There is a tremendous amount of Islamophobia out there. A lot of it is a result of genuine racism, vicious xenophobia, political posturing and regular good-old mean spirited people. But some of it is also avoidable if some Muslims do not carry on living like extreme idiots in some cases, and like racist bigoted hateful people who just use Islam to cover up for their evil spirits with a facade that tricks simple-minded Muslims as much as it confuses many non-Muslims in a way that make islamophobia more tolerated.
Showing posts with label Modernization in Islam. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Modernization in Islam. Show all posts
Monday, June 6, 2011
Saturday, December 18, 2010
Moderate Muslims: I know they exist. Why don't we feel they do?
Muslims realize that moderate forces in Islam are alive. But to non-Muslims, that does not seem believable, except a small minority that is highly educated about the Middle East, usually for academic purposes. The majority, by far, and no matter what their intentions are, seems to be unaware of the moderates in Islam and how much effort they are exercising to battle the vocal tide of ignorance and extremism among their coreligionists.
My last posting was about an agnostic Jewish writer/journalist talking about the Quran in a genuine, kind, and in my opinion accurate, way – a rarity in these days. The video triggered a series of comments back and forth between me and Michael W. My comments on Michael's comments tend to get long, and this post started as one of those comments.
- Michael said: "A lot of reactionary commentators have sprung up since 9/11. I'm sure most of them have never read a word from the Quran before 9/11. "
The reactionary response after September 11 is evident. But for many commentators, September 11 just made it easier to express the hate they had for Arabs and Muslims. Such hateful sentiments became more accepted in the Muslim-bashing culture that prevailed since then, usually under the guise of patriotism and the defense of 'Judeo-Christian' civilization etc. The hate has always been there, but expressing it just became more popular and usually meant more business, book sales, talk show interviews, even think-tank appointments, etc.
Most of the commentators have not read much of the Quran before September 11. But they have not read much since then either, except the 5 or 6 word-quotations from selected verses. That material is not just out of context, it is simply wrong because in most cases it is not even the complete sentences, leaving behind phrases that qualify, constrain, and sometimes reverse the meaning of the 'amputated' quote they use. This is done intentionally to mislead the reader. The context is usually totally evident within 2-3 lines before and after the selected text. Ill-intent is obvious, but it resonates with current angry sentiments, the sentiments that sees evil in anything Islamic.
Another major factor that is undeniable is the 'Israel factor'. Israeli propaganda machinery had a feast with what happened in September 11. The vast majority of the hateful anti-Arab and anti-Muslim newspapers, websites, so-called think tanks, politicians and pseudo-academics are openly in bed with the pro-Israel groups - be those Christian, Jewish and secular. The political utility of September 11 to Israel has been very well used by the Israeli hasbara in the US and to some extent in Europe. That machinery is deeply intertwined with American institutions. The American Enterprise Institute ( and its collection of ex-Muslims and so-called 'Muslim modernizers'), the Clarion fund and it series of malicious docu-propaganda movies, and even main stream media outlets like Fox, Wall Street Journal and Op-Ed pages of the New York Times, are just a few obvious examples.
So, the question would be: "Why Arabs and Muslim thinkers are not reaching to the West?"
That is a complicated question, but a major reason is that Arabs and Muslims are still "local people" for the most. They are "local" in the sense that what they do in their homelands (Middle East, Indian subcontinent, etc) is primarily targeting their local audience. They do not care much about translating their work, or reaching out to the more powerful West. So the portrayal of their intellectual products in the West and in the international media is subject to what Westerners and Western Media SELECTS to portray.
Your statement that there is "an appearance of not much debate" is worded VERY accurately. It is just "an appearance". For those who make the effort to find out what really is happening in the Arab and Muslim worlds, they end up finding the truth. The debate over there is more prevalent and intense that most of us want to believe in the West.
Arab and Muslim thinkers and debaters know that their real 'intellectual battle' is where they live , i.e., in the Islamic world, and they do not have the means, the connections, networking skill or the money to engage the Western powers of the worlds and their public to enlighten them. I can testify that the amount of Arabic books, papers, article and blogs that are being published and circulated with revolutionary thoughts on Islamic history, religious thought, interpretation of the Quran, critiques of early Islamic States and political Islam is beyond what I personally can keep up with.
NONE of that is ever going to make it to the world stage; because it is not useful for the kind of fake public debate (or lack of debate) we are having in the US for example, about political/radical Islam, terrorism, American foreign policy, Israeli Palestinian conflict or the 'inevitable' clash of civilizations.
And with organizations like MEMRI (and I assume you know, or can find out, about MEMRI and who founded it), only the 'useful selected parts' of what goes on in the Arab media will be accessible to our media pundits (or clowns as I like to call them) from the comfort of their armchairs.
The pressure is intense to keep the appearance of Arabs and Muslims in such a way to make it easy to maintain our current foreign and military Policy from being changed. un-American or simply labeled as 'self-hating Muslim-lovers'. We can recall people who lost careers and jobs for not toeing the 'Islam is scary' line.
- "The basic culture of how things are run, the Arab autocrats, prevents alternatives to fundamentalist interpretations from joining the market place of ideas.", Michael wrote.
You are absolutely correct again, and these autocrats are the one we are supporting against their own people, because they are useful collaborators in maintaining things the way we want it. They are OUR useful idiots. And then we wonder why their oppressed people (secular and religious) do not like us!
- "In Israel, when rabbis say racist things, the Israeli media goes full throttle, and the PM and President denounce the rabbis. But even this raises the concern of many (in Israel and abroad, especially among Jews) about the state of Israeli society. "
I agree with you on the media coverage part (and, by the way, that also happens in the Arab and Muslim world but we do not read it in English). Unfortunately, the bottom line does not change: the occupation, the racism, the land confiscation, the funding of Jewish extremists, the land grab, the settlements, the loyalty oath, the ever strengthening calls not to rent or deal with Arabs, the spewing of hate, the inequality in the justice system against Arabs, the minimal and sometimes no consequences for injuring or killing Palestinians, the glorification of fanatics and terrorists like Meir Kahane, Baruch Goldstein and Igal Amir and the likes; all that still goes on unabated. I am not going to provide examples because you and anyone that followed Israeli Media and even British media (and sites like MondoWeiss, Tikun Olams and others) know they are littered with examples.
The ever increasing political clout in Israel of the clowns of the Jewish Religious extreme, and the Russian Israeli supremacists and Nazi-like ideologue, as well as the near death of the Israeli Left and liberal movements should be worrying to Israelis and Jews with level heads, and it is. But their worries are not slowing the process, and soon the moderate democratic Jews will be crushed by their own extremists as much as those Jewish extremist are crushing the unlucky Arabs and Palestinians under their control.
And the ever increasing clout in the US and Western Europe of Messianic Christians, Zionist Christians, and Neoconservatives and Ultra right-wing politicians should be equally scary to us in the West as well. Unfortunately the majority seems not to care and many actually do not mind it at all. It seems to them patriotic and - deluded as it may be - the fulfillment of 'manifest destiny' dreams, and as a step towards establishing what they see as the rule of the exceptional empire.
Our media can say what it wants here, but the ongoing practices are not changing. This is what seems like a design flaw in democracy and free societies for which there is no solution.
To conclude this 'comment on a comment' is lengthy. But I think the issue at hand is not simple. In the past, liberal and progressive forces could develop gradually over decades in relative protection of distant places, and frequently they even got help from other world forces and super powers infrequently love for freedom and progress, or – more often than not – just to spite another superpower.
That 'freedom to evolve' is NOT the case anymore. Liberal and progressive Arabs and Muslims, religious or secular, are facing almost insurmountable odds. With only one superpower that has full monopoly over banking, media, the Internet, communication lines and that is colluding with the local dictators, religious and secular, because it is suits its domestic, foreign and economic policies. How could anyone evolve in such climate unless they totally submit to the one and only superpower? And that would treason to their own causes, and a lethal blow to their 'local' credibility.
How can a new liberal or progressive culture ever emerge in that environment?
Khaled
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Repealing 800 Year-Old Fatwa? Why Even Bother?
During the last week of March 2010, a group of senior Muslim clerics gathered in a small town in Turkey to discuss an interesting issue: modernization of some old religious rulings (Fatwas) that do not seem to make sense in modern times.
The major Fatwa in focus this time was an 800 year-old Fatwa, issued by Ibn Taymiyya (1263–1328 AD). That Fatwa is understood by modern-day militants as justifying fighting not only against oppressors and occupiers of Muslim land, but also against other Muslims perceived not to be in line with the militants’ point of view.
The media blurb about the conference was that it called for ‘repealing the fatwa’. In actuality, the call was a lot milder than that. It just called to try to understand the fatwa in their historic context – 800 years ago, when the Muslims world was at a war with the Mongol Empire army (1206-1368). The edict is apparently used by some fundamental militants to justify religiously sanctioned war against others: Muslims and non-Muslims.
While the idea behind the conference is not inherently bad, I think such efforts are useless and are a total waste of time and here are my reasons.
Any idiot that thinks a 13th -century fatwa regulating conduct of war is valid today - in a very different context - will not listen to a conference press release from some modern-day clergies. Ibn Taymiyya is a semi-divine figure for the Wahhabi and Salafi militants, and is also treated as infallible by many traditionalists.
The idea of repealing one of his Fatwas, or even contextualizing it, is almost blasphemous to them. Traditionalists can see God only through the ancient thinkers eyes. Any attempt to change that mounts to creating a novel and erroneous religion for them. This is a result of intellectual cowardice that many modern clergy have, failing to express any tendency to critically appraise old religious conclusions, regardless of how silly they may be. Their logic frequently is: if it survived the test of times, it must be correct.
An example of such intellectual cowardice shows in one of the conference participating ‘scholars’ who was already on the defense stating that the original Fatwa (i.e., Ibn Taymiyya’s opinion) was not wrong, and that the militant interpretation of it was rather a result typographical error that lead to the misunderstanding; and that the conference was not reviewing the fatwa in the light of a differing or opposing opinion to Ibn Taymiyya [God forbids!!], but rather authenticating the initial intent of the fatwa using Ibn Taymiyya’s own work.
The fault is obviously not with Ibn Taymiyya, who was a brilliant jurist and a scholar that factored in the realities of his own world when he made his Fatwas. I do not think he could have imagined that, eight centuries later, someone would consider him so infallible that he is above criticism or review.
The problems we face as Muslims today are not only because of Ibn Taymiya’s edicts. It is because of the stupid glorification and sainthood we cast on anything in our Islamic history and intellectual products once it is old enough.
Early scholars are not great because they are now historic. They excelled because they considered their own realities as much as they considered the context of their predecessors’ work. Until we have the intelligence and intellectual courage to openly critique, oppose and even reverse some of the earlier edicts and conclusions when needed, we will continue to be intellectually subservient to the rest of the world.
Even worse, we frequently are the laughing stock for anyone with some intelligence that looks deep enough in some of our books. Take for example some Fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) books that still list counting chest wall ribs as a possible way (albeit a minority opinion) in deciding if a hermaphrodite is a male or female, for inheritance purposes.
Something is wrong with a culture that does not throw in the trash ancient statements like that. We cannot even make the bold decision to stop listing stupid opinions as minority opinion out of respect for earlier scholars? Having been reading about earlier scholars, I am certain they would have been the first to throw away their ridiculous conclusions once they came across facts that proved them wrong. That is why they are scholars. And that is why I admire them despite realizing some of their wrong conclusions.
Here is another example. Some Salafi and Wahabi ‘scholars’ are still writing books denying that planet Earth moves, and contemplating the labeling for a Muslim who says it does: are they kafir or murtad, and what punishment they deserve for believing that planet Earth rotates!!! One of those ‘scholars’ was the Chairman of the Saudi Religious Edict Council Abdel-Aziz Bin Baz (died 1999), another semi-divine figure to many Salafis. A book of interest is still in print labeled ‘Textual and sensory evidence that the Sun moves and the Earth does not’. In case you want to research it further, the title in Arabic is:
How stupid should one be to realize that ‘ancient textual’ and ‘subjective sensory' evidence have no place in science, medicine or astronomy? For those who can understand Arabic, check the web page to laugh at the good luck that makes that man a religious authority for some Muslims.
People like Bin Baz could be knowledgeable in other areas, but they are so detached from the World that their conclusions are not trustworthy in any case where interaction with the real world seems needed.
They feel that their ‘textual knowledge’ of ancient Islamic work should be enough to enable them to make judgment about any and everything ranging from medicine, biology and all the way to physics and astronomy. And seeing how stupid their opinions are on objective physical sciences, one can only imagine the intellectual swamps we get in when they talk about less objective arenas such as politics or social issues.
Do we even realize how many brilliant young Muslim minds we alienate, and eventually lose, by keeping this sort of mental trash as part of the 'religious' culture?
The real goal should not be repealing a Fatwa, but rather collective effort to change the mindset of current Muslim culture.
It will take more courage to face the real issues head on. In a generation or two, we may be able to enlighten some of the ignorant idiots, neutralize some of the militants, but more importantly, we would be able to evolve into people of intellect, the kind of people God is addressing in the Quran all the time.
Khaled
The major Fatwa in focus this time was an 800 year-old Fatwa, issued by Ibn Taymiyya (1263–1328 AD). That Fatwa is understood by modern-day militants as justifying fighting not only against oppressors and occupiers of Muslim land, but also against other Muslims perceived not to be in line with the militants’ point of view.
The media blurb about the conference was that it called for ‘repealing the fatwa’. In actuality, the call was a lot milder than that. It just called to try to understand the fatwa in their historic context – 800 years ago, when the Muslims world was at a war with the Mongol Empire army (1206-1368). The edict is apparently used by some fundamental militants to justify religiously sanctioned war against others: Muslims and non-Muslims.
While the idea behind the conference is not inherently bad, I think such efforts are useless and are a total waste of time and here are my reasons.
Any idiot that thinks a 13th -century fatwa regulating conduct of war is valid today - in a very different context - will not listen to a conference press release from some modern-day clergies. Ibn Taymiyya is a semi-divine figure for the Wahhabi and Salafi militants, and is also treated as infallible by many traditionalists.
The idea of repealing one of his Fatwas, or even contextualizing it, is almost blasphemous to them. Traditionalists can see God only through the ancient thinkers eyes. Any attempt to change that mounts to creating a novel and erroneous religion for them. This is a result of intellectual cowardice that many modern clergy have, failing to express any tendency to critically appraise old religious conclusions, regardless of how silly they may be. Their logic frequently is: if it survived the test of times, it must be correct.
An example of such intellectual cowardice shows in one of the conference participating ‘scholars’ who was already on the defense stating that the original Fatwa (i.e., Ibn Taymiyya’s opinion) was not wrong, and that the militant interpretation of it was rather a result typographical error that lead to the misunderstanding; and that the conference was not reviewing the fatwa in the light of a differing or opposing opinion to Ibn Taymiyya [God forbids!!], but rather authenticating the initial intent of the fatwa using Ibn Taymiyya’s own work.
The fault is obviously not with Ibn Taymiyya, who was a brilliant jurist and a scholar that factored in the realities of his own world when he made his Fatwas. I do not think he could have imagined that, eight centuries later, someone would consider him so infallible that he is above criticism or review.
The problems we face as Muslims today are not only because of Ibn Taymiya’s edicts. It is because of the stupid glorification and sainthood we cast on anything in our Islamic history and intellectual products once it is old enough.
Early scholars are not great because they are now historic. They excelled because they considered their own realities as much as they considered the context of their predecessors’ work. Until we have the intelligence and intellectual courage to openly critique, oppose and even reverse some of the earlier edicts and conclusions when needed, we will continue to be intellectually subservient to the rest of the world.
Even worse, we frequently are the laughing stock for anyone with some intelligence that looks deep enough in some of our books. Take for example some Fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) books that still list counting chest wall ribs as a possible way (albeit a minority opinion) in deciding if a hermaphrodite is a male or female, for inheritance purposes.
Something is wrong with a culture that does not throw in the trash ancient statements like that. We cannot even make the bold decision to stop listing stupid opinions as minority opinion out of respect for earlier scholars? Having been reading about earlier scholars, I am certain they would have been the first to throw away their ridiculous conclusions once they came across facts that proved them wrong. That is why they are scholars. And that is why I admire them despite realizing some of their wrong conclusions.
Here is another example. Some Salafi and Wahabi ‘scholars’ are still writing books denying that planet Earth moves, and contemplating the labeling for a Muslim who says it does: are they kafir or murtad, and what punishment they deserve for believing that planet Earth rotates!!! One of those ‘scholars’ was the Chairman of the Saudi Religious Edict Council Abdel-Aziz Bin Baz (died 1999), another semi-divine figure to many Salafis. A book of interest is still in print labeled ‘Textual and sensory evidence that the Sun moves and the Earth does not’. In case you want to research it further, the title in Arabic is:
How stupid should one be to realize that ‘ancient textual’ and ‘subjective sensory' evidence have no place in science, medicine or astronomy? For those who can understand Arabic, check the web page to laugh at the good luck that makes that man a religious authority for some Muslims.
People like Bin Baz could be knowledgeable in other areas, but they are so detached from the World that their conclusions are not trustworthy in any case where interaction with the real world seems needed.
They feel that their ‘textual knowledge’ of ancient Islamic work should be enough to enable them to make judgment about any and everything ranging from medicine, biology and all the way to physics and astronomy. And seeing how stupid their opinions are on objective physical sciences, one can only imagine the intellectual swamps we get in when they talk about less objective arenas such as politics or social issues.
Do we even realize how many brilliant young Muslim minds we alienate, and eventually lose, by keeping this sort of mental trash as part of the 'religious' culture?
The real goal should not be repealing a Fatwa, but rather collective effort to change the mindset of current Muslim culture.
It will take more courage to face the real issues head on. In a generation or two, we may be able to enlighten some of the ignorant idiots, neutralize some of the militants, but more importantly, we would be able to evolve into people of intellect, the kind of people God is addressing in the Quran all the time.
"Verily, in the creation of the heavens and of the earth, and the succession of night and day: and in the ships that speed through the sea with what is useful to man: and in the waters which God sends down from the sky, giving life thereby to the earth after it had been lifeless, and causing all manner of living creatures to multiply thereon: and in the change of the winds, and the clouds that run their appointed courses between sky and earth: [in all this] there are messages indeed for people who use their reason." (2:164)
Links of relevance (some are in Arabic):
"لا يجوز لجماعة مسلمة إعلان الحرب من تلقاء نفسها"
Mardin anti-terror conference sparks debate over fatwas
International Conference on Ibn Taymiyah's "Mardin Fatwa" held in the Turkish City of Mardin | IslamToday - English
ابن باز وكروية الأرض
قضية دوران الارض ما بين التفسير الديني و التفسير العلمي .... نقاش مفتوح - الصفحة 3 - ملتقى المهندسين العرب - أول ملتقى هندسي عربي
تحريم القول بدوران الكرة الارضية
Saturday, April 18, 2009
The phenomenon of Alternative-Islam: Was Islam revealed just to cover womens' hair?
This is a translation for an article published in Arabic in Al-Dustur Egyptian newspaper in July of last year. In this posting, I explain why I am translating it with some information and links about the author, a renowned Egyptian writer.
The phrases in square brackets are my own, and are meant to add some clarification of cultural of historic background where I deemed some clarification may provide context. In some instances non-literal translation was need to convey the meaning of the Arabic text more accurately.
The article, in Arabic can be found on many websites including the author's blog, here:
Last year [Egypt’s Culture] Minister Farooq Hosni attacked hijab tradition. Members of the [ruling] National Party stood up to him defending hijab and the women wearing it. One of them was as zealous in his defense as to accuse the minister of transgressing against Islam, seconds before passing out of extreme emotional distress.
I found myself asking ‘why, if the representative of the ruling party are so concerned about violating Islam, would not have they had some worries about rigging the elections, detaining, torturing and sexually assaulting innocent citizens [by government agents], and about pilfering public funds dedicated to help Egyptians, or about impoverishing their citizens and about all the other crimes that the ruling regime they represent commits, and that is in no way consistent with the principles of Islam.
It is well known that many of the ‘State Security officers’ are religious; performing the daily prayers on time, fasting Ramadan, and performing pilgrimage to Mecca. But that never stops them from performing their daily duties that includes torturing, beating, and electrocuting detainees. I happened know of an in-law relative of mine who is an eminent political government figure, well-known for his role in rigging elections, and violating the independence of the Judiciary. Still, he is known in his family circles for his deep religiosity to the extent that he holds classes teaching Islamic jurisprudence [fiqh] to his relatives.
There are numerous examples of Egyptians that are meticulous in performing religious rituals, but in their everyday life they behave in a way that is as distant as can be from religion. Last Ramdan [the Muslim fasting month], Al-Masri newspaper published an excellent report about public hospitals after sunset time [Islamic end-of-fast time in Ramadan]. The report revealed that most [in house] physicians left their posts and patients without care in order to attend the [religiously optional] taraweeh prayers.
Those that committed such a deed are not ignorant people. They are educated physicians who, to put it simply, considered an optional prayer of taraweeh much more important than providing care for patients even if their lives were at risk.
The issue then is not that of hypocrisy or ignorance. It is an issue of corrupt perception of what religion is about which leads to some kind of superficial religiosity that becomes an alternative to real religion. That alternative religion is convenient, non-burdensome, and ‘low cost’ as it limits religion to the practice of rituals and to appearances.
[The term ‘alternative Islam’ will be used instead of ‘alternative religion’ from here onwards as the author is specifically talking about Muslims and their religious practices. Khaled]
That is because the defense of the true principles of Islam: justice, freedom and equality, is fraught with danger in Egypt and, with certainty, will lead you to prison, loss of livelihood and loss of [safety in your own] homeland. To the contrary, alternative Islam costs you close to nothing and gives you false sense of security and self satisfaction.
Those who adopt alternative Islam do pray and fast, and greet people with the ‘greeting of Islam’. [Some] force their wives and daughters to wear hijab and niqab, and may even participate in demonstrating against the Danish cartoons or the restriction of wearing hijab in France. They may even write letters to the editor of Al-Ahram [Egypt’s most widely distributed daily newspaper] denouncing ‘skin-baring’ video clips. And with that, they believe that they have fulfilled their religious responsibilities to their satisfaction.
There pay no heed to political issues, and they could not care less about [Egyptian presidency heading for] inheritance [by Mubarak’s son]. Some of them do not even see harm in Egypt being inherited from father [Hosni Mubarak] to son [Jamal Mubarak] as if it were a chicken farm.
Alternative-Muslims do not believe that they basically are entitled to political rights as citizens. And [the lack of] democracy does not bother them. The most they do in that regard is‘pray to God to give us a good leader’. Then they start talking enthusiastically about historic great leaders like Umar Ibn Al-Khattab or Umar Ibn Abdel-Aziz. [These leaders were most known for glorious eras of justice and prosperity in Early Islam. Khaled]
Alternative Islam is a depressing disease that afflicted Egyptians and led them to passiveness and lack of awareness, and made them prone to consenting to oppression and repression.
That was not the nature of Egyptians. And since 1919 and until 1952, the national Egyptian movement, under the leadership of Wafd Party, have engaged in fierce struggle and offered thousand of martyrs to rid Egypt of the British occupation and to establish democracy.
The fact of the matter is that the spread of alternative Islam had many causes. Until the end of the seventies, Egyptians -- both Muslims and Christians – were less interested in religious appearances and more interested in religion’s true principles. Then came [President] Sadat who used religion to tip the political balance against the leftist opposition. Then came the Iranian revolution to pose a serious threat to the Saudi regime, the ally of the Salafi-Wahabi ideology.
And over the following three decades, the Saudi regime spent billions of dollars to spread the Saudi understanding of Islam, which lead naturally to alternative-Islam (and any one that disputes that need only to review to obscene contradiction between appearances and core morals in the Saudi society).
In the Saudi Satellite channels, tens of clergy talk 24 hours a day about the ‘principles of Islam, and not a single one of them would ever mention the right of a citizen to elect the leadership, or mention ‘marshal and emergency laws’ [in effect for decades in most Arab countries. Khaled], or talk about torture and [political] detentions.
The Salafi ideology sets the foundations for alternative-Islam that relieves followers of the consequences of taking a stance on [achieving] justice and freedom.
Some of the ‘modern’ preachers and their followers boast about their success in convincing numerous women to wear hijab. As if the great Islam was revealed from God for [the sole purpose of] covering women’s hair, and not for achieving justice, freedom and equality.
As for the oppressive regime of Egypt, it has always favored the spreading of alternative-Islam because the alternative-Muslim is the ideal citizen for an oppressive ruler; living and dying on the sidelines, always minding his own business, and never resisting the authorities.
[The alternative Muslim] limits his protest to what happens outside Egypt, or to issues that does not disturb the ruling regime such as a new dance performed by Dina, and new dress worn by [the actress] Yusra in one of her movies. In fact, a group of alternative-Muslims are now enthusiastically active in cyberspace collecting signatures for a petition protesting the way the singer Tame Husny, was ‘inappropriately’ staring at the body of the heroine of his new movie.
The regime welcomes without reservations alternative-religiosity because it relieves the regime of responsibility. In the eyes of true Islam, rulers hold the primary responsibility for solving the problems facing their own citizens.
But for the alternative-Muslims, who suffer from poverty and unemployment, holding the rulers accountable will not cross their minds. And the problems they face will be a result of one of two things: either they are not adequately performing their rituals and therefore, God is punishing them, or, the hardship they face is a test from God and as such they should endure patiently and must not object.
The victims of Mubarak regime exceeded in number the casualties of all the wars Egypt fought: victims of trains that burst in flames, ferryboats that sank, apartment buildings that collapsed on residents, and the numerous renal failure and cancer victims of the carcinogenic insecticides approved by [former agriculture minister and prime minister] Yusuf Wali and many others.
In the eyes of true Islam, all those are victims of corruption and oppression, and the rulers are directly responsible for their death and for ruining their families’ lives.
But for alternative-Islam, all these tragedies are just a matter of ‘predestiny’ and nothing more.
In the eyes of alternative Muslims, the victims would have died anyway because their time to die has come. Therefore, there is no point in blaming anyone for their death.
True Islam have empowered early Muslim to rule the world, and to teach mankind civilization, art and science. Alternative-Islam, on the other hand, has led us to all the humility and misery we live in today.
If we want to change our reality we have, before all, to adopt True Islam, and not the façade of alternative religion.
Links:
The phrases in square brackets are my own, and are meant to add some clarification of cultural of historic background where I deemed some clarification may provide context. In some instances non-literal translation was need to convey the meaning of the Arabic text more accurately.
The article, in Arabic can be found on many websites including the author's blog, here:
Translated from Arabic by Khaled Hamid
-------------** Translation begins here **---------------
-------------** Translation begins here **---------------
The phenomenon of Alternative-Islam
Was Islam revealed just to cover womens' hair?
By Alaa Al-Aswany
Was Islam revealed just to cover womens' hair?
By Alaa Al-Aswany
Last year [Egypt’s Culture] Minister Farooq Hosni attacked hijab tradition. Members of the [ruling] National Party stood up to him defending hijab and the women wearing it. One of them was as zealous in his defense as to accuse the minister of transgressing against Islam, seconds before passing out of extreme emotional distress.I found myself asking ‘why, if the representative of the ruling party are so concerned about violating Islam, would not have they had some worries about rigging the elections, detaining, torturing and sexually assaulting innocent citizens [by government agents], and about pilfering public funds dedicated to help Egyptians, or about impoverishing their citizens and about all the other crimes that the ruling regime they represent commits, and that is in no way consistent with the principles of Islam.
It is well known that many of the ‘State Security officers’ are religious; performing the daily prayers on time, fasting Ramadan, and performing pilgrimage to Mecca. But that never stops them from performing their daily duties that includes torturing, beating, and electrocuting detainees. I happened know of an in-law relative of mine who is an eminent political government figure, well-known for his role in rigging elections, and violating the independence of the Judiciary. Still, he is known in his family circles for his deep religiosity to the extent that he holds classes teaching Islamic jurisprudence [fiqh] to his relatives.
There are numerous examples of Egyptians that are meticulous in performing religious rituals, but in their everyday life they behave in a way that is as distant as can be from religion. Last Ramdan [the Muslim fasting month], Al-Masri newspaper published an excellent report about public hospitals after sunset time [Islamic end-of-fast time in Ramadan]. The report revealed that most [in house] physicians left their posts and patients without care in order to attend the [religiously optional] taraweeh prayers.
Those that committed such a deed are not ignorant people. They are educated physicians who, to put it simply, considered an optional prayer of taraweeh much more important than providing care for patients even if their lives were at risk.
The issue then is not that of hypocrisy or ignorance. It is an issue of corrupt perception of what religion is about which leads to some kind of superficial religiosity that becomes an alternative to real religion. That alternative religion is convenient, non-burdensome, and ‘low cost’ as it limits religion to the practice of rituals and to appearances.
[The term ‘alternative Islam’ will be used instead of ‘alternative religion’ from here onwards as the author is specifically talking about Muslims and their religious practices. Khaled]
That is because the defense of the true principles of Islam: justice, freedom and equality, is fraught with danger in Egypt and, with certainty, will lead you to prison, loss of livelihood and loss of [safety in your own] homeland. To the contrary, alternative Islam costs you close to nothing and gives you false sense of security and self satisfaction.
Those who adopt alternative Islam do pray and fast, and greet people with the ‘greeting of Islam’. [Some] force their wives and daughters to wear hijab and niqab, and may even participate in demonstrating against the Danish cartoons or the restriction of wearing hijab in France. They may even write letters to the editor of Al-Ahram [Egypt’s most widely distributed daily newspaper] denouncing ‘skin-baring’ video clips. And with that, they believe that they have fulfilled their religious responsibilities to their satisfaction.
There pay no heed to political issues, and they could not care less about [Egyptian presidency heading for] inheritance [by Mubarak’s son]. Some of them do not even see harm in Egypt being inherited from father [Hosni Mubarak] to son [Jamal Mubarak] as if it were a chicken farm.
Alternative-Muslims do not believe that they basically are entitled to political rights as citizens. And [the lack of] democracy does not bother them. The most they do in that regard is‘pray to God to give us a good leader’. Then they start talking enthusiastically about historic great leaders like Umar Ibn Al-Khattab or Umar Ibn Abdel-Aziz. [These leaders were most known for glorious eras of justice and prosperity in Early Islam. Khaled]
Alternative Islam is a depressing disease that afflicted Egyptians and led them to passiveness and lack of awareness, and made them prone to consenting to oppression and repression.
That was not the nature of Egyptians. And since 1919 and until 1952, the national Egyptian movement, under the leadership of Wafd Party, have engaged in fierce struggle and offered thousand of martyrs to rid Egypt of the British occupation and to establish democracy.
The fact of the matter is that the spread of alternative Islam had many causes. Until the end of the seventies, Egyptians -- both Muslims and Christians – were less interested in religious appearances and more interested in religion’s true principles. Then came [President] Sadat who used religion to tip the political balance against the leftist opposition. Then came the Iranian revolution to pose a serious threat to the Saudi regime, the ally of the Salafi-Wahabi ideology.
And over the following three decades, the Saudi regime spent billions of dollars to spread the Saudi understanding of Islam, which lead naturally to alternative-Islam (and any one that disputes that need only to review to obscene contradiction between appearances and core morals in the Saudi society).
In the Saudi Satellite channels, tens of clergy talk 24 hours a day about the ‘principles of Islam, and not a single one of them would ever mention the right of a citizen to elect the leadership, or mention ‘marshal and emergency laws’ [in effect for decades in most Arab countries. Khaled], or talk about torture and [political] detentions.
The Salafi ideology sets the foundations for alternative-Islam that relieves followers of the consequences of taking a stance on [achieving] justice and freedom.
Some of the ‘modern’ preachers and their followers boast about their success in convincing numerous women to wear hijab. As if the great Islam was revealed from God for [the sole purpose of] covering women’s hair, and not for achieving justice, freedom and equality.
As for the oppressive regime of Egypt, it has always favored the spreading of alternative-Islam because the alternative-Muslim is the ideal citizen for an oppressive ruler; living and dying on the sidelines, always minding his own business, and never resisting the authorities.
[The alternative Muslim] limits his protest to what happens outside Egypt, or to issues that does not disturb the ruling regime such as a new dance performed by Dina, and new dress worn by [the actress] Yusra in one of her movies. In fact, a group of alternative-Muslims are now enthusiastically active in cyberspace collecting signatures for a petition protesting the way the singer Tame Husny, was ‘inappropriately’ staring at the body of the heroine of his new movie.
The regime welcomes without reservations alternative-religiosity because it relieves the regime of responsibility. In the eyes of true Islam, rulers hold the primary responsibility for solving the problems facing their own citizens.
But for the alternative-Muslims, who suffer from poverty and unemployment, holding the rulers accountable will not cross their minds. And the problems they face will be a result of one of two things: either they are not adequately performing their rituals and therefore, God is punishing them, or, the hardship they face is a test from God and as such they should endure patiently and must not object.
The victims of Mubarak regime exceeded in number the casualties of all the wars Egypt fought: victims of trains that burst in flames, ferryboats that sank, apartment buildings that collapsed on residents, and the numerous renal failure and cancer victims of the carcinogenic insecticides approved by [former agriculture minister and prime minister] Yusuf Wali and many others.
In the eyes of true Islam, all those are victims of corruption and oppression, and the rulers are directly responsible for their death and for ruining their families’ lives.
But for alternative-Islam, all these tragedies are just a matter of ‘predestiny’ and nothing more.
In the eyes of alternative Muslims, the victims would have died anyway because their time to die has come. Therefore, there is no point in blaming anyone for their death.
True Islam have empowered early Muslim to rule the world, and to teach mankind civilization, art and science. Alternative-Islam, on the other hand, has led us to all the humility and misery we live in today.
If we want to change our reality we have, before all, to adopt True Islam, and not the façade of alternative religion.
-------------** End of the translation **---------------
KhaledLinks:
Sunday, January 4, 2009
Does Religion have a Stupefying Effect of People?
Religion is a mean for God to open the eyes of its creatures, and enlighten them to what is right and what is wrong. He thus teaches us how to handle injustice and oppression, in the hope that this may lead to more equitable, human and just society. In a nutshell, religion teaches us to be smarter human beings, by learning the rule on how to build good societies.
Every time I approach the Quran it feels that a new window is open for me. Reading about the Prophet and his teachings lead me to one feeling: how great his message was, not in a metaphysical sense, but in a very concrete intellectual sense.
And as I am reading about the history of the early great teachers of Islam and the great scholars that established the different schools of thought, iit is striking how liberal, progressive, intellectual and human these teachers and intellectuals were.
How come then when you look at the outcome of many ultra-religious people these days one cannot help but wonder: why would the same message that lead to the lightning-speed evolution of an enlightened culture and civilization, seem to be a gigantic stupefying factor for so many so-called religious people?
In my previous post I talked about a 'joke of a scholar' in Saudi Arabia who denounced demonstrations supporting Gaza citizens at a time of their ongoing slaughter that claimed 450 Palestinian lives so far (Out of one and a half million people of Gaza, that is equivalent to 90000 in a population the size of Europe or the US).
Now, it is touching closer to home. A friend and a Muslim activist in St. Louis received a stupid email that is more upsetting, and decided to share with me that shameful piece of nonsense:
If you think religion has enlighten or educated these people, you are mistaken. They are lacking the common sense and any understanding of modern culture. They may have memorized a lot of text. But carrying the books (on your back or in your memory) is one thing, and using knowledge in those books is another (See what God said as a parable for such people in Chapter 62:5)
Unfortunately, this is what happens in a culture where how much you memorize sets your stature amongst your peers. The culture of copying and memorizing dominates many hyper-religious individuals and institutions, where the goal is to retain and regurgitate bits of information, not to process knowledge.
I would not even call these people Salafi's or conservatives. Linking any of them to intellectual schools of thought is an insult to those schools, even though I disagree with many of the conclusions of those schools of thought. These fake authorities have no thought process to talk about, therefore they are not part of a 'school of thought'.
And let me give you these examples on how our enlightened teachers and early coreligionists handled communicating messages to leaders:
Today, the common sense and the prevalent culture teaches us that a message written to a leader will not reach them (especially in our 'lucky' Muslim countries). It also teaches us that requesting a meeting with the king, the president, or the head of a foreign state to express an opposing opinion will at best get people to laugh at you. At worst, it may get you midnight visitors to teach you a lesson on how to behave properly as a citizen.
And contrary to the women that publicly argued and opposed the Prophet and his second successor Omar, opposing you modern day Muslim leader face to face, or arguing with them in public using evidence from the Quran will not fare well for your survival or your future welfare.
The modern and prevalent culture teaches us that demonstrations in the street (without violence) are one effective way to deliver our messages to rulers - locally and abroad - and to fellow citizens as well as the whole world. Different times need different communication tools.
Why would that simple fact of life appear so difficult to grasp for those fancy 'scholarly' Sheiks, also commonly known in Arab cultures as 'the government scholars'?
One answer would be that they are integral parts of ruling regimes that do not like protests by citizen. Protests and 'noisy and messy', where people 'raise their voices' (to quote the email sheik literally), and call for change. And why would sheiks want to change anything when their patron leaders, and their highly paid scholars are happy with the way things are for them?
But another answer may be more important, especially with the large number of self-proclaimed scholars who do not have strong association with ruling hierarchy in their countries, yet they come up with equally stupid edicts .
A hall mark of our early true scholars that I mentioned above is that they lived as an integrated part of their societies. Their knowledge was more useful and durable because it was a result of the 'textbook knowledge' interacting with common sense and proper knowledge of the world around them.
Of special note in this respect is the high esteem for Abu Hanifa's jurisprudence on contracts and market transactions which is attributed to his profound knowledge of market operations of his time, being a tradesman himself. Another great scholar like Ibn Hazm showed comprehensive and creative way of approaching religious analysis that is at least attributed to the diverse and eclectic nature of the prevalent culture of Spain in his lifetime.
These examples contrast with the way many 'hyper-pious' individuals and scholars handle life today. They live in shells, isolated from everyday life, with little or no cultural or intellectual interactions with anyone even slightly different from themselves. These so-called scholars know little about modern day life, society, culture, communication skills, politics or modern physical and social sciences. Yet, they feel comfortable telling us what to do with our everyday life.
How arrogant!!
As for the fact the 'email scholar' mentioned that the Prophet and his honorable companions did not demonstrate on the streets: that is not much of an argument. According to widely accepted jurisprudence rules, the original ruling for all things is that they are permitted. So, unless they prove that street demonstrations are religiously forbidden by the Holy Quran or the authenticated Prophetic narrations, those fake scholars better keep their mouths shut.
And, if they need an explicit permission from the The Prophet's teachings or the Quran for everything they do, then please ask them stop using running water, indoor bathrooms, computers, air conditioning, TV and eyeglasses.
And while we are at it, let us all pray they stop using emails, internet, cars, cellular phones and airplanes.
That way they may vanish from our view and from our life while they continue to live in the caves that they are intellectually living in.
An that would be a blessing for the rest of us.
Khaled
Every time I approach the Quran it feels that a new window is open for me. Reading about the Prophet and his teachings lead me to one feeling: how great his message was, not in a metaphysical sense, but in a very concrete intellectual sense.
And as I am reading about the history of the early great teachers of Islam and the great scholars that established the different schools of thought, iit is striking how liberal, progressive, intellectual and human these teachers and intellectuals were.
How come then when you look at the outcome of many ultra-religious people these days one cannot help but wonder: why would the same message that lead to the lightning-speed evolution of an enlightened culture and civilization, seem to be a gigantic stupefying factor for so many so-called religious people?
In my previous post I talked about a 'joke of a scholar' in Saudi Arabia who denounced demonstrations supporting Gaza citizens at a time of their ongoing slaughter that claimed 450 Palestinian lives so far (Out of one and a half million people of Gaza, that is equivalent to 90000 in a population the size of Europe or the US).
Now, it is touching closer to home. A friend and a Muslim activist in St. Louis received a stupid email that is more upsetting, and decided to share with me that shameful piece of nonsense:
My respected Muslim brothers and sisters, may Allaah shower you with His mercy. We advise all of you to avoid any form of street demonstrations taking place anywhere. They are not from the means of rectification of the hardships that befall the Ummah. Rather, as Shaikh Muhammad ibn Umar al-Bazmool stated, demonstrations are not from the means of rectification, not from the Sunnah of the Messenger (sallallaahu alaihi wassallam) and nor from the sunnah of the righteous predecessors.Then that person goes on to claim that:
Demonstrations are not considered as being from the means of da’wah nor jihaad as the scholars have explained. So beware and warn the muslims from participating in this futile act that is not from the Islamic religion.He then quotes the 'authority' sheik literally (and many other hyper-conservative sheiks in passing):
Answer: There is no benefit in demonstrations – it is just commotion. It is from the types of disorder. How will it cause harm to the enemy if the people go out and demonstrate in one of the streets, raising their voices? Rather, this is from the things that will only make the enemy pleased and happy. Thus he will say: “This has harmed and hurt them.” So the enemy will rejoice.Does that sound stupid to you as it sounds to me? would you trust such a brain to make decisions that influences your life?
If you think religion has enlighten or educated these people, you are mistaken. They are lacking the common sense and any understanding of modern culture. They may have memorized a lot of text. But carrying the books (on your back or in your memory) is one thing, and using knowledge in those books is another (See what God said as a parable for such people in Chapter 62:5)
Unfortunately, this is what happens in a culture where how much you memorize sets your stature amongst your peers. The culture of copying and memorizing dominates many hyper-religious individuals and institutions, where the goal is to retain and regurgitate bits of information, not to process knowledge.
I would not even call these people Salafi's or conservatives. Linking any of them to intellectual schools of thought is an insult to those schools, even though I disagree with many of the conclusions of those schools of thought. These fake authorities have no thought process to talk about, therefore they are not part of a 'school of thought'.
And let me give you these examples on how our enlightened teachers and early coreligionists handled communicating messages to leaders:
- When the prophet wanted to communicate to heads of states and other societies leaders during his years in Medina he sent them letters with messengers.
- When Muslims disagreed with the prophet on an issue that did not seem like part of Islamic theology, they talked directly to him as it was the case with the military advise he received during the battle of Badr given by a companion who felt the Prophet's plan was not the best. The great Prophet thought about it, and yielded to the man's opinion.
- When a woman heard an opinion from the Prophet that she did not agree with, she told him that, and gave her opinion. He did not agree with her, so she came the following day arguing her case again, and again. The Quran documented this interesting interaction in the chapter named "The Arguing Woman" (Al-Mujadilah, Chapter 58:1 ), not to reprimand her, but to reveal that actually God agreed with her opinion, the opinion she made publicly and repetitively with the Prophet, peace me upon him.
- When a woman did not like what Omar, the second great civil leader, said during a Friday sermon, she did not keep her mouth shut. She stood up immediately, confronted him and proved her point by using a reference from the Quran. Omar, the great leader of an extensive Muslim empire, conceded with his famous statement: The woman is right, Omar is wrong, reversing his opinion on the spot.
- The great scholars of early Islamic centuries never stopped communicating to their heads of state, as well as the provincial and local appointees in charge. That was a time when they could simply go to the king, or province governor, and meet with them. If that was not feasible, they delivered written messages,that the leaders were obliges to receive, read and act upon, sometimes agreeing with the scholars, sometimes rejecting their advice.
Today, the common sense and the prevalent culture teaches us that a message written to a leader will not reach them (especially in our 'lucky' Muslim countries). It also teaches us that requesting a meeting with the king, the president, or the head of a foreign state to express an opposing opinion will at best get people to laugh at you. At worst, it may get you midnight visitors to teach you a lesson on how to behave properly as a citizen.
And contrary to the women that publicly argued and opposed the Prophet and his second successor Omar, opposing you modern day Muslim leader face to face, or arguing with them in public using evidence from the Quran will not fare well for your survival or your future welfare.
The modern and prevalent culture teaches us that demonstrations in the street (without violence) are one effective way to deliver our messages to rulers - locally and abroad - and to fellow citizens as well as the whole world. Different times need different communication tools.
Why would that simple fact of life appear so difficult to grasp for those fancy 'scholarly' Sheiks, also commonly known in Arab cultures as 'the government scholars'?
One answer would be that they are integral parts of ruling regimes that do not like protests by citizen. Protests and 'noisy and messy', where people 'raise their voices' (to quote the email sheik literally), and call for change. And why would sheiks want to change anything when their patron leaders, and their highly paid scholars are happy with the way things are for them?
But another answer may be more important, especially with the large number of self-proclaimed scholars who do not have strong association with ruling hierarchy in their countries, yet they come up with equally stupid edicts .
A hall mark of our early true scholars that I mentioned above is that they lived as an integrated part of their societies. Their knowledge was more useful and durable because it was a result of the 'textbook knowledge' interacting with common sense and proper knowledge of the world around them.
Of special note in this respect is the high esteem for Abu Hanifa's jurisprudence on contracts and market transactions which is attributed to his profound knowledge of market operations of his time, being a tradesman himself. Another great scholar like Ibn Hazm showed comprehensive and creative way of approaching religious analysis that is at least attributed to the diverse and eclectic nature of the prevalent culture of Spain in his lifetime.
These examples contrast with the way many 'hyper-pious' individuals and scholars handle life today. They live in shells, isolated from everyday life, with little or no cultural or intellectual interactions with anyone even slightly different from themselves. These so-called scholars know little about modern day life, society, culture, communication skills, politics or modern physical and social sciences. Yet, they feel comfortable telling us what to do with our everyday life.
How arrogant!!
As for the fact the 'email scholar' mentioned that the Prophet and his honorable companions did not demonstrate on the streets: that is not much of an argument. According to widely accepted jurisprudence rules, the original ruling for all things is that they are permitted. So, unless they prove that street demonstrations are religiously forbidden by the Holy Quran or the authenticated Prophetic narrations, those fake scholars better keep their mouths shut.
And, if they need an explicit permission from the The Prophet's teachings or the Quran for everything they do, then please ask them stop using running water, indoor bathrooms, computers, air conditioning, TV and eyeglasses.
And while we are at it, let us all pray they stop using emails, internet, cars, cellular phones and airplanes.
That way they may vanish from our view and from our life while they continue to live in the caves that they are intellectually living in.
An that would be a blessing for the rest of us.
Khaled
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
