Disaffected Muslim

2003-07-05T15:00:00.000-07:00

New Site!

Thanks to a dear friend of mine, I am now at a much better Movable Type site: http://www.secularislam.net/
All the old entries are there, and (working) comments, the ability to upload pictures, and more.

Please update your links!

2003-06-29T14:22:00.000-07:00

Disaffection writ large

I've been so depressed and disillusioned with the state of Islam lately, I can hardly stand to read about it or write about it anymore. And I'll share with you one big reason for that--the local imam's attitudes. I have had a few conversations with him about Islam, and he actually is something of a moderate (he is upset about how some Wahhabis/Salafis want everybody in this American mosque to follow their ways, imported directly from Saudi Arabia, instead of taking a more "live and let live" attitude), but at the same time, that's what makes some of what he says so depressing, even though it actually is just par for the course. I should mention that he is Sunni, accepts the Shafi'i law school, comes from a "moderate" Arab country, and has even become a US citizen. Herewith a listing of what I find less than pleasant:

*Vitriolic Jew hatred (all too common among Muslims, unfortunately, so nothing out of the ordinary). He has described Jews as "monkeys" and "the worst of people," insisted that there is a Jewish conspiracy to rule the world, says the US media and government are dominated by Jews in order to support Israel, refers to suicide bombings against Israelis as "martyr operations" and says that even if another Muslim is killed in one of them, "both will be rewarded" in heaven for being "martyrs." Muslims are duty-bound to drive out the "monkeys" from the third-holiest Muslim site, Jerusalem, and from the rest of "Palestine," as they have no rights to "Muslim land." It's the same old crap I read all the time in Muslim publications and on Muslim websites, but it's always a shock to me to actually hear it said out loud. But what makes it hard to take is that this imam has attended numerous interfaith meetings, and even a Thanksgiving multifaith service in a synagogue, calling for peace between religions. I'll be honest: if I were Jewish and knew what I know about Muslims' attitudes towards Jews, I'd have a hard time trusting Muslims unless I knew for sure that they were not antisemites.

*The position of women. Women should not work unless they have to, they should not leave the house "too much," and only with their husband's consent (though they should not be locked up in their houses--that's what "moderate" means in Islam), they are emotional and weak and need men to protect and provide for them, they should never be alone with a man, since that will invariably lead to illicit sex (talk about your self-fulfilling prophecies!). A wife must obey her husband in everything unless it is "against Islam," and should never refuse him sex or else the angels will curse her until morning (this is a hadith from Muhammad himself; another is that women will make up the majority of people in hell, since they are ungrateful to their husbands.). Although she is not supposed to have sex during her period, there are "other things" she can do with him, and she must not refuse him that. She should accept him taking up to three other wives without complaint, since that is his right in Islam (her permission or even acceptance is not required, but it does make it easier--otherwise he has to sneak around to visit his other wives, something that is not at all uncommon). In school, women can attend classes with men, but should sit in the back. They should wear the head scarf and long clothes, but do not have to wear the niqab (face veil). He has said that regarding the Qur'an mentioning that a man can "correct" his wife by beating her (4:34), he should not do it with anything bigger than a siwak, a tiny stick used to clean the teeth, and that Muhammad, the best of men, never hit his wives, so that's definitely a good thing (unlike the claim often made in Muslim nations that it is nobody else's business if a man beats his wife; after all, she deserves it).

Of course, I should note that Muslim women are often some of the least submissive, least shy women I have met, yelling and fighting with their husbands and other men to get what they need or want. Common is the threat to literally murder a husband who takes another wife--and they mean it, too! It's one of the reasons polygamy is dying out--women with any kind of self-confidence simply refuse to accept it.

*Jihad. This imam has never denied that "jihad" means "holy war," as against those who claim that it is an "internal struggle" (a Sufi definition with essentially no applicability in Islamic history or law). He does seem to think that eventually the armies of jihad (real armies, with real weapons) will reach American shores and conquer America for Islam, though even he seems to realize that this is an utter pipe dream (unlike many other Muslim men who pray for the day, so they can take any number of infidel sex slaves). I asked about the ruling that Muslims should not live in the land of the infidel. He didn't deny it, but said that it was OK if one had the intention to spread Islam (I suppose it might be called "jihad by the pen or mouth"). In every Friday sermon, he prays for those Muslims fighting in Palestine, Kashmir, Chechnya, the Sudan, Iraq, or whatever Muslim country happens to be in the news. The suicide bombers in Israel are of course completely justified, as part of the jihad against Israel, though interestingly enough, he hates Arafat, saying he is working for the Israelis and that a true Islamic ruler would declare jihad. I think he was genuinely upset at 9-11, appearing at many prayers for peace and blood drives for the victims, but on the other hand, whenever a terrorist attack occurrs, he generally is only concerned about how Muslims will be treated because of it, not for the (non-Muslim) victims (though this seems to be the attitude of every Muslim I have met). He doesn't hate Shi'ites, unlike many Wahhabis or other Sunnis who do not even consider them real Muslims, and has said that Iran is a real Islamic state.

*Apostasy. Interestingly, he has said that apostates should NOT be killed but just left alone (though I don't know if he really believes this and was saying it for my benefit). However, when I asked about the murder of Rashad Khalifa in 1990 by some Islamic extremist group (since the Submitters, his "sect" of Islam, is active in my town), he said that he was "glad" it had happened, since he was preaching a "distorted" version of Islam (and maybe in the employ of the Jews to boot).

That's plenty! I have heard plenty of the same kind of stuff from other Muslims, unfortunately, and the Islamic rulings are common knowledge, but still, I guess I was hoping for something...well, maybe a bit more "Westernized." I don't know if a Western-born imam would be any better, as many converts and second or third-generation Muslims do their best to out-zeal those living in Muslim countries, though they might bring to the table some attitudes that a Middle Eastern Muslim would never have. But then I think about people like John Walker Lindh (aka Sulayman al-Faris) or the American Shariffa Carlo Al-Andalusia (her fanatical writings are widely published on Islamic websites--check out her article Unconscious Muslims, where she makes the blatantly treasonous remark that "to side with the United States against The Islamic Empire of Afghanistan is clearly a horrendous sin"--I wish I were making this up, but I'm not!) or Maryam Jameelah, who has written many anti-Western screeds, and I wonder!

Will things get better? I really don't think they will unless something big happens, and I can't even imagine what that might be.

2003-06-29T12:35:00.000-07:00

New Blogger

Ugh...Blog*spot ate the entry I spent 15 minutes typing. I'm hoping that maybe I will find a better home for my blog eventually.

2003-06-22T20:24:00.000-07:00

The Qur'an and Islamic Law

There is one subject in the last entry that I think I should make very clear to anyone who may be reading it, since I constantly see it misunderstood. This is the fact that Islam and Islamic law, as practiced and lived by millions of Muslims, does NOT depend on the Qur'an as the be-all and end-all of Islam.

Islam is NOT just what is in the Qur'an; it is also what is contained in the various collections of hadiths (the records of Muhammad's words and deeds) and in the teachings of the various schools of Islamic law (for Sunnis, the Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i and Hanbali). In addition, the Qur'an itself does not mean whatever you may think it means; there are many, many commentaries on the Qur'an (tafsir) by scholars that have to be taken into account.

Non-Muslims or Muslims who don't really know much about their religion will often claim that a certain Islamic practice is really not "true Islam" because it is unmentioned in the Qur'an, or because they interpret the words differently than Islamic scholars do. Well, sorry to say, this is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of Islam (specifically Sunni Islam).

Many non-Muslims of Christian background see Islam in the same way they do Christianity, specifically Protestant Christianity, in that they believe that the holy book is the be-all and end-all of the religion, and it is essentially up to the individual believer to interpret the scriptures for themselves, and these ideas have also been absorbed by some Western Muslims. Unfortunately, this is not Islam--at least, until Islam changes in a fundamental manner and is no longer recognizable as the same thing that it is today. It's more like Catholicism, which is based on "the Bible and tradition," (meaning, among other things, that the Bible means what the Church has traditionally interpreted it as saying), as I was taught in religion classes, NOT the Bible alone, which was the cry of the Protestant Reformation ("sola scriptura" and able to be interpreted by each individual believer). In the same way, Islam is not just the Qur'an, but the Qur'an and tradition (sunnah; the Qur'an means what the scholars have traditionally interpreted it as saying). But Islam is really not much like Christianity, so expecting a "reformation" along the lines of the Protestant Reformation is an exercise in futility.

One problem is that many Westerners see religion as a purely private thing, that your religion is whatever you make it out to be, and thus that whatever any individual Muslim decides is Islam, really is Islam. Suffice it to say that what may be in this context termed orthodox Islam, with its death penalties for apostasy and emphasis on tradition while excoriating "innovation" (bid'a), does not look too fondly on this concept. It is important to understand that Islam isn't just a religion to be shut away in its own little "Religion" compartment, which is the typical American concept of religion; it aims to be "a complete way of life," as countless Muslims boast, affecting every aspect of a person's life as well as society at large, and it's kind of hard to run a society on "Islam" or "Islamic principles" when everybody has their own, often contradictory, notions of what those things are. Orthodoxy in religion is required if you're going to run a whole society and legal system on it (The "Sunni" in "Sunni Islam" refers to the "sunnah," or tradition, of Muhammad). The "everyone for him/herself" view of religion only makes sense when it is a purely private thing, quite detatched from the state or laws. Imagine if a "Christian" nation wanted to rule itself according to "Christian" law; that would require some common understanding of what Christianity is, and what it requires, and what rules should follow from this understanding. Needless to say, you would never even get started, what with all the disagreements as to what Christianity really is, or what the Bible really says.

The Islamic concept of religion does not include separation of church/religion and state; instead, religion is the most important factor in the ordering of the community. The "Islamic state" is predicated on the fact that its stated goal is the spread and strengthening of Islam, which, by definition, those of other religions cannot participate in. It then follows that non-Muslims aren't really "citizens" of the state, and thus the second-class treatment of religious minorities and dhimmitude (it is to be noted that non-Muslims were not to serve in the army; non-Muslims by definition cannot engage in jihad to spread Allah's truth to the world).

And of course an Islamic state must have Islamic law, and this must be agreed on by Muslims as a group (or rather, agreed on by Islamic scholars). In this way, apostasy or heresy become treason to the state, worthy of death. The four schools of Sunni law accept each other as true, but they differ from each other generally only in small, rather unimportant ways. The substance of the law remains the same.

To sum up: Islam is not a "mere religion" like Christianity, which is mostly a set of beliefs to believe; it is really much more like Judaism, with its all-encompassing code of laws to guide every aspect of a believer's life and as a framework for the ordering of the whole society.

Now on to the Qur'an. Many people, both Muslims and non-Muslims, seriously overestimate how much of Islam and Islamic law is actually contained in the pages of the Qur'an. Typical is the following claim by an American Muslim convert (from Jan Goodwin's Price of Honor, pp.189-190 paperback): "If I want to know how late a woman can stay out, the Qur'an tells me. It says whose permission I need when I want to go out. And it tells me at what age I should discipline my child, or when youngsters should learn how to pray. The Qur'an even tells me how many miles a woman can travel from home without a mahram, a male relative chaperone. It is forty-five miles. Whatever I need about everyday life, it is there, as straightforward as a cookbook." But the truth is, not one bit of that is actually in the Qur'an--it's all in the hadiths or in the books of Islamic law! Another example is Westerners claiming that some Islamic practice or other is "un-Islamic" because it's not in the Qur'an, or because they interpret the verses differently than the Muslim scholars, thereby displaying their ignorance of what Islam and Islamic law actually consist of. To actually understand Islam, one must not just be familiar with the Qur'an but also with the collections of hadiths and the books of fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence; the actual detailing of the shari'ah, or Islamic law).

But the truth of the matter is that the Qur'an itself contains rather little actual law, and much of that is either vague or contradictory (though the Qur'an constantly states that it is "clear" and "easy to understand"). Let's take as an example the matter of wine. Qur'an 2:119 says, "They ask thee concerning wine and gambling. Say: 'In them is great sin, and some profit, for men; but the sin is greater than the profit.'" In other words, it can be both good and bad, but mostly bad, and apparently the choice of whether to drink or not is left up to the individual. In 4:43, the believers are admonished not to come to the prayer drunk. But in 5:90-91 intoxicants are forbidden completely ("O ye who believe! Intoxicants and gambling, (dedication of) stones, and (divination by) arrows, are an abomination, of Satan's handwork: eschew such (abomination), that ye may prosper. Satan's plan is (but) to excite enmity and hatred between you, with intoxicants and gambling, and hinder you from the remembrance of Allah, and from prayer: will ye not then abstain?"). To take another example, many verses in the Qur'an declare that Muhammad was not responsible for the unbelievers' refusal to believe, and that he should leave them in peace, that it is Allah's job to deal with them (such as 68:44: "Then leave Me alone with such as reject this Message: by degrees shall We punish them from directions they perceive not," and 73:11: "And leave Me (alone to deal with) those in possession of the good things of life, who (yet) deny the Truth; and bear with them for a little while."); other verses say to war against the unbelievers (9:5: "But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the agans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)," and 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 Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued," and 9:123: "O ye who believe! fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you: and know that God is with those who fear Him," and 8:38-39: "Say to the Unbelievers, if (now) they desist (from Unbelief), their past would be forgiven them; but if they persist, the punishment of those before them is already (a matter of warning for them). And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, verily Allah doth see all that they do."). What to do, what to do?

This is where hadiths, tafsir, and fiqh take over. They decide which verses are to be taken literally and which are to be taken more symbolically (and even which verses are to be taken as binding law and which as mere suggestions), but more importantly, they also mention the context and the time the verses were revealed to Muhammad. The guiding principle is that the later verses supercede the earlier ones; thus, wine is strictly forbidden because the verse prohibiting it was revealed later than the ones that grudgingly permit it. This is called the principle of abrogation. The context of revelation also helps to know when the law should be applied.

In the example above, the general consensus is that the earlier, more tolerant verses were given when Muhammad and his followers were weak and could not fight; the later, warlike verses were meant for when Muhammad was strong and able to war against the unbelievers, in order to "make Allah's word supreme," that is, to put the land under the rule of Islam and Islamic law (sometimes euphemistically described as "clearing all barriers to the spread of Islam" or even as "liberation from the slavery to man-made laws and institutions so that one is free to follow Allah's law," as noted Egyptian fundamentalist Syyed Qutub put it, thereby pulling off a truly Orwellian distortion of the meanings of "freedom" and "slavery."). It should also be noted that in general, the latter warlike verses calling for jihad abrogate the earlier, more lassiez-faire verses, although the verses revealed when Muhammad was weak may also apply to Muslims when they are weak. So, if you are weak in a non-Muslim country, you should try to peacefully persuade others to accept Islam and leave them alone if they do not; when you become powerful you should also invite them to Islam, but then war against them if they refuse. And note this hadith from al-Bukhari, the most respected collection of hadith:

Sahih Bukhari
Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24:

Narrated Ibn 'Umar:

Allah's Apostle said: "I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform a that, then they save their lives and property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah."

The version in the collection of Muslim, the second-most respected collection, reads:

Book 001, Number 0033:

It has been narrated on the authority of Abdullah b. 'Umar that the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah, and they establish prayer, and pay Zakat and if they do it, their blood and property are guaranteed protection on my behalf except when justified by law, and their affairs rest with Allah.

The point of all this is to show that the duty to wage jihad against the unbelievers is confirmed not just by what is in the Qur'an, but also by the hadiths (and since this particular hadith is reported in the two most respected collections, Sunni Muslims are bound to believe that Muhammad really said it). Islamic law concerning jihad draws directly from both the Qur'anic injunctions to wage jihad and Muhammad's own statements on the subject. You cannot just ignore it because you personally believe that Qur'an 2:256 ("Let there be no compulsion in religion") and 109:6 ("To you be your Way, and to me mine") should be the basis of Muslim dealings with non-Muslims. There is really no justification in the hadiths or in fiqh for this view (which in any case is based on verses that are early, hence abrogated). In fact, in this slightly different version of the same hadith from Muslim, one of the presumably more tolerant verses (88:22: "88:22 Thou art not one to manage (men's) affairs,") is interpreted in quite a different way:

Book 001, Number 0032:

It is narrated on the authority of Jabir that the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded that I should fight against people till they declare that there is no god but Allah, and when they profess it that there is no god but Allah, their blood and riches are guaranteed protection on my behalf except where it is justified by law, and their affairs rest with Allah, and then he (the Holy Prophet) recited (this verse of the Holy Qur'an):" Thou art not over them a warden" (88:22).

See? No contradiction at all between "You're not their keeper" and "Wage war on the infidels," because according to this hadith, the verse applies only to those who have already accepted Islam. In this way, the Qur'an is interpreted by means of the hadith, not by what one may want it to mean. It should be noted that verse 2:256 ("no compulsion in religion") is generally interpreted to mean that either one will not be forced to convert to Islam (but keep in mind that "forced" is a relative term--according to Maliki, Shafi'i and Hanbali law (but not Hanafi), unbelievers under Islamic rule who are not Christian or Jewish should be given the choice between Islam or death, and this is somehow not "compulsion" since, hey, they could have "freely chosen" to be put to death!) or else it is seen as being abrogated by later verses such as 3:85: ("And whoever desires a religion other than Islam, it shall not be accepted from him, and in the hereafter he shall be one of the losers."). It does not mean whatever you may want it to mean. You must take the hadiths into account.

(Whether it is actually put into practice is quite another matter entirely. Muslims have always skirted the prohibition on wine-drinking, for example, as the glorification of wine and drunkenness by countless Arab and Persian poets demonstrates! And historically, Muslims have expended more time, effort and lives fighting against each other than against the infidel. Most Muslims today are not willing or able to fight the infidel in jihad, either, preferring to live with them in some kind of peace, meaning that jihadi groups have to constantly provoke and incite in order to win adherents. Even in the Qur'an, much of surah 9 consists of berating the stragglesrs among the Muslims to go out fighting instead of sitting at home, suggesting that the problem was quite widespread, and Muhammad frequently promised infinite rewards in heaven and spoils on earth for those who fought, as an incentive to get them to do so, as in this hadith from Bukhari:

Volume 9, Book 93, Number 555

Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah's Apostle said, "Allah guarantees (the person who carries out Jihad in His Cause and nothing compelled him to go out but Jihad in His Cause and the belief in His Word) that He will either admit him into Paradise (Martyrdom) or return him with reward or booty he has earned to his residence from where he went out."

(more hadiths extolling jihad as better than the world and what is in it here)

In one of my Qur'an translations published by the Saudi Arabian government, there is an essay at the back of the book extolling the virtues of jihad "in the way of Allah"--and it is definitely holy war, not merely an "internal struggle," as many either ignorantly or dishonestly claim--which I plan on dissecting here.)

The Qur'an cannot be understood only by itself, which is the mistake that so many non-Muslims and Muslims themselves make. For example, the Qur'an does not describe even some of the most basic practices of Islam, such as how to pray, and is somewhat vague as to exactly how many prayers there are per day and when they should be done. For that, once again, one must go to the hadiths and sunnah.

It must also be mentioned that sometimes the Qur'an is contradicted by Islamic law. For example, in 24:2, the penalty for adultery is 100 lashes, but the penalty according to all schools of Islamic law is stoning. This is based on Muhammad's sunnah recorded in hadiths, not on the words of the Qur'an itself. (It should be mentioned that there was a story that the penalty of stoning was originally part of the Qur'an, but the piece of paper it was written on was eaten by a goat. It is unknown if this is a true story or was simply made up to cover for the fact that stoning for adultery is not mentioned in the Qur'an by claiming that it was at one point.)

I should emphasize the point that Muslims (usually in the West) who reject the hadiths are considered apostates and outside Islam by Islamic religious leaders, so this avenue of reform isn't going to get very far in the Islamic world. It also means that Muslim feminists looking for a way out of the rather misogynistic shari'ah are in trouble, since the only way out is to reject or ignore many of the hadiths and completely rewrite much of Islamic law. Their big problem is that the Islamic scholars can always claim greater knowledge of Islam and Muhammad's sunnah, leaving the feminists in real danger of being labeled "apostates" or "heretics." It is also to be mentioned that, unfortunately, their work is read by Westerners, not Muslims living in Muslim lands, so it has no effect whatever on the actual practice of Islam in Muslim countries.

You simply cannot base an entire body of law on what is in the Qur'an. There just isn't enough legal material to do it. It's not like the Jewish Torah, which is mostly law; instead it has some legal verses here and there (mostly in surahs 2, 4 and 5, plus many others scattered throughout the text), but it consists mostly of admonitions by Allah to believe in Him, showing His works and divine will in nature and in tales of the prophets, many from the Bible, the rewards of heaven for the believers and the hell that will await those who reject Him and His Messenger, Muhammad. It's an extremely repetitive book, and in no logical order whatever--the surahs are merely placed in order of decreasing length, the longest first and the shortest last (generally; there are many exceptions), and any one surah does not generally have a unified subject; it often goes all over the place, often linked only by the rhyme structure (which, of course, does not show up in translation). I would describe it as "stream of consciousness," with one subject melting into another, often only minimally related, only to be taken up again later. One particular story may be told half a dozen times, and it could show up anywhere in the text. If you've ever read it all, you might have noticed that it's often hard to tell where exactly you are in the text, since it's so repetitive. It's like a fractal--no matter what the scale is, it looks and reads the same, from the longest surah to the shortest, all of which deal with the same topics in the same familiar way. Memorizing the whole of the Qur'an has a very practical side--because there isn't really any good way to find a particular verse or subject you might be looking for, so if you have the whole of the text memorized, you can then bring to mind any particular verse on any subject.

I want to add that anyone who tries to compare Judeo-Christianity with Islam by saying something like, "The Qur'an says to fight the infidels, but, hey, the Bible says that homosexuals should be stoned" has just proven they know nothing about either Judaic law or Islamic law. Jewish law is NOT based soley on the words of Torah, the same way that Islam is not based soley on Qur'an; both also depend on outside sources for much of their law, as well as for how to interpret the words of scripture themselves. In the case of Judaism, rabbis have the Talmud and many commentaries on both Torah and Talmud to define, codify, and apply halacha (Jewish law). In the case described above about stoning homosexuals, the Jewish response would be something like: Well, that law can only be applied if the Sanhedrin is in existence (it's not and hasn't been for 2,000 years), and if there are many witnesses to his guilt, and so on, the end of which is that the actual literal words will never be carried out. Add to that the Talmudic dictum that the law of the land should be followed (unlike the Muslim insistence that Muslims should always follow Allah's law wherever they might be).

There was a sect called the Karaites (People of the Scripture, more here and here in 9th century Judaism, which called for soley using the written Torah as a basis for law, rejecting all rabbinical interpretation, but it was considered heretical and eventually more or less died out. With Reform Judaism, the issue becomes moot, in the "spiritualizing away" of the letter of the law. The only way "Qur'an-only Muslims" could really make a go of it is by rejecting shari'ah (Islamic law) completely, becoming something like Reform Judaism (and this is what many of them have done), but then they would be (and are) considered outside Islam by other Muslims. Even Reform Judaism is not considered "real Judaism" by many Orthodox and Conservative rabbis, who generally come from cultures where dissent and discussion is freely allowed, so what kind of acceptance could "Reform Islam" expect, especially given the lack of freedom of speech and religion in Muslim countries?

I believe the "literalist approach" (taking the words of scripture literally without regard to their interpretation) is more of a Christian way of approaching scriptures, and a Protestant one at that. Christianity has no sacred law to be applied to all situations and in all contexts; it has generally depended on essentially secular authorities for secular law (the Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire, the medieval kings, Parliaments), so the whole concept of "separation of church and state" came quite naturally (eventually). There does exist "Canon Law" in Catholicism and Orthodoxy, but that affects matters having to do with religion in some way, and in any case is not necessarily the "Law of God Himself." But the entire concept of "the Law" was repudiated even in the letters of Paul, so there is no real concept of it in Christianity. This is all well and good (imagine trying to separate church and state when every law of the land is based on the Bible or Christian doctrine!), but it means that Westerners, from a Christian background, are going to have a tough time really coming to terms with what Islam actually is.

2003-06-17T22:10:00.000-07:00

Price of Honor and Nine Parts of Desire: Women In The Muslim World

I have to say that, right now, after reading I don’t know how many horror stories about women living under Islam, I’m at the point where I don’t know how much more I can handle. Add to that 1) the Muslim women defending Islamic rules about women as “necessary” to “protect” them because they are so “weak” and “emotional,” or at least as being “true liberation” of women—as opposed to the “slavery” of having to work, mix with men, and pretty much do and say what they like, and 2) so-called “feminists” and “liberals” also defending this crap, for whatever reason, whether because of moral relativism, tribalism, or flat-out hatred of Western values. Let’s just say that I get in a very ugly mood.

I’ve been reading Nine Parts of Desire by Geraldine Brooks and Price of Honor by Jan Goodwin, as well as a book of academic essays called Faith and Freedom edited by Mahnaz Afkhami, and because of what I said above, I’ve only been able to read a little bit at a time. I shudder and start to think that Allah must not exist, if He allows His followers to do all of this in His name. This isn’t really a book review, more a collection of my thoughts on the books.

But anyway...

I’ll talk about the first two now (the third in a later entry), which are very similar: Western female journalist travels through the Middle East, speaking with women in many different countries and adding her own thoughts about the subject. Both date from the mid-1990s, so in some ways they are a bit dated. Both draw attention to the rising tide of Islamic fundamentalism, which is the most serious threat to women’s rights in that part of the world. While both can be quite harsh and pointed in their criticisms of Islamic culture and even Islam, both insist that this isn't the true message of Islam.

Let me discuss that last point first and get it out of the way. Both writers insist that the oppression of women is not “true Islam,” that this is a distortion from the “true message” of Muhammad. Price of Honor even has a chapter heading entitled, “Muslims: The First Feminists.” Both, to a greater or lesser extent, buy the notion that Muhammad did an incredible job in elevating the status of women. Of course, the problem is that the people doing the “distorting” just happen to be the highest religious authorities and religious scholars. Neither book seems aware just how strange it is for a non-Muslim, Western woman to proclaim what the “true Islam” is and declare the learned muftis and sheikhs “distorters” of Islam, or to state what exactly Muhammad had in mind regarding issues of women’s rights 1400 years ago.

It is very important to understand that Islamic law, Shari’ah, is not derived from the Qur’an alone, but also from the Sunnah (tradition) of Muhammad as recorded in hadiths. It displays a near-total ignorance of orthodox Sunni (or Shi’a) Islam to attempt to derive the “real Islam” from the Qur’an alone, as both Brooks and Goodwin do, and also as many Western Muslims do. Islamic law is what is written in the books of fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence), not necessarily what is written in the Qur’an.

It is unfortunately evident that neither Brooks nor Goodwin really “know” their Islam. For example, X mentions slave concubines, but says that the Qur’an forbids their masters from having sex with them without their consent. This is absolutely false; I have never in my life ever seen a discussion of whether the slave girl’s consent is required to have sex with her; she is her master’s property, and he can do with her as he likes. She is a thing, no more worthy of having her feelings taken into consideration than a camel or cow.

Brooks says that Muhammad “probably would have abolished slavery” “if the times had allowed”—apparently completely innocent of the many hadiths regarding Muhammad’s possession and sale of slaves, often conducting slave auctions in the mosque grounds in Medina. Also, Muhammad did ban alcohol, even though it was presumably difficult to do. One would think that the buying and selling of human beings like cattle is a lot worse than the drinking of a glass of wine, but Muhammad did not see fit to ban it, instead insuring its continuation through the practices of slave concubinage and jihad.

Brooks, to her credit, honestly describes the divorce laws under Islam (man can divorce by saying “I divorce you” three times for no reason, woman has no right to divorce without husband’s permission or court’s order), but then she says that it is only the result of the most misogynistic reading of the text possible. Well, once again, Islamic law is more than the Qur’an. This “reading” has been the orthodox position for 1400 years, and insisting that it is a “distortion” ignores the facts on the ground, where Muslim women actually live. She does critique many aspects of Muhammad's career, though, looking askance at the claim that Muhammad was simply looking out for poor or widowed women, or trying to make alliances with other tribes. If so, why so many marriages to younger, beautiful women, even if many of them did happen to be widows?

Neither author really gets into the matter of Muhammad’s many misogynous sayings and actions as recorded in the hadiths, instead portraying him as something of a medieval crusader (or should I say jihadist!) for women’s rights. This view of Muhammad can only be supported by an incredibly selective reading of his life story, his sayings, and his laws. Unfortunately for the Muslim feminists who are attempting to change Islam by insisting that the later scholars and rulers somehow “corrupted” Muhammad’s message of liberation for women, this misogyny is inseparable from the story of Muhammad as told in Muslim texts. Either one simply ignores all of it, tries to explain it away, deny its reality (but then we have the problems of denying hadiths, with can render one outside the fold of Islam). Other Muslim women simply fall back on “Islam and Shari’ah are the real liberators of women!” and other such banal inanities.

But this lack of hard info on Islam should not overshadow the real mission of the books, to portray the lives of women today in Islamic countries in the Middle East, and in this respect they both do a very good job. The stories are often harrowing and horrifying, such as Goodwin’s opening story about Maria, an Afghan refugee living in Pakistan who was often beaten and then married off to an old man at the age of 11, and pregnant before she turned 12. (Now you see why I can only read a little bit at a time!) Another story Goodwin tells is of an Egyptian taxi-driver who keeps his wife at home in their tiny, cramped apartment in Cairo “to protect her,” not allowing her to set foot outside, not to buy food, attend weddings (a big social event in the lives of most women), speak to the other women in the building, or even to visit a mosque. At the end, the wife shrugs and says, “I guess this was my fate.”

Even the stories of richer women are dreary. One Western convert lives in Abu Dhabi as a secret second wife, and her husband only comes around for a couple of hours a week. (Goodwin wonders whether other women in their 30s having trouble finding a man in the US might agree to a polygamous arrangement—but the point is not whether they might agree in a moment of weakness, but how long they would be willing to tolerate it. Not more than a week, I’d say!)

Although there are some hopeful stories, the overall tone is one of despair. Not necessarily from the author, but just from the content of the stories, in which women are cut off from the rest of the world, locked away, covered and basically not even treated as human beings. In addition, the quotes from many of the fundamentalists, and even not-so-fundamentalists, do not suggest any kind of hope for the future. A woman politician in Jordan, supposedly one of the more modern Arab states, is hounded by the fundamentalists for denouncing polygamy, accused of apostasy, and forced to undergo several trials and hearings, and is forced into poverty after being unable to find a job.

One thing that really cut deep was reading fundamentalist Muslim women’s defense of such misogyny: for example, Goodwin meets a Kuwaiti woman with a master’s degree from USC, who says, “Muhammad the Prophet gave women all the benefits they need in Islam. A woman doesn’t need to work; her husband should take care of her, provide for her. I stopped teaching for the sake of the family, and for Allah. My children need me to take of them. And I need to be rested so that I am in a good mood to receive my husband. My husband has a right. He didn’t marry so that he could come home before me. A wife is the one to receive the husband, to soothe him. Allah created men physically stronger. As a woman, I have to be sensitive, nice, and nurturing...If a woman is unmarried, she still should not work. Her father, brother, uncle, grandfather, her male relatives should support her. A woman should not have a career where she can mix with men.” A single woman should instead “pray, fast, or talk to Allah. She can learn to sew and save the family money. But it is better for all women to get married. Her role is to have children.”

There’s plenty more (clitoridectomy is another horror covered in both books), but I’ll stop here, since this blog entry is already much too long and too depressing! All I want to add is that, typically, many Muslims just can’t deal with this kind of disclosure. If you go to Amazon.com and look at the reader comments, you’ll see a lot of upset comments from Muslims whose entire content may be summed up as: “Islam liberates women! You lie! Islam respects and honors women! You are racist and bigoted! Western women are oppressed! Muslim women are happy!” How can you even begin to talk to somebody who just denies every fact, every incident you present them with? It’s a classic symptom of True Believer syndrome: fiercely holding on to a belief system even when the facts are staring you in the face. (And don’t get me started on the comments saying, “Well, it’s bad, but American/Western women are not really any better off,” which I’ll just say are beneath contempt.)

What will happen in the future is anyone’s guess, but I pray that more women will become educated and find a way to control their own lives. Now, how that will happen, I don't know, especially with the fundamentalist revival.

2003-06-14T01:26:00.000-07:00

Banu Qurayzah and Jewish Law

I admit I don't know very much about Jewish Law (Halaka), so I would like to ask my readers who do a question.

The Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayzah who lived in Medina was accused by Muhammad and the Muslims of treachery and breaking their treaty with the Muslims during the siege of Medina and the ensuing Battle of the Trench (so called because Medina was defended from the invading Meccan enemies of Muhammad by a large trench around the town). The Banu Qurayzah had supposedly intrigued with the Meccans and betrayed the Muslims, and so had to be punished. It must be admitted that the actual evidence for this betrayal, even in the Muslim sources, isn't very clear or consistent--it is said that they had made an alliance of some sort with the Meccans, leaving the eastern flank of the city exposed, but what this alliance actually consisted of is never made clear. Even if we do accept that Banu Qurayzah was involved in rather shady dealings with the Meccans, the sheer brutality of what happened next, especially considering Muhammad's treatment of the other Jewish tribes, who were merely exiled after their defeat, may lead one to suspect that perhaps Muhammad just wanted the Banu Qurayzah gone, since they were the last Jewish tribe left in Medina.

After the Meccans finally gave up the siege, Muhammad and his men went after the Banu Qurayzah, who locked themselves up in their houses a little to the east of Medina, and besieged them for 25 days. They finally surrendered, (supposedly) agreeing to abide by the decision of Sa'd ibn Mu'az, chief of one of the main tribes of Medina and selected by Muhammad, as to what would happen to them. It must be noted that Sa'd had already been mortally wounded in the fighting and would die soon after, and Muhammad must have known what he would decide.

Sa'd decided that the men of Banu Qurayzah would be slaughtered, the women and children sold into slavery, and the spoils divided among the Muslims. Muhammad's comment was, "You have given the judgement of Allah above the seven heavens," according to Ibn Ishaq's Sirat (life of Muhammad).

All 600-700 (the figure may have been as high as 900) men of the tribe were beheaded in the marketplace of Medina in a single day, their bodies dumped into a pit. Prepubescent boys were spared from death. The women and children were sold as slaves (no doubt of a sexual nature, so we can safely assume mass rape), and Muhammad chose for himself Rayhana, the wife of one of the slaughtered men, to be his concubine.

Before going any farther, I'd like to present to the reader these articles about the event:

Muhammad, the Qurayza Massacre, and PBS, by Andrew G. Bostom

A lengthy discussion of the Sirat of Ibn Ishaq's report of this event

Some hadiths from al-Bukhari's collection, considered the most trustworthy by Sunni Muslims

According to Yusuf Ali's notes to his translation of the Qur'an, (and I chose this because it reflects the view of quite a few Muslims):

Notes 3703, 3704 on Qur'an 33:26

Sa'd applied to them the Jewish Law of the Old Testament, not as strictly as the case warranted. In Deuteronomy 20:10-18, the treatment of a city "which is very far off from thee" is prescribed to be comparatively more lenient than the treatment of a city "of those people, which the Lord thy God does give thee for an inheritance," i.e., which is near enough to corrupt the religion of the Jewish people. The punishment for these is total annihilation: "thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth" (Deuteronomy 20:16). The more lenient treatment for far-off cities is described in the next note. According to the Jewish standard, then, the Banu Quraiza deserved total extermination--of men, women, and children. They were in the territory of Madinah itself, and further they had broken their engagements and helped the enemy.

Sa'd adjudged them the milder treatment of the "far-off" cities which is thus described in the Jewish Law: "Thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: but the women and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself, and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the Lord thy God hath given thee" (Deuteronomy 20:13-14). The men of the Quraiza were slain: the women were sold as captives of war; and their lands and properties were divided among the Muhajirs [those who had made the hijra, or flight, from Mecca with Muhammad--ed.].

Now, my question is, Is this correct? Did the Banu Qurayzah get what they deserved according to Jewish Law? Or is this just an excuse?

It must be noted that many Muslims today point to this story as proof that the Jews are treacherous and cannot be trusted, as well as being eternal enemies of Islam. It also may be seen as a prototypical pogrom, a massacre of the Jews, reflected in other such pogroms by both Christians and Muslims over the centuries, as well as an unnerving precursor to both the Holocaust and to current calls by far too many Muslims to eliminate both Israel and the Jews living therein. The story makes Muhammad look like a prototype of Hitler. For this reason...

Some Muslims (and others) uncomfortable with the story say that it never happened, pointing to articles like this one. This is similar to how some Muslims deal with Muhammad's wife Aisha being nine years old at the consummation of her marriage--they simply reject the hadiths, some narrated by Aisha herself (or at least said to be), that say she was. The problem is, though, that denying the Banu Qurayzah incident requires rejecting the Sira of Ibn Ishaq, the earliest extant biography of Muhammad (though only as preserved by many later writers), as well as seriously questioning the veracity of the hadiths. This is no problem if one is a critical Western scholar, but for a Muslim it raises insuperable difficulties. Hadith-rejecters are invariably considered to be heretics or apostates by orthodox Muslims, so needless to say you wouldn't get very far with this attitude at Al-Azhar University in Cairo. Also, if Ibn Ishaq and al-Bukhari were telling a bunch of stories that weren't true about Muhammad, how can we know that anything they said about him was true? How then can we know anything about Muhammad's life or what he was like, if such forgeries and false stories so easily made their way into the Prophet's biography? How can you simultaneously extol Muhammad's generosity and good nature by telling a pleasant story from his life preserved in the Sirat of Ibn Ishaq, while rejecting the unpleasant parts dutifully recorded by the same writer? It is possible that nobody really knows what happened, but in that case, nobody really knows anything about Muhammad or the earliest Muslims either, or where the Qur'an came from, or what Islamic law consists of or even how to pray, as all these things are taken straight from the hadiths and biographies of Muhammad. True, Islamic law is supposed to be derived from both the Qur'an and Muhammad's Sunna (tradition) as recorded in hadiths, but in fact the legal content of the Qur'an is actually rather sparse and the wording frequently vague and open to question, needing some sort of explaination--you cannot build a whole legal system on the Qur'an alone. The vast majority of Islamic Law draws on the hadiths, including ones that explain the Qur'an's verses, both legal and otherwise.

Discussing the veracity of the Islamic sources is not what I meant to get into, but I guess it's inevitable. But it must be said that without them, there isn't much to discuss, as we have no independent account of Islam's origins and Muhammad's life. Anyway...

Was the treatment of Banu Qurayzah in accordance with Jewish Law? Especially as it was understood and applied by Jews in the 7th century CE/AD? It seems odd to apply Jewish Law applying to Jews fighting the Caananites in the 1200s BC/BCE to a situation in which Muslims are fighting the Jews in the 600s CE/AD. Also, I imagine that, considering the exacting standards of proof required for death sentences by rabbis in the Talmud, which said that a Sanhedrin that condemned someone to death once every 70 years was much too cruel, the "proof" offered in the Muslim sources wouldn't be considered anywhere close to convincing.

What do you think?

UPDATE:
Reader Tara sends along these thoughts, with the caveat that she isn't necessarily an expert on the subject, but I think it explains a lot about Jewish law and the many misunderstandings thereof:

I'm not an expert but I'll do my best with what I know!

You can't get Jewish law from the Torah. You just can't. You need the oral Torah, the Mishnah and the Talmud, to have Jewish law. Example - the Rebellious son whom the parents can take out and kill (according to the Bible). According to the Talmud: A son can be a rebellious son only between the time of the first spouting of pubic hairs and the filling out of the pubic hairs, or until thirteen, whichever time is shorter. In order to qualify as a rebellious son, he must eat a certain amound of meat in a certain way. If he is a rebellious son, his parents can only kill him if they are exactly the same size and speak with the same voice. etc etc. Basically, parents can never actually kill a rebellious son.

So, EVEN if this were Jewish law, the statement "Jewish Law of the Old Testament" is... meaningless, absurd, nonsense. You cannot rule halacha from the written Torah.

It also seems like Yusuf Ali is saying that it is the "law" for close cities that was applied. That makes no sense either because in the Torah it is specified that this applies only to certain nations "in the land that God has given you for an inheritance." The Hitti, the Emori, the Kena'ani, the Perizzi, the Hivvi, and the Yevusi. Also, this is to be done so that "they teach you not to do after all their abominations."

I see no way this can be applied to the Banu Qurayzah. They (obviously) do not beong to any of those peoples, they did not live in the land that 'God gave to the Jewish people as an inheritance,' and their crime had nothing to do with teaching abominations, and, as I understand Islam, could not, because Islam itself says that the Jewish religion does not practice abominations and that's why it should be tolerated.

This is a command that applies to a specific place at a specific time, it is not "Jewish Law," any more than God's telling the people to stay around the base of the mountain during the revelation at Sinai is "Jewish Law."

It should also be noted that if you take seriously the Biblical account of Israel's conquering the land, you don't see this actually being carried out.

In any case there is no way that the Bana Qurayza could have deserved this under any kind of Jewish thinking, since ultimately the loyalty of the Jewish people must lie not with either one of any other fighting factions, but with God.

Of course, if you believe that God was with the Muslims and that by betraying them, the Jews were betraying God, you could start to make a case that they deserved punishment. But by then you're already COMPLETELY out of the scope of Judaism.

Anyway, considering that it was considered appropriate for the Jews to launch an attack against the Romans in the first century, I have a difficult time believing that any rabbi would have believed that an attack and betrayal against the Muslims would have even been illegal, let alone deserving of slaughter. In any case,

Sometimes Judaism understands that God would allow another nation to defeat or oppress the Jews as a punishment for our sins, but that nation will also someday be punished by God for its mistreatment of us.

There is a concept in Jewish law that the law of the land is the law - at least as far as forbidding what is prohibited. Like, if the USA says you have to pay taxes, you have to pay taxes. If it says you can only marry one person, you can only marry one person, etc. But in that case you are being ruled according to the law of the land and definitely not according to Jewish law.

2003-06-13T20:52:00.000-07:00

New entries coming later tonight...

I've hardly been at home and haven't had much time to read my email, so if I haven't gotten to yours, please be patient! I have a couple of entries that I've been working on and will post later tonight.

2003-06-07T00:15:00.000-07:00

"Why should we worry about Muslim law, it only applies to Muslims"

While glancing at India: From Midnight to the Millennium by Shashi Tharoor in the library, I came across a line that really got to me. I don't have the book in front of me, but to the best of my memory there was a brief discussion of the Shah Bano case where the Indian government (or more specifically Rajiv Ghandi) passed a law overturning an Indian Supreme Court decision that after a divorce a Muslim husband had to pay his ex-wife a certain amount of alimony; the new law exempted Muslim husbands from paying it, since according to Shari'ah, the husband only has to pay back the dowry and give her three months' maintenance. It also gave Shari'ah a much greater role in the personal law of Muslims. It is generally agreed that Rajiv Ghandi did this to appease the Islamic fundamentalists; Tharoor accepts that, saying that it was a horrible decision made to appease the fundamentalists, but then he follows it with this line: "Muslim personal law only affects Muslims," and brushes it off completely in the next couple of lines as something that only affected Muslims' personal lives and not of his concern. In other words, it doesn't affect anyone who isn't Muslim, why should I care?

This attitude is unfortunately all too common, and I'll try to explain what about it really frosts me on so many levels. It doesn't just affect India; it has implications for the whole West, and its tradition of liberal democracy and individual human rights.

I have to say that my first thought was something along the lines of "Well, the Nuremberg laws only concerned the Jews; why should anyone else have cared?" This isn't really that far off the mark; it has been said that "Muslims are the first victims of Islam," and to a large extent that is true, especially for Muslim women. The imposition of Muslim Personal Law forces the interpretation of the conservative/fundamentalist Islamic scholars (ulema) on all Muslims, no matter what they themselves may want, whether they believe in it or not. I know if I lived in India, I would be hopping mad that my rights as a Muslim woman under Indian law were being abrogated at the whim of the Islamists.

First of all, take the phrase "only applies to Muslims." All Muslims? Who defines "Muslim"? What if the said Muslims don't want to live under Islamic law? Can they opt out, or are they stuck? To take a hypothetical example, would Salman Rushdie or Taslima Nasreen, both outspoken apostates from Islam, be covered under Islamic law--especially since Shari'ah prescribes the death penalty to apostates from Islam? And what if some Muslims have a different interpretation of Islam and Islamic law than the one embodied in Muslim Personal Law? Are their views to be considered, or simply ignored as they happen to fall under the category "Muslim" and so have to live under Muslim law?

The claim that the imposition of Islamic law is an expression of "religious freedom" for Muslims is a sad joke and points out the incompatibility between "group rights" and "individual rights." If Muslims as a whole get the right to live according to Islamic law, the right to religious freedom of the individual Muslim is completely ignored. There is no provision that one can opt out of Islamic law in favor of secular law, or interpret it in a different way. No, the Muslims simply have to accept the decisions of the ulema, whether they like it or not. The Muslim, under Shari'ah, is denied religious freedom and freedom of expression: he or she cannot convert to another religion or renounce Islam on pain of death; is forbidden to utter any "blasphemous" statement (however that may be defined); may be forced to fast during Ramadan (in many Muslim countries, it is forbidden to sell food or eat or drink in public during daytime hours in Ramadan); and made to live according to Islamic personal law.

In addition, Islamic law, in this case Muslim Personal Law, denies women the same rights that other Indian women have, so the government is openly countenancing discrimination against women and misogynistic practices in the name of religion, which I should think "liberals" and "secularists" would be against, but often they have actually been in favor of. Suppose that Catholic women, because of their religion, were barred from getting divorced or having abortions. I doubt that many of the same people who insist that Muslims should be able to establish Islamic law in their countries or minority regions in the name of religious freedom would be so accepting of such a law for Catholic women. Instead, we would get an earful about how religion has no place in government, and how Catholicism cannot force its will on Catholic women, especially if that means violating their rights under secular law. I suspect that many do not know or care about what Islamic law actually entails. In inheritance, Muslim women get only half of what men do; the man can divorce his wife at any time and for any reason by saying "I divorce you" three times (though it's not supposed to be said all at once but divided over three occasions; all at once is "strongly disapproved of" in Shari'ah--but at the same time, the divorce is accepted as valid); Muslim women's right to divorce is much more limited and more difficult to exercise, as she must go to the court, have a "good reason," and pay back the dowry to the husband; the children can be permanently taken away from the mother if the father so desires, especially if he thinks she is raising them "inappropriately"; there is no provision for ongoing alimony; polygamy is allowed, even without the knowledge or permission of the wife, and so on--and all of this would be considered "personal law"! Why would "liberals" or "secularists" countenance these gross violations of women's rights, just because they happen to be Muslim? What happened to the feminist idea that the violation of the rights of women was everyone's concern?

The establishment of Islamic law for Muslim minorities can be bitterly divisive, as other groups feel that the Muslims are being given special treatment, and often Muslims respond in kind by feeling themselves discriminated against. What is lost is any sense of unity between Muslims and non-Muslims, since the two are not even covered by the same law. Allowing any group special rights and dispensation is disastrous to the entire concept of a liberal democratic state with separation of religion and state; it cuts the foundations right out from under it, since it is based fundamentally on the basic rights of the individual, not the group. The individual should not be seen as a mere member of a group but as a unique individual, a fellow citizen of the country with the same rights as anyone else. Islamic law preserves a view of the state as composed of groups, Muslims and others, in which the concept of the rights of the individual have not even been thought of and have no importance. One only has rights depending on which group one belongs to: Muslims have these rights, others have less. Non-Muslims are not even really members of the Islamic state, but exist only as "tolerated" minorities; the honor of "citizenship" (including serving in the Army and ruling the state) only goes to Muslims. Muslims see themselves first and foremost as Muslims, only incidentally as citizens or subjects of the state they happen to live in. These two views are incompatible, as India is finding out.

It must be noted that it is absolutely false that Islamic law only affects Muslims, not non-Muslims. Here are some examples:

1) Muslim women are prohibited by Islamic law from marrying non-Muslim men, while men are allowed to marry Christian and Jewish women. This can lead to some pretty ugly situations if a Muslim girl should fall in love with a non-Muslim boy. Either she has to brave the wrath and basically leave the community, or risk death, both hers and his, from his family (or the state, if Islamic law is the law of the land--death is the penalty for a non-Muslim man marrying a Muslim woman).

2) In case of divorce or death, a non-Muslim wife has no rights to the children; according to Islamic law, they must be under the charge of a Muslim and raised as Muslim. Ask any of the foreign non-Muslim women whose children have been held in Islamic countries against their will (such as Betty Mahmoody and Patricia Roush) if Islamic law did not apply to them.

3) According to Islamic law, a non-Muslim cannot inherit from a Muslim. If, for example, your father converts to Islam on his deathbed, and neither you nor the rest of the family are Muslim, you and the rest of the family will receive nothing. If, however, your father's cousin has also converted to Islam, he gets everything. There was a case in Jordan where a man claimed that his uncle had converted to Islam on his deathbed; his word was trusted, since it was, after all, the word of a Muslim, and he got the inheritance, cutting out the entire rest of the family.

4) There is the unpleasant fact that when Muslims are the majority and have an Islamic state run according to Islamic law, Shari'ah is invariably applied to non-Muslims, at least in some ways, since, after all, it is the law of the land. For example, the testimony of non-Muslims is not accepted in Islamic courts, certainly not against Muslims. A Muslim may not be executed for killing a non-Muslim. Non-Muslims are second-class citizens, who must pay jizya for the right to even draw breath in the Islamic State. They are discriminated against and must not show any disrespect to Islam. They may not offend Muslim sensibilities. And so on.

In addition, the application of Islamic law may lead to problems for the state. Divorced Muslim women may end up on welfare because of lack of alimony. Polygamous marriages and the traditional Islamic emphasis on having many children may result in large numbers of children that the state is obliged to help support through schools, health care, and the like. And it may affect the country in less tangible ways. Poor education may lead to less productivity and prosperity. Lack of rights leads to some parts of the population feeling disenfranchised, even if Islamic law was enacted to placate Muslim sensibilities, leading to instability. And there are other things that we haven't even thought of.

After all this, would you consider the imposition of Islamic law to be "only the concern of Muslims," not anyone else?

2003-06-05T14:08:00.000-07:00

Bible vs Qur'an: Part 1
Abraham Bargains With God

In this entry, I will compare and contrast the Bible and Qur'anic stories of one incident: when Abraham pleads for the lives of the people of Sodom and Gomorrah. In both versions, messengers from God have been sent to him and his wife Sarah to inform them of the birth of Isaac, and then Abraham is told (by the messengers in the Qur'an, but by God himself in the Bible) that the people of Sodom and Gomorrah will be destroyed for their horrific sins.

Here is the passage from the Bible (NIV translation): Genesis 18:16-33, but I will also include the first part of of the chapter because it is an integral part of the story, and shows up in the Qur'anic version(s).

1 The LORD appeared to Abraham near the great trees of Mamre while he was sitting at the entrance to his tent in the heat of the day.
2 Abraham looked up and saw three men standing nearby. When he saw them, he hurried from the entrance of his tent to meet them and bowed low to the ground.
3 He said, "If I have found favor in your eyes, my lord, do not pass your servant by.
4 Let a little water be brought, and then you may all wash your feet and rest under this tree.
5 Let me get you something to eat, so you can be refreshed and then go on your way, now that you have come to your servant."
"Very well," they answered, "do as you say."
6 So Abraham hurried into the tent to Sarah. "Quick," he said, "get three seahs of fine flour and knead it and bake some bread."
7 Then he ran to the herd and selected a choice, tender calf and gave it to a servant, who hurried to prepare it.
8 He then brought some curds and milk and the calf that had been prepared, and set these before them. While they ate, he stood near them under a tree.
9 "Where is your wife Sarah?" they asked him. "There, in the tent," he said.
10 Then the LORD said, "I will surely return to you about this time next year, and Sarah your wife will have a son." Now Sarah was listening at the entrance to the tent, which was behind him.
11 Abraham and Sarah were already old and well advanced in years, and Sarah was past the age of childbearing.
12 So Sarah laughed to herself as she thought, "After I am worn out and my master is old, will I now have this pleasure?"
13 Then the LORD said to Abraham, "Why did Sarah laugh and say, 'Will I really have a child, now that I am old?'
14 Is anything too hard for the LORD ? I will return to you at the appointed time next year and Sarah will have a son."
15 Sarah was afraid, so she lied and said, "I did not laugh." But he said, "Yes, you did laugh."
16 When the men got up to leave, they looked down toward Sodom, and Abraham walked along with them to see them on their way.
17 Then the LORD said, "Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do?
18 Abraham will surely become a great and powerful nation, and all nations on earth will be blessed through him.
19 For I have chosen him, so that he will direct his children and his household after him to keep the way of the LORD by doing what is right and just, so that the LORD will bring about for Abraham what he has promised him."
20 Then the LORD said, "The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous
21 that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know."
22 The men turned away and went toward Sodom, but Abraham remained standing before the LORD.
23 Then Abraham approached him and said: "Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked?
24 What if there are fifty righteous people in the city? Will you really sweep it away and not spare the place for the sake of the fifty righteous people in it?
25 Far be it from you to do such a thing-to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?"
26 The LORD said, "If I find fifty righteous people in the city of Sodom, I will spare the whole place for their sake."
27 Then Abraham spoke up again: "Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, though I am nothing but dust and ashes,
28 what if the number of the righteous is five less than fifty? Will you destroy the whole city because of five people?"
"If I find forty-five there," he said, "I will not destroy it."
29 Once again he spoke to him, "What if only forty are found there?"
He said, "For the sake of forty, I will not do it."
30 Then he said, "May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak. What if only thirty can be found there?"
He answered, "I will not do it if I find thirty there."
31 Abraham said, "Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, what if only twenty can be found there?"
He said, "For the sake of twenty, I will not destroy it."
32 Then he said, "May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak just once more. What if only ten can be found there?"
He answered, "For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it."
33 When the LORD had finished speaking with Abraham, he left, and Abraham returned home.

Now here is the first Qur'anic version, which, like most Biblical stories told in the Qur'an, is very compressed. I should recount briefly how the Qur'an tells the story of Lot (Lut in this translation). It holds that Lot was the prophet of Sodom, who was sent to make the people stop their despicable homosexual practices (Lot says, "Ye do commit lewdness, such as no people in Creation (ever) committed before you. Do ye indeed approach men, and cut off the highway? And practice wickedness (even) in your councils?" (Qur'an 29-28-29) When the people refused to change their ways, Lot called for help on Allah, who sent him messengers to destroy the city and save him and those who believed with him, but Lot's wife was evil, for what reason we are not told, and she was apparently destroyed with the city, though there are references to her as one who "lags behind," perhaps a relic of the story of Lot's wife looking back and turned into a pillar of salt, which is not explicitly told. There is also nothing of the tale of Lot's incestuous antics with his daughters in Genesis 19:30-38.

Anyway, here, without further ado, is the story from the Qur'an (Surah Hud, 11:69-76; Yusuf Ali translation):

11:69 There came Our messengers to Abraham with glad tidings. They said, "Peace!" He answered, "Peace!" and hastened to entertain them with a roasted calf.
11:70 But when he saw their hands went not towards the (meal), he felt some mistrust of them, and conceived a fear of them. They said: "Fear not: We have been sent against the people of Lut."
11:71 And his wife was standing (there), and she laughed: But we gave her glad tidings of Isaac, and after him, of Jacob.
11:72 She said: "Alas for me! shall I bear a child, seeing I am an old woman, and my husband here is an old man? That would indeed be a wonderful thing!"
11:73 They said: "Dost thou wonder at Allah's decree? The grace of Allah and His blessings on you, O ye people of the house! for He is indeed worthy of all praise, full of all glory!"
11:74 When fear had passed from (the mind of) Abraham and the glad tidings had reached him, he began to plead with Us for Lut's people.
11:75 For Abraham was, without doubt, forbearing (of faults), compassionate, and given to look to Allah.
11:76 O Abraham! Seek not this. The decree of thy Lord hath gone forth: for them there cometh a penalty that cannot be turned back!

Another, somewhat different, version appears in Surah 29, Al-Ankabut, verses 31-35 (it is very, very common for the same story to be told multiple times in the Qur'an, with some differences). This incorporates the destruction itself:

29:31 When Our Messengers came to Abraham with the good news, they said: "We are indeed going to destroy the people of this township: for truly they are (addicted to) crime."
29:32 He said: "But there is Lut there." They said: "Well do we know who is there : we will certainly save him and his following, except his wife: she is of those who lag behind!"
29:33 And when Our Messengers came to Lut, he was grieved on their account, and felt himself powerless (to protect) them, but they said: "Fear thou not, nor grieve: we are (here) to save thee and thy following, except thy wife: she is of those who lag behind.
29:34 "For we are going to bring down on the people of this township a Punishment from heaven, because they have been wickedly rebellious."
29:35 And We have left thereof an evident Sign, for any people who (care to) understand.

The arguing isn't mentioned, except in an oblique way in 29:32, where Abraham shows concern for Lot.

This story is also told in a somewhat different way in Surah 51, Ad-Dhariyat, verses 24-37 (it is very, very common for the same story to be told multiple times in the Qur'an, with some differences):

51:24 Has the story reached thee, of the honoured guests of Abraham?
51:25 Behold, they entered his presence, and said: "Peace!" He said, "Peace!" (and thought, "These seem) unusual people."
51:26 Then he turned quickly to his household, brought out a fatted calf,
51:27 And placed it before them. He said, "Will ye not eat?"
51:28 (When they did not eat), He conceived a fear of them. They said, "Fear not," and they gave him glad tidings of a son endowed with knowledge.
51:29 But his wife came forward (laughing) aloud: she smote her forehead and said: "A barren old woman!"
51:30 They said, "Even so has thy Lord spoken: and He is full of Wisdom and Knowledge."
51:31 (Abraham) said: "And what, O ye Messengers, is your errand (now)?"
51:32 They said, "We have been sent to a people (deep) in sin;-
51:33 "To bring on, on them, (a shower of) stones of clay (brimstone),
51:34 "Marked as from thy Lord for those who trespass beyond bounds."
51:35 Then We evacuated those of the Believers who were there,
51:36 But We found not there any just (Muslim) persons except in one house:
51:37 And We left there a Sign for such as fear the Grievous Penalty.

In this version, Abraham's arguing with Allah for the people of Sodom isn't even mentioned, though it seems to be obliquely referred to in 51:36, about not finding any just people except for Lot's family (or more accurately, those who were in his home who believed in Lot's message).

You will notice that while Abraham is directly speaking to God and being answered by him in the Bible story, the Qur'an simply says that Abraham was "pleading with Us" for Lot's people. It doesn't say that he was directly answered, or that any bargaining took place; it might have just been a simple prayer for all we know. The words of Allah that follow that verse ("For Abraham was, without doubt, forbearing (of faults), compassionate, and given to look to Allah. O Abraham! Seek not this. The decree of thy Lord hath gone forth: for them there cometh a penalty that cannot be turned back!") seem to be more of a later commentary on Abraham's acts than actual words addressed to him. Allah does not converse with mere mortals; instead he sends an angel or a prophet or a vision (42:51: "It is not fitting for a man that Allah should speak to him except by inspiration, or from behind a veil, or by the sending of a messenger to reveal, with Allah's permission, what Allah wills: for He is Most High, Most Wise.") In Genesis and Exodus, God speaks personally with Abraham and Moses, and even addresses the Israelites at Mt. Sinai, who shudder in fear and ask not to hear the voice of God anymore, with which God acquiesces, but he does continue to speak directly to Moses. By contrast Muhammad had to receive his sacred scriptures, which are supposed to be the speech of Allah himself, through the angel Gabriel.

More importantly, the whole concept of Abraham bargaining with God, the spectacle of a mere man telling God Almighty that he is being unjust, is fundamentally against the entire nature of Islam, which after all means "submission" and whose most salient trait is total submission to the decrees of Allah, instead of rebelling against them or trying to bargain out with them. This is why Abraham's request for pity is followed by an "excuse" that Abraham was very tender-hearted, perhaps too much so, and a reproach and an insistence that Abraham must accept the decree of Allah for the destruction of Lot's people. Abraham's kindness and tender-heartedness, which seem to be exceed even that of Allah the All-Merciful, is also referred to in 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 Allah, he dissociated himself from him: for Abraham was most tender-hearted, forbearing."

The figure of YHWH (God, the LORD) in the Pentateuch is very close to his chosen people (the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, the Israelites, and so on), who is very much a part of the action and susceptible to many quite human traits, such as being bargained with, "regretting" and "repenting" (as in the case of the Flood and threatening to leave the Israelites out in the desert for their disobedience; what this means has been hotly debated by Jewish and Christian scholars). He takes a personal interest in the Israelites, vowing to never abandon them and to admonish them with punishments for the sake of correcting them. The figure of Allah in the Qur'an is much more distant, one who will utterly destroy a people that have rejected his message without a second though, and replace them with a new people, who will be destroyed in their turn if they don't believe, the Qur'an warns. By contrast, God as portrayed in the Prophetic books of the Bible feels a great deal of sorrow about how his people Israel have turned their backs on him and that he has to punish them for their misdeeds, and with the promise that they will eventually be redeemed, that he will always be there waiting for their repentance. In the Qur'an, they would have just been wiped out and that would be that. (44:29: "And neither heaven nor earth shed a tear over them: nor were they given a respite.") In the Old Testament (Hebrew Scriptures; Tanakh) Israel is God's son (Hosea 11:1 "When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son."). In the New Testament, humans are the children of God (Romans 8:16: "The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children."); in the Qur'an they are the slaves of Allah (51:56: "I have only created Jinns and men that they may serve Me."). In the Bible are many references to loving God (Deuteronomy 6:4-5: "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength."--the opening of the Jewish Shema or profession of faith); in the Qur'an are constant references to serving Allah (20:14: "Verily, I am Allah: There is no god but I: So serve thou Me (only), and establish regular prayer for celebrating My praise." 29:56: "O My slaves who believe! truly spacious is My Earth: therefore serve ye Me!")

This topic is also discussed in the essay I wrote called "The Distance of Allah from His Creatures," and I find it a fascinating topic. It really throws into relief one of the major differences between Islam and Judaism and Christianity.

2003-06-02T23:37:00.000-07:00

Islamic Women's Clothing and Heatstroke

I've often wondered how on earth Muslim women in such frying hot locales as Saudi Arabia, Libya, the Sahara and much of the Middle East, deal with having to wear such horribly inappropriate clothing such as black abayas, black chadors, black headscarves, black veils, and the like. And I really feel for those Muslim women in countries that are not just boiling hot but humid as well, such as India, the subtropical or tropical climes of Malaysia and Indonesia, and so on. I shudder to think of Muslim women in the past, who had no air-conditioning and often had much thicker clothing and veils.

This point was really brought home to me today after suffering heat exhaustion caused by spending too long in the sun with "inappropriate clothes," namely long pants, long sleeved shirt and scarf covering the hair. I suppose that's what I get for 1) living in a hot climate, 2) not having a car (much of this was brought on by waiting in the scorching heat for the bus) and 3) being so stupid as to think that it was a good idea to go out like that. (Speaking of which, I wonder how veiled4allah, aka Al-Muhajabah, gets along in her black abaya and veil, since I know she rides the bus--at least as far as I know. Maybe she lives in a cooler climate. As for Sultana Freeman, who wears the same outfit in hot, humid Florida, I can't even imagine it. Maybe it's the heat that drives her crazy!)

Muslim women, when asked, "Isn't it hot to wear that?" will often say, "The fire of Hell is hotter." Well, at some point during this ordeal I was cursing all the Muslim 'ulama (religious scholars) who insist or insisted that women must wear this stuff, thinking that hell couldn't possibly be any hotter! (Yeah, it was probably the disorientation caused by heat exhaustion, other symptoms of which include: dizziness, paleness, nausea, quick and shallow breathing.) Eventually I managed to get myself to an air-conditioned house and took about two hours to get back to normal, during which I wished that I would just pass out to escape the dizziness and nausea.

In Saudi Arabia and other richer Muslim countries, women seem to deal with this problem by 1) not leaving home (which is usually air-conditioned) very often; 2) when they do have to leave, riding in an air-conditioned car, enroute to 3) air-conditioned buildings, shopping malls, hospitals, schools, and so on. In many poorer countries, such as Egypt, many women simply don't wear Islamic dress, instead opting for Western clothing and keeping the hair uncovered. Others only wear a simple head scarf and some kind of loose dress. (This reminds me that throughout history, it was usually only the "idle rich" and middle classes that could afford to veil and seclude women at home; poorer women had to work for a living and typically wore less-constricting clothing, perhaps only a simple head scarf as opposed to the whole abaya and niqab outfit, which doesn't lend itself to doing work, driving, or much of anything, really.) In India and Africa, women often wear some kind of loose, light cloth over their bodies, lightly covering the head. Also, it must be said that the abaya is actually an overgarment; you could be wearing only shorts and a T-shirt underneath, or even nothing! They are very loose, which helps immensely (tight clothes are the absolute worst for the heat; traditional Arab men's clothes are also very loose--but are usually white) and many are made of thin fabric, though it must be said that the very common polyester ones are horrible in this regard--cotton is better. Nevertheless, they still cover the whole body, and are usually BLACK, or at least some dark color, which, as we all should know, absorbs heat like nothing else! Even worse, some of the more pious women wear veils that even cover the eyes, or veils made of thicker cloth, and gloves, not leaving a single square inch of skin visible (and also leaving nowhere for the sweat to evaporate).

I can't help but suspect that one reason for Islamic women's dress is to make it less tempting for women to go outside. If they have to walk around in hot, constricting clothes in 120-degree Saudi Arabian or Egyptian heat, most women will just stay at home. The jelbab, which is basically a long coat, and pants or skirt combo, worn in somewhat more liberal countries like Jordan, Syria and Egypt, also is mighty uncomfortable in hot weather. Most of the traditional women's outfits in the Islamic nations are the equivalent of wearing long pants or jeans and a sweater, or at the very least a long-sleeved shirt. And the hijab, or headscarf, absorbs even more heat, since so much bodily heat escapes through the top of the head. In addition, the face veil tends to make breathing difficult, so sometimes it seems to me that many pious Muslim women are already living in the fires of hell, quite literally!

Muslim women are not supposed to wear perfume outside the home, which the Prophet has said is as bad as if she committed adultery, so you can imagine how good a bus packed with devout Muslim women would smell. I don't know how they manage in humid tropical countries such as Malaysia and Indonesia, especially considering that Islamic women's dress was first conceived with the arid Middle East in mind. I am looking at a picture of Malaysian Muslim women waiting at a bus stop, with their thick head scarves and long sleeves, and I feel like I'm going to faint myself! Another image that sticks out in my mind is one I remember seeing in National Geographic where women were working out in the fields somewhere in Yemen, wearing black clothes and veils, gloves, and topped with a big straw hat (which I doubt compensated very much for the black clothes!)

I don't know how they manage it without all collapsing from the heat (and I have no idea of what the statistics are for death from heatstroke in Muslim countries during the summer; they're probably pretty bad if 430 people have died in one state alone in India from the heat during the past 11 days (here's the sad story). How long before the World Health Orgainization (WHO) denounces women's Islamic clothing for causing heatstroke?!?

UPDATE: It also occurs to me that these clothes may also lead to other health problems. Since they inhibit movement and are hot, they tend to make it very difficult, if not impossible, to exercise or even walk very far, which may lead to weight gain and obesity. And this lack of activity may lead to weakness and overall poor health. In addition, sunlight is a source of some vitamins, and of course not getting any means being deprived of them.

So much for "the benefits of Islamic dress being scientifically proven," as some Muslim propagandists insist.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Reader Alifa sends these comments about the subject, which I found very interesting:

A few years ago, some enterprising researcher decided to try to understand why Bedouin men in the Negev wear a skirt-like black robe, and discovered that black in this case actually helped cool the body. Part of the experiment involved comparing light white robes with black ones. I think the reasoning was that the skirt-like robe acted as a kind of chiimney pulling cooler air nearer the ground up through the clothing, and black was more efficient for doing this.

One other problem you didn't mention with the full Islamic dress is that all of us need a certain amount of sun on our skin every day (at least face and forearms) in order to manufacture vitamin D. I think lack of vitamin D and consequent bone problems is a known health risk for women in Muslim countries. Perhaps you could ask someone involved in public health issues.

Around Jerusalem you can still find a few examples of Ottoman-era "air-conditioning" --- in the walls surrounding the flat roofs, you see a kind of pyramid of clay pipes set into the wall. People used to splash these with water to catch the late afternoon breeze and it did lower the temperature on the roof somewhat, as did regular whitewashing.

2003-05-31T23:18:00.000-07:00

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.

2003-05-30T11:03:00.000-07:00

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!

2003-05-29T08:19:00.000-07:00

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!

2003-05-28T22:31:00.000-07:00

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.

2003-05-25T15:10:00.000-07:00

Sorry for the hiatus. I have had a number of things come up, but more will be forthcoming soon (insha Allah)!

2003-05-18T10:16:00.000-07:00

Muslims and the Media

One issue that really gets Muslims and Arabs, in particular, upset is the poor way they feel they are portrayed in Western or American media, such as TV, newspapers and movies. You can be sure that, when reading a book about Islam (or Arabs) written by a Muslim, you will come across a section complaining about media images of both Islam and Muslims, that Muslims are seen only as bloodthirsty terrorists and Islam the religion of the sword.

While I do understand the complaints and sometimes wish that there would be more emphasis on people as three-dimensional beings (though actually I could say that about the portrayal of any number of groups), there is also something of a problem here. The image created by groups such as CAIR, MSA, ICNA, ISNA and the like sure isn't very congenial. My post below on "Muslim PR" on Sunday, May 11th goes into more detail about why that is, but suffice it to say that blaming and refusing to accept any responsibility, as well as defending terrorists and murderers, is not going to do much for your image. These organizations often come off as arrogant, petulant, and whiny, as well as completely uninterested in actually fighting (as opposed to defending, directly or indirectly) terrorism and Islamic extremists, and the fact that they claim to speak for all American Muslims (which they emphatically do not) doesn't help matters.

Many Muslims are indeed very kind people (and would be a real PR scoop if they were profiled!), living as ordinary Americans do, having non-Muslim friends, active in the community (not just the mosque), and so on. And, it has to be said, some are not (and would really be bad PR!), with bottomless hatred for Jews and often America, despite voluntarily living here, refusal to have anything to do with non-Muslims, happy at the events of 9/11, wanting to bring America under Shari'ah law, and so on. How do you deal with this? You could pick out only the "media-friendly" cases, or you could simply dishonestly cut out anything that makes them look bad. But then we have the "whitewash" problem, where only positive things are said and the bad glossed over if even mentioned, and that will cause a loss of credibility in the eyes of others. I myself don't trust anything "whitewashers of Islam" say (though that's more because I know what the truth is). If someone sees all these reports around the world of terrorism by Islamic extremists, and then sees sugar-coated profiles of Muslims, living in America and elsewhere, all good with not a bad bone in their bodies, there's likely to be some kind of disconnect. What could be causing these acts? What are the people like who carry them out and support them? Finding no answer to these questions in documentaries about Muslims and Islam, instead given the tired claim "Islam prohibits the murder of innocents" is apt to breed distrust because the question is not dealt with honestly. (Incidentally, the term "innocents" is variously defined by Muslim groups, and some have claimed that, for whatever reason, Americans and/or Israelis and/or non-Muslims in general are actually NOT innocents, and are instead "enemies of Islam," even civillians, women and children, so it's OK to kill them. It is claimed that Israelis are illegally "occupying" the land which is the true possession of Muslims--not just the West Bank and Gaza, mind you, but all of Israel, so suicide bomber attacks killing people riding the bus to work, or shooting up children in their beds is not killing "innocents," because they are not innocents in their view! Americans "finance and support" Israel, and do all kinds of things that make Muslims unhappy, so they too are fair game, according to this view.)

While I wouldn't mind three-dimensional portrayals of people that may show them in a better light (or worse!--that's the problem with honest portrayals), the constant complaints that Islam, the religion, is shown in a bad light aren't going to be as well-recieved. Islam is not just a religion, but a political movement as well, with its historical emphasis on "expanding the borders of Islam" and the running of society according to Muslim law, the Shari'ah. As such, it is open to criticism as both a religion and as a political movement. Religion in America is not sancrosanct, and Christianity, for example, is freely criticized, ridiculed, and rejected, in keeping with freedom of speech. Islam cannot expect better, and I do think that Muslims in general definitely need much thicker skin when dealing with criticism of Islam, instead of seeing each criticism as a blow to their pride and ego which must be avenged. The American attitude is more along the lines of, "If you know you have the truth, why let criticism and attacks on it bother you so much? The truth will out." The inability to take criticism of Islam looks to Americans like lack of confidence that Islam can really compete in the bruising "marketplace of ideas" and somehow needs "special protection" because it cannot appeal to people on its own merits. Characterizing criticism of Islam or Muslims as "racism" is apt to backfire, as 1) Muslims are not a race, 2) it suggests that honest criticism cannot be tolerated because Islam just can't handle it, 3) it creates intense resentment, as, for example, criticism of any other religion is not decried as "racism," and only stifles honest debate.

Now we come to the crux of the problem; while complaining about how Muslims and Arabs are portrayed in Western media, Arab media is infamous for its Nazi levels of invective and hatred against Jews, and of course one can hardly expect a good image of Westerners either! Suppose Jews and Israelis complained about how they were portrayed by Muslims; do you think they would get a sympathetic response? How about if Americans complained about the barrage of anti-Western rhetoric, the portrayal of Western women as whores, the depiction of Americans as "controlled by the Jews," and on and on? One constantly repeated claim is that American media is controlled by the Jews (or "Zionists") and that is why Muslims and Muslim causes can't get good press. Well, has it ever occurred to them that they are indulging in the same kind of racism and bigotry they accuse the media of? Or is it that hatred of Jews is not racism? (I don't like using the term "anti-semitism," because Arabs and others will frequently say that, since they are Semites, they can't be anti-Semitic, or that hatred of Arabs is "anti-semitism." I want to make it clear that I am referring to hatred of Jews.)

Frankly, one reason I'm often not very sympathetic to Muslim complaints of media bias is the fact that the Arab media in particular, and that of many other Muslim nations as well, is so ravingly insane, filled with hatred of Jews and Westerners (forget about a sympathetic documentary depicting an Israeli family, or an American one!). It is, it might be said, bad PR, and the way Muslims often react to the revelation of this insanity doesn't help: either flat denial or the same old tired claims that 1) it's for purely "understandable" reasons, 2) you just don't understand the context, how Muslims have been humiliated, and 3), the most ridiculous, showing displeasure, not that there is so much hatred in Arab media, but that Westerners have been informed about it!

Why does it go only one way--Americans and Westerners must "understand" Muslims and Islam, depicting them in a good light, but Muslims can say whatever crap they want about Westerners and Jews on their media (admittedly usually state-run, but even independent sources are generally just more of the same)? Why must Americans realize how their actions upset Muslims and humiliate them, while Muslims do not have to realize how their actions and attitudes upset Americans? Why can't Jews/Israelis be portrayed as human beings, the way Muslims say they want themselves to be portrayed, instead of as the font of all evil?

Another part of the crux of the problem is that, frankly, many Muslims cause more than their share of trouble! Terrorist acts, seemingly constant warfare against both Muslims and non-Muslims, calls for jihad and the destruction of Israel and the West, anti-American demonstrations, synagogue torchings, and so on, do not do much for the image of Muslims and Islam! Pacifist Buddhists hardly ever get into the news in this fashion! It seems as if many Muslims would like to see the media ignore all of this, which isn't going to happen anytime soon. More troublingly, the typical Muslim reaction to these acts is not to apologize for how Islam is being misused, or how the terrorists are bad Muslims, or some kind of condemnation, but instead whining about how Muslims are "unfairly treated" and that Islam is given a "bad image" by the media. (For example, Muslim organizations in America didn't really condemn the actions of 9/11 or other terrorist acts in a forceful manner, or sometimes at all, instead focusing on profiling of Arabs/Muslims at airports and complaining about the shutdown of Muslim charities funneling money to terrorist organizations.) This attitude alone does a lot to create distrust and dislike among non-Muslims towards Muslims, it must be said, leading many to conclude that Muslims in America, by failing to say anything about terrorist acts, are implicitly condoning them, or at least refusing to condemn them.

As I have repeated before, Muslim double-standards will not help Muslims' cause, instead turning others against them. What really needs to happen, in my opinion, is for the facts on the ground to change. If there are no terrorist attacks committed by Islamic extremists, then the media won't report on them. If Islamists stop inciting hatred and murder, the news won't have much to report about it. I think that American Muslims should make more of an effort to actively condemn and stop terrorist acts, which will result in a better image for Muslims in America once it is made clear that they do not support or condone such acts, that they are in fact peaceful citizens of this country, wishing no harm on Muslims and non-Muslims alike. I also think that the truth is the best remedy. I personally believe that Muslims should be willing to discuss how it is that Islamic beliefs can so often turn into hatred and violence. I think that this might generate some goodwill, in showing that Muslims are willing to be honest with themselves and look inward for the source of the problem, instead of blaming everyone else. While I am in favor of portraying Muslims and Arabs as real people, this means that they should not be whitewashed or presented as flat, two-dimensional "noble Muslim" characters with no flaws. Their problems should not be ignored or covered up, but honestly dealt with, something that I think all Muslims should do with themselves and their own problems.

2003-05-16T03:04:00.000-07:00

The Pact of Umar, and the status of non-Muslims in Muslim lands

From domini.org, here is the text of the Pact of Umar, which spelled out exactly the "tolerance" granted (note the term "granted") to Christians (and Jews) in Muslim lands, and was the guideline for dhimmitude, the "pact of protection" Jews and Christians were bound to live under, or face death. It is commonly attributed to the second caliph, Umar ibn al-Khattab (reigned 634-644), but for a number of reasons that seems too early; it is more likely to be a product of the reign of Umar II (717-720), who was considered to be a pious and good caliph (unlike those other corrupt, impious Umayyad caliphs, the later Abbasid histories sniffed). Needless to say, he was not known for his tolerance and lassiez-faire attitudes! For that matter, his predecessor Umar I was infamous for his fanatical zeal for Islam and desire to destroy the unbelievers.

Herewith, the text:

In the name of God, the Merciful and Compassionate. This is a letter to the servant of God Umar, Commander of the Faithful, from the Christians of such-and-such a city. When you came against us, we asked you for safe-conduct (aman) for ourselves, our descendants, our property, and the people of our community, and we undertook the following obligations toward you:

We shall not build, in our cities or in their neighborhood, new monasteries, churches, convents, or monks' cells, nor shall we repair, by day or by night, such of them as fall in ruins or are situated in the quarters of the Muslims.

We shall keep our gates wide open for passersby and travelers. We shall give board and lodging to all Muslims who pass our way for three days.

We shall not give shelter in our churches or in our dwellings to any spy, nor hide him from the Muslims.

We shall not teach the Qur'an to our children.

We shall not manifest our religion publicly nor convert anyone to it. We shall not prevent any of our kin from entering Islam if they wish it.

We shall show respect toward the Muslims, and we shall rise from our seats when they wish to sit.

We shall not seek to resemble the Muslims by imitating any of their garments, the qalansuwa, the turban, footwear, or the parting of the hair. We shall not speak as they do, nor shall we adopt their kunyas [i.e. names starting with Abu ("father") or Umm ("mother")].

We shall not mount on saddles, nor shall we gird swords nor bear any kind of arms nor carry them on our persons.

We shall not engrave Arabic inscriptions on our seals.

We shall not sell fermented drinks.

We shall clip the fronts of our heads.

We shall always dress in the same way wherever we may be, and we shall bind the zunar round our waists.

We shall not display our crosses or our books in the roads or markets of the Muslims. We shall use only clappers in our churches very softly. We shall not raise our voices when following our dead. We shall not show lights on any of the roads of the Muslims or in their markets. We shall not bury our dead near the Muslims.

We shall not take slaves who have been allotted to Muslims.

We shall not build houses taller than the houses of the Muslims.

(When I brought the letter to Umar, may God be pleased with him, he added, "We shall not strike a Muslim.")

We accept these conditions for ourselves and for the people of our community, and in return we receive safe-conduct.

If we in any way violate these undertakings for which we ourselves stand surety, we forfeit our covenant [dhimma], and we become liable to the penalties for contumacy and sedition.

Umar ibn al-Khittab replied: Sign what they ask, but add two clauses and impose them in addition to those which they have undertaken. They are: "They shall not buy anyone made prisoner by the Muslims," and "Whoever strikes a Muslim with deliberate intent shall forfeit the protection of this pact."

This, boys and girls, is what is really meant when Muslims and Muslim apologists wax poetic about the vaunted tolerance of Islam. There are plenty of accounts (reproduced in books such as Bat Ye'or's The Dhimmi, as well as her other books) by Western travelers to the Ottoman Empire in the 1800s that report that Christians and Jews were still following the rules laid down in this document, such as having to wear distinctive clothes, not being able to openly practice their religion or fix their churches or synagogues, and being made to feel their humiliation and inferiority to the Muslims in every way, such as being shoved out of the middle of the street to walk at the muddy side of the road--the middle was only for Muslims. This is what Arabs insist that Jews now living in Israel would be happy living under in a Palestinian state. This is what Islamists really mean when they talk about how non-Muslims would be "tolerated" in an Islamic state, today! I'm not talking about whether it was/was not better than Christian Europe at that time, I'm talking about the fact that plenty of Muslims see this as a fair, reasonable example of "tolerance" today, in this day and age! This "tolerance" would consist of: not being forced to convert to Islam at the point of a sword, being judged by their own religious courts (no secular law here!), and that's about it.

I find the condition mentioned of non-Muslims not teaching their children the Qur'an to be rather interesting. Perhaps they wanted to avoid the spectacle of Christians and Jews trashing their holy book and beliefs. Even today, Muslim writers for a non-Muslim audience will very rarely tell the whole truth about exactly what is in Qur'an or Hadiths or Shari'ah, possibly because it might cause the non-Muslim to become disgusted with Islam; they just don't have the right attitude to really "understand" it correctly and so must be kept from the truth. (Bizarrely enough, I have found that generally the more a non-Muslim actually knows about Islam, Qur'an, Hadiths and Shari'ah, not whitewashed BS, the more they dislike and distrust Islam, unlike most other religions, where familiarity more often breeds closeness and understanding).

The condition of Jews and Christians not being too loud with their religious services and not being allowed to offend Muslim sensibilites, as well as the prohibition of building new churches or fixing old ones, really gives the lie to the "freedom of religion" claimed by Muslims and Muslim apologists (which just means the right not to be slaughtered and/or forced to convert to Islam, in this usage). There is an incident described in Ibn Battuta's Rihla, the book describing his travels, that demonstrates the attitude of Muslims towards non-Muslim practices very well. While traveling through Kaffa, in what is now the Crimea in Russia, he heard the church bells begin to ring. Alarmed, Ibn Battuta hurried to the minaret of the nearest mosque and began chanting the Qur'an and call to prayer in an effort to drown out the satanic clamor, which was not allowed in Muslim lands. Eventually the local Muslims persuaded him to come off his high horse--or rather, tower. In another incident, while at a Turkish court he loudly denounced a Jewish physician who had a high rank for daring to seat himself above the Qur'an readers. Non-Muslims had to know their place, after all.

In addition to the conditions described above, the testimony of a non-Muslim was not allowed in a Muslim shari'ah court, so if a Jew or Christian had a case against a Muslim, he would have to get Muslim witnesses, since his own testimony was disallowed (on the grounds since that he had rejected Islam, the self-evident truth itself, and since the Jews and Christians had falsified their scriptures, everything he said and did was suspect). They also had to pay the jizya tax, prescribed in the Qur'an itself (9:29) and which proved a sizeable source of income for the state, to the point where the rulers often did not want too many people converting to Islam, for fear they would loose too much money in jizya revenues! This tax could be backbreakingly high, serving as a "persuasive reason" to convert to Islam (the claim that Islam did not "force" people to convert is disingenious at best; not only were there quite a few cases of forced conversions, all the conditions and restrictions certainly made life inordinately difficult for those who didn't convert to Islam, and were a direct cause of the eventual conversion of most of the Middle East, which had formerly been mostly Christian, to Islam). Sometimes Jews and Christians would not be allowed to stand in the rain, as they were najjas, "filthy," and would contaminate the rainwater (even today some Shi'a Muslims will wash a dish or glass used by a non-Muslim seven times, once with water mixed with dirt, as they would to something licked by a dog, to remove the impure filth left by the kafir). There were countless other ways to make the non-Muslims know their place in Muslim society--at the bottom (except maybe for the slaves and women of all religions).

Traditionally, if Jews or Christians tried in any way to improve their situation, they were often claimed to be in breach of the dhimma pact, which meant that their lives and property were fair game for Muslims. Nevertheless, sometimes a select few Jews and Christians would rise to high rank in the government (though typically as an advisor, as opposed to someone wielding official power, which was reserved for Muslims). They were much like the "court Jews" in Europe, who were honored and became wealthy while the vast majority of their coreligionists lived in poverty and squalor. Sometimes, if the populace felt that a Jew or Christian was too high up in the state hierarchy, they would riot against the group in question, such as the 1066 riots in Granada against the Jews, sparked by the murder of Joseph ibn Nagrela, a Jew who served as vizier to the ruler, in which the entire Jewish population of Granada was massacred. When Europeans began to trade and travel extensively in the Middle East in the 18th and 19th centuries, Muslims fumed at the "special protection" (meaning being treated better than canine manure) Western Jews and Christians often demanded and got for their Eastern co-religionists as the price of doing business. And it should be noted that, according to traditional Islamic law, the Jews who eventually threw off Muslim rule and founded the state of Israel would be considered to be in breach of the dhimma contract, meaning that they could be killed at will. Such a nice, tolerant doctrine, don't you think?

It must be noted that conditions changed depending on place and time, usually at the whim of the ruler, some of whom were much more tolerant than others, although the ones considered to be "good" by the religious leaders were usually fanatical zealots vis-a-vis the kafir peoples living in their lands. For example, in India, the Mughal ruler Akbar the Great (ruled 1556 to 1605) was held in high esteem by Hindus for his tolerance of unorthodox religious views, even going so far as to start his own religion, and for his abolishment of the jizya tax on Hindus, but he was savaged by the ulema as a heretic. Later, Aurangezeb (ruled 1658 to 1707) was held in high regard by Muslims, who saw him as a real warrior and defender of the faith, while Hindus shuddered, and still do, at his unrelieved brutality, slaughtering thousands of Hindus and demolishing their temples, building mosques on their sites. And anyway, would you find it tolerable to have your most fundamental rights at the mercy of the ruler of the day, whose opinions might change at any time? There's a reason that human rights are today considered universal and inviolate, not subject to whoever happens to be ruling at the time (at least in theory, anyway; reality is often less pleasant, but at least it's a start).

Note that the preceeding discussion typically only applied to Jews and Christians, with some Zoroastrians sometimes thrown in. Those not of the "people of the Book" were typically offered the choice between Islam and death, as prescribed by three of the four Sunni schools of law. The fourth, Hanafi, says that those of any religion may live as dhimmis. This was the school followed in India, and the main reason it was adopted seems to have been because there were just too many Hindus to kill (even today, Hindus make up 80% of the population of India, roughly 800 million people). Buddhists and Buddhism, being pacifist, were utterly destroyed in the lands conquered by Islam, and Sikh gurus were tortured and killed by Indian Muslim rulers, as were their followers. And then there is Iran's treatment of Baha'is and Pakistan's treatment of Ahmadis, both considered heresies from Islam in that they follow "new" prophets that came after the absolute final prophet, Muhammad, and so are not granted any freedom of religion, instead often being persecuted.

Though in many Islamic countries the status of non-Muslims is not quite as dim as it was in the past, that is due to the adoption of Western codes of law including equal citizenship for those of all religions. And even so, the position of non-Muslims is often quite unhappy, such as with the Copts in Egypt, who are discriminated against and treated poorly by the government, the Armenians who were massacred by the Turks during WWI, the Jews run out of Arab countries after the foundation of Israel, many with nothing but the clothes on their backs, the precarious situation of Christians in Lebanon, the special rights given to the 52% of Malaysians who are Muslim and denied to non-Muslims, and so on. Many Muslim countries have no problem with religious minorities because said minorities no longer exist--Turkey is now 99% Muslim, Pakistan is close to it, North Africa has hardly any Jews or Christians left, and so on.

Eventually this record must be at least acknowledged by Muslims and condemned, instead of extolling how Muslims were exceedingly tolerant, respectful, and kind to non-Muslims in a fantastically rosy version of Islamic history, where the lands of Islam were not only more tolerant than Europe during the Middle Ages and the Inquisition, but the status of non-Muslims in Muslim lands compares very well with the status of religious minorities in modern states today, where those of all religions or none have the same rights and are equal citizens! (Can you say "delusional"?) Many even claim that the Jews were/would be happier under "tolerant, enlightened" Muslim rule than under their own rule in the state of Israel! Nothing will change as long as this shameful record and the sufferings of non-Muslims under Muslim rule are honestly acknowledged, instead of constantly changing the subject to European intolerance and the Spanish Inquisition. At the very least, there needs to be some sort of statement like, "That was then, it was a cruel age and they didn't know any better, and this is now, and we know better now." If that is done, then perhaps there can be the start of understanding and honest discussion between Muslims and their victims, though I have to say I'm not overly optimistic, given what I've seen and read from Muslims, who are more likely to fret about discrimination against Muslim minorities than give a thought to the discrimination against non-Muslims under Muslim rule. Perhaps someday more Muslims will eventually be mature enough to be able to acknowledge the sufferings of others at Muslim hands.

(This topic always puts me in a particularly bad mood, because I have yet to see a Muslim really acknowledge this problem; instead it's all deny, deny, deny, with Muslims, of course, cast as the "true" victims, no matter what was done to others. It's yet another example of the "double standards" problem. And the non-Muslim apologists are the worst, especially considering how their own co-religionists were treated under Islam, and how they themselves would be treated in an Islamic state--unless they converted to save their own skins.)

2003-05-15T13:54:00.000-07:00

Freethought Mecca

This is one of my favorite sites, although it is more than a little blasphemous! It is run by two Americans who converted to Islam and then left. It has a sense of humor, something sadly lacking in most writings involving Islam, and also well-researched essays into the origins of the Qur'an, Hadith, and Islamic history. This essay, "Naked Reinterpretations, Veiled Redefinitions" goes into much of the territory I've explored below, including a critique of Asma Gull Hasan, which I reviewed on May 3rd (not sure how to get a link there, but if you scroll down you should see it), and it describes much the same difficulties I had with her work.

2003-05-15T12:26:00.000-07:00

Comments

Comments are back up again (courtesy of Backblog). I used to have them at first, but they would often malfunction. I hope I have it right this time! Fire away your comments!

Now to work on the links...

2003-05-14T11:23:00.000-07:00

The Mysterious Disappearing Archives

Since Blogger so often eats my archives, I'll post them here:

02/09/2003 - 02/15/2003
02/23/2003 - 03/01/2003
03/02/2003 - 03/08/2003
04/13/2003 - 04/19/2003
04/20/2003 - 04/26/2003
04/27/2003 - 05/03/2003
05/04/2003 - 05/10/2003
05/11/2003 - 05/17/2003

Unfortunately, I don't know why Blogger sometimes sends these links off to "Page Not Found." I am at a total loss as to how to get them back, but Blogger's infamous unreliability doesn't help! (Maybe this is their way to get you to upgrade to Blogger Plus!)

2003-05-14T11:12:00.000-07:00

Hopelessly Ignorant Apologists for Islam, Muslim vs. Western Worldviews, etc.

OK, one more rant...

Sometimes one will come across someone who will extoll the tolerance, high culture and harmony of Islamic culture, often in Andalusia, Spain, but also in Baghdad, Cairo, India, etc. However, when confronted with facts that perhaps it wasn't a Utopian paradise, said evidence is simply ignored. In fact, you will sometimes get a rant about how "bigoted" and "racist" you are for mentioning these less-than-pleasant facts.

While Muslims sometimes act like this, I'm thinking more of the non-Muslim apologists, who sometimes seem to have such a high opinion of Islam and its history as the brightest, most dynamic, most tolerant culture ever, that one wonders why they don't just run down to their nearest mosque and pronounce the Shahada (the profession of faith that makes one a Muslim). While this does happen once in a great while, it doesn't happen nearly enough to account for most of the new-found "fans" of Islam.

Of course it really has nothing to do with Islam, it has to do with feeling self-righteous, more tolerant and more enlightened than others who don't have such a rosy picture of Islam, as evidenced by the willful blindness to anything that contradicts the perfect picture. And the fact that it is Islam that is the subject doesn't mean much either; it just happens to be the culture-du-jour from being in the news so much. It could just as easily be about African, Chinese, or Indian culture.

Another more sinister reason for these views is, bluntly, as a sledgehammer to whack away at Western civilization and culture, and since Islam has traditionally been the "enemy of the West," locked in countless struggles with Europe, it is the perfect weapon. I find the most ironic part of the whole thing to be the fact that the apologists, while bashing at the West with Islam, constantly attribute modern Western values to medieval Muslims, such as freedom of religion, peaceful coexistence of all religious groups, freedom of inquiry and speech, women's rights, nonviolence (jihad as "peaceful struggle") and the like. Even while trashing everything the West stands for, they can't get far enough away from Western values and thought-patterns to see that Muslim views on the above are very different and come from a worldview 180 degrees opposed to theirs, instead acting as if Muslims were just Westerners at heart who just happen to have different clothes and prayer rituals. And the whole "trashing of Western culture" just seems so much the product of Western thought, self-examination (even if hopelessly misguided) and rebellion against the way things are (I can't think of any other cultures that trash themselves so much--usually they gloat about how great they are or were, coupled with a strong regard for tradition, while the modern West tends to prefer the "new"). Yes, unfortunately, political correctness is a very Western phenomenon, no matter how much its proponents think they are rejecting Western values (though of course other groups and cultures are more than happy to adopt it if they see some gain for themselves in it). If any of these apologists actually really understood what Islam has traditionally been all about, I suspect the sympathy level would go down to something approaching their low opinion of Christian fundamentalists (though, given some of what I've read, maybe not--that would require honest research and thought, not endless axe-grinding).

Islam comes from a totally different worldview, one that states that the highest value is to submit oneself to the will of Allah, to follow His rules (the shari'ah), and to fight for the triumph of Islam, which could mean fighting to bring non-Muslim nations under the dominance of Islamic law, fighting to replace a corrupt Muslim ruler with one who more fully follows the Shari'ah, or working to spread Islam. The ultimate goal for Muslims is a home in Heaven, this life is really only deception and illusion, as the Qur'an says. And the way to enforce adherence to the Shari'ah is the threat of Hell, which will envelope those who do not accept Allah and His Will (women dressed in black shrouds in 120 degree Farenheit heat say, "The fire of Hell is hotter" when asked why they do it.). It's really a very medieval worldview, which went out of fashion hundreds of years ago in the West. All-important Western concepts of individual rights (freedom of speech and religion, the freedom of individual women to live their lives as they please), as opposed to group rights (the right of Islam to impose the law of Allah, the Shari'ah on the whole world, a duty that Allah Himself has entrusted the Muslims with), and the separation of religion and state coupled with a concept of religion as something strictly personal and private, simply are not a part of this worldview. Instead, Islam is the most important thing, not something to be kept private but something to base all of society around, especially the state.

Westerners really don't have any current, living, breathing frame of reference for dealing with this worldview. Instead you get a lot of "Well, Muslims are just like us." Many are, in fact, and have become very modern, but there's often also at least a little of this medievalism that still hangs around. And with many, many Muslims, some living in the West, this medievalism is thorough. Westerners often have a hard time believing that there could be anyone who could actually believe in such a worldview, so they don't take it seriously, instead claiming that, for example, the motives of Muslim terrorists are political, not religious. And Muslims in their turn also often see everything in terms of their worldview, thinking that non-Muslims are involved in a great "war against Islam." Without some kind of real understanding of what is at stake and what people actually believe (not this politically correct "we're all the same" BS, and endless whitewashing of Islamic history and beliefs), there will never be anything resembling peace and understanding.

And I'm willing to say that such peace and understanding may not even be possible, given that the two worldviews are not compatible. Either Muslims accept Western views, which many are in fact doing and which may even be inevitable (for example, even among many of the Islamists wanting to establish Islamic law in their own countries, women are becoming politically involved, refusing to accept the old views that women should stay at home and let the men take care of politics), or Muslims decide to leave non-Muslims alone (no more offensive jihad), or, least likely of all, the West adopts the Islamic worldview. Of the three, I think the first is the most likely, at least among Muslims who have been steeped with Western values. The other choice is for Muslims and others to continue fighting until the end of time, and I don't think that's a very pleasant or desireable outcome, even if some Muslim jihadis hoping to conquer the world and bring it under the only authentic law, that of Allah, think it is!

2003-05-11T21:53:00.000-07:00

Muslim PR

Muslims sometimes say that doing something or other (such as commit terrorist acts) will give Islam "a bad image" (the way some say it, it seems as if there is no other reason to do or not do something!) For example, the 9/11 attacks gave Islam a "bad image" (to put it lightly). Suicide bombers blowing up buses in Tel Aviv and yelling "Allahu Akbar" give Islam a "bad image" (it's not so much that they're slaughtering women and children, they're "defaming Islam!" and putting the Palestinian cause in disrepute).

That said, CAIR and other Muslim groups in the US seem to be going out of their way to be as offensive as possible, making me wonder if they actually understand American values and viewpoints. For example, they constantly use the "victimization" claim, about how they are being looked at funny and discriminated against, as well as more general complaints about how "the West" has horribly victimized Muslims for hundreds of years. Although this kind of complaining may play well among the politically correct, it will not get you very far with most Americans, who hate whiners and those who blame everybody but themselves for their problem. Also, holding on to 500-year grievances is generally not considered a productive use of one's time or energy.

Also, the double standards mentioned in the post below help even less to endear Muslims to Americans. Another major problem is the refusal to unequivocally condemn terrorism done in the name of Allah, instead utilizing weasel words like "it's bad, BUT..." followed with some excuse or humiliation that is supposed to excuse or minimize it, or claiming that it isn't really "terrorism" but "freedom fighting" (such as the suicide bombers), or indulging in tu quoque, claiming, "Well, the Oklahoma City bombing was by a white Christian!" (totally ignoring the fact that while the said bombing had nothing to do with Christianity, the attacks in question have everything to do with Islam), or flat-out insisting that they shouldn't have to apologize for other Muslims' actions (but are often all too quick to notice any offense against those other Muslims).

Then there are the Islamic fundamentalist statements that not infrequently make their way out from these Muslim organizations, wishing for the day when America is under Islamic law, or when the whole earth is under the control of Muslims. This for sure isn't going to win you any friends. Neither is the constant trashing of American values and lifestyles seen in Islamic publications, as well as the admonition not to "imitate the infidels," for fear of corrupting Muslims' Islam, or the often harsh divide between Muslims and non-Muslims, as when the Qur'anic injunction to not take the unbelievers for friends is taken quite literally. Muslims must make an effort to adapt to American society, and many have done so. But the Islamic organizations in question often take the opposite tack, insisting that America must bend to their demands, which will not win friends but only breed distrust and dislike.

To improve Muslim PR in the US (and elsewhere, when applicable), I have the following suggestions for CAIR, ISNA, ICNA, MSA and the like (which do not necessarily represent all American Muslims):

*Stop playing the "victim," which only breeds resentment and distrust among other Americans, especially when Muslims screaming jihad were in fact involved in horrific acts against Americans.

*Condemn violence in the name of Islam completely and unequivocally, without making excuses or secretly raising funds for terrorist groups, or actively shielding terrorists.

*Fully accept American notions of democracy, separation of religion and state, freedom of religion (no death sentences for apostates!) and the secular law as the law to be followed (instead of claiming that since it's "man-made" law, Muslims are not bound to follow it--a sure recipie to have Muslims considered traitors). Also, the first loyalty of American Muslims must be to America, not the "ummah" (the worldwide "nation" of all Muslims), which means no more asking of Imams if it is OK for American Muslim soldiers to fight other Muslims.

*Calling for worldwide Islamic rule, or for the US to be transformed into a Muslim country run by Islamic law must cease and become unacceptable.

*Instead of whining about "racial profiling" and "discrimination" in the wake of 9/11 and other terrorist acts, offer wholehearted cooperation to ferret out the terrorists and their organizations.

*Some effort to quiet or at least denounce the endless hatred preached from Muslim lands against "the West" and "the Jews" would be nice, since so many American Muslims still have ties to their countries of origin, and this condemnation coupled with a refusal to bring these views into America, instead of openly propagating them in Muslim magazines, newspapers, and books, as well as Friday khutbas (sermons).

*Taqiyyah (the practice of lying to infidels, often to get them to lower their guard about Muslims who may be about to attack) must be ended.

That would do for a start, to get the feeling that American Muslim organizations were in fact attempting to be Americans, instead of seeing America as simply "dar al-harb," a land of the infidels, just a place to park oneself temporarily and try to spread Islam, feeling no loyalty to the country even if a naturalized citizen.

I have to admit that I don't have much hope that these things will really happen, at least not with the present American Muslim organizations. I suspect new groups of American Muslims would have to be formed to actually carry them out, and often I'm pessimistic that there are that many Muslims in the US who would be willing to do it. I'd like to be proven wrong, though.

2003-05-11T12:05:00.000-07:00

Double Standards

One thing that is sure to turn Americans and Westerners against Muslims, whether living in the West or elsewhere, are the double standards for Muslim vs. others' behavior. "Special rights" for Muslims violate everything the US stands for, and I can guarantee will not be tolerated by the citizenry. Already people are upset. Some examples of what I mean:

*While religious beliefs of Christians (and often Jews) are looked down on and considered to be a mark of unsophistication by some elites, Muslim religious belief is often not seen in this way, instead as a positive expression of their culture.

*Prayer in schools by Christians and Jews is an absolute no-no in US public schools, yet some schools give Muslims special prayer rooms and/or let them off for prayer.

*Any criticism of Islam is attacked as "Islamophobia" or "racism" (even though Muslims are in no way a race) by Muslims, while their own publications criticize, denigrate, and ridicule other religions (such as Christianity and Judaism; Hinduism is also a target).

*Hand-wringing over whether Muslims are discriminated against or have their beliefs denigrated, contrasted with total indifference to what Muslims do to others, whether attacking others or discriminating against them or inciting hatred towards them (the infamous Nazi-levels of Jew hatred thoughout the Arab world and even in the West, ignored by organizations like CAIR while getting very upset by any criticism of Islam or Muslims, even when the person in question is a convicted terrorist or murderer).

*One-way "dialogues" in which Christians and Jews are told they must be more accepting and tolerant of Islamic beliefs and practices, while Muslims are NOT told they must accept and tolerate other beliefs, instead they are more likely to be told, or claim, that they are "victims" of the West and Western imperialism (cf. John Esposito's Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University).

*This one is one of my pet peeves -- Christian fundamentalists or evangelicals are excoriated as being the most unenlightened brutes on earth for their views (anti-abortion, the importance of religion in daily life, the missionary activities, etc.), trying to force their religion and beliefs on everyone else, while Muslims, who have similar or more extreme views and who also feel the need to proselytize endlessly, are given an absolutely free pass, even praised for their "diversity." (Exception given to those that do see the danger from Islamic fundamentalism.) It is disheartening to me to see some parts of the Left, liberals, etc., totally sell out what are supposed to be their "core" issues (abortion rights, women's rights, gay rights, freedom of expression) on the altar of being "sensitive" to Muslim concerns and "cultural relativism.". I cannot and will not support any group or organization that won't uphold their vision of human or women's rights in ALL cultures, instead of claiming that somehow, people in other cultures just don't have those rights because of their culture ("women in Muslim cultures are happy wearing the veil and being under the control of men, and we don't have any right to judge" -- while Muslims have no problem judging Western women as "whores" who can be had at any price, and Western culture as completely degraded and decadent.) Since I support women's rights in all cultures, I find "cultural relativism" to be quite an ugly thing, especially since Muslims sure don't subscribe to it--they (generally) think Islam is the greatest and that all should live under it!

*Subset of the above -- complaining about how some (typically "Christian fundamentalists" or "the religious right") want to "turn the clock back" on women's rights in the US, but ignoring or refusing to condemn the low status of women in Muslim lands, or even in Muslim enclaves in the West. Or excoriating "pro-lifers" and their arguments, while giving respectful attention to strict Muslim views on abortion rights. (Special kudos for those groups who denounced the treatment of women in Afghanistan under the Taliban, and groups working to improve the status of women in Muslim lands.) Similar is the claim that women in the West are really no less oppressed than those in the worst Islamic hellhole, suggesting that the person in question really needs to get out more and see more of the world.

*Whitewashing of Islamic history, while the same atrocities committed by others are denounced. For example, slavery in the Americas is rightfully denounced as one of the worst tragedies in human history, but Muslim slavery is often portrayed in a somewhat positive light, with claims that Muslim slaves were treated well and often freed. The fact that the Arab African slave trade lasted for over 1,000 years and was often unspeakably brutal is not mentioned. In the PBS program "Islam: Empire of Faith," the devshirme, the stealing of Christian children from their parents to serve as slave soldiers was portrayed in a rather positive light, and it is claimed that it allowed those born of poor families to rise to high status in the army. What if it was claimed that African slaves were done a "service" by being enslaved and brought to the Americas? Also, while Western imperialism and colonialism, which lasted for a relatively short period of time (about 30 to 200 years, depending on the place) is denounced as pure evil and the cause of all problems in Muslim lands today, Arab imperialism and conquests, which lasted much longer, is positively portrayed (the greatness of the Arab Empire is extolled), and even the Turks, whose empire lasted over 500 years and covered the vast majority of the Arab world, are not berated for their imperialism.

*Outrageously, some Westerners actually either apologized for or even supported the death-fatwa on Salman Rushdie for publishing The Satanic Verses, because it "offended Muslim sensibilities," while Muslims make all kinds of statements offending Western sensibilities! I guess the right of Muslims not to be offended or feel uncomfortable, in this view, outweighs the right of Salman Rushdie (and other writers critical of Islam) to live! So much for "freedom of speech and expression." Similarly, there are many critical books written about how Judeo/Christian sources are unreliable, and there are documentaries on PBS about the current status of Biblical studies, while in all too many Islamic studies programs, the Muslim sources are taken at face value, not to be questioned, and PBS shows mostly sugary documentaries about Islam, such as Islam: Empire of Faith and Muhammad: Legacy of a Prophet, both of which are sold on Islamic websites, and were explicitly seen by Muslims as da'wah tools (calling to Islam, proselytization). (This Atlantic article, which I have linked to before, has some info on this subject).

*Complaints about how poorly Muslims are treated in non-Muslim countries and discriminated against, with no comment on the discrimination and lack of freedom of non-Muslims in Muslim lands. Or else there will be a bland comment about how Islam "allows religious freedom" and is tolerant of other religions, but with no detail given (the Pact of Umar, which I will cover soon, spells out just how "free" non-Muslims were), contrasted with, for example, the Inquisition, with not a word said about pogroms and massacres of Jews and Christians (and others) in the Muslim world, or about the condition of dhimmitude, the second (or more like third) -class status of Jews and Christians under Muslim rule, which is often flat-out denied. ("Everyone lived in peace and harmony together in Andalusia and Turkey! Never mind that there are numerous reports of the poor status of Jews and Christians, as well as stuff like the 1066 massacre of the Jews of Granada, or the numerous reports in the 19th century of just how dismal life was for non-Muslims in the Ottoman Empire.) In any case, the traditional Muslim conception of the "dhimmi," even though it may have been better than being burned to death under the Spanish Inquisition, is emphatically not an acceptable model for religious "tolerance" today, no matter how much Muslim apologists may claim it is--only total equality, and not "protection," is acceptable.

*Finally, excusing of or completely ignoring Muslim atrocities against non-Muslim or Muslims, while any action by non-Muslims against Muslims is a horrific outrage, a war crime on the scale of WWII or the Holocaust (frequently denied by many Muslims, incidentally).

Muslims must have the same rights as everyone else--no more and no less. If nobody can pray in school, that means Muslims can't have special rights to pray either. If Christians and Jews are allowed to take their holidays off, so can Muslims. If Christianity can be criticized and trashed, so can Islam. Muslims must also be held to the same standards of behavior--no more excusing of terrorist acts, while the same things done by someone else would be cause for complete and unequivocal condemnation. Muslims and non-Muslims must have the same rights in Muslim societies, just like Muslims are first-class citizens of the US and other nations. Only in this way will Muslims and non-Muslims be able to coexist and live in harmony.

2003-05-08T22:26:00.000-07:00

Brief Glossary to Muslim-Speak

If you've ever read Islamic writings aimed at a Western audience, you may notice that they will often throw around buzzwords and concepts to ingratiate themselves with Western audiences and ideas, such as "freedom," "liberation of women," "democracy," and so on. The problem is, these words are very often used in a way that most Westerners wouldn't recognize! Hence, here is my brief glossary to some of the more well-known terms and what they actually mean:

Freedom of religion, religious tolerance in Islam -- Means that Jews and Christians will not be forced to convert to Islam, and that's pretty much all. Under shari'ah, the "People of the Book" have very few rights as compared with Muslims, a condition known as dhimmitude (can't be too public with said practice of their religion, lest they offend the Muslims with their blasphemous kafir ways). It also means that Jews and Christians were allowed to live under their own laws to some extent (they were allowed to drink wine, for example, unlike Muslims), but shari'ah could not be breached openly. It basically means that people are to live under the law of their own religion, but this in turn is based on a concept of the populace as being primarily composed of religious groups, not autonomous individuals with individual rights.

You will notice that those of other religions, such as Hindus and Buddhists, are generally not mentioned in accounts of Islam's "tolerance". This is because, according to three schools of Sunni thought (except the Hanafi) the "pagans" were to be allowed the choice between Islam or death (unless they could somehow fight off the Muslim invaders.) But there were just too many Hindus in India to kill, so a more "tolerant" view of simply treating them as dhimmis instead took root, though they were subject to indignities such as having their temples demolished and mosques put on their sites, or slaughtered en masse by figures of fun like the Mughal ruler Aurangezeb (seen by Hindus as a bloodthirsty fanatic, by Muslims as a great hero of Islam). With the coming of Islam, Buddhism, a pacifist religion, was essentially wiped out in lands under Muslim domination in Central Asia (remember the Bamiyan Buddhas in Afghanistan which were destroyed by the Taliban, a fitting metaphor for what happened to Buddhism under Islam), and the Islamic conquest of India was the direct cause for the disappearance of Buddhism there. Zoroastrianism almost disappeared in Iran, leaving behind only small groups of followers in Iran and India. (I always kind of felt bad about the near-disappearance of Zoroastrianism, considering how much other religions shamelessly stole from it). It must be admitted that Christianity, in the Roman/Byzantine Empire, had already made most of the indigenous religions of the Middle East extinct (or almost) by the time of Islam, thus ironically paving the way for future acceptance of Islam and its rather similar mythology, stories, and beliefs, making it that much easier to convert when the time came, but Islam wiped out whatever was left (including finishing off Manichaeism, once a major world religion), as well as most of Middle Eastern Christianity and all of North African Christianity.

Women's liberation through Islam, women's rights in Islam -- This means that Muslim women have the same religious obligations to pray, fast, give zakat, submit to Allah's will and increase in knowledge of Islam as men, and will also be rewarded on the Day of Judgment. Aside from that, though, what is generally meant is that women have a "different role" than men and should be protected from the outside world, making it easier for them to live their true, natural roles of wife and mother. Women may also work, but generally it is the man who is supposed to really interact with the outside world by being the breadwinner. Islamic law "honors" women by making allowances for women's "emotional nature" and "softness." The oft-trumpeted rights of women in Islam are often compared with women's status before Islam or in the past, so that the "superiority" of Islam can be demonstrated, but are hardly ever compared with those of today in the West (next to which they would look rather shabby.)

Freedom -- According to many Muslims, true freedom is achieved by submitting oneself to the will of Allah. It also means, according to Islamists like the extremely influential Syyed Qutub, being "free" from "man-made" governments and laws, being "free" to live under the law of Allah. Islamists also often couch their demands for an Islamic state as being a demand for the "freedom" to truly practice their religion--regardless of how many rights are ignored or repealed in the process.

Democracy -- This often means that the populace should be "free" to elect Islamist parties (even though this would inevitably lead to the end of any kind of real democracy--one person, one vote, one time), as, after all, that's what they want!--or at least, so it is said. It may also be applied to the Islamic concept of "shura," mutual consultation, but this typically meant that the elites or powerful would choose the next ruler (as in the history of the first four caliphs, supposedly elected by "mutual consultation," but it was hardly what we would call an election--often more like mutual infighting than consultation!). It certainly doesn't mean that the people may make their own laws (by representatives or through voting on particular laws), it just means that the best one for the job of leader is the one who implements Shari'ah best, and if he fails in this duty, he may be overthrown and rebelled against. It may also mean the "right" of the people to either vote for one of two or several candidates who all support the same things (Iran) or to vote for the ruler/dictator in question.

Logic, logical reasoning, rational -- Islamic texts often talk about how important it is to be "rational" and use "logic," but this generally is taken to mean that Islam is so self-evidently true to the writer that they could not concieve how anyone could not see it as the truth--look at all the proofs in the Qur'an, it must be the truth! In any case, it derives directly from the acceptance of Islamic doctrine about how the Qur'an is the direct word of Allah (and if you used your Allah-given sense of reason, you would see how eminently reasonable this truth is!) and the sunnah (example) of Muhammad is the model for behavior. Any reasoning that does not accept these a priori assumptions isn't going to get much traction among said Muslims, especially not a "rational discussion" about whether it is reasonable to accept the Qur'an as the very word of Allah, or about the existence of God, or the historicity of the early Islamic history.

Justice -- When used in the context of "Muslims fighting for justice," or "Justice must be done," this means the addressing of any and all Muslim grievances against any other group, whether it's about Spain being reconquered by the Christians, the formation of the state of Israel, the indignity and humiliation of being under Western domination, poverty, the importation of Western ideas and products, whatever. All must be resolved to the satisfaction of the Muslims for "justice" to be rendered. On the other hand, it never includes wrongs committed by Muslims, which are never even acknowledged. For example, European colonization of Muslim lands for between 30 and 150 years was a horrible atrocity, which, with the horrible practice of Europeans shoving down Muslims' throats Western ideas and culture, are the direct cause of all current problems in the Middle East, while the Muslim conquerers are lauded as great heroes, fighting to bring the truth to all nations, and Muslim empires, which lasted for hundreds of years and largely wiped out previous civilizations, are praised as bringing advanced civilization and knowledge to backward, pagan peoples who so desperately needed the Light of Islam to be brought to them to bring them out of their darkness.

Bigotry, racism -- Refers to hatred or dislike of Muslims and Islam, or even criticism of Islam or Muslims. Does NOT refer to wretchedly hateful screeds against Jews, or "Death to America!" rhetoric, which, if acknowledged, are excused as "understandable" considering what the Jews/Zionists/Americans/Westerners have done to Muslims.

Islam as uniquely "non-racist" -- It is often claimed that Islam is somehow uniquely non-racist, often by black Americans who have converted to what some of them see as their true religion, the one their ancestors followed. While it is true that all races and colors of people are Muslim (though this is also true of other religions as well), it is also true that there are enormous chasms separating one nationality of Muslims from another--Arabs vs. Pakistanis, Arabs vs. Persians, Turks vs. Arabs, Africans vs. Arabs, Arabs vs. Arabs, and so on. Also, it is to be noted that Arab slave traders were active selling African slaves for well over 1,000 years, having an enormous effect on the slave trade, and slavery was not banned in many Muslim countries until well into the 20th century. Also, there is a tension in Islam between the belief that "all Muslims are equal and one is only better than another by reason of piety" and the special place given to Arabs, what with the praying in the direction of Mecca, Arabic the language of the Qur'an and of prayer, the adoption of Arab culture by non-Arabs, the adoption of spurious Arab genealogies by non-Arabs. Many Arabs think of themselves as something of a chosen people, the ones sent to bring the light of Allah to the nations. And then there is the fact that places that were not Arab before the conquests, such as Egypt, North Africa, Syria, Iraq, Palestine, and so on, eventually totally melted into Arab culture, adopting the Arabic language and culture, and even seeing themselves as Arabs (preferably descended from the Arab conquerers, not the indigenous people). What to make of this?

Peace -- The peace (salaam) of living under Islam, submitting oneself to Allah's will (all of which contain the same Arabic root, SLM). Also can mean the "peace" that presumably will ensue when either 1) everybody accepts Islam, or 2) Islam rules the whole world, rendering the entire earth a "dar as-salaam" (house of peace), with no "dar al-harb" (house of war) left, and everyone living under Islamic law.

Understanding -- Christians, Jews and those of other religions come to understand Islam and its teachings. Westerners learn to see things through Arab and/or Muslim eyes. Does NOT usually mean Muslim understanding of Christianity, Judaism or the West. (cf. the Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University headed by John Esposito, which is entirely devoted to making Christians see the Muslim point of view, not of getting Muslims to see the Christian point of view.)

Interesting how the simple change in meaning totally changes the whole meaning of an article or book. Be on the lookout for this, and make sure that these terms get concretely defined before any kind of discussion or debate, lest you end up wound up in mass confusion and misunderstanding.

2003-05-07T16:22:00.000-07:00

Hijab and Niqab (Headscarf and Face Veil)

This really deserves its own heading, since it's such a contentious issue.

According to all Islamic scholars I have ever read, hijab (covering the hair) is required (though there are plenty of people who argue that the Qur'an doesn't require it, such as Queen Rania of Jordan, but they're usually not Islamic scholars!). It isn't just covering the hair, though, it also includes wearing clothes that conceal your body (long-sleeved shirts and either long pants or long skirts, and they should be baggy, so the outlines of your form are not obvious). Niqab (the face veil) is more contentious. Generally it is held to be optional, not required, though there are some scholars (mostly rather conservative) who say it is required. But it is supposed to be a sign of piety in women, and niqabis (women wearing the niqab) should never be made fun of, since they are displaying their submission to Allah by covering themselves.

In the past, generally before the modernization of the Arab world, the niqab was almost universal among city women in the Arab world, so I guess we've already come a long way. Fatima Mernissi's Dreams of Trespass describes how the middle-class women of Fez, Morocco, generally wore it even as late as the 1940s, before it was shunted aside by modernist and reformist currents. Huda Sharaawi, an Egyptian feminist who wrote of her youth closeted in a harem in Harem Years, caused an immense stir in Egypt in 1923 by publicly taking off her veil, and many early Muslim feminists wrote firey poems against the veil. Country women had more freedom, as they had to work in the fields and could not do so very easily with a piece of cloth hanging in their face, and poor women everywhere were in the same situation, also having to work. Seclusion and veiling of women was a sign to the world that the man of the house had enough money to keep his women idle and indoors, so it was most common among the urban rich and middle classes.

Today the niqab is much rarer, found mostly in places like Saudi Arabia (and Afghanistan under the Taliban, where women had to wear the burkah). Hijab (the headscarf) is more widespread, found almost everywhere in the Muslim world, but it is true that many women don't cover their hair at all. In the US, supposedly a majority of Muslim women and girls don't wear it at all. I know many girls who take it off as soon as they leave the mosque. Many show regret, saying that they "should" wear it, but don't. On the other end of the spectrum are the niqabis, the "women in black", faces covered (like al-Muhajabah and my niqabi friend). In between are plenty of women wearing a headscarf and jellaba (a coat-like garment that extends most of the way down the legs) or abaya (very baggy dresslike covering) or long skirt. This is what most of the women who go to the mosque regularly look like (though I can't know for sure what they're wearing ouside!).

Niqab definitely--and deeply--affects how you are seen, and how people communicate with you--or not. I once conducted an experiment about the differing effects of wearing and not wearing niqab (though it didn't start out that way--I just wanted to see what it was like to wear it.) At one picnic celebrating Eid-al-Adha, I wore a black abaya, black scarf and a niqab, and yes, I did look like a walking black shroud; at another a few days later I wore the same thing but without the niqab. At the first, everybody left me alone and nobody spoke to me, except for one person I knew, who said "Salaam" to me. I guess nobody recognized me. At the second: what a difference! Many people said "Salaam!" to me and would stop and talk to me. I noted that there were a grand total of four niqabis at each picnic (not including me the first time), apparently all related, and they stayed completely within their family circle without talking to anybody else. Everybody else (several hundred women) had a simple head scarf, and were happily talking away with other women. (Full disclosure: although I got kind of a thrill out of trying out the niqab, it wasn't much fun, as it blocked most of my peripheral vision, made it hard to breathe and it was really hard to eat anything!)

Many people complain that they feel upset when talking to a niqabi, as she is basically a walking pile of black with two eyes sticking out (and there are veils that you can use to hide your eyes, as well! You can just barely see out of the fabric!). She doesn't seem to have a personality because you can't see her face. It's incredible how much you can infer from a person's face, how many emotions they show. All that is missing with the niqabi, who instead looks like a completely undifferentiated mass of black (usually, though it might be other colors). Niqabis say that people feel threatened because they don't understand Islam and are discriminatory, but the matter is simpler than that--you can't connect with a piece of cloth or a shroud. You really have no clue who you might be encountering, hence the problem with veiled IDs being used by, shall we say, unsavory characters (how do you know it's not a terrorist underneath that cloth?). Also, niqabis (in the US, anyway) tend to be the most hard-core Islamists, especially the converts! They may not show it when you're talking with them, in fact they may be very nice, sweet people, but they tend to favor stuff like the imposition of Shari'ah law, with all its attendant unsavory aspects (stoning, blasphemy laws, death to apostates, etc.)

Although niqab is the most obvious covering, hijab is also a heated issue. According to many Muslimahs, (this article, The Fear of Hijab, is typical) it allows them to be judged for their minds, not their bodies, and in actuality it demonstrates respect to Muslim women by not making them sex objects and is a source of liberation. (Though I have to say it sure doesn't feel very liberating wearing a headscarf in boiling hot summer weather, along with long sleeves and pant legs!) However, it is also something of a political statement, especially where it has become the topic of fierce debate or banning (Turkey and France, for example). It is claimed to be a great way to do da'wah, calling (proselytizing) to Islam, since it is a symbol of Islam. It may even be seen as a "rebuke" to secular society (see "When I Covered My Head, I Opened My Mind," by our favorite American neo-Islamist, Shariffa Carlo.)

I have to admit that I myself am embarrassed to wear the headscarf, so I usually don't wear it when I am outside the mosque or with non-Muslims, but when I am, I am ashamed of not wearing it, so I tug it on whenever I am near the mosque or other Muslims--I always have it handy. It's a pretty bad situation, though actually not that uncommon (note the aforesaid girls who take off the scarf whenever leaving the mosque, but only when nobody is looking!) I might wear it more in the future, insha'Allah (if Allah wills), we'll have to see what happens.

Here's some links and pictures of niqabis and hijabis:

http://www.muhajabah.com/niqab-index.htm (many links about whether the niqab is required--fard--or not, but they all agree that women should cover their heads!)

http://www.themodernreligion.com/w_main.htm#hijab (a lot of articles about hijab)

http://www.islamfortoday.com/gallery3.htm#Hijab (hijab pictures)

http://www.islamfortoday.com/women.htm#Hijab (lots of articles about hijab, as well as about Muslim women on the rest of the page)

Al-Hannah Islamic Clothing (an online store)

Jelbab.com (another online store)

2003-05-07T15:13:00.000-07:00

Why Islam?

I've been getting many emails from readers of this blog (thank you all, by the way!) and one recurring theme is, Why did you convert to Islam/why do you remain a Muslim, given all the stuff you report about how poorly Islam treats women. Well, I'm going to try a little psychoanalysis of myself here to try to answer this question (sorry if it gets too self-absorbed).

Sometimes I think it's my interest in the Middle East, both ancient and modern, taken a little too far. I've always been interested in the ancient history of the region (the Sumerians, Akkadians, Babylonians, Persians, Egyptians, even the ancient Israelites and Canaanites). I remember thinking at the time that although these ancient civilizations created a lot, the whole area just went downhill after they were taken over by the Greeks/Romans, consigning those provinces to pretty much provincial backwaters instead of their own nations, and of course after the Arabs came it was all over. Now my view is more nuanced, but it's still true that nowhere in the region has produced the same kinds of culture for many centuries. The cities that once ruled the world are now dusty ruins, and their replacements aren't anywhere near the same level, even though they have vastly more people. The bizarre thing is, though, that although the ME is considered to be pretty backward, everyday life is probably better for most of the population than it was under the great empires, because of advances in medicine and technology. Back in the glory days of any of the empires, Egyptian, Babylonian, even Arab, the life expectancy was atrociously low, almost everyone was illiterate, the people were basically slaves, especially the peasant farmers, and so on. As for totalitarian governments, well...in truth, I would say that the rulers of the ME have always been rather unsavory characters. Unfortunately, the aforesaid technology and communications allow them to have a greater reach and cause more damage, so I guess it's kind of a wash. Anyway...

I also wished to feel connected in some way with a long history. As for myself, I come from a rather mixed bag of ancestries (a "mutt") and my family, nuclear or extended, never seemed to care much about family history, so I really don't know anything about it. I come from a family that moved around a lot, so I never got attatched to any one place, and US history is far too short for my tastes! I like the idea of belonging to an ancient history and tradition, hence my interest in Judaism, which has one of the longest. It is true that Catholicism, which I grew up in (kind of) has a 2,000-year history as well, but the churches I went to were totally American, without the accroutements you might see in, for example, 1000-year-old cathedrals in Europe, which really brings home the ancient tradition! I guess I was looking for some kind of tradition to belong to.

As well, when I began reading about the fantastic mosques and buildings in Islam-dom (for lack of a better term), I liked the idea that they could belong to me also, in a distant way, if I were Muslim myself. Islam, as I've written before, isn't just a "mere" religion based entirely on beliefs about God the way Christianity is--it is also a nation, a people, a polity (the Ummah, the Islamic Nation composed of all Muslims on earth), and its history is not just known but often felt by other Muslims living hundreds of years after the events and thousands of miles away (witness the glorification of Andalusia in Spain by modern-day Pakistanis, Malaysians, Arabs, and others)--unfortunately this sense of history also can lead to never-ending feelings of humiliation and desire for vengeance, as well as a refusal to let go of the past (there are Muslims who think they should take back Spain, not to mention Israel.).

All these are also present in Judaism, but in the end I became more interested in Islam and it has to be said that the conversion process of Islam was apparently developed to make conversion as easy as possible--all one has to do is profess the Shahada, the Profession of Faith, in front of two witnesses (usually; the number may vary), which proclaims "Ashhadu an la illaha il Allah, ashhadu anna Muhammad ar-Rasul Allah" (I testify that there is no God but Allah and I testify that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah). There is no required period of study as there typically is in Judaism and Christianity (I remember that adult converts to Catholicism had to go through a program that involved study of the creed and traditions of the religion for a year before being baptized, and I've read about similar practices with Jewish converts). This means, of course, that one may not know anything about Islam before converting (though plenty of born Muslims don't know anything either!)

As for Islamic law: This point puzzles even me, because I generally hate arbitrary rules and completely resent their trying to tell me how to live. It's even more baffling considering the following rules that go against my values:

One of the rules of Islam is that dogs are najjas (unclean), and along with pigs are the most despised animals. If a dog licks you, or you touch it when it is wet, you're supposed to wash the spot seven times, once with dirt (or soap, according to Maliki law; I found this out after research on the topic). Well, I love dogs and don't understand how anybody could hate them like that. I justified it to myself by saying that it was just some ignorant superstition that made its way into Islam. In any case, I ignored the rule, which says that you can keep a dog only if it's to perform some useful function such as herding or guarding, and in any case should be kept outside (I had a small black poodle that slept on my bed, who unfortunately became sick and died. Maybe Allah was punishing me. Maybe not.)

Another issue is music, said by some to be forbidden, but this is a controversial issue among Muslims and generally it's mostly the hard-line Wahhabis who really follow the opinion that music is haram (forbidden), unless it consists only of the human voice and drum (hence the popularity of nasheeds, songs in honor of Allah or the Prophet, sung invariably by men, as women's voices are too "seductive," and accompanied only by hand drums). The very presence of musical traditions throughout the Islamic lands makes me unable to take it seriously (Umm Kultum of Egypt, rai from Algeria, Arabic and Iranian pop music, and so on). Besides, I love music, and the only way you'll take away my CDs is when you pry them from my cold dead fingers!

But in both these cases, I couldn't, and still can't, figure out why on Earth any God would prohibit something that makes so many people happy and which are quite harmless. Why would God make dogs and music, only to forbid them?

I guess I also suffered from the classical symptoms that put someone in danger of joining a cult--isolation, low self-esteem, wanting to join something and feel accepted, as well as youth and wanting to do something different.

But it is true that Muslims are very warm towards other Muslims, and do very much to make a new Muslim feel welcome and "part of the group." One girl a little older than me, another convert, who wore a black abaya and niqab (face veil) and who worked in the mosque school as a teacher, took me out to buy new clothes, paying for them herself! And yes, she drove with the niqab on. She was very nice, and told me that it was OK for me to follow Islam as much as I felt I could at the moment--mostly regarding clothing. Another converted Muslim girl came with us, who didn't wear a headscarf, and said the same thing--you could start wearing the scarf when you felt ready, when your faith improved enough to accept it as Allah's will for you and you want to show your submission to His law and your love for His commands. (Something like that.) Interestingly, the niqabi-clad woman was the opposite of what you might think--she was very outspoken, not shy at all, and sometimes argued with the imam of the mosque in a voice you could hear clear on the other side of the building! She had agreed to marry a man after spending an hour talking to him (though it must be admitted that this marriage didn't last, quickly followed by another one, this time to a Saudi, after which she moved to another state). She would listen only to nasheeds (especially those by Yusuf Islam, the former Cat Stevens), which her son sang along with (she had been married before she became Muslim). She reminds me a great deal of al-Muhajabah (aka veiled4allah). I have to say, she was one of the most interesting personages I have ever met, even if I disagreed with her in many respects (she hated Israelis and thought even showing any part of the arm was haram)!

Another girl I met, another convert, was very kind and we became friends. She had converted several months before me but wasn't even sure how to pray, so I taught her. I had these little cards on which I had the Arabic written down, as well as the steps (first you stand, then bend over, then stand again, then postrate to the ground, sit up, then postrate again, and that is one rak'ah--one unit of prayer. Each daily prayer is made up of either two, three, or four ra'kat, depending on which one it is--morning (fajr) prayer is two, noon (duhur) is four, afternoon ('asr) is four, sunset (maghrib) is three, and night ('isha) is four.) We got to know each other quite well, and I would sometimes mention some of my uneasiness with some of the Islamic teachings, but in a veiled, roundabout way. Unfortunately she eventually married a Lebanese man she'd known for a little while and left town.

Gosh, these stories all end in some kind of marriage--I guess I'm in deep trouble, since I take a very dim view of marrying someone the imam thinks is right for you (yikes!), spending maybe a few weeks getting to know them (although divorce is rather easy and quite common). That was the case with both girls (or should I say young women) above, and with others that I have met, some of whom have married men they've known for only a few days. I should mention that to marry, a woman needs a wali, or guardian, to give her away in marriage. Only Muslim men may be guardians of Muslim women, so female converts, who usually have no Muslim relatives, usually end up having the imam of the mosque be their wali. Not only does the guardian give her away, he often does his best to try to find a suitable man or else at least make sure that the man in question is suitable, so the imams at American mosques do a lot of match-making! Marriage is the preferred state among Muslims, and a grown woman without a husband is rather rare. Also, it is to be noted that only Muslim men may marry Muslim women, though Muslim men can marry Christian or Jewish women. The reason given is that the husband is the head of the household and the children will follow his religion, so it is incumbent that the male be Muslim (very different from the Jewish rule that a child with a Jewish mother is Jewish). There are more women converts than men, oddly enough, so finding a suitable husband for an American convert can be difficult (even with the ones who become hard-core niqabis), though many of those converts converted because they married a Muslim. Marriage really integrates the convert into the Muslim community, and incidentally makes it that much harder to leave, since if she did, the marriage would likely be dissolved and she would lose her children to the Muslim husband, since according to Shari'ah Muslim children must be under the custody of a Muslim.

I guess there is also the appeal that a belief system based in utter certainty has in uncertain times, though I, with my endless skepticism, never really got into it. One could call the Muslim mentality almost medieval, in its total integration of religion in all facets of life and its conception of the universe a stark battle between good/Allah/Islam/Muslims and evil/enemies of Islam/the kuffar/the Devil, and Allah himself controlling all aspects of the universe. This hasn't been an integral part of Western thought since medieval times, and certainly isn't very popular today, except in some forms of fundamentalist Christianity, and even there it's leavened with quite a bit of Enlightenment values of democracy, freedom, and separation of church and state. In Islam, you can get it whole and undiluted. Islamic websites constantly insist that in Islam, there is no division between religion and the rest of life (though whether that's a good thing is something else again, depending on your attitudes). Mankind should live under the commands of Allah, submitting themselves in all matters to His will, as spelled out in Shari'ah (even cutting nails and which hand to eat with--the right--is covered). There isn't the slightest shred of doubt expressed or indeed even allowed, else one may be declared an "apostate" from Islam and liable to be killed (though, thank Allah, not usually in the US!). Atheism is unthinkable, as I found out when telling my story to many Muslims, who would gasp when they learned that I had been an atheist.

I guess I stay because I feel obliged, but also because I like feeling part of the community, that I could pray at Mecca, and that I would lose friends. Besides, I actually like and find peace in the prayer rituals and the chanting of Qur'an. I guess I'll have to see what happens in the future.

2003-05-04T23:49:00.000-07:00

Randomized Thoughts about Islam, Feminism, Women's Rights, Abortion in Islamic Countries and in Islamic Law, and so on

This blog entry is likely to be pretty scattershot, as I am just pouring out my conflicted thoughts (but isn't that what I always do anyway?), so bear with me.

In my own experience, I've noticed that whereas before converting to Islam and before 9/11 I didn't really think very much about the rights of women. I had never felt discriminated against in the least (I am now 26) or thought that there was anything I couldn't do because I was a woman. I didn't much care for groups such as NOW, which seemed fixated on rather trivial stuff. More importantly, their concept of feminism seemed to be geared primarily to the needs and desires of college-educated professional women, often ignoring concerns of women from other groups such as women working at K-Mart, stay-at-home moms, less educated women, and so forth, which I thought was unfair. Then of course there was the idiocy coming from college campuses, in some of the women's studies programs, with women professors ranting against the "patriarchal society" that gave them a cushy gig teaching it, and against men in general. But that wasn't really very interesting to me--what upset me was the rather intolerant nature of many such professors when confronted with conflicting views.

After I converted to Islam and began reading about the terrible oppression, misogyny and discrimination prevalent in so much of the Muslim world (as well as elsewhere), I became quite hardened and the treatment of women became a much bigger issue with me, now that I saw what it was like not to have the rights I have in the West today, and which, as a Muslim woman, I actually do not have under shari'ah. For example, I am supposed to have the permission of a male guardian to travel a long distance, considered to be about 50 miles or longer, and according to some opinions, I would need to actually be accompanied by a male relative or guardian. I do not have the right to pray with men or to pray, fast, or even touch the Qur'an during my period. I need a male guardian to give me away in marriage (though according to the Hanafi school a widowed or divorced woman may give herself away to her husband). If I were married, I would need the permission of my husband to leave the house. I also need his permission to fast, because Muslim fasting involves no eating, no drinking, and no sex, and it is up to him whether he wants to be deprived of the last item during daylight hours! (The Ramadan fast, because it is required of all Muslims, does not require permission, since after all neither man nor wife is supposed to have sex during the day!) I would also have to be available for sex at any time my husband wanted it, or else my maintenance (food, clothing, shelter) could be withheld. The husband is supposed to support his wife, but the trade-off is that, now that he's paying for everything, the wife is to obey him in all matters "not contrary to Islam." I don't have the right to wear what I want in Islam; I am supposed to have my hair covered and wear baggy clothes with long sleeves, even during the boiling heat of the summer. There's more, but on with the blog...

I still have problems with many of the groups referred to as "feminist" in America, though for somewhat different reasons. There is still the class/occupation problem (poorer, less-educated women are less likely to get involved and thus get their needs really addressed). There are still the inanities about "patriarchal" systems of knowledge like science and the difficulties with dissent from some of the more rigid upholders of feminist orthodoxy, but all of that has paled into insignificance before my new biggest problem with some people who call themselves "feminist"--the cultural relativism, saying that we in Western society cannot judge how other cultures treat their women, since they are all equally valid.

Suffice it to say that any feminist worthy of the name cannot hold this view without totally undercutting her/his own position--feminism, at least as I've always learned it, is based on the fact that all women--no matter where they are, who they are or what culture they live in--have certain unalienable rights that must be respected, regardless of culture. It is ultimately derived from the idea that all humans have universal rights, not just culture-specific ones, by virtue of being human. You can say they are given by God or that they are simply the natural right of any human, but the point is that they must be honored and cannot be taken away. A "cultural-relativist feminist" would soon run up against a brick wall. How could such a feminist even argue against the Christian fundamentalists that are a favorite target--after all, it's their culture for women to stay at home and take care of the kids, and what right do you have to criticize it? How could they criticize the misogynist rules in Shari'ah, since "it's their culture and religion," or sati (the burning of widows on the dead husband's funeral pyre) in former times in India, or sex slavery in assorted parts of the world, or anything, really. In fine, I refuse to dignify a moral/cultural relativist of this nature with the term "feminist."

One version of this relativism is to claim that women in Western societies are just as oppressed as those in hell-holes like Saudi Arabia and Iran, since, after all, Western women are "objectified" as sex objects, are sometimes discriminated against at work (the "glass ceiling"), are forced to shuffle the demands of motherhood and work, sometimes have to deal with domestic violence and sexual harrassment, are not necessarily free to live their lives as they would like. Isn't all that just as bad as having one's clitoris cut off with a dirty piece of glass (Somalia), or forbidden to drive (Saudi Arabia), or forbidden to travel without permission from a male relative (Saudi again), or beaten by your husband who tells you it is his right as a Muslim husband to "discipline" you (and the women agreeing that women who get beaten up probably deserved it), or stoned for bearing a child out of wedlock (Nigeria), or because you were raped and cannot find four male Muslim witnesses to prove it (Pakistan), or forced to wear the veil, or not being allowed to work at all, or ...? The point is, it is infantile to make these kinds of comparisons--it seems to me more a way of grabbing attention for oneself and one's problems by whining that they are just as bad as anyone else's--like a child complaining about the splinter in her hand to draw away attention from her sister with a broken arm. Yes, there are still plenty of problems facing women in Western nations, but complaining that women have it no better in the West than under Islam is a bad joke.

Excursus on Abortion Rights and the Muslim World

This is a topic in itself. What I can't understand is the fact that although abortion is banned or difficult to get in almost all Muslim countries, feminists, liberals and Democrats aren't up in arms about this, even defending Muslim culture, especially considering the fact that it is such a high priority in American feminist organizations (even to the point where feminism in America today seems to equate almost solely to abortion rights).

Statistics:
Here's a chart comparing abortion laws around the world, and here are the UN statistics for 1999, and here is another chart about abortion laws.

As you can see from these sources, in most Muslim countries, the right is seriously restricted, the exceptions mostly being the result of Western colonization or influence, such as those Central European nations under former Soviet rule, or Turkey (which is officially secular) or Tunisia (the same). Tunisia is an interesting case. The government has been very secular and liberal, making Tunisia the only Arab state to outlaw polygamy and allow abortion for any reason in the first trimester, without the permission of a spouse. In countries such as Egypt, Iran, Yemen and most of Muslim Africa, it is only permitted to save the life of the mother. Pakistan, Kuwait, Morocco, and Saudi Arabia also permit it on grounds of physical health. Jordan, Iraq and Algeria also allow it for mental health reasons. In addition, the permission of the husband is often required. Needless to say, I doubt anyone who claims to support abortion rights would find these acceptable restrictions!

Of course, there are plenty of illegal abortions in all parts of the Muslim world, such as the recent claim that 80,000 illegal abortions took place in Iran each year (the article for this expired, but here is a UNFPA report about it--it is under IRAN: Authorities in Iran Arrest Two Abortion Practitioners.)

Islamic law is mixed as to the permissibility of abortion. Many scholars say that it is forbidden completely (such as Imam Malik ibn Anas and al-Ghazali), as it is against the Qur'anic injunction not to kill one's children ("Kill not your children for fear of want; We provide sustenance for them and for you, for verily killing them is a great sin," Qur'an 17:31). Others say that it may be permissible depending on the reason and the length of gestation. Traditional law holds that the fetus "becomes a fetus lump" and becomes formed at about 40 days after conception and the soul is "breathed into" the fetus at about day 120. Before 40 days, abortion may be permitted for certain reasons, between 40 and 120 days it is allowed only for very restricted reasons, and after 120 days it is a grave sin akin to murder, only allowed to save the mother's life. However, it is generally held that abortions at any stage are reprehensible and should not be done unless the mother's life or health is at stake, not because of poverty or because there are too many children or because the mother does not feel ready. (Here is a good summary of this view from a Muslim Q&A site.) Note that the Western arguments about the right of the woman to control her body don't even enter into the argument; according to Islam, the human body is a trust given to us by Allah, and we are not free to do anything we wish with them.

It is also to be noted that Islam is very pro-natalist, desiring many children and seeing women primarily as wives and mothers, as this hadith shows:

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.

End of Excursus on Abortion Rights in the Muslim World

The point of that whole excursus is that defending Shari'ah and Islamic culture, or saying that we can't judge them, means that liberals/Democrats/supporters of abortion rights who adopt the cultural relativist line are completely selling out what is supposed to be one of their most cherished values. If it's OK for Muslims to restrict abortion because it's their culture and religion, why isn't it OK for Christians to do so (to take one example)? It makes the doomsday scenarios about how Christian fundamentalists will ban abortion and force all women to take urine tests to prove they aren't pregnant seem like a ghastly joke, when the same people worried about Christian fundamentalists because of what they might do to abortion rights will defend the practice of Islamic law and culture that is equally as restrictive of abortion. The sole reason I can think of for this is that the Muslims aren't (yet) a big enough group to push for the banning of abortion in Western societies--in other words, that this whole matter doesn't directly affect the aforesaid people, so they can display their "enlightened tolerance" of Islam because it doesn't affect them in the least--the women living under Islam aren't really real people with the same rights as Western women, just a theoretical construct. Well, I've noticed that Muslims in America are certainly more likely than not to adopt the "pro-life" view and some even are active in the movement, so take that as you will.

In Islam, the woman's body is definitely not her own, to do with as she pleases. There is no concept of "my body, my choice" (unless it is imported from the West). If Western women should have the right to do what they like with their own body, why should women of other cultures be denied this right if their culture does not allow it? Why should culture trump everything else? If it does, then what right did early feminists have to demand equal rights in Victorian society? After all, Victorian society had its own mores and taboos, and shouldn't those have been respected? Victorian moralists, like Islamic ones, insisted and still insist that their rules honor and protect women--if one is taken seriously, why not the other?

In the end, the cultural relativism argument is basically a return to tribalism, where everybody is permanently locked into their own group and forbidden to wander outside it. It is profoundly constricting and fatalistic--you are born into a group and are condemned to stay there forever. In contrast, Western liberal democracy, feminism and human rights are predicated on the rights of the individual, which trump group concerns. They cannot be conditional on whether the person belongs to a particular group. Individual and group rights come into conflict here. Leaders of Islamic groups wanting Muslim personal law for their minority are basically arguing that the right of the group to impose Islamic sacred law on Muslims should override the individual rights each Muslim has as a citizen of the country in question, such as the UK or US. In other words, the rights of citizens would be contingent on whether they belonged to a certain group or not, in this case whether they were Muslims. This is obviously not an acceptable situation for a country that believes in equal rights under the law and whose entire existence is premised on the idea that every citizen has the same rights (as under the US Constitution). This is why the question of Islamic law in the West and elsewhere is so thorny and dangerous. In India, where Muslims live under their own law, there are enormous difficulties, where Hindu women, for example, get more alimony in divorce cases than their Muslim counterparts, who may be left with almost nothing. Imagine that Muslim men in the US had the right to divorce their wives and leave them with no alimony, as Islamic law says. Imagine Muslim men being allowed to marry four wives. Imagine that Muslim courts could order that adulterers be stoned. Would this be a triumph for women's rights, or for human rights? I think not.

And the biggest problem of all is, how would one decide whether a person should be judged by Muslim law or by secular law? Who would decide? In majority Muslim countries that have partially or completely adopted Shari'ah, it is sometimes claimed that it will only apply to Muslims. Unfortunately, the mask soon comes off and it turns out that the group advocating Shari'ah really wants it to be the only law of the state and apply to everyone (as with PAS, the fundamentalist party, in Malaysia). And how about Muslims who don't want to live under Islamic law?

My experiences with Islam and Islamic law have certainly given me a new insight into the rights of women--now I tend to be quite ferocious about the subject whereas before I didn't really give it much thought. I do not accept the claims by many Muslim writers that Islam is far more liberating and gives women more rights than Western society does. If you've been paying attention to the laws about women in Islam I've been incorporating into my posts, you'll see that the situation is really pretty dreadful. Muslims claim that Islam "grants" women many rights (notice the "grants" part; the liberal democratic view is that these rights are intrinsic to the individual, not granted, and cannot be taken away). For example:

Islam grants women the right to inherit property, while before Islam they often could not. Whoop-de-doo. The woman's share of inheritance is half that of a man's, and that is defended by saying that since the man supports the woman, he needs the money. Sorry, not good enough--according to Western law today, anyone may leave anything he or she likes to anyone else, man or woman. Islamic law dictates certain percentages to be given to family members, meaning that one is not free to distribute one's estate as one would like. The widow may only end up with an eighth or a sixteenth of her husband's estate, and if she was one of several wives, even less.

Islam grants women the right to own property, while in the West they often did not have that right. Well, now they certainly do, and exploit it to the full! And why is it that the rights given to women under Islamic law are so often compared with the status of women before Islam, 1400 years ago, or that of women in the West centuries ago, instead of the situation today? (That was a rhetorical question; of course the answer is that that is the only way it looks good!)

Islam lets women keep their property and maiden names after marriage. And? Women in the West can do that, too. The taking of the husband's last name is no longer required. Also, I suspect that the matter of the last name has a lot to do with the differing concepts of family: in the West, the nuclear family is paramount, so it would make sense for everyone in the immediate family to have the same family name, while in Islam, the extended family has tended to be more important, so the clan or family the woman belonged to was more important to her identity than the family she married into. But this is just a hunch.

Islam allows women the right to divorce. Well...let's just say that the reality is less rosy. In Shari'ah, the man has the right to divorce for any reason. He is only supposed to give the woman a "present." A very common practice today is "deferred dowry," where the man gives his wife half the dowry (bride money) at marriage, with the other half being "deferred" in case of divorce or death. Presumably, given the often sizeable quantity of money this involves, this will prevent the husband from divorcing his wife in a fit of anger or for some ridiculous reason, and it will leave the wife with at least some money. Alimony is not generally a part of Islamic law. After the divorce, the wife is to be supported by her husband for the time of her iddat, about three months, to make sure that she is not pregnant, and after that she can marry again. If she is pregnant, she is to be supported until she gives birth, and the husband is supposed to support his child and pay for the mother to suckle him/her, but he is well within his rights to give the child to someone else to suckle: "And if ye find yourselves in difficulties, let another woman suckle (the child) on the (father's) behalf," according to the Qur'an (65:6). If the wife wants a divorce, for an acceptable reason (here's a listing of acceptable reasons from an Islam Q&A site, and another), and the husband agrees, she has to give back her dowry, which in effect deprives her of the use of it, if she has to keep it available in case she wants a divorce. If he doesn't agree, there's trouble! They can go to an Islamic court and the wife can try to get the judge to either dissolve the marriage or order the husband to divorce her, but often this can be hard to acquire. She may be told she must return to her husband if the judge feels she can't prove that she should have a divorce. When hearing the inevitable claim that divorce rates in Islamic countries are so much lower than those in the West (which is debatable), keep in mind the differing availability of divorce for women, who actually are the ones to instigate divorce in the majority of cases in the US. Many Muslim women in the West want Western divorces, because they get more and are likely to get custody of their children. According to many scholars, Islamic law provides for the mother to have custody if the child is a minor, that is, seven for a boy and nine for a girl, and after that the child can stay with whomever he/she wishes. The father is supposed to support the child (though not necessarily the mother). However, if the mother remarries, the father gets the children, even if he remarries. Supposedly the mother will not be able to give her children enough attention since she now has a new husband to attend to.

The problem with a lot of these essays about the rights of women in Islam is how vague they are! (Long list of said essays here.) They will talk about how Islam "liberates," "honors" and "protects" women and sees them as equal to men, but not give specific examples (i.e. will I be able to do what I want or travel when I want?). It often seems that these words are given a meaning completely different from the one most people associate with it! The equality of men and women basically just means that men and women both have the duty to be good Muslims and learn as much as possible about the religion, and both will be rewarded in the afterlife. BUT...men and women were created differently and have different roles, and Islam simply accepts this reality. Men are the maintainers, and women the wives and mothers, and those are their roles, and Islam is wonderful for recognizing this reality (though I think it's a complete and utter crock...I am rather unnurturing and have no desire to have children, or to serve and obey a husband--that sounds like pure hell to me). Often it will simply be claimed that the low status of women is simply a product of culture--though if Islam is supposed to cover all aspects of a person's life, how does one separate the true Islam from the custom?

Anyway, that's enough for now...

2003-05-03T13:42:00.000-07:00

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.).

2003-05-02T15:49:00.000-07:00

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.

2003-04-29T18:20:00.000-07:00

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.

2003-04-28T23:56:00.000-07:00

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...

2003-04-26T22:03:00.000-07:00

The Satanic Verses

The "Satanic Verses," as they are called, were most definitely not something thought up by Salman Rushdie for his book of the same name. In fact, it is a well-attested incident in the life of Muhammad, related by four different biographers (at-Tabari, Ibn Ishaq, al-Waqidi, and a fourth biography, the Book of the Major Classes). The story is of course an embarrassment to many Muslims, since it, among other things, brings up deep doubts about Muhammad's credibility and the source of his recitation, the Qur'an. Anyway, here it is:

Muhammad was in Mecca, having little success winning over the pagans to his new religion, which only acknowledged one god, Allah, while the Quraish tribe (his own) was in charge of the Kaa'ba, where many idols were worshipped, including the three goddesses that will be the topic of this subject, Al-Lat, Uzza, and Manat. He had won over some followers, but had hit a brick wall. Some of his followers had gone to Abyssinia (Ethiopia) to seek refuge from persecution in that Christian kingdom. One day he began reciting some verses from Surah An-Najm (The Star, surah 53). He recited, "Have you seen the three goddesses, Lat and Uzza, and the third, Manat?" This is now verses 19 and 20 of the surah. He followed with, "These are the exalted birds, whose intercession is desired." At that, all Quraish acclaimed him, even postrating themselves to Muhammad's god Allah, since he had acknowledged their goddesses as intercessors with Allah, and said they would accept Islam this way. Things improved so that the Muslims from Abyssinia returned (this is disputed depending on the source, but it seems like some time passed before what happened next). Muhammad realized that those verses were wrong, that Satan had put them into his mouth, and repealed them, reciting in their place what Gabriel brought to him, "Have you seen the three goddesses, Lat and Uzza, and the third Manat? What! For you the male sex, and for Him the female! Behold, such would be a division most unfair! These are nothing but names which you have derived, you and your fathers, for which Allah has provided no authority. They follow nothing but conjecture and what they themselves desire, even though they have already recieved Guidance from their Lord!" (53: 19-23, which is followed by insistence that the angels can only intercede with Allah if He Himself wills it, and only those without faith name the angels with female names). This displeased the Quraish very much, and they went back to giving him a hard time, finally forcing him to leave Mecca for Medina with the followers he had managed to persuade into accepting him as Allah's Messenger.

So what does this mean?

If Muhammad could be fooled by the Devil into reciting wrong verses, what does that say about his credibility? Some accused him of merely trying to get more adherents by compromising his monotheism. Others wondered how many other verses might be falsified. Certainly it has been an embarrassment for Muslims, many of whom simply deny or ignore it (Yusuf Ali's translation of the Qur'an, with voluminous notes, possibly the best-known in the English-speaking world, doesn't even mention this whole incident).

Salman Rushdie's novel incorporates this story into the narrative (as part of a dream by one of the protagonists, Gibreel Farishta, "Gabriel the Angel", an actor who thinks he has actually become the angel Gabriel and keeps having these bizarre dreams in which he plays that role), along with many other incidents of Muhammad's life. The most offensive part probably wasn't the recounting of the story (in which Muhammad becomes Mahound, Mecca becomes Jahiliya -- Ignorance), and things are twisted a bit from the normal, but the doubt cast on the mission of Mahound, who is suspected by other characters of being a fraud, and the later portion of the dream in which Mahound's dozen wives in Medina are replicated by the dozen whores in a brothel in Jahiliya, each of whom takes on the name and personality of one of the wives and who prove very popular with the locals--that is, until Mahound shows up. This whole subplot does not take up very much of the book; the book is more about India, London, and transplanted Indian Muslims than about Islam or Muhammad. There is another brief subplot that obviously pokes fun at the Ayatollah Khomeini, in a thinly disguised version, as the Imam who wishes to stop time, but what I read was that it was portions of the Mahound section that were read in Farsi translation to the Ayatollah that made him so upset.

Unfortunately, the fact that this fatwa is still going strong after 14 years, and sometimes reaffirmed by the Islamic Republic of Iran or parties therein with a sizeable bounty, and defended by other Muslims, does not lead much hope to the idea of intelligent discussion of Islam anytime soon! Too often, anything seen as "blasphemous" of Islam, even if just honest differences of opinion, are occasion for death threats. How is anybody supposed to discuss anything about Islam intelligently with the threat of death hanging over their heads? And worst of all are the Western non-Muslims who defend it, saying that Westerners need to be more "sensitive" to Muslims' feelings, and this "sensitivity" only goes one way--Muslims often put out the most offensive literature trashing Christianity and Judaism as "false, distorted, corrupted religions," as well as plenty of stuff viciously putting down everything in the West, yet Westerners are the ones who need to be more sensitive!

I pray for an end to this nonsense, even if it seems nowhere in sight.

2003-04-24T23:20:00.000-07:00

The Ugly Muslim & Relations with Non-Muslims, especially in the West

It has to be said that one of the more offputting characteristics of far too many Muslims is their insufferable arrogance (even The Modern Religion Islamic website has an entire section devoted to "The Ugly Muslim" on just this topic). They take literally the dictum that even the worst Muslim is better than the best unbeliever, as well as the Qur'anic remark that the Muslims are "the best of nations" (3:110) -- and act like it! This even goes for some who are in no way "good" Muslims, not praying, drinking alcohol, screwing around, etc. (Muhammad said that all believers will go to Paradise, even if he committed fornication or stole, while unbelievers will burn in hell -- see the end of this article for the quotes.) And don't forget the oft-repeated Qur'anic injunction to not take the kuffar (unbelievers) for friends (3:28, 4:89, 4:139, 4:144, 5:51 (this time it's "Jews and Christians"), 5:57, 5:80-81, 9:16 ("take none but the ummah as friends"), 58:14, 60:1, 60:13).

You can see this in any number of Islamic websites and talkboards, as well as in person. I remember one sheikh from Syria giving a speech at a mosque in which he told a story about how a Muslim employer fired a woman for wearing hijab after 9/11, since he was frightened about possible backlash, but when she went to work at a "kafir" company, they not only let her wear it, but also gave her a room to pray in. This was followed by a remark about how the kafirs are "beasts," their women disgusting: "Look at pictures of kafir women at 60-70 years old, and Muslim women the same age--the unbeliever women will be ugly and horrible, while the Muslims will still be beautiful." Ugh. He said a bunch of other crap I took immense issue with, such as Muslim women being "infested" with "kafir" ideas of women's rights, such as working and having equal rights with men. (If this is what most Middle Eastern clerics think, we're all doomed!) Another case was where a mosque in the US was burned to the ground, and the local non-Muslims pitched in to rebuild it. Muslims overseas congratulated the Muslims for building a mosque in the midst of the "kafir." How do you suppose non-Muslims will take this denigration and refusal to acknowledge the good things that they do for Muslims?

The denigration of Western women as "whores" and "prostitutes" is of course well-known, as is the belief by too many Arab and/or Muslim men that all Western women are literally for sale and sexually available. In Islamic writings, the Western woman's life and beliefs are typically caricatured in a crude fashion, painting her as a pitiable object enslaved to materialism and hopelessly objectified, forced to wear revealing clothes, never as an autonomous person living her life the way she feels it should be, doing what she wants and wearing what she wants, whether it is revealing or not.

In terms of religion, Muslims of course believe that they have the truth, but the problem is that many Muslims also believe that the truth of Islam is so glaringly obvious that anyone who is truly exposed to it and does not convert is arrogant and evil ("Anyone who does not think Islam is the truth either does not have enough information or is not using his Allah-given powers of reason"--real quote). The problem, of course, is that members of other religions, or even of none, also think they have the truth, and are apt to roll their eyes at Muslims insisting that their truth is self-evident. There is a real lack of interest by Muslims to really find out what other religions are all about, what they believe, how they are practiced. Instead, discussions of other religions tend to be simplistic and hostile (Hinduism is "idol worship," nothing more; Judaism and Christianity are corrupted and don't need to be studied beyond what is said about them in the Qur'an), leading to a total lack of understanding. Muslims often complain that their religion is subject to distortions and stereotypes, but unfortunately many Muslims do the exact same thing with other religions, failing to see the hypocrisy in demanding respect for your religion while badly caricaturing and denouncing other religions. Unfortunately, it may be difficult to get these Muslims to see this hypocrisy, since in their minds Islam is the truth, all other religions are false, it's clear as day, and that's all there is to it. I don't know how to get deeper understanding, except perhaps living in close proximity with those of other religions, going to school with them, being friends, and so on.

Muslims will often demand the right to practice their own religion by wearing the hijab or getting time off to pray, and denouncing, for example, the French or Turkish government for banning the headscarf, but I have yet to read anything by a Muslim denouncing the discrimination against non-Muslims in Muslim countries, the banning of the practice of all religions other than Islam in Saudi Arabia, the special privileges given to Muslims in Malaysia, the attacks against Jews and Christians, or the whole classical Islamic system of dhimmitude as laid out in shari'ah, in which non-Muslims have almost no rights, and certainly next to none against Muslims, except perhaps not being killed in exchange for payment of jizya (and this isn't even mentioning those "tolerant" shari'ah laws like: No Muslim should be killed for killing a disbeliever, the testimony of a Jew or Christian is not accepted in Muslim courts, they can do nothing to offend the Muslims or risk death, and on and on). Many Western organizations will help people of all religions or none; Islamic charities help Muslims and only Muslims. And unfortunately there are those Muslims who consider themselves above the laws of the Western nations they live in, demanding that the West accept them but making no effort to reciprocate.

Fortunately, many Muslims, especially younger ones reared in the West, do not subscribe to this kind of nonsense, happily becoming friends with non-Muslims and seeing themselves as citizens of the countries they live in. This needs to be encouraged.

Hadiths:

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 41, Number 573:
Narrated Abu Dhar:

Once, while I was in the company of the Prophet, he saw the mountain of Uhud and said, "I would not like to have this mountain turned into gold for me unless nothing of it, not even a single Dinar remains of it with me for more than three days (i.e. I will spend all of it in Allah's Cause), except that Dinar which I will keep for repaying debts." Then he said, "Those who are rich in this world would have little reward in the Hereafter except those who spend their money here and there (in Allah's Cause), and they are few in number." Then he ordered me to stay at my place and went not far away. I heard a voice and intended to go to him but I remembered his order, "Stay at your place till I return." On his return I said, "O Allah's Apostle! (What was) that noise which I heard?" He said, "Did you hear anything?" I said, "Yes." He said, "Gabriel came and said to me, 'Whoever amongst your followers dies, worshipping none along with Allah, will enter Paradise.' " I said, "Even if he did such-and-such things (i.e. even if he stole or committed illegal sexual intercourse)" He said, "Yes."

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 76, Number 514:
Narrated 'Ubada bin As-Samit:

The Prophet said, "Whoever loves to meet Allah, Allah (too) loves to meet him and whoever hates to meet Allah, Allah (too) hates to meet him". 'Aisha, or some of the wives of the Prophet said, "But we dislike death." He said: It is not like this, but it is meant that when the time of the death of a believer approaches, he receives the good news of Allah's pleasure with him and His blessings upon him, and so at that time nothing is dearer to him than what is in front of him. He therefore loves the meeting with Allah, and Allah (too) loves the meeting with him. But when the time of the death of a disbeliever approaches, he receives the evil news of Allah's torment and His Requital, whereupon nothing is more hateful to him than what is before him. Therefore, he hates the meeting with Allah, and Allah too, hates the meeting with him."

2003-04-24T20:44:00.000-07:00

Differences in the Qur'an

Muslims today say that the Qur'an now in our hands is the exact copy of what was revealed to Muhammad by the angel Gabriel, but the story is more complicated than that!

The first Qur'ans were written in unpointed Arabic, that is, the dots that distinguish certain otherwise identical letters, such as b, t, th from each other (to give just one example; see here for the Arabic alphabet ) were not written into the text. They were only added some time later, and then the signs for vowels were not added until much later after that. In addition, there are several different collections of the Qur'an mentioned in Muslim sources, such as those of Ali (the cousin and son-in-law of Muhammad), Ibn Masud, Hafsa, Abu Bakr (the first caliph) and Uthman (the third caliph). According to these sources, Uthman (some say Abu Bakr) decided to make an "official" Qur'an, so he collected all the different versions lying around, as well as making use of anyone who had memorized the whole Qur'an or any part of it, made an official recension, then burned all the other copies and distributed his own collection to all the important Muslim cities such as Damascus and Kufa (Iraq). The Qur'an in use today is supposed to be a direct copy of what is called the "Uthmanic Codex," the book that Uthman had written. There are tales told suggesting that Uthmand did not get all of what was "recited" of the Qur'an (which means recitation or reading). For example, as-Suyuti, a prominent Qur'an commentator, quoted Ibn Umar al-Khattab, the son of the second caliph, as saying, "Let no one of you say that he has acquired the entire Qur'an, for how does he know that it is all? Much of the Qur'an has been lost, thus let him say, ‘I have acquired of it what is available.’" He also relates a story about how Aisha, one of the wives of Muhammad, claimed that the surah al-Ahzab (33) used to have 200 verses, but when written down, it only had 73. He also tells another story that in one of those missing verses, there was the Verse of the Stoning: "If an old woman or man commits adultery, stone them to death," but, according to Aisha, the piece of paper on which this was written was eaten by a goat who happened to wander into her room! Suyuti also has several other stories in this vein in his Itqan, plainly suggesting that Qur'anic scholars of the time were aware that the Qur'an then in their hands wasn't everything that had been revealed through Muhammad.

Traditionally, there were seven different qira'at (recitations; readings) of the Qur'an (which itself means recitation or reading), each showing slight differences in the way the Arabic letters were written, or even in the words themselves. (See this page for more of the nitty-gritty.) Each qirr'a (singular) was transmitted by two different reciters (qurra'), meaning there were actually 14 different versions of the Qur'an. In addition, there were also three other, different versions considered not quite as definitive as the previous seven, each transmitted by two different reciters, for a total of 20 different versions of the Qur'an! It was said that Gabriel recited the Qur'an to Muhammad according to all seven readings, so each was really correct. Here's a list of the seven different "canonical" versions (first number is AH, after Hegira, the second is AD/CE):

Nafi (from Medina; d.169/785)
Ibn Kathir (from Mecca; d.120/737)
Abu `Amr al-'Ala' (from Damascus; d.154/771)
Ibn `Amir (from Basra; d.154/771)
Hamzah (from Kufah; d.156/773)
al-Qisa'i (from Kufah; d.189/804)
Abu Bakr `Asim (from Kufah; d.127/744)

The current, most widespread version is the Egyptian edition of the qirr'a of 'Asim as transmitted through Hafs (d.190/805). Another version still in use, mostly in Morocco, is that of Nafi transmitted through Warsh (d. 197/812). However, there are special editions of the Qur'an containing several of the readings of the Qur'an. As you can see, all these men died well over a hundred years after the death of Muhammad, so it has to be taken on faith that what they recited was accurately transmitted over those hundred years, and also that our versions today are the same as theirs.

This is just from Muslim sources, not even considering the archaeological evidence recently dug up, such as the ancient Qur'ans discovered in a mosque in Yemen (here's the Atlantic Monthly article about them), which show considerable differences from our current text.

So what is the actual Word of Allah? Is it a kind of Schrodinger's Cat, existing as both one thing and another at the same time? I find the subject fascinating.

2003-04-24T19:39:00.000-07:00

Sorry for the brief hiatus. There will be more shortly...

2003-04-18T09:17:00.000-07:00

Thanks to everyone who wrote me emails; I haven't been able to get to all of them yet, but I will answer as many as I can. Thank you for all your comments and suggestions!

2003-04-18T09:13:00.000-07:00

What It Feels Like For A Girl, Part 2

As far as being a woman in the local mosque, I'll list here the differences between men and women:

*Women get a small room entered from the side of the mosque, instead of the front, to pray in. The men's section is much larger, though it should be noted that while men are supposed to come to Friday prayer, women are not required to. This structure makes it impossible to see the imam (prayer leader), whether praying or giving a sermon on Friday. In some mosques, the women's section is placed directly behind the men, so one can see, but it is to be noted that women always pray behind the men. Most annoying for me, the small children also go with the women, and often cause quite a ruckus, something the men don't have to put up with!

*Women are also generally segregated from men, so there are men's groups and women's groups, and very little mixing. And in Islamic countries, especially the strict ones, this carries over to all aspects of life. I've often wondered how men and women are supposed to understand each other when they don't even talk to each other!

*The rules regarding prayer--women are not supposed to pray when they are menstruating, or fast, or enter the mosque (at least the prayer area) or even touch a copy of the Qur'an, because they are considered to be unclean. Prayers missed this way do not have to be made up, but Ramadan fasts do.

*There is of course the dress code--women are supposed to wear baggy clothes going all the way down to their ankles, wrists, and neck, and cover their hair with a scarf, though this is often adhered to not-very-strictly, especially the scarf part. Many girls and women never wear a scarf outside the mosque. Not more than a few wear niqab (face veil), though it should be noted that those who would are also less likely to leave the house, in my experience.

*Then there's all the rules regarding women in Shari'ah, which is a topic in itself (though they are not followed very much in non-Islamic countries--women get Western divorces so they can get the children and more money, for example!).

*Only men run the mosque, the imam and all those responsible for the mosque are men. Women do run the small Islamic school, but not the actual mosque.

*Interestingly, many women are not in the least submissive, not shy to argue with their spouses or the imam if they feel they are being taken advantage of--though I suppose those that are submissive are those you never hear about--or from!

*Manipulation is a high art among women who can't directly ask the men in their lives for what they want or need.

*Although the official line is that the man must support his wife, in fact many Muslim women do work, though many in traditionally women's jobs such as child care or teaching or nursing. Also, large numbers of Muslim young women are going to university, which will allow them to acquire good jobs. However, it is also true that some Muslim men feel that education is wasted on women, who are just going to stay home with the children anyway.

*In all, it is a confusing blend of East and West: Eastern, Islamic, and Arab (Pakistani, Indian, Bangladeshi, African, etc.) ideas conflicting with Western ideas of rights and Western technology--it seems as if almost every woman has a cell phone! The second- and third-generation Muslims tend to be more Westernized, and even those young people who came to America become quite Americanized (always going off to the mall or to a burger place). I suppose we will have to wait and see what becomes of all this.

2003-04-16T23:57:00.000-07:00

What It Feels Like For A Girl

Cheesy title, I know...Maybe My Story would be better, but still generic and cheesy. Anyway...

I don't want to give too much away, but I will say that I am an almost 26 year old female. I picked the name Fatimah, though I don't usually use it in the Real World.

According to Islam, all people are born Muslim, but I can't remember ever believing in God when I was a young child. I even remember being disgusted that people could believe in such a stupid idea when I was 7 years old. But at the same time I was always concerned about stuff like: what happens to you after you die, whether the good and bad would be rewarded and punished, what life was all about, and so on. I could never really find anybody to discuss this kind of thing with.

When I was 12 years old, my family started to go to church for some reason, and I took to it very quickly, interestingly enough. I read the Bible all the way through when I was 14 and wanted to be a good Catholic, reading about the lives of the saints (which also went into my love of history), and read everything I could. I was even confirmed when I was 16. But I never really felt as if I had to believe whatever I was told; I could take it or leave it. I never feared that I would go to hell for not believing; that went against my whole being. No God I could believe in would ever send someone to hell just because they couldn't bring themselves to believe in what some man claimed was the will of God (this is still my belief).

Later my family just stopped going to church, and I kind of lost interest. But I was still interested in religions, and I became very fascinated with Judaism. I even wanted to convert (something I was sure to tell the imam of the mosque I converted at, just to get a rise out of him!) But I didn't know if I could spend a year doing so (most Conversion to Judaism courses seem to take a year), especially since I was still at home and not feeling as if I could share this interest with them. Also, what sect? Reform was of course the "easiest" one, but then I was upset that if I did convert according to Reform ritual, Orthodox and Conservative would probably not accept it. And with the Orthodox, it seemed too difficult to live up to all the laws (especially the one about no driving on the Sabbath, since I don't live anywhere near a synagogue/shul)!

Meanwhile, I bought a Qur'an (the Shakir translation) and read it because (you'll love this!) I felt that I wasn't truly educated if I hadn't read the holy texts of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. I'd already read the Bible straight through a few times, so the Qur'an was next. I can't say I was hugely impressed--there seemed to be too much emphasis on hell and punishment, and too much bashing of Jews and Christians. But I'd always been interested in the Middle East, from the time I'd learned about the ancient civilizations of the region, so I went on to take a class called "Islamic Humanities" in college. I remember several of the stories the (female) professor told, such as Muslims waiting, with lighter and cigarette in hand, for the last bit of the sun to disappear from the sky during Ramadan (the fast includes eating, drinking, smoking, and sex), and how women couldn't drive in Saudi Arabia. I really liked the book we were assigned to read for a class project, Leo Africanus by Amin Maalouf, which is a fictionalized account of the life of the Moroccan traveler, but I remember thinking how terrible things were for the poor women in the story!

Well, September 11th came around and really hit me hard, because I remembered visiting the World Trade Center three years before (during a trip I dragged my mom and younger sister to take to NYC, since I wanted to see the city so badly)--I still have the $11.50 admission ticket. I don't want to sound callous, drawing attention to the buildings instead of the people in them, but what I mean is that that was what really drove it home to me what had happened--I had been in those buildings and seen what was on top, so it was more than an image on TV, and didn't know anybody from the area (New York was like another country to me). Anyway, I read my Qur'an again to try to understand something about this religion. I read as much as I could, the good as well as the bad. I noticed the incredible similarities Islam shared with Judaism, and the idea developed in my mind of converting to Islam instead!

I suppose it was the books of Islamic art that really did me in, as well as my ongoing fascination with all things Middle Eastern, but I finally got the courage to go down to the local mosque, which I admit I was frightened of, mostly because I had no idea what it was about or what happened there. I had emailed the imam before, asking to convert, and he had me come over to the mosque and take shahadah (the profession of faith--Ashhadu la illah ill allah, ashhadu anna Muhammad ar Rasulallah; I testify that there is no God but Allah, I testify that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah). And that was it--I was a Muslim. Of course, then I was supposed to pray 5 times a day, wear the headscarf, etc. I met one woman about my age who had also converted to Islam and was now quite heavily into it, going so far as to wear the black abayah (all-covering black dress) and niqab (the face veil). I asked her a lot of innocent-sounding questions about all aspects of Islam, so I could see if the answers I got were the same I had read, and they were. She even took me shopping to buy some decent all-covering clothes, and was very understanding, saying that one should accept the requirements of Islam, such as hijab, as one felt ready to do so. She was very nice, though I do have to say that I'm not sure her ideas would have endeared her to non-Muslims. Unfortunately she eventually married a Saudi and moved to another part of the country.

It seems to me that the vast majority of Western converts to Islam are women, and I think I can think of some reasons why. For one thing, there's the old cliche about women being more religious than men, and while there's a lot wrong with it, there is also a lot of truth to it. Also, it must be said that new Muslims are made to feel very welcome, as part of something larger than themselves. There is also a searching for limits and rules, something that will tell you how to live and give you a purpose. Most importantly, it provides a sense of certainty in a rather uncertain world, in a way that is really not found anymore in the West. I can't help but call it a longing for an almost medieval way of looking at the world, knowing that you have The Truth and will be admitted to Paradise.

Naturally, I never gave up my voracious curiosity and was soon devouring books about Hadith and Shari'ah, as well as the not-so-nice side of Islam, as well as critical research on Islam, much of which put the traditional accounts of Islam in doubt. I also read The Satanic Verses, just to see what everyone was so upset about. I actually liked that book quite a lot--it's more about India than about Islam, just like most of Salman Rushdie's books. I also pulled off the stunt of reading much of it inside the mosque, along with the aforesaid critical works! Since I was spending a lot of time in the mosque, I brought along reading matter, and so...

So I'm right where I always was, curious but not at all sure what I really believe. As you may have guessed, there is plenty that I find wrong with Islam as it now stands, but at the same time it has a certain emotional resonance with me, given its rather austere nature. To me, it's always seemed that Islam is best suited for the desert, and since I live in a desert, it seemed to fit.

I don't know what I will do. I do pray 5 times a day, finding much solace in it. I have read the Qur'an (in translation) 8 times through and really like it, despite the often ugly thoughts described therein. I have enormous problems with hijab and often don't wear it, at least ouside the mosque, though I never enter the mosque without it on. I don't know about marriage or children; that would imply a commitment and permanence that I don't feel ready for (I'm one of those "scared of commitment" types, always wanting to leave an out somewhere). But I like it too much, and I'm too interested in the subject, so I woudn't think of leaving. I still fear that God doesn't exist, and I wish there were some way to know, really know, for sure. I don't think I'll ever find the answer, which scares me most of all, since I like certainty, but I cannot be 100% certain of something based on faith, whether it's God or atheism.

That's about it, really. I started this blog to have somewhere to dump all of my meandering thoughts about Islam, and I hope you find it interesting!

2003-04-16T11:40:00.000-07:00

Email

It should be over there on the left, but here it is: muslimah2300@yahoo.com

2003-04-16T11:19:00.000-07:00

Thanks to all my visitors!

2003-04-16T10:53:00.000-07:00

What happened to Fatimah?

Fatimah, daughter of Muhammad, is highly regarded by Muslims, the only one of his children to have children who survived him, hence the huge popularity of her name for girls (such as myself; hence my interest in the subject). For the Shi'a, she is held in even higher regard, being the mother of the Imams. The Al-Azhar college in Cairo was named after her by the Shi'ite Fatimid Caliphs (969-1171, founders of Cairo) after her name Fatimah az-Zahra, Fatimah the Resplendent, and the caliphs themselves were her descendents, hence their name. For all of this honor, though, actual details about her life are scant. For example, nobody seems to know exactly when she was born. Her death is more fixed--around three to six months after the death of Muhammad, but her age at death is given as anywhere from 18 to 29. Shi'ites generally go for the 18 year figure, saying that she was concieved right after Muhammad's Night Journey to heaven and born 20 Jumada II, 7 years before the Hijrah, March 27, 615, and died 14 Jumada I 11 AH, August 7, 632, 75 days after the Prophet's death. (All these dates are from the Shi'a, disputed by Sunnis). The problem with this is that she would have been 9 years old at the birth of her first son, Hasan (15 Ramadhan 3 AH, March 1, 625), 10 at the birth of Hussein (3 Sha'ban, 4 AH, January 8, 626) and went on to have two more children. True, this was not unknown at the time, but to me it does seem as though a slightly older age is more reasonable!

Sunnis are a lot vaguer, generally holding that Fatimah was married to her cousin Ali at age 15 and 5 months, thus making her 16 or 17 at the birth of her first son, and about 29 at her death. (These are of course lunar years, shorter than solar years, so her real age would be somewhat less.) This just goes to show how little attention was given to precise dates at the time.

Also, Sunnis give a great deal of attention to Aisha, favorite wife of Muhammad (and daughter of the first Sunni Caliph, Abu Bakr, meaning "father of the virgin," i.e. Aisha), married at 9 and widowed at 18. She is the source of thousands of hadiths in Sunni collections and a figure of admiration, drawing away some of the attention from Fatimah. By contrast, Shi'ites don't like her at all--she was an enemy to Ali (Fatimah's husband, first Shi'ite Imam and fourth Sunni Caliph) and didn't seem to care much for Fatimah, despite the Prophet's saying that "Fatimah is a part of me, whoever hurts Fatimah hurts me." She was a spoiled brat--which if you look at even the stories she tells, seems to be true! But what do you expect from a preteen and teenage girl, anyway? She is the one who snarled "Your Lord rushes to fulfill your desires" after the revelation of a rather convenient Qur'anic verse.

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 311:

Narrated Aisha:

I used to look down upon those ladies who had given themselves to Allah's Apostle and I used to say, "Can a lady give herself (to a man)?" But when Allah revealed: "You (O Muhammad) can postpone (the turn of) whom you will of them (your wives), and you may receive any of them whom you will; and there is no blame on you if you invite one whose turn you have set aside (temporarily).' (33.51) I said (to the Prophet), "I feel that your Lord hastens in fulfilling your wishes and desires."

The accounts of Fatimah's death are interesting. Sunnis are rather vague, saying that she fell ill and died about six months after the death of Muhammad, after the dying Muhammad assured her that he would be the first among his family to follow him to Paradise. But the Shi'ite story is much more detailed and quite sad. During a dispute about the succession, she was trapped in her home with Ali and her family by the partisans of Abu Bakr, first Sunni caliph, since they refused to accept him, believing Muhammad had chosen Ali as his her. When the door was forced open, Fatimah was crushed between it and the wall, making her lose her unborn son Mohsin and eventually causing her death--thus the assertion by the Shi'a that she was martyred. Here is a rather graphic account of it, and here is an in-depth Shi'a account.

All this goes to show just how little we really know for sure about the early days of Islam, and that even days after the death of Muhammad, there was squabbling and fighting for power. Even during Muhammad's life, the "hypocrites" seem to have been a big problem, given all the Qur'anic verses condemning them. In fact, in the long war surah 9, At-Tauba, fully half of it is devoted to admonishing and condemning those who refuse to fight or who are weak in faith or even will sell out the Muslim community. I don't think it would have merited this kind of attention if it wasn't a big problem! Apparently the stories about how the early Muslims were one in heart and in mind are not quite telling the whole story!

2003-04-16T00:19:00.000-07:00

Book Review:
The Art and Architecture of Islam 650-1250 by Richard Ettinghausen and Oleg Grabar (Pelican History of Art)
The Art and Architecture of Islam 1250-1800 by Sheila S. Blair and Jonathan M. Bloom (Pelican History of Art)
Islam Vol. 1: Early Architecture from Baghdad to Cordoba by Henri Stierlin (Taschen)

After all the BS, political disputes and religious dogma, this is my favorite part of Islamic culture: the arts and architecture.

My personal favorite is the huge mosque at Samarra (north of Baghdad, Iraq), built under the caliph Mutawakkil (847-861), with the gigantic spiral minaret 164 feet high (55 meters). The mosque itself is absolutely gigantic, covering some 10 acres (240 by 156 m) and supposedly the biggest mosque in the world (except maybe for the Haram in Mecca). (some nice pictures here.) The roof fell in long ago, but they've done a nice restoration job on what's left. I suppose it shows the outsized dimensions of ambition the early Abbasid caliphs (and early Muslims) had. As if that's not enough, there's also a second giant mosque in Samarra built a few years later by Mutawakkil, the Abu Dulaf mosque, which was not quite as big but almost!

Another favorite are the mosques in Isfahan, Iran built by the Safavids (1502-1736, who essentially converted the Iranians to Shi'ites), especially the Masjed-i-Shah (here's a site that lets you tour all the Isfahan mosques). They are covered with blue tile and are quite amazing.

There are also the mosques in Samarkand, Uzbekistan, a city I'd like to see, even though it was the base of the infamous Tamerlane (Timur the Lame, 1336-1405), who enjoyed making "minarets" of the severed heads of his victims. Here's a fun virtual tour, including the Registan, surrounded by mosques and madrasahs, the Guri-Emir Mausoleum (the tomb of Tamerlane), and other stuff, and here's another site about Tamerlane and the stuff he had built.

Anyway, all three of these books have numerous beautiful pictures, the real reason to give them a look. Unfortunately the 650-1250 book is only in black and white, but the Islam volume has most of the same buildings photographed in color and on large pages. Each volume also gives plenty of information on history and art (650-1250 and 1250-1800 are in the same series and one follows the other, and each gives more than you ever wanted to know about anything involving Islamic art and architecture).

Something nice involving Islamic culture for a change...though I suppose someone will bring up the slaves and workers who had to toil for years building all this stuff for these utter tyrants...

2003-04-15T22:50:00.000-07:00

Book Review:
Hagarism
by Patricia Crone and Michael Cook

This book is a real pathbreaker. It proved to be highly controversial with its dramatic rewriting of early Islamic history, and thought-provoking in its examination of the roots of Islamic religion and culture in Judeo-Christian ideas, Greek philosophy, Roman law and Persian statehood. Unfortunately it is an extremely difficult book--it helps to have the equivalent of a master's degree in a number of subjects, including history, philosophy, religion (Islam, Christianity, Judaism, and Samaritanism) and others. Plus, the authors throw around quite a few obscure quotes--find out how erudite you are by seeing how many of them you recognize! I was fascinated enough to read it twice, including the footnotes, which are nearly as long as the text itself (a compact 120 pages, give or take).

The first couple of chapters set out the authors' own views of the Muslim Conquests, drawing on contemporary Christian and Jewish accounts. They conclude that what Muhammad was preaching was a form of Messianic Judaism, with the goal of conquering the Holy Land from the Byzantines with an army composed of both Arabs and Jews, Muhammad himself the herald of the actual "Faruq," the Redeemer, 'Umar ibn Al-Khattab, known in Islamic history as the third caliph. ('Umar really does have the title "al-Faruq," though in Islamic usage it means "one who makes Truth manifest.") This new religion, a strange blend of Judaism, Samaritanism and Christianity, the authors give the title of "Hagarism," referring to the way Muhammad justified the inclusion of the Arabs by emphasizing the Jews' and Arabs' common ancestor Abraham, the children of Sarah and of Hagar, respectively. Eventually the Jews had to be broken with, and Hagarism continued to develop into what is now Islam, stealing copiously from all the Middle Eastern monotheistic traditions.

Although this reconstruction is to a great degree speculation, the main point of it is not so much the story itself as for what it suggests about the Islamic sources as we have them: They are without historical merit, created to give a plausible origin for Islam and the Qur'an. Even the central Arab origins of Islam are brought into question, suggesting that Mecca and Medina were chosen as sacred sites only after the need was felt to have a suitable location for the revelation of the Qur'an. In another book, Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam, Patricia Crone goes into great detail about how Mecca was totally unknown to the ancients before the time of Islam, about how the tales of how it was a major trading center and how the Quraysh, the tribe to which Muhammad belonged, were rich traders with Yemen and Syria, cannot possibly be true. She also describes how some early mosques were pointed too far north to be pointing at Mecca, instead pointing at a spot much farther north, and how the paganism described in the Qur'an and the life of the Prophet is more like that of northern Arabia than that of the Hijaz, which was almost deserted at the time. In addition, the earliest examples of Classical Arabic are not from central Arabia but from the area around the Fertile Crescent, only penetrating into Arabia later. She suggests that the real site of Muhammad's mission was some point in the north of Arabia, perhaps in the Syrian Desert, and only later was the site of Mecca chosen as the holy city and its central Arabian origins emphasized.

It must be said that these investigations are a lot like the research into the origins of the Old and New Testaments, and are in fact an extension of them. Using the same tools, the authors (among many others) go into the texts and find that the traditional stories around their origin have...historical difficulties. It is up to the reader to decide how much weight to give this research, though it must be said that unfortunately Islam has been more protected by apologists fearing to offend, taking the traditional stories as "gospel" truth and not going into any kind of deep examination. It must be said here that the Hadiths have been considered without historical merit for many decades by many researchers, being mainly created to drive home a point about Islamic law or to explain some mysterious verse of the Qur'an by describing the circumstances of its revelation. Now, it's too bad Saudi Arabia won't let archaeologists dig around Mecca and Medina, we might find out the truth! ("The hard truth is always better than a pleasing fantasy" is my motto!)

I didn't mean to go on so long about the first part, which only makes up about a quarter of the text. More interesting to me is the rest of the book, describing the various origins of Islamic religion and culture. Here, the authors talk about the conflict in worldview between the (ancient) Judaic view of the world as being totally subject to God's will, and the Greek view of a universe governed by impersonal laws. Personal God vs. impersonal laws and concepts, the unknowability of what God will do next vs. the total regularity of Greek laws. With Christianity in the Roman Empire, the two were brought together, the Judaic God and the impersonal concepts and laws of the Greeks. Something of a compromise was effected, where God was still in control but let the universe work according to regular laws, but at some level the tension remained and was brought out in Islam. Islam adopted the Judaic view of a universe totally subject to God's will, but this meant that they couldn't deal very well with Greek philosophy, widely considered to be heretical and leading to doubts in religion.

But where the God of the Jews was somewhat arbitrary yet very personal and close, the Allah of the Muslims was both arbitrary and quite distant, combining the arbitrariness of the Judaic God with the rather distant nature of the Greek concepts. Instead of dealing with only one people, the Jews, Allah had the whole universe to control, humans only a small part of it. (This is where the concept for "The Distance of Allah from His Creatures" came from and it put into words a nagging feeling I had about the distance between Allah and his "slaves"--not children!) Hence the popularity of Sufism.

The book also goes into detail about borrowings from Roman law, which were later made part of Shari'ah (the book gives as an example a law about how many slaves may be freed at a master's death, tracing it through the Roman Empire to the Byzantines to the Nestorian Christians of Iraq to Islamic law), and the use of Persian statecraft to create the new Islamic Empire.

Another fascinating part is the discussion of the fate of various regions under the Arabs. Syria, Egypt, Iraq, Persia, North Africa and Spain are all discussed, what they contributed to the creation of Islamic culture as well as the transformation of all of the above except Persia and Spain into Arab lands.

The book is very difficult but rewarding, and although one might take its conclusions with skepticism, it is certainly a thought-provoking book, giving a close look into the origins of Islamic religion and culture.

2003-04-15T21:15:00.000-07:00

Book Review:
Queen Noor, Leap of Faith: Memoirs of an Unexpected Life
Norma Khouri, Honor Lost: Love and Death in Modern-Day Jordan

These two books were just published in February and March of this year, and I read them together. Since they both cover similar ground and became linked in my mind, I'll write about them together.

The Queen of Jordan is still part of the royal family of Jordan and so part of the government, and her book was probably checked by several censors, so I wasn't really expecting much in the way of revelations. Also, it may be impolitic to be too forthcoming with the truth, for any political figure, so I have to say I also took much of it with a grain of salt.

There really wasn't much of a need to do so, though, as the book was almost totally inoffensive, except perhaps for her version of the Arab-Israeli wars, told, of course, from the Arab POV with a certain liberality with the facts, so to speak (i.e. some of it is blatant lies). Also, she can't help throwing in some rather tasteless, shall we say, characterizations of Israelis/Jews e.g. the World Zionist Organization is inexplicably described as "well-funded," Israel exercises a certain "magical power" over the minds of Americans, AIPAC can get any bill through Congress they want, Israelis inexplicably adopting an "unhelpful" "fortress mentality," even though she herself mentions that the PLO's goal was and is to destroy Israel, everything is always Israel's fault...etc. It's subtle but the net effect wasn't very flattering to a woman who fancies herself progressive and open-minded.

ANYWAY...with that caveat, we can go on to the general content. The book is actually mostly about King Hussein, her husband of almost 21 years. Her 26 years of life as Lisa Halaby before meeting the King takes up only 35 pages in a 450-page book, and in the rest of the text the spotlight is always on the King (she calls him alternately "the King," "Hussein," and "my husband" and is hardly ever missing on a page). Unfortunately we don't get to learn much about Noor herself. Her activities, foundations, and charitable works are described with all the depth and detail of a PR statement (actually, those parts even sound exactly like blurbs from a pamphlet or fundraising letter). Her descriptions of meetings with other leaders are totally superficial and rarely do we get to find out what she really thinks of President So-and-So or of Mrs. So-and-So. No dirt or gossip here!

Despite her emphasis on her Arab roots (her grandfather was an Arab Christian from Beirut), Noor comes off as a thoroughly Western woman, with typically American liberal views ("liberal" in the sense of "what she might have got out of 4 years at Princeton"). She seems to have never left the '60s ("War is bad for children and other living things!" and her pacifist leanings). But all of that rings a little false when you realize just how repressive Jordan really is (you can be jailed for criticizing the King, political parties were banned for decades, no general elections from 1967 to 1989, martial law) which you really don't see at all in the book. How could a woman with her professed liberal, democratic views have simply taken all of that in stride? She does describe wanting a little loosening up of the press, but that's about it. And how can she claim that wars never solve anything given even her own history of modern Middle East history? Naivete or disingeniousness?

One of Noor's main goals in this book is obviously to make Jordan look as good as possible, so most of the unpleasantness is simply ignored or whitewashed (but what do you expect from a Queen of Jordan???). Honor killings, of which more later, merit about half a page, and there are supposedly only 25 a year, a ridiculously low number taken from the official statistics. Obviously admitting to more would do serious damage to Jordan's "modern" facade. There is no real sense of the grinding poverty affecting huge portions of Jordanian society, nor of lack of human or women's rights. Even the poor Palestinians rotting in refugee camps and exiled from their homeland, which she draws attention to at every opportunity, are hardly visible as living, breathing humans, only as a symbol of injustice and humiliation. What we're left with is a Jordan out of a travel book, exotic people plying their exotic crafts (the program Noor set up to distribute and sell native handcrafts is discussed at length), with fantastic sights and landscapes.

The oddest thing I found about the book was that Islam was discussed for a sum total of perhaps 2 or 3 pages. For all her claims about how she didn't convert to Islam out of convenience, she barely talks about it. There are a few scattered remarks about her conversion to Islam (the morning of her wedding) and about how Islam has great beauty and the Prophet said that "None of you is a believer unless he wants for his brother what he wants for himself." A couple remarks about Ramadan and praying at the King's grave, a brief discussion of Hajj and that's about it. I was curious about whether she prayed 5 times a day, attended Friday prayers at the mosque, read the whole Qur'an, her views about some Islamic laws, anything...but nothing was forthcoming. And especially her views on hijab! In all the pictures in the book, she is virtually always wearing Western clothes, hair proudly uncovered. The sole exceptions are: a shot of her and her daughter at the King's grave, a small white scarf tossed over her head, barely covering anything, and another of Noor dressed to make Umrah, where you can really see what all that cloth makes her look like! Not that I really care whether she herself wears it or not; it's just that hijab is such a heated topic in Islam I was hoping for maybe a comment or two, especially given the fact that every Islamic scholar I've read or talked to considers it to be a requirement for all Muslim women! I am left thinking she probably shares Queen Rania's stated postion that she doesn't think it's required.

For what it was (a feel-good portrait of an American-born Queen, her King and her love of her adopted country), it wasn't really that bad. I spent a couple of long nights reading it through, unable to put it down for long. But I'm such a book addict anyway... ;-P

The other book, Norma Khouri's Honor Lost, offers a glance behind the facade of modernity Jordan projects. The book, written by the author in an Internet cafe, describes her friendship with a Muslim girl, Dalia (she herself is Catholic), Dalia's love for a Catholic man she meets at the salon in Amman she and Norma run together, the lovers' clandestine meetings (perfectly chaste), and finally the tradegy that ensues when Dalia's family finds out and her father feels he must cleanse his family's honor by stabbing her a dozen times. Norma is finally forced to leave Jordan, knowing that she too is likely to fall to the same fate.

Although mostly a Muslim phenomenon, honor killings also affect Christians, and Khouri describes this as coming from the shared Bedouin Arab traditions that hold all Jordanians captive. She devotes an "Afterword" to the subject of honor killings, pointing out that it is in Jordan's interest to minimize the extent of the problem. After all, how "advanced" can a society be where fathers slaughter their daughters for "dishonoring" their families, just by meeting or even talking to a man? The official figure of 25 killings a year is far too low; the real number probably numbers in the thousands, since most are not classified as such, instead as "crimes of passion" or "suicide" or something else. And worst of all, the killers get away nearly scot-free--three-month prison sentences are common, often waived as "time served" out on bail at home. The laws explicitly permit this, and Parliament has no intention of allowing this to change--why, if a father can't protect his family's honor, the whole society will become degenerate like the West. Change is very slow in coming.

The book is a quick read, coming in at 211 pages of double-spaced text. The pace is quick and lively, and the slice-of-life details of middle-class life in Amman are engaging. At times the writing is a bit awkward and some dialogue a bit stilted, but that doesn't detract from the story, especially given the circumstances of its composition. The main characters are very much alive--Dalia, Michael, herself, even Dalia's unsympathetic brother Mohamed, assigned to chaperone the friends as they work in their salon, and ends up finding out about his sister's secret, leading to her death. Khouri mentions she went to English schools, thus explaining her very good command of English.

What I found refreshing was the lack of apologetics and justification for horrendous acts, a fault that plagues most books currently written about the Middle East. Khouri minces no words in describing the barbarity of honor killings, and she delivers some pointed barbs at Islam itself. She isn't afraid that her story will make Jordan look bad; it's a problem to be got out into the open and solved, an attitude unfortunately lacking in far too much writing about the region.

These books are available at Fine Bookstores Everywhere (tm), alas only in hardback as of yet.

2003-04-15T18:49:00.000-07:00

More Coming Soon...
Sorry for the delay!
(to my 3 or 4 readers...)

2003-03-04T21:03:00.000-08:00

The Distance of Allah from His Creatures

The last post about free will vs. predestination made me think of the differing distances between God and His creatures in Judaism, Christianity and Islam. This subject has been bothering me for a long time. I read the Bible and I feel as though God is close, wanting us to love Him; I read the Qur'an and feel that Allah is much more distant, wanting us to submit to Him. No wonder Sufi mysticism, with its emphasis on love of Allah and closeness, even unity, with Him, has been so widespread in the Islamic world.

Allah seems more distant in Islam than in Judaism and Christianity; there is more of an emphasis on His might and His power, His inapproachability, the fact that He has no need of His creation and says, "I have only created Jinns and men, that they may serve Me." (51:56) Note the word serve, not love. In Islam one submits to Allah; in Judaism (repeated in Christianity) the Shema says, "And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might," a concept totally lacking in Islamic prayers. Men and women are slaves of Allah in Islam; in Christianity they are children of God. Children are a source of love and worry for their parents; slaves exist merely to serve. Allah lets it be known in the Qur'an that if a people or nation rejects His message, He will simply wipe them out and put another people in their place who will serve Him better. Islam means submission; this does not leave much in the way of personal interaction. Allah orders, you obey. No debating or bargaining, like when Abraham got God down from fifty to ten righteous people to save Sodom and Gomorrah from destruction. Moses speaks directly with God; Allah communicates with Muhammad via the angel Gabriel, since "it is not fitting for a man that Allah should speak to him except by inspiration, or from behind a veil, or by the sending of a messenger to reveal, with Allah's permission, what Allah wills: for He is Most High, Most Wise." (42:51)

The Qur'an mentions that Allah is closer to man than his jugular vein (50:16), and Allah is constantly referred to as the Most Merciful and All Forgiving, but I have to say that I don't feel much warmth in the relationship. Allah is usually angry with man for constantly disobeying Him and constantly mentions how those who disobey and disbelieve will burn in Hell (quite graphically, too.) The portrayal of Paradise is mostly a picture of earthly delights such as flowing rivers, green gardens, cool fountains, cushions, green garments, fruits, cold drinks, and even "houris whom no man nor jinn has touched," not a picture of blissful union with Allah. Of course, these descriptions can easily be taken as metaphorical, but it is interesting that Paradise is described in these terms. Not to mention the fact that they generally have in fact been taken quite literally! The promise of 72 virgins to martyrs killed in jihad is only the best known, but there also have been Muslim scholars claiming that a man will be given the sexual strength of a hundred men, or the claim that a man will find, each time he has sex with a houri he will find her a virgin, or that houris supposedly will have no periods and will never need to go to the bathroom. The point is, this doesn't seem like a very spiritual haven, to say the least, more like a heavenly Playboy Mansion (and what's in it for the girls anyway???).

The heavy emphasis on rewards and punishments in the Qur'an and on fearing Allah and what He will do to you if you don't repent and submit to His will doesn't leave much room for really loving Him. The legalistic nature of Islam and the intricacies, even the often anal nit-picking of shari'ah, only serve to strengthen this idea of Allah as demanding slave-master, quick to punish.

Hence the huge appeal of Sufism among Muslims, even some non-Muslims. Sufism may have grown out of Hindu or Christian mysticism. At least it was sufficiently exotic and suspect to be distrusted and sometimes even banned by the scholars of religion. Some Sufis became infamous for flouting the exoteric Law of Allah in favor of personal contact with the Divine, which of course cut into the ulama's job. Other Sufis insisted that it was necessary to follow the Law, but that was only the beginning of a journey to meet the Face of Allah. In any case, it was the personal experience of Him, the overpowering love for Him, that counted. This was necessary to bridge the gap between the believer and Allah the All-Powerful, Almighty, who was to be served by fastidious obedience to His law in all aspects of life.

There is just nothing similar to the writings of the Hebrew prophets of the Bible in Islamic literature, whether Qur'an, hadiths, or sirah (lives of Muhammad). These demonstrate a very close and affectionate relationship between Israel and its God, God the loving, often chastising parent who nevertheless mourned over His people and promised them redemption. There is nothing like Isaiah's, "When Israel was a child I loved him; out of Egypt I called my son," or "Come now, let us reason together," (which would suggest a level of closeness and intimacy with God that would never be permitted in Islam--Allah would never condescend to reason with His slaves). Instead Allah of the Qur'an simply literally blows away those who refuse His message and goes on to the next people.

I've already gone on much too long, but I wish there was some way to get more of that intimacy into the Qur'an and less legalism and threats. I guess in this I am influenced by Christianity, but I don't think it's too much to ask for.

2003-03-04T17:22:00.000-08:00

Comments

I have put in comments and hope that they work.

Insha'Allah. ;-)

2003-03-04T17:10:00.000-08:00

Free Will vs. Predestination in Islam

This is a real problem in Islam, the subject of well over 1000 years' debate. Allah knows all and controls all, but holds each person responsible for his/her actions, belief or disbelief, and so on. So do people have free will or not?

According to the Qur'an, man is created by Allah to serve Him. No one finds the right path unless it is Allah's will, and no one swerves from that path except by His will. There are also statements about how, if it were Allah's will, he would have put all mankind on the right path. There is also the doctrine that every person's life is written out already, what he will do, when and where he will die, and it cannot be changed. All this suggests a rather deterministic viewpoint.

On the other hand, Allah makes it clear that He will punish those who disobey, as well as reward those who believe and do good deeds. This suggests that humans have the freedom to do so or not, because wouldn't it be unjust for Allah to punish creatures that had no choice in the matter? Wouldn't we end up with a grotesque image of Allah creating people for the purpose of burning them in hell, since it is up to Him whether or not someone will or will not obey His will.

The problem is more acute in Islam than in Judaism or Christianity. Islam emphasizes the total power of Allah over everything and everyone and his infinite superiority to man to an extent not usually seen in the other two religions. While Christianity, for example, emphasizes closeness to God by calling people "children of God," Islam typically refers to them as "slaves of Allah." Note the difference. A child can argue with, scream at, and try to reason with a parent, who feels very close to the child and is grieved at his/her wrongdoing. In the Bible, Abraham argues with God about the number of people needed to save Sodom and Gomorrah; the prophets talk of God's great love for His people Israel and how much it hurts Him to have to punish them; both Jesus and the prophets refer to God as a good shepherd who worries about his sheep and takes care of them. But a slave, by contrast, has only one duty: to obey and submit to the rule of his master. There is no question of love. So Allah emphasizes how He does not need any of his creatures, how He is free of all wants and worthy of all praise. If one people reject Allah's message, he simply destroys them and replaces them with another, and their traces are only left as a warning to others that they will be utterly destroyed as well if they do not submit to Allah's will.

This emphasis on Allah's greatness and man's utter insignificance suggests that humans are no more than Allah's playthings, to be discarded at will. Maybe even His automatons, doing only what He orders them to do. But even if they do have free will, it means little in the grand scheme of things (nothing of the Kaabalistic notion that God needs mankind to make the universe whole).

This question has never been definitively answered in Islamic theology, with some schools believing in free will (such as the Qadariyya and the Mu'tazila) and some not. Popular fatalism (sighing "It is the Will of Allah; to Him we belong and to Him shall we return" at any misfortune, and seeing any fortune as a pure gift from Allah which might be taken away at any time) suggests predestination, although that might stem more from the completely powerless status of most people in Islamic countries through the centuries. But on the other hand, the influence of Western ideas of free will, that men and women are autonomous beings who can control their own destinies, has had its effect, perhaps pushing the consensus more in the direction of the Free Will party.

In any case, philosophy does indeed have an effect on reality. If people believe that they are powerless to change their lives, that what happens to them is the will of God or Allah, that their destinies are already mapped out, they are more likely to simply passively accept it. If, on the other hand, they believe that they have free will and can change their destinies, they may be more likely to reject the way things are, to innovate and push the limits of the possible.

I have to say that, living in the US, home of perhaps the most expansive ideas of free will and "your destiny is in your hand to do with as you wish," the entire idea of predestination is completely foreign to me. I can only imagine what it must be to feel that your life has already been written out and the ink has dried. Perhaps one could take tragedies better, thinking, "The people killed in this awful accident were destined to do so and that's all there is to it," but, honestly, all my being rebels at the thought that, for example, the victims of September 11th were simply destined to die in the way that they did. Among many Muslims, wailing and mourning the dead or regretting the past are considered to amount to questioning Allah's will and should be avoided, in favor of a stoic acceptance and submission. I'm sorry, I just can't do that. It just seems so harsh, so against human nature. I can only think that maybe this is the attitude that was needed to survive in the harsh deserts of Arabia.

Well, enough of these somewhat depressing natterings.

2003-03-02T22:11:00.000-08:00

Muslim Feminism

The following are my scattered thoughts about Muslim feminism.

A "Muslim feminist" is not an oxymoron. There are Muslim women who feel very strongly about the position of women in Islam, and try to improve it. Women such as Fatima Mernissi, Leila Ahmed, Amina Wadud and others have been working at this subject for decades.

I use the term "Muslim feminist" to refer to Muslim women (and men) who work to improve women's rights in present-day Islam. I do not consider it to refer to women (and men) who insist that Islam, as it is today, is glorious liberation for women and who write poetry praising the veil (grotesque examples here). I am talking about those who recognize that there is a problem with women's rights in Islamic cultures, and even in Islam itself, at least as it is currently constituted.

Secularists also work to improve women's rights but usually see the problem as Islam itself, which must be separated from the state and its influence severely curtailed. Here I am thinking more of those who approach the problem of women's rights inside Islam itself, with all the difficulties and contradictions that entails.

Muslim feminists recognize the existence of misogynist practices, but also have faith that Islam is a religion of equality for men and women. The Qur'an speaks to the equality of all Muslims. Muhammad was a feminist who gave women rights they had never had before, and Islam was a liberating, revolutionary movement. Such is the theory. What has happened in the meantime and what should be done to rectify the situation are the problems Muslim feminism concerns itself with.

Protectiveness towards Islam

Many Muslim feminists (and other Muslims) feel very protective of their culture and religion and they get, to put it lightly, quite upset at people who point out its flaws. When people are confident in themselves, they are able to take criticism gracefully and accept or reject it on its own terms, while insecure people are apt to take it as a personal insult, no matter what the motive was (and the greater the insecurity, the worse it is taken). Similarly, Muslims often feel their culture and religion are threatened and so sometimes respond in a way that may seem to others to be out of line, such as shrieking that all criticism of Islam is "racist" or "hateful," and any intimation that their culture is perhaps not quite as good as it could be can provoke insults and name-calling. The area of women's rights is especially sensitive, since much attention has been called to it, so the reactions to criticism are especially severe. For an example, just go to Amazon.com and read the comments by Muslims about books exposing the not-so-great position of women under Islam (such as Price of Honor, Nine Parts of Desire, any books by Fatima Mernissi and by other feminists); the invective seems way out of line, with some insisting that everything that doesn't show Islam as perfect are "lies" and concluding with a screed about how Muhammad and Islam liberated women (and sometimes with a few shots at the West).

Muslims are so busy trying to defend their own against what they see as an attack that they don't often actually look at it and see what might be wrong with it. I hate to say it, but self-examination doesn't seem to be the greatest Arab/Muslim trait. More likely, the problems of the Muslim world will be blamed on "Western imperialism," "Orientalism," "racism," "bigotry," and on and on, which allows Muslims to feel like righteous victims, but also suggests that they are helpless puppets with no control over their own destinies.

This leads to some untenable positions. A Muslim woman might criticize Islam harshly to other Muslims, but when it comes to "outsiders," they are quick to defend it. Perhaps it will be claimed that this is a matter for Muslims alone, or that there is no problem, it's only those evil Westerners who say that there is a problem. Worst of all is when a Muslim feminist is reduced to defending the misogynist practices of the Islamic world ("The harem and veiling gave women the benefit of being left alone by men to create their own feminine world.").

Moral relativism

Moral relativism is also another trap. It is dangerous for a feminist to adopt moral relativism, especially one from a traditionalist culture, because it can and does undercut her position. The idea that culture trumps all, including universal human rights and women's rights, cannot be an idea that feminists can uphold without looking like utter hypocrites. Unfortunately, we have the spectacle of some "feminists" claiming that female genital mutilation is morally equivalent to Playboy centerfolds, or that American working women pressed for time are equally as unfree as women under the Taliban who were not allowed to work, be educated, or do much of anything but stay in their houses. Who are we to judge that forced marriages of 14-year-old girls to men three times their age is bad? (Though of course many Muslims have no trouble judging and denouncing Western women as whores. Moral relativism only goes one way.)

(begin rant)

This is by far the most maddening thing I have seen from some Western "feminists"--the ones that do not hold that all women should have certain basic rights that all societies are bound to honor, but that a woman's rights are based on what culture she had the fortune or misfortune to be born into. Isn't that a violation of everything feminists are supposed to stand for? What if Victorian-era feminists felt that their rights were limited by their culture, and that they had no business demanding more? Would a Western feminist feel as if she had sufficient rights under Islamic rule? Isn't this a form of discrimination, that a Muslim woman is entitled to fewer rights than a Western woman just because Islamic culture is so sacrosanct it can't be touched? And this attitude in fact does a disservice to real feminists in Muslim countries, undercutting their fight for equal rights for all women. In effect moral relativists are on the side of the fundamentalists against the modernizers, the net effect of their words suggesting to Muslim women that they should be happy with their lot, because their culture would be so much better off without Western "infestation" such as ideas about women's rights.

(/rant)

Muslim feminism and misogynist hadiths

Many Muslims, though, look at their societies and see that they do in fact have a problem. Forbidding women to drive, forcing them to wear the veil, treating them as the property of men, FGM, forced marriages, lack of education, and many, many other practices are difficult to ignore, and, a good Muslim might worry, give Islam a very bad image, not entirely undeserved. More importantly, they make the lives of Allah knows how many women miserable, which shouldn't be the case if Islam is supposed to preserve the rights of women. Something must change.

Muslim feminists often attribute misogynist practices to other cultures (non-Muslim, non-Arab) such as the Persians and Byzantines, saying that they were later accretions and distortions of the pure religion of equality given through Muhammad. But the problem with this is, if Islam is such a feminist religion, why did these practices (such as seclusion and veiling) become so widespread? Should not Muslims have recognized these as not Islamic, instead of making them practically universal? And the wives of Muhammad himself clearly followed both:

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 282:

Narrated Safiya bint Shaiba:

'Aisha used to say: "When (the Verse): "They should draw their veils over their necks and bosoms," was revealed, (the ladies) cut their waist sheets at the edges and covered their faces with the cut pieces."

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 8, Number 395:

Narrated 'Umar (bin Al-Khattab):

My Lord agreed with me in three things:
[...]
...And as regards the (verse of) the veiling of the women, I said, 'O Allah's Apostle! I wish you ordered your wives to cover themselves from the men because good and bad ones talk to them.' So the verse of the veiling of the women was revealed.
[...]

Volume 6, Book 60, Number 318:

Narrated Aisha:

Sauda (the wife of the Prophet) went out to answer the call of nature after it was made obligatory (for all the Muslims ladies) to observe the veil. She was a fat huge lady, and everybody who knew her before could recognize her. So 'Umar bin Al-Khattab saw her and said, "O Sauda! By Allah, you cannot hide yourself from us, so think of a way by which you should not be recognized on going out. Sauda returned while Allah's Apostle was in my house taking his supper and a bone covered with meat was in his hand. She entered and said, "O Allah's Apostle! I went out to answer the call of nature and 'Umar said to me so-and-so." Then Allah inspired him (the Prophet) and when the state of inspiration was over and the bone was still in his hand as he had not put in down, he said (to Sauda), "You (women) have been allowed to go out for your needs."

(If women need special permission from Allah to go out for their needs or to go to the bathroom, what does that say about where women were normally supposed to be?)

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 165:

Narrated Salim's father:

The Prophet said, "If the wife of any one of you asks permission to go to the mosque, he should not forbid her."

(This hadith clearly implies that the wife needs to ask permission of the husband to go anywhere, and the husband can forbid her to go, unless it is to the mosque.)

This leads to another problem, the numerous misogynist hadiths about women attributed to Muhammad and his followers, such as the following:

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 76, Number 456:

Narrated 'Imran bin Husain:

The Prophet said, "I looked into Paradise and found that the majority of its dwellers were the poor people, and I looked into the (Hell) Fire and found that the majority of its dwellers were women."

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 125:

Narrated 'Abdullah bin Abbas:

[...]
[Muhammad said,] "Then I saw the (Hell) Fire, and I have never before, seen such a horrible sight as that, and I saw that the majority of its dwellers were women." The people asked, "O Allah's Apostle! What is the reason for that?" He replied, "Because of their ungratefulness." It was said, "Do they disbelieve in Allah (are they ungrateful to Allah)?" He replied, "They are not thankful to their husbands and are ungrateful for the favors done to them. Even if you do good to one of them all your life, when she sees some harshness from you, she will say, "'I have never seen any good from you.'"

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) of '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."

Some feminists claim that these hadiths have been falsely attributed to Muhammad and are fabrications. Unfortunately, that leads to another problem; how can one determine if a hadith has been fabricated or is authentic? The present-day books of hadith, such as Bukhari and Muslim, had their authenticity based on isnads, the chain of transmission from person to person back to Muhammad himself or to one of his companions. This required each person in the line to be trustworthy and pious. Some feminists will claim that these hadiths have a faulty isnad, but there are other hadiths with similar isnads--should they be rejected too? And if these hadiths should be rejected because they were fabricated to support misogynist views and falsely attributed to the Prophet, then it suggests that other hadiths were also fabricated concerning other subjects as well and also attributed falsely to Muhammad. How will one decide which are authentic and which are spurious?

Muhammad, the Qur'an, feminism and misogyny

The bottom line is that Muhammad is held to be the guarantor of equality for women, who would never do or say a misogynist thing. The Qur'an is held up and extolled for its insistence on the equality of Muslim men and Muslim women. Islam, we are told, was the first feminist religion and Muhammad the first feminist. It is only the un-Islamic accretions over time that have robbed Islam of its revolutionary feminist impact.

Needless to say, this argument falls apart if you look at it closely. Take the Qur'an. There are some verses on the equality of male and female believers, that both will have their reward in heaven. (These are most of the verses I could find; some other verses may be taken as extolling equality between male and female believers.)

(9:71) "The Believers, men and women, are protectors one of another: they enjoin what is just, and forbid what is evil: they observe regular prayers, practice regular charity, and obey Allah and His Apostle. On them will Allah pour His mercy: for Allah is Exalted in power, Wise."

(9:72) "Allah has promised to Believers, men and women, gardens under which rivers flow, to dwell therein, and beautiful mansions in gardens of everlasting bliss. But the greatest bliss is the good pleasure of Allah: that is the supreme felicity."

(33:35) "For Muslim men and women, for believing men and women, for devout men and women, for true men and women, for men and women who are patient and constant, for men and women who humble themselves, for men and women who give in charity, for men and women who fast (and deny themselves), for men and women who guard their chastity, and for men and women who engage much in God's praise, for them has God prepared forgiveness and great reward."

(48:5) "That He may admit the men and women who believe, to Gardens beneath which rivers flow, to dwell therein forever, and remove their ills from them; and that is, in the sight of Allah, the highest achievement."

(57:12) "One day you shall see the believing men and the believing women--how their Light runs forward before them and by their right hands: (their greeting will be): "Good News for you this Day! Gardens beneath which flow rivers, to
dwell therein forever! This is indeed the highest Achievement!"

(57:18) "For those who give in charity, men and women, and loan to Allah a beautiful loan, it shall be increased manifold (to their credit), and they shall have (besides) a liberal reward."

Even male and female hypocrites and unbelievers will be treated equally in the afterlife (i.e. they will all burn in hell):

(9:67) "The Hypocrites, men and women, (have an understanding) with each other: They enjoin evil, and forbid what is just, and are close with their hands. They have forgotten Allah; so He has forgotten them. Verily the Hypocrites are rebellious and perverse."

(9:68) "Allah has promised the Hypocrites, men and women, and the rejecters of Faith the fire of Hell; therein shall they dwell. Sufficient is it for them; for them is the curse of Allah, and an enduring punishment."

(48:6) "And that He may punish the Hypocrites, men and women, and the Polytheists men and women, who imagine an evil opinion of Allah. On them is a round of Evil: the Wrath of Allah is on them; He has cursed them and got Hell ready for them, and evil is it for a destination."

The problem is that this promise of equality is undercut by other verses that presuppose a different situation on earth,

Limiting women to half the inheritance of men:
(4:11) "Allah (thus) directs you as regards your children's (inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females."

Two female witnesses in place of one male:
(2:282) "...Get two witnesses, out of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as you choose, for witnesses, so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her."

Women's menstrual periods are unclean (they cannot pray, fast or read the Qur'an according to Islam):
(2:222) "They ask thee concerning women's courses. Say: They are a hurt and a pollution. So keep away from women in their courses, and do not approach them until they are clean."

The commandment for women to cover themselves:
(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."

(33:59) "O Prophet! Tell your 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."

The commandment for women to stay in their homes:
(33:33) "And stay quietly in your houses, and make not a dazzling display, like that of the former Times of Ignorance; and establish regular Prayer, and give regular Charity; and obey Allah and His Apostle. And Allah only wishes to remove all abomination from you, you members of the Family, and to make you pure and spotless.
(33:34) And recite what is rehearsed to you in your homes, of the Signs of Allah and His Wisdom: for Allah understands the finest mysteries and is well-acquainted (with them)."

(Note: although these verses are ostensibly directed towards the wives of Muhammad, they have typically been applied to all women.)

Polygamy,
(4:3) "Marry women of your choice, two or three or four."

Inequality:
(2:228) "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 the most infamous of all,
(4:34) "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 God would have them guard. As to those women on whose part you 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)."

(Note: the word "lightly" is a gloss; it is not in the original text.)

In addition, when discussing marriage and divorce, the text is always addressed to the men (as in "When you divorce women..." (65:1) and never to the woman, who is a third party. The text does not say what reasons the man has to have to divorce his wife, but the woman does not seem to have the same right. Although the dowry that the man gives the wife at marriage is hers to keep, except in cases of "open lewdness" (4:19) or "when both parties fear that they would be unable to keep the limits ordained by Allah. If you (judges) do indeed fear that they would be unable to keep the limits ordained by Allah, there is no blame on either of them if she give something for her freedom." (2:229) And so it is in shari'ah that when the wife wants a divorce and the man consents to divorce her, she is supposed to give back her dowry. Not very equal, especially since the woman may or may not have any other money than the dowry, since by Islamic law the man is supposed to support his wife. In fairness, the text does say "Live with them (your wives) on a footing of kindness and equity" (4:19) but after all of the above, what does that really mean?

Would you consider a document to be feminist if it included cutting remarks about women (43:18) "Is then one brought up among trinkets, and unable to give a clear account in a dispute (to be associated with Allah)?"--which clearly refers to women in context), as well as all the remarks above? Or would you consider it to be, shall we say, somewhat flawed in its depiction of feminism?

Dealing with misogyny in the Qur'an

Muslim feminists will say that these verses were only meant to apply to certain times, sometimes only to certain people, and do not hold today, or else that these verses are to be interpreted in a very different manner than their literal sense would indicate. But unfortunately 1300 years of tafsir (Qur'anic commentary) has indeed seen these verses in the literal sense. Also, it brings up once again the question of abrogation. Which verses are applicable to which people at which times? If the Qur'an is a document for all times and all places, how can one decide? Traditionally the matter was decided by looking at the hadiths and sira (accounts of the life of Muhammad) to find out the circumstances of each verse's revelation. But as we saw above, these have been called into question as well. In the end, the main problem is that the Qur'an is the very words of Allah Himself, dictated to Muhammad by the angel Gabriel, and so there is no way to get around the fact of these verses being divine, perfect, and without error. You cannot claim that, for example, Muhammad wrote in the Qur'an his own opinions which are not actually from Allah and which in any case no longer apply, the way you might with the Bible, in Paul's letters where he preaches submission of the woman to her husband in the early Christian community. No, every jot and tittle is from Allah Himself, and therefore must be dealt with somehow.

Anachronisms

But another enormous problem with this whole concept is the grossly anachronistic attribution of 20th and 21st century notions of feminist to a 7th century figure, Muhammad. Are we to believe that Muhammad felt and thought exactly the way modern-day feminists do? Too much of Muslim feminist writing feels like a desperate attempt to push Muhammad and the Qur'an into a feminist mold that doesn't suit either one of them, as if saying that Islam is feminist will make it so and magically clear away 1400 years of tradition from the minds of Muslims.

To be fair, everyone alive today cannot really break through their own time-limited mindset, but then why should that not have been true of Muhammad and the early Muslims? They were not gods, they could not look into the future 1400 years down the line. And even if they could, that does not mean that they would approve. But the idea that Islam does not change is deeply held, so it is important to see any "innovation" as dating back to the Prophet himself, as part of the "original" Islam, and that what one does not like is a later "addition" or "corruption."

Problems for feminism

Why is it so hard to criticize Muhammad and the Qur'an directly? Islam is not just a religion, it is an identity. To reject the religion, you also reject the identity, to a large extent. Many Muslim cultures would not exist without Islam, at least not in anything resembling their present forms. Not to mention the social ostracism and perhaps death threats, especially with fundamentalism resurgent.

All this leads to a rather depressing situation when it comes to Muslim feminism. Using Islamic sources often has the effect of playing right into the fundamentalists' hands, since they know everything about Qur'an, Hadith and Sunnah and can refute them easily. On the other hand, a secularist approach often alienates people, who fear that Islam is being attacked.

Conclusion: Some progress is being made

The more I read about Muslim feminism, the more I am convinced that ideology is a dead end. I think it is more important to change the facts on the ground than to directly change the ideology, which will come later. What does it matter if the Muslim fundamentalists proclaim their concern about women when women are under the complete control of the male members of their family? It is more important for the facts on the ground to change. Many Muslim girls and women do not wear the hijab at all. When asked, they will sometimes acknowledge that they "should" be doing it, but are too lazy or unwilling to do so. Perhaps if this continues, they will stop feeling guilty and will insist that they can wear it or not, depending on what they feel is right.

A hundred years ago, most Muslim women were secluded and veiled, illiterate and married off at an early age to men they had never met, often to be one of four wives. Today the situation has changed considerably. Most women (outside of Arabia) do not veil and in most Muslim countries are free to wear the headscarf or not, without getting beaten up by the mutawas. Many work, frequently out of necessity, but they are earning their own money. Illiteracy is still too high, but much better than it was. The harem has become the stuff of legend, not a real living institution. And, from my own experience and what I have read, few women will tolerate polygamy.

Perhaps things will change in the next hundred years, so that the present troubles of Muslim women will be seen as a past disgrace, instead of being common, ongoing and oft-defended.

2003-02-24T22:03:00.000-08:00

Polygamy According To Shari'ah
Part 2 of an ongoing series on polygamy and Islam

A man is allowed up to four wives.

He does not need the permission of previous wives to enter into a new marriage.

He should treat them all equally, and should rotate his nights among them so that each gets the same amount of time.

Each wife has the right to food, clothing, shelter, and maintenance, and this should be the same for each wife. Each should be given her own separate house or a separate apartment for her and her children to live in, so as to minimize conflict and jealousy.

Admittedly, the Qur'an does mention that treating all wives equally is not possible, but it is up to the husband to decide if he is treating his wives equally -- he has full authority over his family. If one or more of the wives complains, he should take that into account, but there is no court that will order him to treat them better, although the wife or wives may get male family members to talk to the husband on her behalf.

He should not treat the children of one wife better than those of another wife.

Concubines (female slaves) are not considered to be wives, and they do not count towards the four-wife limit (for example, the hundreds of concubines of the Turkish sultan). A man may have as many as he wants, and they have no rights over him other than to be minimally fed, clothed, and sheltered. The children of a concubine are considered to be as legitimate as those from a legal wife, and at the death of her master an umm walad, a slave who has borne her master a child, becomes free.

2003-02-24T21:36:00.000-08:00

What Would Reform Islam Look Like?

Based on the model of Reform Judaism, I would expect the following:

* Abandonment of Shari'ah, or at least complete and total re-interpretation, with the added caveat that much of it is symbolic, and what really matters is the thought behind it
* Prayers in any language, not just Arabic, and wider use of translations of the Qur'an (no more memorization of Qur'an in Arabic for non-Arabic speakers)
* Separation of religion and state
* More openness to non-Muslims, their beliefs and their ways of life (no more "Don't do it because the Jews/Christians/unbelievers do it")
* More private and emotional, rather than legalistic
* Recognition that, although Muhammad and his companions were "the best of Muslims," the world has changed and their ways of doing things may not be appropriate to this day and age
* Complete equality for women, no more separation of men and women, same rights as men in all aspects of life

Now, would this be Islam? That is what I ask myself!

What is Islam, anyway? Some Muslims insist that certain Muslim countries with rather barbaric practices "are not practicing true Islam." Well, what is True Islam? And who gets to define it? The 'ulama? The sheikh of Al-Azhar University in Cairo? The Ayatollah (for Shi'ites)? The mass of scholarly opinion over the centuries? Muslims themselves? Which ones? The ones that make the most noise? The ones that called for Salman Rushdie's head on a platter for apostasizing from Islam? Islamic Studies professors, most of whom aren't even Muslim? Who?

2003-02-24T21:20:00.000-08:00

Can Islam Be Reformed?

The problem is that most calls for reform of Islam come from non-Muslims,
and you can guess how well Muslims take to infidels telling them that their
religion sucks and how they think it should be. More likely, they will insist
that Islam needs no reformation (a theme I've heard in a couple of Friday
sermons myself) and that it is perfect, complete, the clear will of Allah valid
for all times and all places ("This day I have perfected your religion for
you, completed my favor upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your
religion" (5:3, supposedly the last verse in the Qur'an to be revealed). And
don't worry about what those infidels think ("fear them not, but fear Me") --
the only important thing is what Allah will think of you on the Day of
Judgement, when he will ask if you submitted yourself to his will as
recorded in Qur'an, Sunnah, and Shari'ah, or whether you went off to follow
the godless ways of the unbelievers.

Add to this the fact that Islam is not just a mere religion as Christianity or
Buddhism is, it is, as frequently stated, "a complete way of life," with no
separation between the sacred and secular, between government and
religion ("you can praise Allah by the way you cut your fingernails, if it is in
the manner prescribed by Islam") and you can see how Western notions of
separation of religion and state are totally foreign to Islam. Islam
absolutely pervades the lives of Muslims in a way that Christianity simply
does not in the lives of Christians. Muslims are supposed to give their
highest allegiance to Islam, not to a particular race or country. Throughout
Islamic history, the point of jihad was not so much to get people to convert
to Islam (and many countries so conquered did not become majority
Muslim for hundreds of years, and besides contributed plenty of money
through jizya), but to make the Shari'ah the law of the land. For any
Muslim, the test of whether a land was civilized and part of the Dar al-Islam
was whether it was under Shari'ah. According to most scholars, it was
forbidden for a Muslim to live under non-Muslim (i.e. non-Shari'ah) rule.
Shari'ah and Islam have historically been practically one and the same, at
least until recently.

Another problem with reform is that the people who do know the most
about Islam are typically the most fanatical, and can easily demolish their
more Westernized, more ignorant co-religionists. And being in the Dar
al-Harb and all its temptations sometimes leads to a greater clinging to
Islam than would be the case in a majority Muslim country. And many
Muslims who move to the US simply stop practicing Islam altogether, or
become apostates, so they aren't much help in reforming.

Judaism dealt with this problem by having no real worldly authority for
2,000 years, forcing it to figure out a way to fit Halakha (Jewish law) with
non-Jewish government. I don't know what it will take for Islam to figure
out this problem.

2003-02-11T21:54:00.000-08:00

Depressing Thought

Today was Eid al-Adha, and as usual the local mosque had a big Eid prayer. The speech given by the imam proved to be pretty depressing. The poor man, in the course of mentioning how we should support Muslims around the world, was reduced to saying "We are not the enemies of the United States," and "We came to this country for freedom," which made me realize that when you have to say something like that out loud, you're already toast in the eyes of quite a few people. I don't know--it just seems that the opinion of Islam has gone into the toilet in the past year (though admittedly for quite understandable reasons!). There seems to be much more hostility than there was even six months ago.

Now, 1) it could be good that people know what they're up against, 2) people are tired of being lied to by apologists, 3) people have found out all about the unsavory aspects of Islam and don't like what they see. However, 1) God knows how any of this will end up, 2) I pray it doesn't get too ugly!

I keep getting the feeling that something's going to happen, and I don't know what it will be or how it will turn out.

2003-02-09T21:56:00.000-08:00

Fun with Polygamy

How many Muslim dawah sites have you seen that extol the virtues of polygamy? Here's an example:

Polygyny: A Blessing in Disguise

(Zawaj.com's editorials are some of my favorite articles to read by Muslim women. They are only matched by those of Shariffa Carlo--some of which are posted there!--and, unfortunately, those of plenty of other women in their breathtaking divorcement from anything resembling reality, as well as the Orwellian embrace of slavery as freedom.)

View with horror the breathtaking insanity on display here! The attitude in this article is contradicted by any number of accounts and anyone who happens to know Arab women: the most feared event is the husband taking another wife, which the women will go to any lengths to avoid, even up to and including murder (and some of them will do it, too!) Admittedly, the practice has become much less common to the point of being almost unheard of, since most men just don't have the money (spent by their enterprising wives), not to mention the fact that few wives will stand for it. Still, it is not uncommon in some places (Saudi Arabia the most infamous, but there are others) and is technically legal virtually everywhere in the Muslim world except for Turkey and Tunisia.

I'll come back to this subject in more detail later.

2003-02-09T21:39:00.000-08:00

Hello. This is my blog.