So, you are getting married. Congratulations, and get yourself a prenuptial.

While marriage has been talked about very positively in the Quran, divorce has not only been permitted, but its technical and legal aspects have been discussed in more details than marriage itself, and that makes sense: it is a conflict situation, and that deserved more elaboration. 

But divorce has been look down upon in most Muslim communities - though not by Islam as a religion - as an irresponsible act showing a weak character that prefers personal convenience over the hard work needed to establish a healthy family.

That negative attitude towards divorce unnecessarily deprived many Muslims of a legitimate, and frequently needed, social procedure. Divorce rates thus have been exceptionally low (as low as 2-3%) in the Muslim world for centuries, reflecting the social pressure against divorce rather than how happy marriages are.

But that low divorce rate is changing rapidly. American Muslim divorce rates are very close if not actually equal to divorce rates among non-Muslims. That increase by 10-15 fold in the span of one generation has its own problems.

Divorce was discussed and organized in the Quran 1500 years ago not as an evil thing, but rather as an occasional social necessity.  It was thus to be discussed and regulated. But the focus in the Quran was on:

a) preventing hasty and abusive actions the husband,
b) explicitly mandating mediation and counselling before divorce is finalized,
c) establishing the children's financial rights,
d) providing some security to women against instantaneous eviction from the family residence at a time when husbands were exclusively responsible for providing family residence,
e) the Quran also established the right of women to divorce themselves at will using a clear and simple procedure known as khol'a, a definite revolutionary social concept that most Muslims are not even aware of.

The Quran, however has not provided any rules for asset sharing, or guidelines for financial settlement between spouses.  The contemporary rules were that the wife, as much as the husband, was entitled to trade, to buy and sell, and to have full financial control over her own wealth, inheritance and business.  When divorced, each spouse kept their own property and assets. Also, issues like children custody, alimony, etc, were not discussed much and the prevalent common law was followed.  

Over 2-3 centuries after the Prophet's death more 'common law rules' (or 'عرف'  in Arabic), that did not contradict obvious Quranic principles, crept into Islamic law, which by that time became known as shari'a.  These new laws and rules reflected mostly the common law of those times as understood by different scholars, almost exclusively men.  Those also were the times women's rights took a significant step backward, from the earlier and enlightened phase of Islamic thought process at the time of the Prophet and early civic leaders after him.

At this point it is important to highlight that while common law has frequently been adopted by Islamic legal system, it should never be considered integral to the religion of Islam. Islamic religious rules (Quranic and 'mutawater' Prophetic teachings) are immutable, while common law accepted by different societies in different eras should be freely changed if the circumstance under which they were accepted change.

Over the last century, most of the Muslim countries amended their Family Law to include more rights for women that were not traditionally included in early jurisprudence, such as alimony and mother-favoring custody of children, in some cases granting near exclusive rights to the mothers.  In Egypt, for example, mothers have full custody over boys until age 16, and over the daughters until they reach the age of majority or get married.

These modern changes in family law illustrate that those laws are mostly of civic nature, not a religious one.  Despite these facts, many first generation American-Muslims think of those laws as 'Islamic laws'.  And that is where the problems is.

Having been involved at different levels in many divorce cases among friends over the last few years, I have made several observations.  The most alarming of which is that most of the individuals in those cases have no clue what is mentioned in the Quran about divorce.  That is a shameful thing truly as it all can be contained in 3-4 medium size pages. 

In many of those divorce cases, an argument was frequently made that ' … as Muslims, we are obliged to follow Islamic law when it comes to divorce'.  Advocates of that opinion usually refer - unknowingly - to the 'civic' law that ruled over them or over their parents when they lived in the old motherland.  Many of those laws were not mentioned in the Quran, and are not necessarily followed by any other Muslim country, since each country had it own set of unique family laws. Therefore, those old homeland rules are NOT Islamic.

Another common observation was that the apparently 'wise and pious' suggestion to follow Islamic law was usually made by the party that was most likely to lose financially if the 'American law' is applied.  In other words, advocating the so-called Islamic law for divorce was frequently a gimmick to keep as much money as possible in the hands of the wealthier spouse, be it the husband or the wife.

But considering the high cost of the legal system in the US, the demand (or suggestion) to follow Islamic law does seem to have merits, if it were not for ignorance and possibly the ill-intentions that were behind it.  

And to complicate matters more, there is usually some social pressure within the community to follow 'Islamic law' even though most people do not know what that precisely meant.  If one spouse preferred follow American divorce and family laws they were sometimes made to feel as if they were rejecting of Islam.

My advice for whoever asked for my opinion was always the same: "Get a good lawyer, never negotiated without your lawyer being informed of what you are doing, and avoid court if you can, but do not yield under the assumption that it is 'Haram' or 'Islamically unethical' to settle your divorce in court."

As more women and men of our Muslim-American community get divorced, we need better ways  to educate ourselves regarding the rules of divorce in Islam and the many aspects it does not handle.  We also need to know that marriage in Islam is a contract – a real contract, in which ANY condition can be stipulated.  The spectrum of those stipulations can surprise most of us: from granting women right to divorce on demand, to financial and custody stipulations and all the way to stipulating, that the family must have hired help, nannies, cooks, or in which city to live, etc.

I would like marriage within the Muslim community to take full advantage of the flexibility of Islamic marriage contract by discussing some issues that can save the families a lot of trouble in the future, when one out of every two or three marriages ends in divorce.  The most important item should be: which legal system the couple should follow if divorce process is initiated.  And if they choose 'Islamic law' they need to spell out what that means.  And if they have no clear idea what Islamic law of divorce means, then they should explicitly state the American legal system would be the reference, so it does not as a surprise to any spouse if that ends up being the case.

It is difficult for a couple busy planning their wedding party to consider prenuptial. And that is understandable.  But if our community is wise, it should try to minimize or avoid the acrimony that comes with hostile divorces, and avoid the drainage of resources wasted on lawyers that could otherwise go to secure better future for the divorcees and their children.

Our community is still young in this country.  Many individuals are in the middle of an identity transition, from a Syrian-Muslim, Pakistani-Muslim, Bosnian-Muslim or some other 'hyphenated Muslim' to American-Muslim.  Most of us have not put much thought into what these terms mean. 

That is where most of the friction comes from: unclear terms, and an identity-in-transition.

In my opinion, it could be a great service to our community if the marriage certificates issued by Islamic institutions in the US for American Muslim couples getting married is expanded from the simple contract it is now, to a more developed format that offers a collection of simple choices that may save many couples a lot of heartache and money in the future. That 'expanded' marriage contract could function as a 'default' prenuptial agreement that provides the couple with some idea how things could be handled when married life does hits some road bumps.

If you were to have a prenuptial agreement, as an American Muslim, what would you want to see in it?

Khaled

Muslims in hostile world - Part 2: How should Muslims handle it

[This is part 2 of a sermon I gave in September to a local mosque.  Part 1 was posted before on this blog]

A primer on anger management and conflict resolution, the Quranic way

The tough times we face should teach many other lessons as well.  Lessons that have always been spelled out in the Quran, but that many of us may have not felt the need to put them to good use frequently.

Hate against Muslims is abundant, vocal and malicious. It may even make life impossible in the US for some of us. Hate comes in many forms and for many reasons: sometimes just out of ignorance and fear, and that is something we can help resolve.  In other cases, it is out of greed, and out of envy: and that is not easy to resolve.

But either way, God has given us clear instructions and examples in the Quran on how to handle these situations. If we like to use modern day jargon, He offers us “a comprehensive anger management and conflict resolution program”.  And it is a pretty good one.

So, let us take a look at what God has for us on that topic.

When the words of God are insulted, what should we do?

“And, indeed, He has enjoined upon you in this divine writ that whenever you hear people deny the truth of God's messages and mock at them, you shall avoid their company until they begin to talk of other things.” (4:140)

وَقَدْ نَزَّلَ عَلَيْكُمْ فِي الْكِتَابِ أَنْ إِذَا سَمِعْتُمْ آيَاتِ اللّهِ يُكَفَرُ بِهَا وَيُسْتَهْزَأُ بِهَا فَلاَ تَقْعُدُواْ مَعَهُمْ حَتَّى يَخُوضُواْ فِي حَدِيثٍ غَيْرِهِ

 “Whenever you meet those that indulge in [blasphemous] talk about Our messages, turn your back upon them until they begin to talk of other things …”  (6:68)

وَإِذَا رَأَيْتَ الَّذِينَ يَخُوضُونَ فِي آيَاتِنَا فَأَعْرِضْ عَنْهُمْ حَتَّى يَخُوضُواْ فِي حَدِيثٍ غَيْرِهِ

And what should we do next? Should we respond to an insult with an insult? Would the “eye-for-an-eye” approach be useful? Should we say something nasty about something dear to them, be it their beliefs, or what they may worship and associate in worship with God?

God does not seem to like that approach.  He instructs us succinctly (in 6:108) not to revile “those [beings] whom they invoke instead of God, lest they revile God out of spite, and in ignorance.”

وَلاَ تَسُبُّواْ الَّذِينَ يَدْعُونَ مِن دُونِ اللّهِ فَيَسُبُّواْ اللّهَ عَدْوًا بِغَيْرِ عِلْمٍ كَذَلِكَ زَيَّنَّا لِكُلِّ أُمَّةٍ عَمَلَهُمْ ثُمَّ إِلَى رَبِّهِم مَّرْجِعُهُمْ فَيُنَبِّئُهُم بِمَا كَانُواْ يَعْمَلُونَ

And even non-insulting arguments with those who hate us, insult God and insult us, has to be done in a special way: actually, in the most kind of ways.

And do not argue with the followers of earlier revelation otherwise than in a most kindly manner - unless it is the ones that are bent on evildoing - and say [to them]: "We believe in that which has been bestowed from on high upon us, and that which has been bestowed upon you: for our God and your God is one and the same..." (29:46)

وَلَا تُجَادِلُوا أَهْلَ الْكِتَابِ إِلَّا بِالَّتِي هِيَ أَحْسَنُ إِلَّا الَّذِينَ ظَلَمُوا مِنْهُمْ وَقُولُوا آمَنَّا بِالَّذِي أُنزِلَ إِلَيْنَا وَأُنزِلَ إِلَيْكُمْ وَإِلَهُنَا وَإِلَهُكُمْ وَاحِدٌ وَنَحْنُ لَهُ مُسْلِمُونَ

So, they insult us and yet we MUST respond by trying to show them what may make us and them feel closer rather than highlight what sets us apart from them.

But that gentle soul approach is not always guaranteed to work, and God was aware of that when he asked us to use it.  He even tells us why it does not work in some case:

كَذَلِكَ زَيَّنَّا لِكُلِّ أُمَّةٍ عَمَلَهُمْ ثُمَّ إِلَى رَبِّهِم مَّرْجِعُهُمْ فَيُنَبِّئُهُم بِمَا كَانُواْ يَعْمَلُونَ

“…to EVERY nation”, God informs us, “We have made their own doings appear goodly indeed”. (6:108)

But that is not for us to resolve, as God proceeds in that verse (in 6:108) to tell us that “In time, unto their Sustainer they must return: and then He will make them [truly] understand all that they were doing.”

So, we were meant to be different from one another,

God tells us in 22:67, “UNTO every community have We appointed [different] ways of worship and belief, which they ought to observe.”

This is part of His plan for Mankind, not a design flaw.  And if we cannot convince the others to follow our way, we still need to learn to live and let live; to coexist in a diverse and often contentious world.

He informs us in 25:63 that the best of us are those that handle this diversity and contention without arrogance, or aggression

وَعِبَادُ الرَّحْمَنِ الَّذِينَ يَمْشُونَ عَلَى الْأَرْضِ هَوْنًا وَإِذَا خَاطَبَهُمُ الْجَاهِلُونَ قَالُوا سَلَامًا

For, [true] servants of the Most Gracious are [only] they who walk gently on earth, and who, whenever the foolish address them, reply with [words of] peace;

Our job is not to force them to believe one way or the other, but in the words of the Quran, our job is

“… to convey this Qur'an [to the world].  Whoever, therefore, chooses to follow the right path, follows it but for his own good; and if any wills to go astray, say [unto him]: "I am only a warner!"(27:92)

وَأَنْ أَتْلُوَ الْقُرْآنَ فَمَنِ اهْتَدَى فَإِنَّمَا يَهْتَدِي لِنَفْسِهِ وَمَن ضَلَّ فَقُلْ إِنَّمَا أَنَا مِنَ الْمُنذِرِينَ

So, we should not get broken-hearted when they opt not to do it our way.  They have turned away from better person than you or I will ever be: they turned away from our Prophet, pbuh. And God showed him how to handle that:

“…if they turn away, say: "God is enough for me! There is no deity save Him. In Him I have placed my trust...” (9:129)

فَإِن تَوَلَّوْاْ فَقُلْ حَسْبِيَ اللّهُ لا إِلَهَ إِلاَّ هُوَ عَلَيْهِ تَوَكَّلْتُ وَهُوَ رَبُّ الْعَرْشِ الْعَظِيمِ

But handling rejection and hatred is not easy.  Still, God has drawn a clear line, and expects us not to cross it ,: no excuses accepted, as detailed in this verse:

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ كُونُواْ قَوَّامِينَ لِلّهِ شُهَدَاء بِالْقِسْطِ وَلاَ يَجْرِمَنَّكُمْ شَنَآنُ قَوْمٍ عَلَى أَلاَّ تَعْدِلُواْ اعْدِلُواْ هُوَ أَقْرَبُ لِلتَّقْوَى وَاتَّقُواْ اللّهَ إِنَّ اللّهَ خَبِيرٌ بِمَا تَعْمَلُونَ

“O YOU who have attained to faith! Be ever steadfast in your devotion to God, bearing witness to the truth in all equity; and never let hatred of anyone lead you into the sin of deviating from justice. Be just: this is closest to being God-conscious.” (5:8)

God also is the One that created us, and he knows we are tempted to ‘repay injustice with injustice’, so He makes us an offer that is hard to resist:

وَأَمَّا مَنْ خَافَ مَقَامَ رَبِّهِ وَنَهَى النَّفْسَ عَنِ الْهَوَى - فَإِنَّ الْجَنَّةَ هِيَ الْمَأْوَى

“But unto him who shall have stood in owe of his Sustainer's Presence, and held back his inner self from base desires”, (in our case: greed, anger, vengefulness amongst others), “… Paradise will truly be the final destination!” (79:40-41)

And we need more than just to avoid being unfair towards them.  God tells us to show them ultimate kindness, using the Arabic word ‘berr’, the extreme kindness we are supposed to treat our parent with.

لَا يَنْهَاكُمُ اللَّهُ عَنِ الَّذِينَ لَمْ يُقَاتِلُوكُمْ فِي الدِّينِ وَلَمْ يُخْرِجُوكُم مِّن دِيَارِكُمْ أَن تَبَرُّوهُمْ وَتُقْسِطُوا إِلَيْهِمْ إِنَّ اللَّهَ يُحِبُّ الْمُقْسِطِينَ

“As for the unbelievers that do not fight against you on account of [your] faith, and do not drive you away from your homelands, God does not forbid you to show them kindness and to behave towards them with full equity: for, verily, God loves those who act equitably.” (60:9)

And for the really evil ones: should we pay them in kind, or punish them if we can? Should we forgive?

Look at what God asks our Prophet to do, under a more adverse situation that ours:

وَلاَ تَزَالُ تَطَّلِعُ عَلَىَ خَآئِنَةٍ مِّنْهُمْ إِلاَّ قَلِيلاً مِّنْهُمُ فَاعْفُ عَنْهُمْ وَاصْفَحْ إِنَّ اللّهَ يُحِبُّ الْمُحْسِنِينَ

“… and from all but a few of them you will always experience treachery. But pardon them, and forbear: verily, God loves the doers of good. (5:13)

In another verse, the divine wisdom teaches us that forgiveness is not a tactical ploy, but rather a strategy of a very high yield in the end:

وَلَا تَسْتَوِي الْحَسَنَةُ وَلَا السَّيِّئَةُ ادْفَعْ بِالَّتِي هِيَ أَحْسَنُ فَإِذَا الَّذِي بَيْنَكَ وَبَيْنَهُ عَدَاوَةٌ كَأَنَّهُ وَلِيٌّ حَمِيمٌ

“But [since] good and evil cannot be equal, repel thou [evil) with something that is better - and lo! he between whom and yourself was hostility [may then become] as though he had [always] been close [to you], a true friend!” (41:34)

Above all, we should always remember the verse 7:199 that has been described as the most comprehensive and most succinct of Islamic moral code- crafted in just seven short words in Arabic.

خُذِ الْعَفْوَ وَأْمُرْ بِالْعُرْفِ وَأَعْرِضْ عَنِ الْجَاهِلِينَ

MAKE due allowance for man's nature, and enjoin the doing of what is widely known to be right; and leave alone all those who choose to remain ignorant."

I hope that I have managed to deliver few points about the Glorious Quran and its timeless teachings that can help us today as much as it helps the Prophet pbuh, and his companions over 1400 years ago.

Our primary goal as Muslims is to learn God’s words.  And who is better at teaching us those than God Himself in an easy to understand and clear Book that he promised to preserve from deviation, and corruption, and to make easy for us to learn.

وَلَقَدْ يَسَّرْنَا الْقُرْآنَ لِلذِّكْرِ فَهَلْ مِن مُّدَّكِرٍ

“Hence, indeed, We made this Qur'an easy to understand and easy to bear in mind: who, then, is willing to take it to heart?” (54:40)

This book is not only easy, but it also details the message of what he wants from us.

وَلَقَدْ جِئْنَاهُم بِكِتَابٍ فَصَّلْنَاهُ عَلَى عِلْمٍ هُدًى وَرَحْمَةً لِّقَوْمٍ يُؤْمِنُونَ

“For, indeed, We did convey unto them a divine writ which We clearly, and wisely, spelled out - a guidance and a grace unto people who will believe." (7:52)

  All we need is to invest the time in reading and contemplating it, trusting that it is sufficient to guide us to the right path.

Referring to the Verses of the Quran, God says: 

“These are the signs of God which We recite unto thee (Muhammad) with truth. Then in what fact, after God and His signs, will they believe?” (45:6)

تِلْكَ آيَاتُ اللَّهِ نَتْلُوهَا عَلَيْكَ بِالْحَقِّ فَبِأَيِّ حَدِيثٍ بَعْدَ اللَّهِ وَآيَاتِهِ يُؤْمِنُونَ

I would like to conclude on a joyous note. 

Look at us:  living in a non-Muslim country, a small minority, with little material power.  Yet we are entitled, by law, to be treatment as equals, and we do not have to accept anything less. A minority with little outreach and with difficulty engaging the public at large: yet, God avails to us people in the media and amongst the public, of different faiths, and sometime of no faith at all, that would take our cause to heart, and defend us as if we where their own people.

We should thank God for those blessings.  But, we should also promise ourselves, that whenever and wherever the tide turns in our favor, we should treat the others the best way they treated us and no less

In fact, if we heed God’s teachings, we should treat them better than they treated us:

“… when you are greeted with a greeting, answer with an even better greeting, or [at least] with the like thereof. Verily, God keeps count indeed of all things.” (4:86)

وَإِذَا حُيِّيْتُم بِتَحِيَّةٍ فَحَيُّواْ بِأَحْسَنَ مِنْهَا أَوْ رُدُّوهَا إِنَّ اللّهَ كَانَ عَلَى كُلِّ شَيْءٍ حَسِيبًا

Let us not be of those defrauders that He threatened with woes on the Day of Judgment

وَيْلٌ لِّلْمُطَفِّفِينَ - الَّذِينَ إِذَا اكْتَالُواْ عَلَى النَّاسِ يَسْتَوْفُونَ -  وَإِذَا كَالُوهُمْ أَو وَّزَنُوهُمْ يُخْسِرُونَ - أَلَا يَظُنُّ أُولَئِكَ أَنَّهُم مَّبْعُوثُونَ

“WOE UNTO THOSE that deal in fraud-

Those who, when they are to receive their due from [other] people, demand that it be given in full

But when they have to measure or weigh whatever they owe to others, give less than what is due!

Do they not know that they will be raised from the dead, and that they will be called to account?” (83:1-4)

May God guide us all to the right path.

Khaled

Part 1 of this sermon:

•  Muslims in a Hostile World - Part 1: positive lessons from Islamophobia-filled season

Part 2: Why can't Muslim women marry non-Muslim men

This is a reply to a comment by Pamela Taylor on my previous posting.  She referred to her posting on the Washington Post On Faith, and to an interview with the Sudanese scholar, Al-Turabi.  

 It grew too long to be a comment, so I ‘promoted it’ to a post status!

Hi Pamela:

Thanks for the link to your article on the Washington Post On Faith blog.  I enjoyed reading it and I do encourage readers of this posting to read it as well.

I agree with most of the thoughts and sentiments you expressed (especially about the lack of association between what I call 'religious concordance' between spouses, and the likelihood of success of marriage.  I disagree with you on a couple of points though.

On principle, I believe in religious freedom, which as you well know, is a principle very strongly endorsed by the Quran.  So, as individuals, we have the right to do what we feel is appropriate for 'us', since we know truly what is in our hearts, which God knows as well. 

Others should not intervene by imposing religious opinions on us, although for all practical purposes, civil and criminal laws in any society have their own constraints that limit freedoms to what is deemed appropriate by the state. For example, a woman may practice polyandry in the USA, but the state would recognize only one marriage and holds her accountable if she officially marries a second husband while still officially married to the first one.  Polygamy, under-age marriage, incest marriage are similar examples in this aspect of social life. 

And to that extent, civil law may impose constraints on what is officially accepted; constraints that may or may not be derived from religious beliefs of the majority. I can accept that only as long as it is clear that the rules are CIVIC RULES and not considered religious rules (i.e., enshrined by God).

The complementary side of that is this: while an individual should be free to decide for themselves what they want to do; they need to be careful about adding their own preferences to the core religious rules.  By that I mean, trying to establish their practice as a “religiously-endorsed practice” for co-coreligionists.

The reason is that I believe a religion, any religion, has to have some minimal sacred core that is immutable. If people do not agree with the core principle, they should be free to start their own religion, but not confuse their own version of the religion with the original.  And other people can choose which one to follow.

For me, that core text is the Quran, and the small collection of Mutawatir Hadith that does not contradict the obvious of the Quran (i.e., Mutawatir  متواتر with non-problematic Matn, i.e., content متن ).  Establishing Aqueeda (i.e., religious creed  عقيدة) based on other texts is tantamount to accepting the authors of those texts as equivalent to God’s..

And the Verse of interest here (5:5) strongly sounds like it is a retraction of an earlier position, or an earlier practice by Muslims.  And if it seems straight forward enough to understand it that way in Arabic (which is my mother tongue), I have difficulty if anyone 'legislates' for an apposing position and then  MAKING THAT POSITION a core religious principle. 

They are certainly free to practice the way they want. And I will defend their right to do that, and not even judge them or judge their intentions.  But I would not think considering their personal view and preference as if it is integral to Islam as a religion is an appropriate thing.

Second, an edict that is genuinely ‘patriarchal’, as you alluded to in your article, should not be accepted as religion under the same logic I presented in the previous paragraph.  I want God to legislate religious rules, not the patriarchs, no matter how scholarly or well-intentioned they were.  But to judge a practice as patriarchal requires that one proves there is no explicit evidence for it in the Quran or Mutawatir Hadith.

And in the situation we are concerned with here, that is not the case, in my humble opinion and in my understanding of the Arabic text of Verse 5:5.

I also read the article you linked to by H  Al-Turabi.  I would like to bring to your attention that the initial segment about the article which talked about the situation of a recently converted woman who was still married to her non-Muslim husband.  That situation has been discussed initially in the first few decades of Islam and at least nine different opinions exited.  The most interesting is by no less of an authority than Ali ibn Abi Taleb, who thought that a convert woman DID NOT have to leave her non--Muslim husband to become a Muslim, and that their marriage was still valid (details can be found in Jurisprudence for Muslim Minorities, By Qaradawi, page 105 – and unfortunately the book is only in Arabic). Interestingly he mentioned Al-Turabi in the book, and supports his opinion on that issue (i.e., the validity and legitimacy of previous marriage of a new 'Muslim convert' woman to a non-Muslim husband).

However, Al-Turabi's opinion on the second situation - that is of an "already Muslim" woman marrying a non-Muslim man - does not reflect the way the Quranic verse 5:5 is worded (although I would be interested in reviewing his research work on the topic if you can provide me with links to the relevant material).

And as such, I would be not comfortable adopting such opinion, with all due respect to his scholarly credentials.

I guess that is what it boils down to: comfort level so we can face God knowing that we followed our hearts after sincere search of the truth.

Khaled 

Why can't Muslim women marry non-Muslim men

In a previous posting I brought up the issue of the difficulty facing many Muslim women finding husbands.  Many Muslim women (and men) are raising the question about the discrepancy between the rules of marriage outside the faith that has - so far - been undisputed amongst Muslims.
I recently received this email from a non-Muslim reader:

"One of the most misunderstood areas in Islam is that of the position of women in the religion. The general perception in the West is that Muslim women are subjugated and almost seen as property. While not all Muslims deal with women as inferior, this is unfortunately true in some segments of the Muslim world and this treatment is supposedly justified by the religion. However, when we look at the basis of the religion, the Quran, we see a very different picture. In the Quran God makes it very clear that men and women are equal.

If this is true then why is it okay for men to Marry outside Muslim and not women ? This is not seen as equal but as lesser or lower than that of a man.

For the record I am an american male in love with a Muslim woman from [an Arab country] and am reading alot to try and understand the cultural differences.    ..DK".

The past blog post Wanna be a bride was meant to raise some discussion about the issue, and it did that only in  a very limited way.  So, I thought that by posting my 'indecisive response' to this gentleman's email I may get the discussion stirred again.  Here is my reply to that reader, with some editing:

Dear DK:
I am a Muslim man who tries to understand the word of God in the Quran believing that the Quran should be the overriding gold standard for Muslim behavior. The accumulated practice legacy of many Islamic cultures and societies that frequently are loaded with non-Quran based cultural and social traditions should not be part of the religion, even when they are not considered wrong. That is the only way we keep religion pure from ethnic and social perspective that may be accepted in one place and at one time, but not in another.
The issue you raised has been a focus of interest for the last couple of months because of social stresses in many Muslim communities in the West and even in some Arab countries, where an increasing number of Muslim women are not getting married, apparently as a result of many Muslim men marrying outside Islam. Some Muslim women now are discussing whether they should be allowed to marry outside the Islamic faith.
The Quran, in my opinion has been fair and equitable to men and women 'on the whole', but there are definite difference and not every issue is 'split 50-50'. Looking at women's advantage in issues related to post-divorce financial support, and support for child care and women's overall financial entitlements, it seems balanced when considering men's advantage in inheritance (especially in son's and daughter's inheritance from a parent).
My point is that fairness does not come from exact equality, but rather from overall equality.
Having said that, it is not very easy to understand the restriction on Muslim women marrying outside the faith. Some people justify it by explaining that it is a result of Islam recognizing other Abrahamic faiths as divinely inspired and legitimate, while Jews and Christians do not have a similar opinion about Islam. And assuming the husband may have stronger influence on family spiritual life, it would be 'safer' for a Christian woman to marry a Muslim man and still keep her faith, than for a Muslim woman to marry a Christian or Jewish man and still keep her faith and her/there children as Muslims.
This argument made more sense in past times, but may not be undisputed in modern time when the balance of power and control in the family is less likely to be male-dominated in many societies. A small minority of Muslim clerics in Lebanon (and I believe in few European countries) have ventured and performed marriage contracts between Muslim women and non-Muslim men based on that logic.
I believe marriage is a personal issue. And individuals have some leeway deciding what they want to do depending on their comfort level. But when I consider the Quranic verse dealing with inter-religious marriages, it is almost impossible to understand it in any way other than it giving an exemption for Muslim men to be able to cross that line (with significant constraints, I may say), but not explicitly including women in that exemption.
I am aware that the situation does not make for an exact 50-50 kind of deal, but the clarity of that Quranic verse makes it difficult for me - personally - to ignore it and go the other way. As a believer, I accept the fact that religion, being a structure decided by God, may have constraints that do not make obvious sense to everyone, everywhere and in every era, but they are still part of the faith. Examples are not restricted only rituals, but also extend to social behavior such as absolute prohibition of gambling (even for fun and in trivial amounts of money), alcohol (even in moderation), and eating pork (except to sustain life).
I am not a clergy and I do not believe in the authority of clergy imposing their opinions on society. I am just a Muslim studying my Book. I would not judge anyone that behaves differently in their personal life, but this issue unfortunately is relevant to social acceptance. If a new couple or family cares about being accepted in a community, sometimes they have to consider how that community thinks and behaves. If the couple do not care for acceptance, then they should be free to do whatever they want.
These links (pro and con) were forwarded to me recently, are are of interest

• “Muslim Women Should NOT Be Able to Marry Non-Muslim Men”: The Goatmilk Debates
• “Muslim Women Should Be Able to Marry Non-Muslim Men”: The Goatmilk Debates #2
• “Muslim women should be able to marry non-Muslim men”: The Goatmilk Debates

And this was my comment on that debate:

".... I am sure that you also noticed that neither side of those debates is talking with a great deal of certainty. That is because the key verse on the topic is an indirect one and talks mainly about Muslim 'men' marrying women of the Book. So, it may boil down to one's comfort level with extrapolation and deduction from that verse.
And while historic legacy favors a particular argument and opinion, support for that argument and opinion should not be based on 'how long has the tradition been going on' but rather on the deduction from the Quranic verse in the context of the established norms of that time. Again, it is the level of 'religious' comfort one has in their own logic for the choice they make that matter.
Whichever way someone chooses, should be something between them and God, not a subject for a new Fatwa. Just my opinion. "

---- end of my email.


I would be interested in knowing what you can add to this discussion.  Are you aware of any scholarly attempts to re-analyse the marriage outside the faith rule in Islamic practices?  Do you have strong opinions one way or the other? what do you think is the better way to even the playing field for me and women?


Hope some of you will share their thoughts.

Khaled

Polygamy : My 2-cents in response to a comment.

In my previous posting Wanna b a bride, I talked about the problem facing Muslim women in many Muslim societies not finding Muslim husbands.  One of the comments mentioned polygamy in Islam asked about its impact of the problem discussed in the posting.

I responded with enough material that may deserved its own 'mini' posting.  Also, re-posting my comment may lead to stimulating a discussion on polygamy.  So, here is the question and my comment.

MW said in a comment: "If some men have more than one wife, does that mean that there is also a proportional amount of men with no wives?"

My response was:

This is not a problem in most cases because the proportion of polygamous men is tiny. I lived in Egypt for 30 years and have not known of a single person in my family, friends, family friends, coworkers and other immediate contacts that married more than one woman. It does happen (more commonly in rural areas, especially if first marriage did not produce children), but the proportion is very small.

That could theoretically still lead to disturbance of the balance between men and women available for marriage, but only if one does not know enough about the man-female sex ratio in population at different ages and under different conditions of society dynamics.

Natural discrepancy in sex survival rates, tendency in ALL societies to maintain few years difference on average between husbands and wives, emigration sex biases, wars, etc, all result in about 5% bias in favor of women. You can research this if you will. I already have.

Of course if polygyny becomes a goal in itself (usually in rich spoilt societies of the gulf), it looses the actual legitimacy that comes from the very tight regulation on polygamy in Islam. The only verse that allows polygamy (i.e., polygyny) in Islam has pretty tight conditions for that practice and, still, it was in the context of extending supportive family structure to a large number of orphans after some of the early battles that was associated with significant losses amongst Muslims men in the battle, leaving behind unsupported women and children in a society where support comes traditionally in the form of nuclear family structure.

Many Arab and Muslim societies have legally restricted the right to have more than one wife to varying degrees, and in most Muslim society polygamy IS looked down upon unless its legitimacy could be gleaned from the circumstance. Men who marry a new 18 year old girl every few years are not considered appropriately behaving. Polygamy in early days of Islam meant to marry an older woman, usually with children, as a second wife, not a 'trophy' young girl to prove that you are 'the Man'.

While I do not intend, or need, to justify polygyny under the strict limitations in Islam by mentioning extramarital affairs, I think it is most telling that rates of polygamy among Muslims is a small fraction of adultery among married men AND women in Western societies.  I am not picking on Western societies, but that is where more statistics are available).   And by marriage, I mean ongoing marriages - not past marriages or among separated couple.

Khaled

Wanna b a Bride? - On the problem of marriage amongst American Muslim women

What do Muslim Egyptian women and Muslim American women have in common?

Until recently, I would have answered: very little other than their religion.  But over the last couple of years I have become more aware of another thing in common: a rapidly growing problem of finding a suitable husband.  The problem is no laughing matter, and it threatens to be a very ominous threat to social structure, both in Egypt (and likely many other Arab countries) as well as in the American Muslim communities.

The title of the post is borrowed from a hilarious series of blog-posts turned into a book by a talented 30-year-old Egyptian bachelorette pharmacist who decided to go public with her 'adventures' while looking for a husband (or waiting for a husband to find her).  If you can read Arabic and understand Egyptian dialect, that blog and book will give you hours of thoughtful fun that will make you laugh out loud.  Sorry, but it is an Arabic only site, although the blog and book are being translated into - of all languages - Italian!!  Do not even ask me why.

But this blog post is not about the problem in Egypt.  And I have been contemplating writing about some marriage and divorce problems in the American Muslim community for some time. Today I want to talk only about marriage - or lack there of - amongst highly eligible American Muslim women.

Getting married has rarely ever been an easy process for both men and women in Muslim minority communities.  But more recently the number of American Muslim women getting married has dropped significantly below the number of Muslim men getting married. Anyone that is involved in 'matrimonial activities' can tell you that matrimonial events tend to have 6-8 times as many women as men.

Two obvious factors have perpetuated the problem. One is of a religious nature, and the other is of a social/cultural nature.

Islamically, and if the Quran is understood at face value, Muslim men are allowed to marry a 'believer' woman outside the Islamic faith.  This usually means marrying a Jewish or Christian woman.  There are subtle constraints but, in general, such marriages are not looked down upon within the Muslim community.

On the other hand, Muslim women are not supposed to marry outside the Islamic faith.  The Quran (5:5) gives an explicit permission for Muslim men, without mentioning Muslim women.  That 'prohibition by omission' has been the undisputed norm in Muslim societies since the early days of Islam. 

I am fully aware of the reasoning behind the distinction between the case for men and women, and I do not see that the Quranic verse that discusses that issue tolerant to any other interpretation.  But I also understand that the permission given to Muslim men to marry outside the faith is not an unrestrained permission.  It is even more constrained when the exercise of such permission leads to serious harm to other Muslims, above all Muslim women in the same society.

But marrying outside the faith is not the only reason for the problem.  Another reason, that I personally believe to be a more sinister one, is the tendency of many Muslim American men to marry a Muslim woman from 'the old mother land'.

I do not really understand why that is happening, and I have few guesses:
- Larger extended family in the old country for those that want to marry within the extended family only (a tradition in some conservative societies).
- 'Mother-in-law-to-be' favors marrying a girl from the old country believing that she would make a better daughter-in-law.
- Some conservative men believe that a 'good girl' from the old country is more 'pious, pure, and – more importantly - obedient' than an American born and raise Muslim girl.
- And finally, and as a woman friend once put it, Muslim young men in American societies tend to be less mature intellectually and socially than American Muslim young women of similar age, social status and education.  Thus they feel threatened by their female counter parts, and want to seek a woman that does not make them feel threatened.

Regardless of the reason, the abundance of very well qualified American Muslim young women who cannot find a suitable husband is a serious problem.  The worst part is that the religious and social implications of that problem are not even discussed frequently enough.

This definitely is not a problem that harms only women in the longterm, but because only women appear to be adversely affected now community leadership, mostly older immigrant men, does not seem to be interested in tackling it or even shedding light on it.

A recent article in the Washington Post covered that topic, but the conclusions were slanted in a direction that I do not agree with.  Still, I am happy that some Muslims activists are bringing  the issue up, and are doing something about it. 

Their conclusions are unfortunately difficult of me to swallow.  They actually argue that since the Quran did not explicitly prohibit Muslim women from marrying out side the faith, and since permitting men to do that leads to the current problem for Muslim women, the answers to the problem should be to allow Muslim women to marry outside the faith, i.e., Muslim woman can marry a Christian or Jewish man.

I tend to support a different approach to solving the problem.  It is a well know rule in Islamic jurisprudence that restricting or prohibiting the exercise of what is permitted and lawful is allowed if it leads to harm.  Many Muslim countries, for example, have strong restrictions on polygamy – and for very good reasons.

Some Islamic scholars have actually suggested that marrying outside the community (Islamic American community in this case) should be forbidden as it leads to an obvious harm to half the society: Muslim American women.  Of course in a free society, no one can 'force' Muslim men to restrict their 'lawful rights', but like in many other cases (e.g., polygamy), strongly-held social pressures have effectively restricted the exercise of polygamy in societies that have not yet had legal restriction on it.

Traditional religious and societal leadership in American Muslim communities tend to be sluggish and scared of change.   They are more comfortable sweeping problems under the carpet, and would rather talk about generalities than offer a specific solution to a specific problem.  That attitude applies to a wide range of religious, political and social contemporary issues relevant to the community.  I do not have much expectation from them anymore.

It is difficult to say if the threat of revolt by Muslim American younger women to adopt alternative jurisprudence opinions is conceivable.  And, I do not personally agree with the alternative jurisprudence opinion expressed in the WP article mentioned above.  But I also realize that nothing short of revolt by American Muslim women can wake up our intellectually stagnant leadership.

Khaled

As usual, short comments and opinion are welcomed and can be made anonymously.  But if you feel strongly about that issue, and regardless of which side you are on, please put your thoughts in a short posting format and email to khaledhamid.ol@gmail.com.  If it is respectful and intelligently-argued, I will post it as a full posting.  Your anonymity is guaranteed if you want.  May be we can have a serious conversation about this topic.

Abandoning our community, at least mentally

My criticism for many Muslims and how they perceived Islam is not new. And moreover, it will not stop for as long as I see a chance to change something or someone.

I consider that my responsibility and my religious duty. There is no point in being part of a community if one does not regularly critically appraise the state of health and future trajectory of that community. And if things are not to your liking, do something about it.

This is not just an activist's stance. It is actually the creed of Muslim as succinctly verbalized in the Quran. God describes the nation or community ( Arabic, أُمَّةٍ) that he blesses with the Prophet Muhammad, and the Revelation of the Quran, as

'the best of communities: enjoining what is right and proscribing what is known to be wrong and believing in God' (3:110).

(كُنتُمْ خَيْرَ أُمَّةٍ أُخْرِجَتْ لِلنَّاسِ تَأْمُرُونَ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ وَتَنْهَوْنَ عَنِ الْمُنكَرِ وَتُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللّهِ)

Looking at the order in which this verse is structured yields a profound insight into the significance of the qualities listed: the activist stance came before describing the community as 'believing in God'. Prophet Muhammad pbuh has also stressed that numerous time. especially in one of the most recited quotations of the prophet:

"If you see a wrong-doing change it with your hand.
If you cannot, then with your tongue.
If you cannot, then wish in your heart that it would change, but that is the weakest exercise of faith."

Interestingly, most Muslims in Muslim majority countries as well as in local American Muslim communities, are totally passive when it comes to running their mosques. You can hardly talk to anyone in any mosque-going community that is remotely happy with the state of affairs in their mosque. Social private events for Muslims end up frequently being a rant about how much change is needed at mosques, and how ineffective community leadership is.

And regardless of whether those claims are legitimate of not, the most likely scenario is that the rant stops their. Most of these 'ranting' people attend Friday prayers because God told them to so so. One would imagine that obedience to God should also expand to include other commandments such as the one mentioned above endorsing activism and in verses 7:157, 9:71, 9:112 as well as in explicit commandment form in verse 3:103.

Why would not then they speak up in the mosques against all the flaws and faults they find with how the community is run. Why would not they send letters to those in charge, demand to speak in public gatherings and start their own websites, blogs and public campaigns against what they think is wrong?

The several but few incidents when such public criticism was made strongly enough, it resulted in positive change. The more outspoken the opposition to wrong policies is, the better the outcome - hence the praise from God to communities that adopts that as a common practice.

Yet again, many of us Muslims, would rather whine in private, fail to constructively criticize in public, and are content with just going to the Friday prayer.

I am not saying it is easy to face your community with criticism. And there is public and peer pressure to avoid doing that under the fake interest in community unity, and for fear of 'causing Fitna' - that is Arabic for major communal confusion that can lead to societal break down and war - a threat that shuts people up very quickly.

Most of them do not realize that democracy, self criticism, and critical appraisal of the performance of leadership is NOT fitna. It is what God wants. And the more they ignore the need to do that, the farther they are from being good Muslims.

The prophet's companions did not hold their tongues when he did something they thought was not in the practical interest of the community. After the Prophet's death, they continued to live by the same principles that God and his Prophet taught them. And the stories fill our memory with public objection and criticism by early Muslims against things that the Prophet did in his capacity as a civil and military leader. Similar stories also exist during the rein of the early civil successors to the Prophet.

Objections and protests were not counted as Fitna those day. Why, in God's name, do we count it as Fitna today in tiny places like our cities or our mosques?

In fact, that passive existence in a community is abandonment of the community in an intellectual way, especially at times when we know that things are not working very well. It is more damaging to the community than physical and financial abandonment which put more pressure on the faulty community to wake up and smarten up.

Silence when the ship is sinking is as bad as drilling the hole in the ship yourself.

Khaled.

Religious leader of the Islamic Foundation of Greater St. Louis speaks on the Fort Hood massacre

Earlier today I was cc'd on an email exchange between several of the Interfaith Partnership (IFP) of St. Louis and Imam Minhajuddin, Imam (i.e., religious leader) of the Islamic Foundation of Greater St. Louis (IFGSL). The email was a reply from Imam Minhaj to an earlier message he received from the IFP and Faith Beyond Walls of St. Louis.

I found his reply to be worth sharing with you and the public, and he kindly granted my request to post his reply on this blog. It will be an excellent addition to the ongoing public discourse American Muslims are having with their non-Muslim fellow citizens about the the sad events that took the lives of 13 innocent victims (and injured over 3 dozen others) nearly on November 5, 2009 in Texas at the hands of Major Nidal Hassan, an American Muslim military psychiatrist currently indicted before military court for first degree murder of 13 victims of that massacre.

The message below is copied verbatim from the Imam's email, and I only trimmed the last section which listed quoted from Sheila Musaji's article listed at the end of the copied section. It referred to quotes of numerous American Muslim organizations about the events.

---------- Beginning of Quote from Imam Minhajuddin message.

Dear Cynthia Holmes, Batya Abramson Goldstein, and all our other interfaith partners,

Thank you so much for your kind and comforting words.

Indeed this is truly a trying time for Muslims in America and all over the world. First of all, our thoughts and prayers are with the families of the victims of this unspeakable tragedy. The light of their lives was snatched away in a moment of cruelty. We mourn with them and pray for peace and justice for them. May God be with them all.

Secondly, we, American Muslims, are just as horrified as anyone else by this, and all, senseless acts of violence against innocent people. We condemn these actions and pray for the victims of this madman who committed acts of treason against both God and our country. In my capacity as a Mufti and scholar of Islamic Law, I can confidently state that there is absolutely no basis whatsoever in our religion for such an unconscionable act of terror.

Even if the alleged facts may be true : that he was harassed and taunted by fellow soldiers for being Muslim; that being deployed to Iraq was his “worst nightmare”; that he tried very hard to get out of the Army but his requests to end his enlistment were repeatedly turned down; that he argued with other fellow soldiers about the legitimacy of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; nothing whatsoever can justify the murder of innocent unarmed fellow soldiers.

• "Believers, never let the hatred of a people toward you move you to commit injustice" (Quran, Chapter 5, Verse 8),

• "For not equal are the good deed and the evil deed. So repel their evil deeds with that which is best in the sight of God. Then, behold! The one who had enmity for you, and for whom you had enmity, may become a most intimate friend. Yet none shall attain this but those who are patient in suffering. And none shall attain this but one endowed with a magnificent share of goodness. But should there be any insinuation by Satan to instigate you to do otherwise, then seek refuge in God. Indeed, it is He who is the All-Hearing, the All-Knowing. (Quran 41:34-36)

• “O ye who believe! Stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to God, even as against yourselves, or your parents, or your kin, and whether it be (against) rich or poor: for God can best protect both. Follow not the lusts (of your hearts), lest ye swerve, and if ye distort (justice) or decline to do justice, verily God is well-acquainted with all that ye do.” [Quran, 4:35]

No true Muslim could ever commit such a crime against humanity. As Muslims, we are reminded that to take one innocent life in the sight of God is as if one has killed all of mankind.

• "Whosoever kills an innocent human being, it shall be as if he has killed all mankind, and whosoever saves the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind." (Quran 5:32)

Muslims are also commanded to keep their oaths when given.

• "O you who believe! Fulfill all contracts, treaties and covenants with God and with people." (Quran 5:1)

Thankfully, besides our friends from the interfaith partnership like yourselves, many amongst the political and military leadership of our country also understand this fact and can make the distinction between the teachings of Islam and the actions of a madman. In fact, many of them have expressed sympathy for the plight of Muslim Americans who have to survive this general backlash. Army commander Gen. George Casey has expressed concern over the impact that this act could have on the 2,000 Arab-Americans serving in the armed forces. He understands that not only do these Americans have the right to serve their country, but they can serve it in unique ways through their linguistic and cultural experiences as American Muslims. Criminalizing all for the crime of a deranged individual does our nation (and Muslims) a deep disservice.

However, unfortunately this is precisely what is happening at Ft. Hood and elsewhere in certain cases. Mikey Weinstein, a retired officer and activist for religious freedom in the military, forwards this communication from the wife of an American Muslim serving in the military:

“…I wanted to let you know what life has been like for myself, being an American-Muslim military spouse, over the last few days here at (name of military installation withheld), since the Ft. Hood incident. When I first learned of this, I was sitting in the PX food court with my best friend whose immediate reaction was, “ No offense to you, but Muslims shouldn’t even be allowed in the U.S. Army”. Wow, this was from my best friend here! I have heard this and similar sentiments repeatedly from various “friends”, as well as people insisting it’s really a terror plot.

Since this happening, my Muslim husband, who is deployed to Afghanistan, has been put on duty to build a chapel on his base, as well as being told not to associate with the Afghan nationals that work there. I went shopping at the commissary and had people mumbling under their breath but loud enough to ensure that I could hear, things like, “get out of our country”, “go back to your country”, “ F-ing Muslims”, “G-Damn Muslims,” and several other expletives you can insert there. Now people don’t just stare at you when they see you go by wearing hijab, they glare. Last time I checked, I was born in this country, this is my country, and my husband is serving it and continues to serve it despite the harassment and racism he encounters. He proudly serves despite the fact that our family pays a higher price for it than many others.”
(Quotations taken from theamericanmuslim.org)

I would highly recommend all of you to take some time out to read the following two very eloquently written articles by our own local Muslim journalist and founding editor of the online Journal, "The American Muslim", Sister Sheila Musaji. She has done exhaustive research and her works deserve recognition.

http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/fort_hood_tragedy_islam_and_america
http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/muslims_must_condemn_religious_extremists1/0017733

---------- End of Quote from Imam Minhajuddin message.

Please follow the link listed above to read Sheila Musaji excellent articles and for the full text of many American Muslim organizations statements.

Khaled

"Please God: can You make sure the others go to hell."

I cannot claim to be a theologian. But I do not have to be one to express how I feel about God, and about my own faith.

There are different ways to look at one's faith, and why we need to do what God wants, and stay away from what God tells you not to do.

For example, one can look at being a believer as being an employee: if you do what your boss wants, you will get promoted (= go to heaven). If you keep doing what you were instructed not to do, you will get fired (= go to hell). Another approach, and a better one, is to think how we behave in the company of people we love (family, friends, etc). In this case, we will do what makes them happy and we try to avoid what makes then not happy.

In the 'employee scenario', you want your boss to be less happy with others than with you - a typical competitive market approach with a zero-sum mentality logic. In the 'loving family scenario', you should not feel that your loved ones must dislike everybody else to make you content. And if you feel that way, it is jealousy, and it is not healthy.

All major religions have groups where the approach to 'salvation' (= being loved by God, and eventually going to Heaven) takes either the 'employee-employer' path, or the 'loving family' path. For some Christian, if you do not believe in God exclusively through Jesus as a savior, you are doomed to Hell, no matter how holy you live your life. Other Christian groups feel differently and think that you may be saved if you live your life the righteous way, even if you do not believe in Jesus as a divine figure and a savior.

As a Muslim, born and raised in an Arab and a predominantly Muslim country, I do not recall that the idea of 'all the others are going to hell' was prominent in our early religious education. The focus was on how we can get a good chance of going to heaven. And even though other Muslims may have had different experiences growing up, that topic is not of major prominence in religious Muslim discussions.

Of course, in Islam (as explicitly cited in the Quran) the ideas of accountability, the Day of Judgment, eternal reward (Paradise) and eternal punishment (Hellfire, Jehannam) are key ideas of Islamic faith, and that is beyond dispute. Actually, denying any of these tenets of faith takes those who deny it outside of the bounds of Islam.

Having said that, I am puzzled by why any believer in any faith would waste energy trying to prove that another faith group is NOT going to heaven, rather than focus exclusively on how he or she ensure that they themselves and their own group are doing everything to establish good life on Earth, and eventually go to Heavens.

Our Muslim community in this city -- as well as all over the world -- is not in good shape. The challenges thrown at us from within and from without are tremendous and I do not see that we, i.e. Muslims, are coping well at all.

A week and a half ago, for example, thirty Shia Muslims were blown into bits and pieces by an Iraqi Sunni suicide bomber woman while they were conducting their religious pilgrimage. Few days ago, a suicide bomber blew himself up at a funeral for a slain Shiite leader in northwest Pakistan, killing another 30 Shia Muslims, wounding more than 60.

Over the last few weeks, Taliban insurgents bombed several girls schools in Afghanistan, and some reports claimed similar event in Taliban dominated areas in Pakistan as well. Reports abound of young girls attacked for going to schools, and of some teachers killed for teaching in girls schools.

In Palestine, the vengeful tit-for-tat incidents between Hamas and non-Hamas organizations keep erupting all the time with loss of life, limb and the little resources Palestinians have. And in the Arab world, the fracture between Shia and Sunna seems in some Arab gulf countries to over-shadow the Israeli Palestinian problem.

On this side of the ocean and less than a week ago, a prominent American Muslim beheaded his wife who had filed for divorce in the recent past. And as if that was not bad enough, that killer was the founder of Bridges TV, to 'improve the perceptions' of Islam in America.

The list goes on, and on, and on.

I know it is not our personal responsibility to solve all those problems. But it is not our responsibility either to decide how God 'should' judge Christians, Jews, Buddhists, or whatever.

So, why when I go to the Friday sermon I find that we are not discussing our Muslim problems, and instead are analyzing other religions ideologies and festival, and whether they can be saved or not?

And even if it is not our personal responsibility to solve other Muslim nations problems, it is our collective duty as believers to try to figure out why there is not a place on earth were one can see Islam implemented in a way that can be a model for Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

It is our duty, personally and collectively, to understand why our Islamic core values-- such as communal brotherhood, social justice, equality, tolerance, peace, freedoms for minorities and undisputed respect for human rights -- are no where to be found in any piece of land under Muslim control.

Understanding why we fail as Muslims to fulfill the basic commitment to our religious core social and behavioral values is a daunting task. And for decades, it seems we have been moving in the wrong direction, and that many of our Muslims communities are slipping deeper and deeper into poverty, authoritarianism, extremism and even lawlessness.

If that is our case, why should we waste anytime trying to prove that others are not going be saved in the afterlife? When our own ship is sinking, why would we be concerned whether or not non-Muslims 'definitely have no chance to experience God's mercy?'.

Listening to recent Friday sermons debating the authenticity of Christmas as a religious occasion, or of the devilish pagan origins of Halloween seems to me and to many fellow Muslims like disputing whether our neighbor's house has proper foundation or not, while our own house is on fire.

I sincerely fail to see the need for these sermons. I am also not convinced that scaring Muslim of the 'deviancy' of other religions is the most effective way to strengthen their dedication to Islam. We definitely would be better off if we use our time to show Muslim faithfuls the way to use the strong points in Islam to build better life for ourselves and for our fellow citizens here.

Moreover, a Muslim's love for God should be the mainstay of their desire to obey Him.

"Say [O Prophet]: 'If you love God, follow me, [and] God will love you and forgive you your sins; for God is much-forgiving, a dispenser of grace.'" (Chapter 3:31)

"And yet there are people who choose to believe in beings that allegedly rival God,* loving them as [only] God should be loved: whereas those who have attained to faith love God more than all else... "(Chapter 2:165)

Something does not sound right about being a believer when you are only afraid of going to hell. It seems more satisfying, not to mention more mentally healthy, if one's dedication to their religion is a result of profound love of God, and the belief in the validity of the commandments of God as a way to live a good life on this earth.

"As for anyone - be it man or woman - who does righteous deeds, and is a believer withal - him shall We most certainly cause to live a good life..." (Chapter 16:97)

In addition 'playing God' by determining the fate of any individual or group on the Day of Judgment is not something that God asked us to do. It is actually something that God specifically asked us not to do. Many verses of the Quran do just that. So, take a look these:

"The Sovereignty on that day will be God's, He will judge between them. Then those who believed and did good works will be in Gardens of Delight," (Chapter 22:56)

"For behold, unto Us will be their return, and verily, It is for Us to call them to account." (Chapter 88:25-26)

The Quran actually criticized earlier Jews and Christians because each group claimed that they only are exclusively correct and are the most favored by God.

"Furthermore, the Jews assert, 'The Christians have no valid ground for their beliefs,' while the Christians assert, 'The Jews have no valid ground for their beliefs' - and both quote the divine writ! Even thus, like unto what they say, have [always] spoken those who were devoid of knowledge;' but it is God who will judge between them on Resurrection Day with regard to all on which they were wont to differ." (Chapter 2:113)

God also makes it clear that He intended for us to think differently, and believe differently. And that our competition should be about doing good deeds.

"for, every community faces a direction of its own, of which He is the focal point. Vie, therefore, with one another in doing good works. Wherever you may be, God will gather you all unto Himself: for, verily, God has the power to will anything." (Chapter 2:148)

And nothing could be better to conclude with other than this wonderful prayer, that succinctly summarizes all what faith is about:

"O our Sustainer! Grant us good in this world and good in the life to come, and keep us safe from suffering through the fire" (Chapter 2:201)

So, please fellow Muslims: just focus on our success in this life, and our salvation in the life-after.

As for the others, God in His ultimate mercy, fairness and knowledge will know best how to take care of them.

Khaled

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:

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.

That was then.

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