrikiyya, (Fatimah the American) were to draw up from the Qur'an and Hadiths a new Islamic law, throwing out all the medieval stuff, I could start a new school, the Amriki (;-P). Unfortunately, since Sunni Islam focuses so much on tradition (it takes its name from the "sunnah" or tradition of Muhammad), this means that critiques of the tradition are apt to land one in hot water. For example, while apostasy from Islam would not be punished by death in the (theoretical) Amriki school, it sure is in the Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i and Hanbali schools! More conservative scholars could claim that anyone promoting such a revision of Islamic Law is an "apostate" and should be killed. So you can see the problems here! (If such a revision did happen, it would probably be a reinterpretation of one of the existing schools of law, probably the Hanafi, the most liberal--the Amriki revision of the Hanafi school.)

I don't know very much abou the Ja'fari school (the one followed by most Shi'ites, mostly in Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, and so on), founded by the 6th Imam Ja'far ibn Muhammad al-Siddiq ("the truthful") (702-765) who was well-known for his piety and learning, but it should be noted that most of Shi'a law is very similar to Sunni law (one large exception being the allowing of "temporary marriage," which is banned by Sunnis). It differs mostly on 1) where the authority should come from in the Islamic community (Sunnis believe that the caliph should rule, Shi'ites the imam, the descendant of Muhammad) and 2) who has the right to interpret Islamic law (Sunnis think the ulama--religious scholars--should, Shi'ites the imam or his representatives). Interestingly, it is possible for Shi'ite law to be more liberal, because the imam or his representative (ever since the twelfth and last, al-Mahdi, went into occultation--disappeared from human view--in 874, to return at the end of the world) is invested with a great deal of power to interpret Islamic law, whereas with Sunni law, it is the tradition that is considered the ultimate authority and as such makes it that much harder to change.

Random Scattershot Thoughts about Women Slaves in "That Most-Respectful-To-Women Faith," Islam

After reading The Adventures of Ibn Battuta by Ross E. Dunn, I was rather jealous of the legendary traveler's travels...and ready to wring his neck for his shabby treatment of women! Even for the time, he seems a real prick, marrying women and divorcing them without a second thought, divorcing and abandoning pregnant wives (at least twice), leaving them not even the Qur'anic requirement of payment after divorce to support the child, as well as having numerous slavegirls (whose prime purpose in Islamic countries was being used for sex and bearing children for their masters). It has been said that in Ibn Battuta's case, the wives came and went, while the slavegirls were his real female companions. Freeborn wives weren't really prepared for the rigors of the road (instead usually being secluded at home), while slaves were simply dragged along regardless of the hazards. And if they died, oh well--there were plenty more where they came from. I guess I object most to the "women as sex objects" attitude, which was quite literal in the case of slaves, who were simply property, like one's clothes or cattle.

This leads to another topic that probably bothers me more than any other about the way Islam treats women--the permission given by the Qur'an, and therefore Allah Himself, to "enjoy" your "right-hand possession" (slavegirl), permitted in numerous Qur'anic verses (4:3, 4:25, 23:6, 33:50, 70:30). A city would be taken by the Muslims, the men would be slaughtered, and the women and children sold into slavery, or else women captives would be taken during raids. According to the hadiths, Muhammad declared that the marriages of the captured women were null and void, so they could be "enjoyed" by their new Muslim masters without fear of committing adultery. What a strange set of values! Adultery is evil, but raping slave women who have just had their families slaughtered is not! And it must be noted that nowhere in Qur'an, Hadiths, Sunna or Shari'ah is it a requirement that the woman's permission be given--after all, she's just a slave, your possession to do with as you please, with no rights of her own. Best of all, there was no limit given to the number of slavegirls a man could have (a man could only have four legal wives at a time), leading to spectacles such as the Sultan of Turkey's harem with hundreds of slavegirls.

Muslims could not be made slaves, only infidels (generally those who had been captured in jihad), although some converted to Islam afterwards. The women and girls captured and purchased for the Turkish sultan's harem, for example, were converted to Islam, whether they liked it or not! Nevertheless, just because a slave accepted Islam didn't mean he/she would be set free--that was up to the master. Masters could free their slave women and marry them, but this was rare. And why should they, when they could enjoy all the benefits of concubinage without the annoyances of marriage? It should be noted that there was no "marriage" between the master and his slave, only an owner taking pleasure in his own property, attempts to portray it as some kind of marriage notwithstanding. Muhammad himself had slave concubines, although the number varies according to the source. One of them, Mary the Copt, a beautiful Egyptian, gave birth to his son Ibrahim, who died as an infant. It should be noted that while Safiyah, a 17-year-old Jewish girl captured by the Muslims during the sack against the Jewish town of Khaibar, in which her father and husband were killed, accepted Islam and was then freed and married by Muhammad ("her dowry (bridal gift) was her manumission"), Rayhana, another Jewish girl, refused to convert and remained a slave concubine of Muhammad.

According to Shari'ah, a child born of a slave mother had exactly the same rights as one born of a legal wife--that is, he/she was free and considered completely legitimate, despite the fact that the parents were not legally married. They could be of any race or color, depending on the source of slaves, from black Africans to Indians to Greeks to Slavs to blonde-haired and blue-eyed Circassians. However, the mother's lineage didn't count, so children born of Arab/slave unions were considered to be Arab--hence the enormous racial differences subsumed under the term "Arab." Almost all of the Abbasid caliphs (750-1258) were born of slave mothers, and the Turkish sultans didn't even bother to have actual wives, having nothing but slave concubines who had been torn from their families and converted to Islam, which really cut down on those annoying problems with the in-laws!

Shari'ah also held that a slave who bore her master a child became free upon the said master's death (the umm walad, "mother of the child"). She also had the right to minimal food, clothing and shelter from her master (as an animal would). Her punishment for sexual crimes was less--she would only be beaten or sold instead of stoned for illegal sexual intercourse, for example. But she had no other rights--she was only a possession, there to gratify the sexual desires of her master whenever he chose. She could be sold at any time, or forced on perilous journeys (Ibn Battuta). She might or might not be forced to bear a child, or many, for her master (some rather putrid hadiths about 'azl--coitus interruptus, and slavegirls follows at the end, along with many others on the topic of slavegirls).

It is true that most ancient cultures had slavery, but the Islamic conception of it pretty much guaranteed that it would be ongoing (too much in it for the men!) Unfortunately, while other cultures have ended slavery for over a century, the Muslim world did so only reluctantly, Saudi Arabia doing so only in 1962 (and who knows how many are still there). Slavery in the Sudan and Mauritania are particularly wretched examples of this kind of thing going on today.

The most offensive part, though, is that even today plenty of Muslims are more than happy to defend slavery and concubinage under Islamic law, insisting on how "humane" it was. You can read unbelievably offensive articles about how Muslim slavery was and is "progressive," "kindly," and in tune with modern international treaties concerning humane treatment of POWs. You can read either (or sometimes both): 1) that Muslims did their best to abolish the scourge of slavery, or alternately 2) that since slavery is divinely sanctioned in Qur'an, Sunna and Shari'ah, it is just fine today, regardless of what the "ungodly" infidels think (here's a wretched fatwa from an Islamic Q&A site about how mating with slavegirls today is just fine and dandy, and here's more on the subject, and here from another site, saying that although it might sound repulsive, Shari'ah allows it and so what's wrong is our attitudes towards it, because Shari'ah can never be wrong!).

Many Muslims, male and female, complain that in the West, women are seen as sex objects, while Islam "honors" and "protects" them. Well, frankly, I can't think of a more perfect example of viewing women as purely sex objects and pieces of meat than the time-honored Islamic practice of slave concubinage, with the attendant slave auctions where women were bought and sold. (This is of course just another thing that you are unlikely to hear about in articles proclaiming "The Liberation of Women Through Islam." Maybe it only applies to Muslim women.)

If I sound bitter about this, it's because I am. I am upset that there are young Muslim men out there on Islamist jihadi talkboards just salivating for the chance to get their hands on a "right-hand possession" after the glorious global jihad, when they will have their pick of the infidel women of all nations. I am upset that Muslims totally deny their part in the slave trade (Arabs were particularly active merchants of African slaves) while defending the institution of slavery as necessary to deal with the problem of prisoners of war. I am upset that Muslim men think that Western women can be treated as whores and pieces of meat, indulging in molestation, harrassment and even rape, apparently without a twinge of conscience. I am upset that Saudi Arabian men see female servants from the Philippines and elsewhere as their own personal sex slaves. I am upset at the slavery still going on in the world, legal and illegal, much of it in Muslim countries. And I am really upset that Muslim women don't give any of this a second thought when claiming how wonderful Islam is to women. True, much of this is not exactly in tune with the teachings of Islam, which prohibit screwing around, but there is far too much of this kind of crap going on, much of it defended by Muslim women (such as the Muslim mothers insisting that their sons shoudn't be punished for raping Australian girls).

Non-Muslim women must be treated by Muslim men with as much respect as Muslim women (admittedly, that might not be much better, but it's a start). Unfortunately the arrogant attitudes often displayed by Muslims towards non-Muslims (as discussed in the "Ugly Muslim" post below), as well as widespread misogynistic feelings among Muslim men, and finally the perception of all Western/infidel women as cheap whores, all militate against a change of attitude. I don't know what is to be done, but I implore all Western and non-Muslim women to not put up with this crap, regardless of worries about seeming culturally "insensitive." Let them know you won't put up with their crap! Let them know that this behavior will not be tolerated, and (perhaps) they will get the message.

Hadiths and Rulings About Slavegirls:

Umm Walad
Malik's Muwatta (Book of Maliki Law), Book 38, Number 38.5.6:

Malik related to me from Nafi from Abdullah ibn Umar that Umar ibn al-Khattab said, "If a slave-girl gives birth to a child by her master, he must not sell her, give her away, or bequeath her. He enjoys her and when he dies she is free ."

Slavegirls And Coitus Interruptus

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 137:

Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:

We got female captives in the war booty and we used to do coitus interruptus with them. So we asked Allah's Apostle about it and he said, "Do you really do that?" repeating the question thrice, "There is no soul that is destined to exist but will come into existence, till the Day of Resurrection."

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 93, Number 506:

Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:

That during the battle with Bani Al-Mustaliq they (Muslims) captured some females and intended to have sexual relations with them without impregnating them. So they asked the Prophet about coitus interruptus. The Prophet said, "It is better that you should not do it, for Allah has written whom He is going to create till the Day of Resurrection." Qaza'a said, "I heard Abu Sa'id saying that the Prophet said, 'No soul is ordained to be created but Allah will create it."

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 459:

Narrated Ibn Muhairiz:

I entered the Mosque and saw Abu Said Al-Khudri and sat beside him and asked him about Al-Azl (i.e. coitus interruptus). Abu Said said, "We went out with Allah's Apostle for the Ghazwa of Banu Al-Mustaliq and we received captives from among the Arab captives and we desired women and celibacy became hard on us and we loved to do coitus interruptus. So when we intended to do coitus interrupt us, we said, 'How can we do coitus interruptus before asking Allah's Apostle who is present among us?" We asked (him) about it and he said, 'It is better for you not to do so, for if any soul (till the Day of Resurrection) is predestined to exist, it will exist."

Sahih Muslim, Book 008, Number 3383:

Jabir (Allah be pleased with him) reported that a man came to Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) and said: I have a slave-girl who is our servant and she carries water for us and I have intercourse with her, but I do not want her to conceive. He said: Practise 'azl, if you so like, but what is decreed for her will come to her. The person stayed back (for some time) and then came and said: The girl has become pregnant, whereupon he said: I told you what was decreed for her would come to her.

Malik's Muwatta, Book 29, Number 29.32.100:

Yahya related to me from Malik from Humayd ibn Qays al-Makki that a man called Dhafif said that Ibn Abbas was asked about coitus interruptus. He called a slave-girl of his and said, "Tell them." She was embarrassed. He said, "It is alright, and I do it myself."

Malik said, "A man does not practise coitus interruptus with a free woman unless she gives her permission. There is no harm in practising coitus interruptus with a slave-girl without her permission. Someone who has someone else's slave-girl as a wife, does not practise coitus interruptus with her unless her people give him permission."

Malik's Muwatta, Book 29, Number 29.32.99:

Yahya related to me from Malik from Damra ibn Said al-Mazini from al-Hajjaj ibn Amr ibn Ghaziya that he was sitting with Zayd ibn Thabit when Ibn Fahd came to him. He was from the Yemen. He said, "Abu Said! I have slave-girls. None of the wives in my keep are more pleasing to me than them, and not all of them please me so much that I want a child by them, shall I then practise coitus interruptus?" Zayd ibn Thabit said, "Give an opinion, Hajjaj!" "I said, 'May Allah forgive you! We sit with you in order to learn from you!' He said, 'Give an opinion! 'I said, 'She is your field, if you wish, water it, and if you wish, leave it thirsty. I heard that from Zayd.' Zayd said, 'He has spoken the truth.' "

Don't Worry If The Slave Women You Captured Are Married Or Not

Sahih Muslim, Book 008, Number 3432:

Abu Sa'id al-Khudri (Allah be pleased with him) reported that at the Battle of Hanain Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) sent an army to Autas and encountered the enemy and fought with them. Having overcome them and taken them captives, the Companions of Allah's Messenger (may peace te upon him) seemed to refrain from having intercourse with captive women because of their husbands being polytheists. Then Allah, Most High, sent down regarding that:" And women already married, except those whom your right hands possess (iv. 24)" (i.e. they were lawful for them when their 'Idda period came to an end) [which is about a month --ed. note].

What To Do With A Slavegirl Who Keeps Screwing Around

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 46, Number 731:

Narrated Abu Huraira and Zaid bin Khalid:

The Prophet said, "If a slave-girl (Ama) commits illegal sexual intercourse, scourge her; if she does it again, scourge her again; if she repeats it, scourge her again." The narrator added that on the third or the fourth offence, the Prophet said, "Sell her even for a hair rope."

The Exemplary Example of 'Ali, The Prophet's Cousin and Son-In-Law

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 637:

Narrated Buraida:

The Prophet sent 'Ali to Khalid to bring the Khumus (of the booty) and I hated Ali, and 'Ali had taken a bath (after a sexual act with a slave-girl from the Khumus). I said to Khalid, "Don't you see this (i.e. Ali)?" When we reached the Prophet I mentioned that to him. He said, "O Buraida! Do you hate Ali?" I said, "Yes." He said, "Do you hate him, for he deserves more than that from the Khumlus."

Slaves As Possessions

Malik's Muwatta, Book 31, Number 31.5.6:

Yahya related to me from Malik from Nafi that Abdullah ibn Umar would say, "A man should not have intercourse with a slave girl except one whom, if he wished, he could sell, if he wished, he could give away, if he wished, he could keep, if he wished, he could do with her what he wanted ."

Malik said that a man who bought a slave-girl on condition that he did not sell her, give her away, or do something of that nature, was not to have intercourse with her. That was because he was not permitted to sell her or to give her away, so if he did not own that from her, he did not have complete ownership of her because an exception had been made concerning her by the hand of someone else. If that sort of condition entered into it, it was a messy situation, and the sale was not recommended.

Women Not Treated As Sex Objects In Islam, My A**!

Book 31, Number 31.4.4:

...
Malik said, "The generally agreed upon way of doing things among us is that if a man returns a slave girl in whom he has found a defect and he has already had intercourse with her, he must pay what he has reduced of her price if she was a virgin. If she was not a virgin, there is nothing against his having had intercourse with her because he had charge of her."
...
Malik spoke about a situation where a slave-girl was bartered for two other slave-girls and then one of the slave-girls was found to have a defect for which she could be returned. He said, "The slave-girl worth two other slave-girls is valued for her price. Then the other two slave-girls are valued, ignoring the defect which the one of them has. Then the price of the slave-girl sold for two slave-girls is divided between them according to their prices so that the proportion of each of them in her price is arrived at - to the higher priced one according to her higher price, and to the other according to her value. Then one looks at the one with the defect, and the buyer is refunded according to the amount her share is affected by the defect, be it little or great. The price of the two slave-girls is based on their market value on the day that they were bought."

Such A Happy Family

Malik's Muwatta, Book 41, Number 41.6.20:

Malik related to me from Rabia ibn Abi Abd ar-Rahman that Umar ibn al-Khattab spoke about a man who went out with his wife's slave-girl on a journey and had intercourse with her and then the wife became jealous and mentioned that to Umar ibn al-Khattab. Umar questioned him about it. He said, "She gave her to me." Umar said, "Bring me a clear proof or I will stone you." Rabia added, "The wife confessed that she had given her to him."

Malik's Muwatta, Book 30, Number 30.2.13: (note: according to Shari'ah, babies who suckle from the same woman are considered to be related and thus not suitable marriage partners):

Yahya related to me from Malik that Abdullah ibn Dinar said, "A man came to Abdullah ibn Umar when I was with him at the place where judgments were given and asked him about the suckling of an older person. Abdullah ibn Umar replied, 'A man came to Umar ibn al-Khattab and said, 'I have a slave-girl and I used to have intercourse with her. My wife went to her and suckled her. When I went to the girl, my wife told me to watch out, because she had suckled her!' Umar told him to beat his wife and to go to his slave-girl because kinship by suckling was only by the suckling of the young.' "

Anyway, I think this is more than enough to get the gist...