Family Life in Islam, Extended vs. Nuclear Families, Patrilineal vs. Matrilineal Societies, Etc.
After spending some time reading Fatima Mernissi's Beyond the Veil: Male-Female Dynamics in Modern Muslim Society, it occurred to me just how much Islamic law, as well as Arab and other Muslim cultures, depend on the extended family, as opposed to the nuclear family. Islamic law depends so much on this that Shari'ah often just isn't practicable in societies not based extended families. I've never really seen this topic discussed anywhere, so I'll try to take a stab at it.
The primary unit in the US and much of the West is the nuclear family, which is generally Mom/Dad and children (yes, there are variations, but let's keep this simple!). Islamic societies are generally based on the extended family, which stretches over three or more generations, and usually has a male head (patriarch) that everybody defers to, even other men with their own families. These families function as a safety net in societies where social programs are inadequate or nonexistent. Instead of the aged getting Social Security, for example, the younger members of the family are supposed to support and care for the respected elders. The various members usually work together and often help each other out, whether with money, time, or effort. They have also often been the source of prospective spouses for children (the frequent practice of marriage to cousins or more distant relatives), which keeps the wealth in the family, even in case of divorce.
But it isn't all positive: the negative is that this kind of societal organization in which the extended family or tribe is paramount is generally not very conductive to individual freedom. One stays where one's family is all one's life, usually, and one has to know one's place in the family. The family can be very "persuasive" by threatening to "disown" someone, since that takes away both family connectios and the safety net, in effect leaving the person naked to the cruel blows of fate, especially women, who are usually very much dependent on their families.
It also means that arranged marriages are the order of the day, since the main purpose of such unions is making alliances between families, or within the same family (the lack of freedom again). Love, which so often disregards societal barriers ("love conquers all") is discouraged, since it would destroy the carefully-planned marriage alliances and strict societal rules. And since the family or tribe is paramount, holding together nuclear families does not seem to be quite as high a priority, since individual marriages are not the bedrock of society. Contrary to Muslim propaganda, which points disapprovingly at high Western divorce rates while insinuating that divorce is very uncommon in Muslim lands (not stating actual statistics, mind you!), divorce is not at all uncommon in Muslim lands, especially when the husband can divorce his wife at will, without giving any reason, just by saying "I divorce you" three times. Contrast this with the lengthy legal proceedings in an American divorce. In addition, consider that if the rates are lower, one big reason is that while most divorces in the US are initiated by women, in Islam the ability of the woman to divorce is considerably more difficult than that of the man; she has to have an acceptable reason to do so and she must give back the dowry her husband gave her, which makes the claim by Muslim writers that the dowry is purely the property of the woman to do with as she wills something of a cruel joke; she will in fact have to hold on to it in case she wants a divorce.
Muslim family law implicitly requires an extended family. The many rules about women presuppose that she has a family that will support her. In the case of divorce, women are supposed to be given a small amount of maintenance (usually for a year, sometimes only three months) from the husband, as well as some child support until the child comes of age (or is taken by the father), but there is nothing like the American concept of alimony. In addition, as mentioned, if the woman initiated the divorce, she is generally obliged to give back the dowry that her husband gave her, so she may be left with nothing. She is supposed to go back to her extended family, who will take care of her and perhaps her children. Since Muslim women are often unemployed and/or poorly educated, if she doesn't have a family she is basically being thrown out onto the street! And since in the West the extended family often doesn't exist, or is unable or unwilling to help, this law would in practice be unbelievably cruel without the cushioning provided by the extended family.
Another case is inheritance. Women, according to the Qur'an, receive half the amout of men (4:11-12; the verses are at the end of this entry). This is justified by claiming that it is the man who supports the family, while the woman's money is her own, to do with as she pleases. However, this already presupposes that every woman will have a man or men to support her, whether a husband, brother, father, uncle, or son. If she has nobody to depend on, this law condemns her to poverty. If a woman's husband dies and she has children, she is only entitled to one-eighth of the inheritance (the husband would get one-fourth of his wife's estate in this situation); if there are no children she gets a quarter. If there are other wives, this eighth must be shared between them. Other members of the family, such as parents and siblings, are also entitled to a slice. Since the estate is unlikely to be very big to begin with (the Qur'an requires all debts to be paid before splitting up what's left), a widow with no family would likely be condemned to poverty, forced to rely on charity. Naturally this is unworkable in a nuclear family oriented society where the woman cannot depend on anybody else to support her and if she does not have a job. Again, it is the extended family that is supposed to protect and support her.
Women in Islam often keep their maiden names after marriage. This is touted as a great boon for women by Muslim writers, but in fact I suspect it reflects the fact that the family a woman comes from is more important to her identity than the family she marries into. As mentioned above, divorce is not at all uncommon in Muslim societies, and one reason is that the nuclear family is not the basis of society. It's who you're related to, not who you marry, that is most important.
Women have little legal recourse against abusive husbands in most Muslim countries, as the Qur'an explicitly gives the husband the right to "discipline" her (4:34: "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."). Instead she is supposed to depend on the members of her own family to make her concerns known by, for example, having her father or brother give her husband a good talking-to, or even to take her home if things are bad enough. Well, if there is no family to do this on her behalf, what is she supposed to do? She may be completely at his mercy, with no support except from domestic-violence organizations (if they exist).
There is of course no use for a single, unmarried woman living by herself in Islamic law, which presupposes that she is under the control and guardianship of some male relative. She is not supposed to travel by herself, marry herself, or even to support herself--that's the job of her husband or father. In the West, the problem has developed of single Western women converting to Islam, which renders them without an "acceptable" male guardian, who must be Muslim, and there is no Islamic government to act as their guardian. In such cases, the imam of the mosque will often become her guardian, at least for the purpose of marriage, which is strongly encouraged, as it integrates them into the Muslim community.
A society in which women support themselves and do not depend on a husband or father to do so is contrary to Muslim law, which explicitly requires the husband to support his wife (which makes him the undisputed ruler of his household). A somewhat less patriarchal system is hard for Islamic law to really accept, since the whole structure of Islamic society is predicated on such a system.
Knowing the paternity of children is absolutely essential in Islamic law, since children in Islamic law belong to the father, and any opportunity for the birth of children outside marriage (in which paternity may be in doubt) is very strictly controlled. The penalties for sex outside of marriage are very harsh, and usually the females bear the brunt of what may be an outrageous double standard, where boys may do pretty much whatever they like with prostitutes and foreign women, but girls absolutely must remain virgin until marriage, or risk an honor killing or some other such horrific fate. Women are often strictly separated from men in Islamic societies, which prevents undesirable sexual contact with males other than the husband or family. After divorce or the death of her husband, a woman must wait three menstrual periods to make sure that she is not pregnant (the 'iddah) before she can marry again, so she will not be able to pass off the other husband's child as the new husband's. A mother who bears a child out of wedlock is typically treated very harshly, and in such a case the father does not assume paternity of the child under any circumstances; he or she belongs only to the mother's family, since the father is in doubt. Since the child belongs to the father and belongs to his family or tribe, it is absolutely imperative that the father be known for certain. Adoption is banned in Islamic law; if a man wants to bring up a child not his own, the child must retain the name of his or her biological father and does not count as a child of the man; if the child is a boy, the women of the family are supposed to start covering themselves in his presence when he reaches manhood, since he is not an immediate family member that they cannot marry, such as a brother, uncle or son; if a girl, it would be acceptable for the men of the family to marry her.
Fatima Mernissi discusses accounts of pre-Islamic Arab society in her book (Chapter 3, "Sex and Marriage Before Islam"), which seems to have been at least partially matriarchal and matrilineal. Children often belonged to the mother, which made paternity far less important; women usually depended on their own families for support, not her husband; women could easily divorce husbands (for example, one way was to make the tent face the opposite direction; when the husband came back and saw the back of the tent facing him, he knew he was divorced). There are accounts in the Muslim sources of pre-Islamic Arab women having more than one husband, and when a child was born, she would decide which man most looked like the child and declare him to be the father. Polygyny (a man having more than one wife) seems to have been rare, even nonexistent among the Arabs before Islam (when Muhammad was married to Khadija, his first wife, who was older and much wealthier than he, he took no other wife; after she died, and he had made the hijra to Medina to found the first Islamic community, he married at least eleven times, mostly to women far younger than he). Islam seems to have taken away many rights that Arab women were used to having, as the following story seems to show.
Fascinatingly, it is said that when Muhammad died, six women from the Yemen, upon hearing the news, began to celebrate, singing and dancing and painting their hands with henna, and were joined by twenty others. The Muslim authorities denounced them as "harlots" and "prostitutes," although in fact they seem to have came from all walks of life, and they demanded that the revolt be put down with no mercy. So much for Muhammad's "liberation" of women in Islam!
Muslims often complain that things that seem unjust in Islam, such as honor killings and the like, are really just Arab or Persian or some other ethnic tradition with no basis in Islam itself. The problem is, much of it is in fact codified by the Shari'ah, such as the patriarchal family, and it presupposes a certain societal structure and attitudes that directly lead to such atrocities, such as the absolute insistence on female virginity, to the point where women and girls are killed by their families if even suspected of being alone with a man. Also, if Islam is a "complete way of life," as so many Muslims boast, not just a "mere religion" separated from the rest of life, how can anything that takes place in Islamic society have no basis in Islam, which, as mentioned, encompasses every element of life and is the very basis of the society? Who decides what is Islam and what is tradition?
It would be nice if Muslims could really and honestly look at Shari'ah as something open to change, to be looked at with fresh eyes and reinterpreted according to societal needs, instead of proclaiming it the absolute Will of Allah, which must not be changed in any way, regardless of how things have changed from the 7th century. This leads to stagnation, which leads to death. Change is life.
Qur'anic Verses on Inheritance (somewhat dry and confusing, but important):
4:11
Allah enjoins you concerning your children: The male shall have the equal of the portion of two females; then if they
are more than two females, they shall have two-thirds of what the deceased has left, and if there is one, she shall have the half;
and as for his parents, each of them shall have the sixth of what he has left if he has a child, but if he has no child and (only) his
two parents inherit him, then his mother shall have the third; but if he has brothers, then his mother shall have the sixth after (the
payment of) a bequest he may have bequeathed or a debt; your parents and your children, you know not which of them is the
nearer to you in usefulness; this is an ordinance from Allah: Surely Allah is Knowing, Wise.
4:12
And you shall have half of what your wives leave if they have no child, but if they have a child, then you shall have a
fourth of what they leave after (payment of) any bequest they may have bequeathed or a debt; and they shall have the fourth of
what you leave if you have no child, but if you have a child then they shall have the eighth of what you leave after (payment of) a
bequest you may have bequeathed or a debt; and if a man or a woman leaves property to be inherited by neither parents nor
offspring, and he (or she) has a brother or a sister, then each of them two shall have the sixth, but if they are more than that,
they shall be sharers in the third after (payment of) any bequest that may have been bequeathed or a debt that does not harm
(others); this is an ordinance from Allah: and Allah is Knowing, Forbearing.
4:176
They ask you for a decision of the law. Say: Allah gives you a decision concerning the person who has neither
parents nor offspring; if a man dies (and) he has no son and he has a sister, she shall have half of what he leaves, and he shall be
her heir she has no son; but if there be two (sisters), they shall have two-thirds of what he leaves; and if there are brethren, men
and women, then the male shall have the like of the portion of two females; Allah makes clear to you, lest you err; and Allah
knows all things.
Saturday, May 31, 2003
Friday, May 30, 2003
Sorry...
Comments have been taken offline while I try to figure out how to make them (from BackBlog) stop crashing my site. If anyone can help, feel free to mail me!
Comments have been taken offline while I try to figure out how to make them (from BackBlog) stop crashing my site. If anyone can help, feel free to mail me!
Thursday, May 29, 2003
Muslim Life vs. Non-Muslim Life
As anyone who has read Muslim books or fatwas will know, the life of a Muslim is always worth more than that of a non-Muslim. It is even enshrined in the Qur'an and Shari'ah, where the penalty for murder of a Muslim is death, but Muslims should not be killed for the murder of an unbeliever. It is possible for the killer to "buy off" the family so they won't demand his death by paying "blood money" or "retribution," at least if the death was "unintentional." In Iran, the prices quoted in the law are weighted according to sex and religion; male Muslims are at the top, female Muslims are half that, male non-Muslims are the same as Muslim women, and female non-Muslims are half that.
In Islam, all the Muslims make up the "Ummah", the Community of Believers, the best of all nations, and this is at war with the unbelievers. In any case, according to Islam, those who obstinately refuse to see the plain truth and become Muslims are destined for unending torments in hell anyway, so their lives are worthless and they are the "worst of creatures." (Qur'an 98:6; another verse is 9:63: "Know they not that for those who oppose Allah and His Apostle, is the Fire of Hell?-- wherein they shall dwell. That is the supreme disgrace."). The Qur'an is unending in its denunciation of the unbelievers, describing the worst tortures in hell for them, saying not to take them for friends (Qur'an 9:23: "O ye who believe! take not for protectors your fathers and your brothers if they love infidelity above Faith: if any of you do so, they do wrong"), that they are the enemies of Allah, that they should not be prayed for (9:113-114: "It is not fitting, for the Prophet and those who believe, that they should pray for forgiveness for Pagans, even though they be of kin, after it is clear to them that they are companions of the Fire. And Abraham prayed for his father's forgiveness only because of a promise he had made to him. But when it became clear to him that he was an enemy to God, he dissociated himself from him: for Abraham was most tender-hearted, forbearing."). They exist to be fought (Qur'an 9:123: "O ye who believe! fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you: and know that Allah is with those who fear Him." And also 9:73: "O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the Hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell,- an evil refuge indeed.") and subjected to Islamic rule (the infamous verse 9:29: "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Apostle, 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.") Surahs 8 and 9 of the Qur'an are full of this kind of stuff, though there is the interesting claim that "The Bedouins are the worst in unbelief and hypocrisy" (9:97). So much for inter-religious harmony!
This attitude, that Muslim life is worth more than non-Muslim life, is also clear whenever terrorism is discussed by Muslims; the bombing of shopping malls or the slaughter of Americans or Israelis need to be "understood," say many Muslims, or is even celebrated as a strike against the unbelievers in jihad, while the death of Muslims at the hands of non-Muslims is the worst tragedy in the world, which can never be forgiven. I mentioned in the previous entry a column by a Muslim woman suggesting that terrorist acts against Americans weren't something to get all upset about, while in other columns she denounced the deaths of Muslims by non-Muslims in the strongest possible terms. It doesn't take much close reading to see whose lives are held to be valuable. Similarly, the ignoring of Islamic terror against non-Muslims by organizations like CAIR, coupled with a very sharp eye for all possible offenses to Muslim sensibilities leads one to conclude that Muslim sensibilities are far more important to them, the deaths of unbelievers important only insofar as they might give Islam a bad image. This is another point; terrorist attacks in Israel and elsewhere are sometimes denounced by Muslims, NOT because they kill innocents, but because they are "counterproductive" and present Islam or the cause in a bad light. The victims don't even exist as real people. Salman Rushdie should die for offending Muslim sensibilities; and it should be mentioned that apostates from Islam are held in the lowest regard of all; they shouldn't even be allowed to live, according to Shari'ah. Unbelievably, you will find many, many Muslims defending this point, claiming that it is like "treason" in war, which shows up the Islamic view of the world: unending war between Muslims and the unbelievers. Is it any wonder Islam has such a hard time getting along with other religions?
The ironic thing, of course, is that this outrage only comes forth when non-Muslims slaughter Muslims. When Muslims slaughter other Muslims, such as in the Iran-Iraq war, the brutality under Saddam Hussein, "Black September" in which Jordan killed thosands of Palestinians for trying to overthrow the government, the throwing out of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from Kuwait and other Arab countries after the Gulf War, or dealing with the lack of human rights in most Muslim countries, it seems that most Muslims don't bat an eyelash. True, many will lament how Muslims are killing other Muslims, leading to strife and making it impossible for Muslims to join together in strength, often to fight against the unbelievers, but the sense of outrage just isn't there. In fact, sometimes these inter-Muslim wars will be blamed on Israel or America or "Western colonialism," as if Muslims haven't been killing each other since the death of Muhammad, when his followers fought over who would take over the community, or that Islamic empires and nations haven't been fighting each other since nearly the beginning of Islam. It is only when these things are done by an "enemy" that Muslims display their outrage.
Something similar occurs when secularists fight against Islamic parties, as for example in the civil war in Algeria. It is outrageous that the Islamists are prevented from establishing an Islamic state, but there is not a murmur for the rights of those, even Muslims, who don't want to live under such a state. The Turkish government is a favorite target for these kinds of complaints, frequently regarding the banning of the head scarf in universities and government buildings, which is a horrible violation of the rights of Muslim women, but of course the mandatory veiling in Saudi Arabia, Iran and other Muslim countries is never once protested. I guess it's only a violation of one's rights when Muslim women can't veil, not when it is forced on everybody.
The case is stated rather baldly in, to take one example, Yahyah Emerick's Idiot's Guide to Islam (no, I couldn't bring myself to read the whole thing, only some passages, or else I would have been strongly tempted to throw the book across the room, and I hate doing that to books!). In one of the chapters in the end, where Islam today is discussed, cases in which Muslims are being killed by non-Muslims are enormous tragedies, such as in Palestine and Kashmir, and these must be dealt with by letting Kashmir become independent from India and giving a state to the Palestinians (interestingly, he claims that the Arab/Israeli conflict will be resolved "soon"; I wonder what he means by that. That the Palestinans will get a state, or that Israel will be destroyed? It's hard to tell, since the book deals in rather obvious whitewashing and sometimes straight-out "taqiyyah"--lying in order to further the cause of Islam by making it look good or keeping the unbelievers off balance.) Meanwhile, he calls for an end to the rebellion by Christians and animists in the south of Sudan against the Islamic government, which has been systematically slaughtering, exiling and even enslaving them. So let me get this straight; when Muslims get upset and launch a rebellion, they should be given everything they ask for, while when others are unhappy under Muslim rule, they shouldn't even complain (a feature of dhimmitude, where unbelievers should be eternally grateful for the unbounded generosity of the Muslims in allowing them to live at all, and should never feel uppity enough to actually demand equal rights with Muslims). Muslim grievances must be dealt with, while grievances against Muslims aren't even mentioned, allowing Muslims to claim pure victimhood. One of the most ridiculous remarks was his insistence that the world must atone for its "crimes against Muslims" by allowing the Muslim countries to unite under a universal caliph; yeah, right! Do you really think that other countries would ever allow an Islamic Empire to form, with the explicit goal of conquering the rest of the world and subjecting it to Islamic rule? Don't kid yourself; this is the real point of an Islamic Empire, to bring as much land as possible under the reign of Islam, as the early Muslim conquerers made clear, and you can imagine what a nuclear-armed Islamic Empire would do. I have to say that far too many Muslims are living in an utter dreamworld! (Cf. Fouad Ajami's The Dream Palace of the Arabs.) Ahmed Akbar's infuriating (to me, anyway) Islam Today, extols Muslim conquerers such as Tamberlane and Aurangezeb as great heroes to be proud of, even though they led campaigns of unutterable cruelty (but they were against Hindus or pagans, so of course they don't count), while somebody like Attaturk, who forcibly secularized Turkey, or many Western leaders, are horrible tyrants denying Muslim rights.
You can be sure that Muslim crimes against Christian, Jewish, Hindu or others will never be denounced by Muslim organizations, and their sensibilities carry no weight. Muslim charities invariably raise funds only for Muslims; I have never seen one that raised money for the relief of anyone else. Discrimination against non-Muslims is virtually never denounced by Muslims, who instead wax poetic about how good the non-Muslims are and have been treated in Islamic countries, all evidence to the contrary. Instead, Muslims often prefer to wear the mantle of "victim," complaining about the wrongs done them, the way in which they are offended, inconvenienced, or made to feel uncomfortable. This unending self-pity and self-centerdness isn't going to help them get out of this rut they're in, that's for sure! Nobody will give them the world on a silver platter just because they feel so bad that Muslims got such a raw deal (though sometimes I have to wonder).
Perhaps one day Muslims, as a group, will accept the concept of universal human rights, or the brotherhood of all mankind, not just Muslims, but that goes against much in the religion as presently constituted, and even secularized Muslims often feel closer to other Muslims than to, for example, their fellow citizens in America or the UK or India. No, I can't offer any real solutions; that would require a complete attitude change on the part of a billion people, and you know how hard that can be!
As anyone who has read Muslim books or fatwas will know, the life of a Muslim is always worth more than that of a non-Muslim. It is even enshrined in the Qur'an and Shari'ah, where the penalty for murder of a Muslim is death, but Muslims should not be killed for the murder of an unbeliever. It is possible for the killer to "buy off" the family so they won't demand his death by paying "blood money" or "retribution," at least if the death was "unintentional." In Iran, the prices quoted in the law are weighted according to sex and religion; male Muslims are at the top, female Muslims are half that, male non-Muslims are the same as Muslim women, and female non-Muslims are half that.
In Islam, all the Muslims make up the "Ummah", the Community of Believers, the best of all nations, and this is at war with the unbelievers. In any case, according to Islam, those who obstinately refuse to see the plain truth and become Muslims are destined for unending torments in hell anyway, so their lives are worthless and they are the "worst of creatures." (Qur'an 98:6; another verse is 9:63: "Know they not that for those who oppose Allah and His Apostle, is the Fire of Hell?-- wherein they shall dwell. That is the supreme disgrace."). The Qur'an is unending in its denunciation of the unbelievers, describing the worst tortures in hell for them, saying not to take them for friends (Qur'an 9:23: "O ye who believe! take not for protectors your fathers and your brothers if they love infidelity above Faith: if any of you do so, they do wrong"), that they are the enemies of Allah, that they should not be prayed for (9:113-114: "It is not fitting, for the Prophet and those who believe, that they should pray for forgiveness for Pagans, even though they be of kin, after it is clear to them that they are companions of the Fire. And Abraham prayed for his father's forgiveness only because of a promise he had made to him. But when it became clear to him that he was an enemy to God, he dissociated himself from him: for Abraham was most tender-hearted, forbearing."). They exist to be fought (Qur'an 9:123: "O ye who believe! fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you: and know that Allah is with those who fear Him." And also 9:73: "O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the Hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell,- an evil refuge indeed.") and subjected to Islamic rule (the infamous verse 9:29: "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Apostle, 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.") Surahs 8 and 9 of the Qur'an are full of this kind of stuff, though there is the interesting claim that "The Bedouins are the worst in unbelief and hypocrisy" (9:97). So much for inter-religious harmony!
This attitude, that Muslim life is worth more than non-Muslim life, is also clear whenever terrorism is discussed by Muslims; the bombing of shopping malls or the slaughter of Americans or Israelis need to be "understood," say many Muslims, or is even celebrated as a strike against the unbelievers in jihad, while the death of Muslims at the hands of non-Muslims is the worst tragedy in the world, which can never be forgiven. I mentioned in the previous entry a column by a Muslim woman suggesting that terrorist acts against Americans weren't something to get all upset about, while in other columns she denounced the deaths of Muslims by non-Muslims in the strongest possible terms. It doesn't take much close reading to see whose lives are held to be valuable. Similarly, the ignoring of Islamic terror against non-Muslims by organizations like CAIR, coupled with a very sharp eye for all possible offenses to Muslim sensibilities leads one to conclude that Muslim sensibilities are far more important to them, the deaths of unbelievers important only insofar as they might give Islam a bad image. This is another point; terrorist attacks in Israel and elsewhere are sometimes denounced by Muslims, NOT because they kill innocents, but because they are "counterproductive" and present Islam or the cause in a bad light. The victims don't even exist as real people. Salman Rushdie should die for offending Muslim sensibilities; and it should be mentioned that apostates from Islam are held in the lowest regard of all; they shouldn't even be allowed to live, according to Shari'ah. Unbelievably, you will find many, many Muslims defending this point, claiming that it is like "treason" in war, which shows up the Islamic view of the world: unending war between Muslims and the unbelievers. Is it any wonder Islam has such a hard time getting along with other religions?
The ironic thing, of course, is that this outrage only comes forth when non-Muslims slaughter Muslims. When Muslims slaughter other Muslims, such as in the Iran-Iraq war, the brutality under Saddam Hussein, "Black September" in which Jordan killed thosands of Palestinians for trying to overthrow the government, the throwing out of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from Kuwait and other Arab countries after the Gulf War, or dealing with the lack of human rights in most Muslim countries, it seems that most Muslims don't bat an eyelash. True, many will lament how Muslims are killing other Muslims, leading to strife and making it impossible for Muslims to join together in strength, often to fight against the unbelievers, but the sense of outrage just isn't there. In fact, sometimes these inter-Muslim wars will be blamed on Israel or America or "Western colonialism," as if Muslims haven't been killing each other since the death of Muhammad, when his followers fought over who would take over the community, or that Islamic empires and nations haven't been fighting each other since nearly the beginning of Islam. It is only when these things are done by an "enemy" that Muslims display their outrage.
Something similar occurs when secularists fight against Islamic parties, as for example in the civil war in Algeria. It is outrageous that the Islamists are prevented from establishing an Islamic state, but there is not a murmur for the rights of those, even Muslims, who don't want to live under such a state. The Turkish government is a favorite target for these kinds of complaints, frequently regarding the banning of the head scarf in universities and government buildings, which is a horrible violation of the rights of Muslim women, but of course the mandatory veiling in Saudi Arabia, Iran and other Muslim countries is never once protested. I guess it's only a violation of one's rights when Muslim women can't veil, not when it is forced on everybody.
The case is stated rather baldly in, to take one example, Yahyah Emerick's Idiot's Guide to Islam (no, I couldn't bring myself to read the whole thing, only some passages, or else I would have been strongly tempted to throw the book across the room, and I hate doing that to books!). In one of the chapters in the end, where Islam today is discussed, cases in which Muslims are being killed by non-Muslims are enormous tragedies, such as in Palestine and Kashmir, and these must be dealt with by letting Kashmir become independent from India and giving a state to the Palestinians (interestingly, he claims that the Arab/Israeli conflict will be resolved "soon"; I wonder what he means by that. That the Palestinans will get a state, or that Israel will be destroyed? It's hard to tell, since the book deals in rather obvious whitewashing and sometimes straight-out "taqiyyah"--lying in order to further the cause of Islam by making it look good or keeping the unbelievers off balance.) Meanwhile, he calls for an end to the rebellion by Christians and animists in the south of Sudan against the Islamic government, which has been systematically slaughtering, exiling and even enslaving them. So let me get this straight; when Muslims get upset and launch a rebellion, they should be given everything they ask for, while when others are unhappy under Muslim rule, they shouldn't even complain (a feature of dhimmitude, where unbelievers should be eternally grateful for the unbounded generosity of the Muslims in allowing them to live at all, and should never feel uppity enough to actually demand equal rights with Muslims). Muslim grievances must be dealt with, while grievances against Muslims aren't even mentioned, allowing Muslims to claim pure victimhood. One of the most ridiculous remarks was his insistence that the world must atone for its "crimes against Muslims" by allowing the Muslim countries to unite under a universal caliph; yeah, right! Do you really think that other countries would ever allow an Islamic Empire to form, with the explicit goal of conquering the rest of the world and subjecting it to Islamic rule? Don't kid yourself; this is the real point of an Islamic Empire, to bring as much land as possible under the reign of Islam, as the early Muslim conquerers made clear, and you can imagine what a nuclear-armed Islamic Empire would do. I have to say that far too many Muslims are living in an utter dreamworld! (Cf. Fouad Ajami's The Dream Palace of the Arabs.) Ahmed Akbar's infuriating (to me, anyway) Islam Today, extols Muslim conquerers such as Tamberlane and Aurangezeb as great heroes to be proud of, even though they led campaigns of unutterable cruelty (but they were against Hindus or pagans, so of course they don't count), while somebody like Attaturk, who forcibly secularized Turkey, or many Western leaders, are horrible tyrants denying Muslim rights.
You can be sure that Muslim crimes against Christian, Jewish, Hindu or others will never be denounced by Muslim organizations, and their sensibilities carry no weight. Muslim charities invariably raise funds only for Muslims; I have never seen one that raised money for the relief of anyone else. Discrimination against non-Muslims is virtually never denounced by Muslims, who instead wax poetic about how good the non-Muslims are and have been treated in Islamic countries, all evidence to the contrary. Instead, Muslims often prefer to wear the mantle of "victim," complaining about the wrongs done them, the way in which they are offended, inconvenienced, or made to feel uncomfortable. This unending self-pity and self-centerdness isn't going to help them get out of this rut they're in, that's for sure! Nobody will give them the world on a silver platter just because they feel so bad that Muslims got such a raw deal (though sometimes I have to wonder).
Perhaps one day Muslims, as a group, will accept the concept of universal human rights, or the brotherhood of all mankind, not just Muslims, but that goes against much in the religion as presently constituted, and even secularized Muslims often feel closer to other Muslims than to, for example, their fellow citizens in America or the UK or India. No, I can't offer any real solutions; that would require a complete attitude change on the part of a billion people, and you know how hard that can be!
Wednesday, May 28, 2003
The Arbitrariness of Allah, Free Will vs. Predestination, Etc.
In Islam, right and wrong is determined by what Allah has said is right and wrong. In other words, something is wrong because Allah has prohibited it, as opposed to it being wrong because it is objectively wrong. This brings up the old debate about whether it is God or the gods that determine morality, or whether there is an objective morality that even the gods are subject to. Another way to put it is, is murder or adultery wrong because God said it is a sin, or because since it is wrong, God has made it a sin and could not do otherwise? What power does God, or Allah, have over morality?
The Greek philosophers frequently discussed ethics and morality as something even the gods were subject to, or without reference to the gods at all. By contrast, in the Islamic worldview, Allah is All-Powerful, as repeated thousands of times in the Qur'an, and He is the arbitrator of right and wrong. Or rather, I should say the lawful and the prohibited. Actions He has prohibited on earth, such as the drinking of wine, become perfectly allowable in heaven, as constantly repeated in the Qur'anic depictions of the Paradise promised to believers, although it is claimed to be non-intoxicating. (Qur'an 56:17-19: "Round about them will (serve) youths of perpetual (freshness), With goblets, (shining) beakers, and cups (filled) out of clear-flowing fountains; No after-ache will they receive therefrom, nor will they suffer intoxication.")
However, this arbitrariness means that one is not encouraged to use one's reason to figure out what is right and wrong, based on what effects it might have on others or society, but on whether Allah has permitted or forbidden it. Murder is wrong because Allah has said so; but in jihad, killing of the unbelievers in battle is extolled as one of the greatest acts of faith, and dying in battle sends one straight to the highest part of Paradise. Sexual intercourse outside of marriage is one of the biggest sins in Islam and the punishment is severe (100 stripes for fornication or stoning for adultery), but sex with slavegirls is explicitly permitted (for example, in Qur'an 23:1-7: "The believers must (eventually) win through, those who humble themselves in their prayers; who avoid vain talk; who are active in deeds of charity; who abstain from sex, except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess, for (in their case) they are free from blame, but those whose desires exceed those limits are transgressors.") . For that matter, to this day many Islamic scholars claim that slavery is permissible, because Allah allowed it in the Qur'an and Shari'ah, with no considerations whatsoever on how cruel the life of slaves is, or how detestable the whole idea of buying and selling human beings is. The only thing that matters is that Allah allowed it in the Qur'an, so that is that. Something as serious as murder is discussed in much the same way that a minor point like eating only with the right hand is--both were dictated by Allah or His Messenger Muhammad and one should both refrain from murder and eat with the right hand because that is what Islam, Allah, or the example of Muhammad teaches. Needless to say, this worldview tends to become frozen in time, with no progress allowed because Allah has declared it valid for all time.
Since Allah is All-Powerful, this also leads to quite a few debates about whether humans have free will, or if their actions and fates are predestined. The Qur'an is very confusing and often contradictory on this matter, perfectly encapsulated in 76:29-30: "This is an admonition: Whosoever will, let him take a (straight) Path to his Lord. But ye will not, except as Allah wills; for Allah is full of Knowledge and Wisdom," and also in 81:27-30: "Verily this is no less than a Message to (all) the Worlds: (With profit) to whoever among you wills to go straight, But ye shall not will except as Allah wills, the Cherisher of the Worlds." It reproves man for rejecting Him and His Messengers, threatening them with dire punishment in hell for unbelievers and offering unparalleled delights in heaven for believers, which suggests some level of free-will--after all, rewards and punishments only make sense if one is free to do as he or she wants. On the other hand, there are also constant declarations that man's destiny is completely in the hands of Allah, that humans (and jinns!) only exist to do His bidding, that the destiny of every man and woman has already been written out by Allah and cannot be changed one whit (Qur'an 52:22-23: "No misfortune can happen on earth or in your souls but is recorded in a decree before We bring it into existence: That is truly easy for Allah, in order that ye may not despair over matters that pass you by, nor exult over favours bestowed upon you." 7:34: "To every people is a term appointed: when their term is reached, not an hour can they cause delay, nor (an hour) can they advance (it in anticipation)." 3:145: "Nor can a soul die except by Allah's leave, the term being fixed as by writing.")
The free will vs. predestination argument was one of the longest-lasting and most bitter in Islamic history. In the ninth-century, the Mu'tazilites, who favored the use of reason and free will, were engaged in a bitter intellectual (and sometimes physical) battle against the Traditionalists, who believed in predestination and total submission to Allah's Will. Although they were in favor under the reigns of several caliphs in the early ninth century, most famous for their belief that the Qur'an was created and not co-eternal with Allah, they were eventually suppressed in favor of the Traditionalists, who believed in the "Uncreated Qur'an," co-eternal with Allah Himself, which has existed from the beginning of time. Bibliolatry (the worship of a book), perhaps?
The Free Will party asked: What was the point of punishing crimes if Allah made people commit them? How were good deeds praiseworthy if the person doing them had no choice in the matter? Against them, the predestinarians claimed that free will suggested a limit on Allah's omnipotence; if he could not control the actions of His creatures. Of course, this leads to some rather unsavory conclusions, for example that Allah has created certain people knowing they were destined for hell. Is this really what an "all-merciful" God/Allah would do, create people so they could burn in hell? But it has to be said the predestinarians were never much for the use of reason, which they typically considered an arrogant presumption; how dare humans claim to know better than what Allah has said in the Qur'an? The best thing was not to waste time with idle spectulation, but devote one's life to complete submission to Allah and His Will as reflected in Qur'an and Sunnah, as many Islamic scholars such as al-Ghazzali said.
This, of course, is not a recipie for any kind of progress, and as these views became more or less incorporated into Islam, the study of science and logic severely declined, leading to stagnation. It may be claimed that these ideas are inherent in Islam, at least classical Islam, so this decline was pretty much "predestined." But things have changed, at least a little.
In any book about Islam written for a Western audience, whether Muslims or not, it is often insisted that Islam is not "fatalistic," that it accepts the existence of free will. The Qur'an can indeed be read in that way, but this interpretation would be something of a surprise for (to take an example) uneducated or poorly-educated Arab peasants unaffected by Western notions of free-will. Their Islam is very much fatalistic, with everything preordained by Allah (who always knows best), and it is useless to fight one's fate (though one may try with the help of spells, charms, potions, saints' blessings and the like). This attitude leads to a kind of diffidence and detatchment from both disasters and triumphs, since both were really the actions of Allah, and it is pointless to regret because things could not have happened in any other way ("maktub"--it is written--is a common expression among Arabs). On the other hand, this attitude also frequently leads to irresponsibility and a refusal to think about the future, since "Allah will take care of it." They are not responsible for their actions; it must be someone else's fault.
Among those more influenced by Western notions of free-will, the Prophet Muhammad's saying, "Trust in Allah and tie up your camel" does a better job of explaining their mindset. One must think about tomorrow, after all, and plan and save up for it, especially when one has the rent and bills to worry about, as well as children headed to college. Nevertheless, the fatalistic element sometimes comes out. I remember once reading an opinion column in a college newspaper by a quite Westernized Muslim woman that really stuck out in my mind; she fell back into insisting that Americans shouldn't feel so upset and angry about Americans being blown up in terrorist attacks, because they were predestined for that fate (and yes, she tended to be quite "understanding" of terrorist attacks). I wondered whether she would think that one should not be angry and upset about Muslims being killed in wars and attacks, since, after all, they were predestined to die that way. (The answer, of course, was no--the deaths of Muslims at the hands of non-Muslims were an outrage that must be stopped, as her other columns made clear.) Needless to say, this attitude is the antithesis of the American dream of "your destiny is in your hands," that only you are responsible for your fate and must work to get what you want ("the Lord helps those who help themselves"). Which attitude do you suppose leads to greater prosperity and progress? It has been claimed that both this predestinarianism and the arbitrariness of Allah's Will and morality tends to lead to acceptance of despotic and/or authoritarian, dictatorial rule in Muslim (especially Arab) nations. Maybe. If the people feel as if they are helpless against their own fate, they are unlikely to feel as if they have any power against the ruler, either!
I personally feel that Islam doesn't absolutely have to be predestinarian, as the frequent debates between the free-will Mu'tazilites and the predestinarian Traditionalists showed, but it must be said that Islam, at least as it now stands and in the writings of the Islamic ulema (scholars) does strongly encourage that view. Perhaps it was simply a part of Arab culture that was incorporated into Islam. Perhaps it was a rejection of the Christian free-will doctrine, heavily influenced by Greek philosophy, which was distrusted by Islamic scholars, or a rejection of Greek philosophy itself. Perhaps it was just a part of the "Semitic" or "Middle Eastern" mindset of the time that got incorporated into Islam. Whatever it is, it doesn't really lend itself to being a part of the modern world, and may be keeping Muslims back (especially the refusal to take responsibility for one's actions aspect of it). I suspect this attitude will eventually change, at least in practice if not in thought, if only through necessity.
In Islam, right and wrong is determined by what Allah has said is right and wrong. In other words, something is wrong because Allah has prohibited it, as opposed to it being wrong because it is objectively wrong. This brings up the old debate about whether it is God or the gods that determine morality, or whether there is an objective morality that even the gods are subject to. Another way to put it is, is murder or adultery wrong because God said it is a sin, or because since it is wrong, God has made it a sin and could not do otherwise? What power does God, or Allah, have over morality?
The Greek philosophers frequently discussed ethics and morality as something even the gods were subject to, or without reference to the gods at all. By contrast, in the Islamic worldview, Allah is All-Powerful, as repeated thousands of times in the Qur'an, and He is the arbitrator of right and wrong. Or rather, I should say the lawful and the prohibited. Actions He has prohibited on earth, such as the drinking of wine, become perfectly allowable in heaven, as constantly repeated in the Qur'anic depictions of the Paradise promised to believers, although it is claimed to be non-intoxicating. (Qur'an 56:17-19: "Round about them will (serve) youths of perpetual (freshness), With goblets, (shining) beakers, and cups (filled) out of clear-flowing fountains; No after-ache will they receive therefrom, nor will they suffer intoxication.")
However, this arbitrariness means that one is not encouraged to use one's reason to figure out what is right and wrong, based on what effects it might have on others or society, but on whether Allah has permitted or forbidden it. Murder is wrong because Allah has said so; but in jihad, killing of the unbelievers in battle is extolled as one of the greatest acts of faith, and dying in battle sends one straight to the highest part of Paradise. Sexual intercourse outside of marriage is one of the biggest sins in Islam and the punishment is severe (100 stripes for fornication or stoning for adultery), but sex with slavegirls is explicitly permitted (for example, in Qur'an 23:1-7: "The believers must (eventually) win through, those who humble themselves in their prayers; who avoid vain talk; who are active in deeds of charity; who abstain from sex, except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess, for (in their case) they are free from blame, but those whose desires exceed those limits are transgressors.") . For that matter, to this day many Islamic scholars claim that slavery is permissible, because Allah allowed it in the Qur'an and Shari'ah, with no considerations whatsoever on how cruel the life of slaves is, or how detestable the whole idea of buying and selling human beings is. The only thing that matters is that Allah allowed it in the Qur'an, so that is that. Something as serious as murder is discussed in much the same way that a minor point like eating only with the right hand is--both were dictated by Allah or His Messenger Muhammad and one should both refrain from murder and eat with the right hand because that is what Islam, Allah, or the example of Muhammad teaches. Needless to say, this worldview tends to become frozen in time, with no progress allowed because Allah has declared it valid for all time.
Since Allah is All-Powerful, this also leads to quite a few debates about whether humans have free will, or if their actions and fates are predestined. The Qur'an is very confusing and often contradictory on this matter, perfectly encapsulated in 76:29-30: "This is an admonition: Whosoever will, let him take a (straight) Path to his Lord. But ye will not, except as Allah wills; for Allah is full of Knowledge and Wisdom," and also in 81:27-30: "Verily this is no less than a Message to (all) the Worlds: (With profit) to whoever among you wills to go straight, But ye shall not will except as Allah wills, the Cherisher of the Worlds." It reproves man for rejecting Him and His Messengers, threatening them with dire punishment in hell for unbelievers and offering unparalleled delights in heaven for believers, which suggests some level of free-will--after all, rewards and punishments only make sense if one is free to do as he or she wants. On the other hand, there are also constant declarations that man's destiny is completely in the hands of Allah, that humans (and jinns!) only exist to do His bidding, that the destiny of every man and woman has already been written out by Allah and cannot be changed one whit (Qur'an 52:22-23: "No misfortune can happen on earth or in your souls but is recorded in a decree before We bring it into existence: That is truly easy for Allah, in order that ye may not despair over matters that pass you by, nor exult over favours bestowed upon you." 7:34: "To every people is a term appointed: when their term is reached, not an hour can they cause delay, nor (an hour) can they advance (it in anticipation)." 3:145: "Nor can a soul die except by Allah's leave, the term being fixed as by writing.")
The free will vs. predestination argument was one of the longest-lasting and most bitter in Islamic history. In the ninth-century, the Mu'tazilites, who favored the use of reason and free will, were engaged in a bitter intellectual (and sometimes physical) battle against the Traditionalists, who believed in predestination and total submission to Allah's Will. Although they were in favor under the reigns of several caliphs in the early ninth century, most famous for their belief that the Qur'an was created and not co-eternal with Allah, they were eventually suppressed in favor of the Traditionalists, who believed in the "Uncreated Qur'an," co-eternal with Allah Himself, which has existed from the beginning of time. Bibliolatry (the worship of a book), perhaps?
The Free Will party asked: What was the point of punishing crimes if Allah made people commit them? How were good deeds praiseworthy if the person doing them had no choice in the matter? Against them, the predestinarians claimed that free will suggested a limit on Allah's omnipotence; if he could not control the actions of His creatures. Of course, this leads to some rather unsavory conclusions, for example that Allah has created certain people knowing they were destined for hell. Is this really what an "all-merciful" God/Allah would do, create people so they could burn in hell? But it has to be said the predestinarians were never much for the use of reason, which they typically considered an arrogant presumption; how dare humans claim to know better than what Allah has said in the Qur'an? The best thing was not to waste time with idle spectulation, but devote one's life to complete submission to Allah and His Will as reflected in Qur'an and Sunnah, as many Islamic scholars such as al-Ghazzali said.
This, of course, is not a recipie for any kind of progress, and as these views became more or less incorporated into Islam, the study of science and logic severely declined, leading to stagnation. It may be claimed that these ideas are inherent in Islam, at least classical Islam, so this decline was pretty much "predestined." But things have changed, at least a little.
In any book about Islam written for a Western audience, whether Muslims or not, it is often insisted that Islam is not "fatalistic," that it accepts the existence of free will. The Qur'an can indeed be read in that way, but this interpretation would be something of a surprise for (to take an example) uneducated or poorly-educated Arab peasants unaffected by Western notions of free-will. Their Islam is very much fatalistic, with everything preordained by Allah (who always knows best), and it is useless to fight one's fate (though one may try with the help of spells, charms, potions, saints' blessings and the like). This attitude leads to a kind of diffidence and detatchment from both disasters and triumphs, since both were really the actions of Allah, and it is pointless to regret because things could not have happened in any other way ("maktub"--it is written--is a common expression among Arabs). On the other hand, this attitude also frequently leads to irresponsibility and a refusal to think about the future, since "Allah will take care of it." They are not responsible for their actions; it must be someone else's fault.
Among those more influenced by Western notions of free-will, the Prophet Muhammad's saying, "Trust in Allah and tie up your camel" does a better job of explaining their mindset. One must think about tomorrow, after all, and plan and save up for it, especially when one has the rent and bills to worry about, as well as children headed to college. Nevertheless, the fatalistic element sometimes comes out. I remember once reading an opinion column in a college newspaper by a quite Westernized Muslim woman that really stuck out in my mind; she fell back into insisting that Americans shouldn't feel so upset and angry about Americans being blown up in terrorist attacks, because they were predestined for that fate (and yes, she tended to be quite "understanding" of terrorist attacks). I wondered whether she would think that one should not be angry and upset about Muslims being killed in wars and attacks, since, after all, they were predestined to die that way. (The answer, of course, was no--the deaths of Muslims at the hands of non-Muslims were an outrage that must be stopped, as her other columns made clear.) Needless to say, this attitude is the antithesis of the American dream of "your destiny is in your hands," that only you are responsible for your fate and must work to get what you want ("the Lord helps those who help themselves"). Which attitude do you suppose leads to greater prosperity and progress? It has been claimed that both this predestinarianism and the arbitrariness of Allah's Will and morality tends to lead to acceptance of despotic and/or authoritarian, dictatorial rule in Muslim (especially Arab) nations. Maybe. If the people feel as if they are helpless against their own fate, they are unlikely to feel as if they have any power against the ruler, either!
I personally feel that Islam doesn't absolutely have to be predestinarian, as the frequent debates between the free-will Mu'tazilites and the predestinarian Traditionalists showed, but it must be said that Islam, at least as it now stands and in the writings of the Islamic ulema (scholars) does strongly encourage that view. Perhaps it was simply a part of Arab culture that was incorporated into Islam. Perhaps it was a rejection of the Christian free-will doctrine, heavily influenced by Greek philosophy, which was distrusted by Islamic scholars, or a rejection of Greek philosophy itself. Perhaps it was just a part of the "Semitic" or "Middle Eastern" mindset of the time that got incorporated into Islam. Whatever it is, it doesn't really lend itself to being a part of the modern world, and may be keeping Muslims back (especially the refusal to take responsibility for one's actions aspect of it). I suspect this attitude will eventually change, at least in practice if not in thought, if only through necessity.