Desicritics Author: tbs

Poetic Justice!

tbs — Mon, 3 Mar 2008 08:59:57 EST

When Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab first started his movement, one of the main ideas he espoused was to purify Islam once again and bring it back to the way it was practiced during the time of the Prophet. He was very adamant about vehemently cleaning up Islam and removing what he perceived as bad innovations (bid’a) which resemble t he Jahiliya times. One of his first actions was to level the the grave of Zayd ibn al-Khattab, a companion of the Prophet and brother of the second Caliph, on the grounds that Islamic teachings forbid grave worship.

Many recent Saudi fatwas by various Wahhabi sheikhs have echoed the same belief and have gone down the same route calling for the destruction of shrines, even outside of the borders of the Kingdom. Maybe there are none left there to destroy? A fatwa called for the destruction of the Shia shrines in Iraq on the grounds that "they are symbols of shirk and worship of idols". Amongst the "scholars" who have issued such fatwas are: Sheikh Abdel- Rahman al-Barak, Sheikh Mamdooh al-Harbi, Dr Nasser al-Omar, Sheikh bin Jibreen, Dr Safar al-Hawali, Shaikh Abdul Aziz Ibn Abdullah Ibn Baz and Hamed al-Ali.

Another article mentions that Saudi religious "scholars" have been issuing fatwas calling for the destruction of the great Shi’ite shrines in Najaf and Karbala in Iraq, some of which have already been bombed like Samarra's Askariya shrine, also known as the Golden Mosque, which holds the tombs of two revered 9th-century Shia imams Imam Ali al-Hadi and Imam Hassan al-Askari, father of the "hidden imam," al-Mahdi.

According to BBC Monitoring Middle East on Jul 23, 2007, other shrines have also been listed and urged to be destroyed "in order to save the Muslims from falling into polytheism". Mentioned were the shrines of Sayyida Zaynab, in Syria, and the shrines of Al-Sayyida Zaynab and that of Al-Sayyid al-Badawi in Egypt.

Apparently this has already happened once in 1802, when the Wahhabis assaulted the city of Karbala where more than 9,000 men, women and children were killed and the shrines in Karbala were first desecrated and then set alight.

The ironical thing is that Sulayman Ibn Abdel Wahab, brother of Muhammad Ibn Abdel Wahab, was rather distressed by his brother’s extreme opinions regarding who is or is not a believer. So Sulayman wrote a book "Al-Sawa`iq al-Ilahiyya fi Madhhab al-Wahhabiyya" ("The Divine Thunderbolts Concerning the Wahhabi School") that rejects Wahhabism and criticises those extreme views. He wrote : “Intercession occurred during the time of the companions when one dreamed that he had complained to the Prophet about drought. The Prophet ordered him to seek the help of Umar. In this case, neither Umar nor the companions denied intercession, yet you Wahabis claim those who ask for intercession are unbelievers." He continued: "Similar actions occurred at the time of Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal. Although some scholars might have had reservations, none ever accused anyone of being a kafir, labelled them apostate or permitted them being killed as mushriks.”

Sulayman Ibn Abdel Wahab even managed to find a Hadith (prophetic tradition) to argue that intercession was not prohibited anywhere: "In one hadith a blind man came to the Prophet to asked him to pray for the return of his eyesight. The Prophet replied, ‘If you wish, I will pray for that, but you must be patient.’ ‘Please,’ the man asked, ‘Do pray for me’. The Prophet ordered he perform Wudu, pray two Rakaats and then ask, ‘O Allah, I ask and beseech you in the name of Muhammad Messenger of Mercy, O Muhammad, I beg you to intercede for my request to be fulfilled, O Allah, please accept his intercession’. Uthman bin Hanif, the narrator of this report said, ‘We did not separate from our meeting until the blind man returned to us with his sight fully restored.’ " (As found in Sunan ibn Majah Vol. 1 p. 441, Mustradak al-Hakim Vol.1 p. 313 and Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal Vol.4 p.138)

Sulayman Ibn Abdel Wahab argues that this Hadith not only provides clear evidence that the Prophet not only accepted the concept of intercession, but that he himself complied with a request to intercede, giving instruction on how Allah should be asked so that his intercession can be accepted.

Sheikh Abdul Aziz Ibn Abdullah Ibn Baz’s opinion about Ibn Abdel Wahab’s the demolition of shrines equates it to removing polytheism. He writes: “One day, the Shaikh said to the governor, 'Let us demolish the dome at the grave of Zaid Ibn al-Khatab (Zaid Ibn al-Khatab was the brother of Umar Ibn al-Khattab t and a martyr, who died in the fighting against Musailimah Khaddhab in 12 A.H, he was buried and later on people built a dome on his grave). It is erected on deviation and the Prophet has forbidden building domes or mosques on graves. Moreover, this dome has destroyed the people's belief with polytheism. So, it must be demolished.' Then the Shaikh took the action of demolishing and removing the dome. Allah removed it by his hands and Al-hamdulillah, none of its traces remains now. Similarly, there were other domes, caves, trees, etc. that were also destroyed and removed.”

That much for demolishing shrines and purifying Islam. Now the other day I was watching a program on Al Jazeera, which can be viewed here

I couldn’t help it but burst out laughing watching this program. So after all this destruction, demolition and ruin and the deep-seated aversion to any kind of shrine, what happens to the Wahhabi Mujahideen? They get their own shrines, without even an intercession with Allah. Their graves have alleged baraka and karamat, which make barren women have children, heal the sick and generate special visits to ask for special favours because of the purported miracles as the bbc has reported last month.

Now that’s what I call poetic justice!

Abdel Karim - How Extremism Silences Moderate Voices

tbs — Mon, 5 Mar 2007 03:46:35 EST

I received many responses and comments after writing the first article about Kareem Amer and his blog. One of the comments inspired this second article. The comment said amongst other things: "But Kareem did write some very explosive articles. In an ideal world that should not have landed him in jail, but by posting them on his blog, he took a huge risk in the current climate in Egypt, where radicalization is on the rise and the government is weak and trying to portray itself as the guardian of religion and morals. In one article he describes the University of Al Azhar - where he was enrolled as a student - as "the other face of Al Qaeda."

Therefore today I would like to analyse this particular post which as Kareem Amer's title tells us was based on "Contents of a mail by another Azharite student - Al Azhar and Al Qaeda - two sides of the same coin."

His post was about a debate on a discussion forum online between him and another fellow student of Al Azhar whom he sarcastically calls "enlightened". The debate was about the gender segregation of students in Al Azhar, its effects on them, such as heightened sexual tension leading to violence, discrimination, hate and vindictiveness. The fellow Azharite declared him to be a non-believer or rather an apostate and threatened to kill him. Kareem Amer asks if Sheikh al-Tantawi knew that inside his own university were students adopting the very same line of thinking, which he himself condemned while performing the funeral prayers for the slain Egyptian Ambassador to Iraq. Ihab al-Sherif was killed, according to a statement released in the name of al-Qaeda in Iraq "because he was an apostate, who had betrayed his faith." Kareem further writes that this line of thinking is not only advocated by many students but also by a number of faculty members, specially in the departments of fiqh and sharia, using the same arguments like Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Kareem concludes that when violence and threats replace logic and reasoning, a solution needs to be found very fast. For Kareem the similarity between Al Azhar and Al Qaeda comes from this fanaticism, parallels in behaviour and outlook, a comparable disregard of life and frankly very little concern towards basic kindness and compassion to other human beings.

Declaring another human to be a kafir or an apostate is an extremely serious theological charge and should never to be carried out lightly. Not only did Al Azhar itself condemn that practice, but a select group of Muslim scholars, representing all the eight different sects and mazhabs, of the Sunnis as well as the Shias, denounced the same thing at the end of the recent conference held in Oman.

Given the rather extreme reactions by the almost illiterate fanatics to these accusations (we have seen too many people killed in various Muslim countries after being accused of being apostates), it is surprising that we see this very same behaviour repeatedly coming from the eminent institution itself.

Al Azhar has not only figured as a major player, but has also continually declared many an intellectual as overstepping the lines by using examples of their art, literature, speech or other forms of expression.

In an article titled "Ban.. Ban.." published in French, Tunisian columnist Zyed Krichen condemns the censorship and denial of free speech implemented by most Arab states and Islamist groups since the introduction of printing. In the second part of his article, he lists examples of censorship and persecution in the name of Islam from various Muslim countries, including banned works and artists who have been imprisoned, flogged, and/or killed. He writes: "As for literature the list of banned books is so long that it would be easier to name the ones that are permitted and approved. This is true even in large countries like Egypt, and even for masterpieces of our cultural heritage, like the 'One Thousand and One Nights'. Works by Abu Nawas, Bashar Ibn Bord, Al-Isfahani, Al-Madari, and hundreds of others were banned from bookstores in the 20th century."

Sadly Al Azhar has participated in this heavily. In the Name of Islam many books have been banned. Starting in 1925 with 'Islam and Principles of Government' by Al Azhar's very own Sheikh Ali Abdel Raziq, which was termed heretical, because it advocated the separation of religion and state as a principle of proper governance. Ali Abdel Raziq was then expelled from Al-Azhar University. Since then this has happened almost regularly. In 1926, Taha Hussein's book 'On Pre-Islamic Poetry' was banned and he too was later expelled from the university for his rationalist interpretation of pre-Islamic literature and the Qur'an. In 1959 Naguib Mahfouz's 'Children of the Alley' was condemned by Al-Azhar as blasphemous. In 1975 Al-Azhar censored books, including previously published works, by Tawfik Al Hakim and Youssef Idris. In 1981, 'History of the Arabic Language' by Fikri Al-Aqad is also banned for claiming that certain words in the Qur'an are of Egyptian origin. Four years later in 1985, three thousand copies of 'One Thousand and One Nights' were destroyed and the publisher was sentenced to jail for corrupting the morals of the younger generation. In 1990, Nasr Hamed Abu Zeid proposed a reformist approach on reading and interpreting the Qur'an and later received death threats and was declared an apostate. He felt he had to flee the country and settled down in the Netherlands. In that same year Farag Foda's book "To Be or Not to Be" was banned and he was prosecuted for offending religion.

Book banning increased and in 1992 Al-Azhar scholars demanded the banning of eight books on Islam. In the very same year Farag Foda was shot. Al Azhar's Sheikh Muhammad al Ghazali had declared Foda an apostate and said that Islamic law would condone his killing. Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya accepted responsibility for the murder, saying "al-Azhar issued the sentence and we carried out the execution." Though Al Azhar scholars later deplored the way in which Foda was murdered, they nevertheless still considered him an apostate who deserved a death sentence.

In 1994, Egyptian Nobel Laureate Naguib Mahfouz was stabbed in the neck and seriously wounded after Sheikh Omar Abdul Rahman, the spiritual leader of the fundamentalist group al-Gama'a al Islamiyya, issued a fatwa excommunicating him. 196 books were to be banned on moral and religious grounds in 1997, according to a compilation by Al Azhar. However that same year saw the release of author Alaa Hamed after serving a year in prison for writing a novel that "insulted Islam."

The year 2000 sees the writer Haydar Haydar being declared an apostate for writing 'A Banquet for Seaweed', in which a character says: 'The divine Bedouin laws and the teaching of the Qur'ran are all shit.' Al Azhar University called for a public burning of the book. A year later journalist Salaheddin Mohsen and female preacher Manal Manea are each sentenced to three years in prison for atheism and blasphemy.

In 2004, al Azhar's Islamic Research Council recommended banning Nawal el-Saadawi's novel The Fall of the Imam, which had been on sale in Egypt since 1987.

Beginning with Law Number 102 of 1985, Mubarak's various governments gave Al Azhar's Islamic Research Council (IRC) the power to advise on the banning or censoring of any book it judged as heretical. Minister of Culture Farouk Hosni later gave the increasingly potent body a boost when he was quoted as saying, "Al Azhar is the supreme authority; when it states an opinion, we must all fall silent." Paradoxically Minister Farouk Hosni said recently that "the headscarf is a symbol of backwardness", which landed him into a lot of trouble in Egypt, yet he was not accused by Al Azhar of anything at all.

The IRC at Al-Azhar University had the legal authority to censor, but not to confiscate any books. Unfortunately the Center was given the authority to confiscate books and audio and videotapes that they believe violate Islamic teachings by Minister of Justice Faruq Seif al-Nasr. The minister's order led to the confiscation of hundreds of publications from bookstores.

Not only were books affected by that, but also the range of academic research was rigidly restricted. The case against Nasr Abu Zeid began as a response to his interpretation of the Qur'an and resulted in an implied decision in all Arab language and philosophy departments to ban registrations of any theses involving an interpretation of the Qur'an that might lead to the same problem. Any academic researcher thinking of a thesis on a religious subject no longer has complete freedom to decide the subject. In 2006, Al Azhar not only allowed, but also granted, a doctorate to an obvious fanatic. The thesis listed who all he thought are apostates, with one of Egypt's first female journalists Rosa Al-Youssef in the lead.

What I find very puzzling is that the government clamps down so very hard on Islamists and Muslim Brothers, yet allows their constant meddling in intellectual affairs. This is very strange, because it is exactly this intellectual backwardness disguised as religious zeal, which is the core challenge to Mubarak's ostensibly secular state. In the Human Rights Watch report of 2005 it was noted: "The Egyptian government must create an environment where academic freedom is respected, i.e., restore autonomy to the universities and cease violating the rights of individual members of the community. Such steps would make it harder for those who challenge academic freedom to achieve their goals. The state should also actively oppose intolerant individuals or groups who carry out attacks against academic freedom. For example, it should reject calls to censor books and allow students to choose their own thesis topics. Rather than combating Islamists' attempts to limit academic freedom, Egypt has allowed them to deprive others of their rights."

In an explosive interview in 2004, Nabil Abdel Fattah, a political analyst with Al Ahram Political and Strategic Studies Center wrote about how Politicians have used religion to gain legitimacy, how extremists have used it to condone murder and how religious institutions have been more than happy to play the power game to win some control of their own. Welcoming the reader to twenty five years of religious politics in Egypt, he said: "Al-Azhar has been censoring books and, worse, we've become accustomed to reading about one Islamist lawyer or another calling for movies to be banned because the posters were 'suggestive'. Instead, the state over-used religion in its political war and it over-used Al-Azhar. We can't ignore the fact that there are extremists inside Al-Azhar itself, which put additional burdens on people and society." This was published in Egypt Today, a famous Magazine in Cairo. The words are not very much different from Kareem Amer's conclusion now are they?

Islam is intrinsically a moderate religion. Yet, today the biggest problem it faces is the extremism of its advocates. Al Azhar, as one of the oldest universities and Islamic institutions should be the first to ensure that Muslims stay on the middle path. Islam neither teaches extremism nor rejection, neither arrogance nor ignorance. In fact, it condemns them all. My parents and teachers never taught me this. I do not recognise many aspects of this violent intolerant behaviour. What then does it teach? The Islam I learned teaches people to be kind and forgiving, to be open hearted and modest in behaviour. It teaches a beautiful middle way, a critical balance between two unhealthy and unworthy extremes. "And it is thus that We appointed you to be the community of the middle way, so that you might be witnesses before all mankind and the Messenger might be a witness before you." (Qur'an 2:143)

Abdel Karim - The Crime of Obeying God, and Al Azhar's Curse

tbs — Fri, 23 Feb 2007 08:16:46 EST

Newspapers all over the world are replete with articles about the prison sentence given to Egyptian Blogger Abdel Karim Nabil Suleiman, who blogged under the name of Karim Amer.(Arabic website)

The last entry on his unfortunate blog dates back to October 28, 2006 where he mentions that he received a summons to appear at the police station for an investigation. The charges against him, he writes, are the ghost of Al Azhar haunting him, despite him receiving his dismissal paper from Al Azhar University already. He mentions other luminaries and intellectuals that were touched by Al Azhar's curse, as he calls it, and who were forced to either abandon their ideas or flee the country or paid with their life, such as Nasr Hamed Abu Zeid, Dr. Ahmed Sobhy Mansour, Nawal El Saadawi or Ahmed El Shahawy and the late Farag Fouda. He writes that this only strengthens his courage and resolve.

Since that last entry he has been arrested and detained and has no doubt gone through hell. We have all seen enough videos on YouTube of what goes on in Egyptian Police Stations to know that his detention there was probably a nightmare - to say the least. Visits from his family and lawyers were forbidden.

The charges against Karim were those of insulting Islam, harming the peace and insulting President Hosni Mubarak.

According to the articles of the international press - for some strange reason the Egyptian press has remained rather silent about Karim - he is supposed to have said: "I don't see what I have done, I expressed my opinion...the intention was not anything like these charges."

Let us take a look at his blog and see what he wrote and whether or not he indeed insulted Islam or harmed the peace.

Karim starts blogging in February 2004 about love, hardly harming peace unless his own peace of mind. In June 2004 he writes about honour killings and how the hymen is an affliction women are cursed with and how this insignificant piece of skin becomes a curse. Strangely enough just this week Ali Gomaa, the Grand Mufti of Egypt, issued a fatwa making hymen reconstruction surgery for women who have lost their virginity before marriage as halal.

In his next posts also in June 2004, Karim criticized the use of religion to suppress women in all spheres of life. He objects to not educating girls, of not allowing them to work in certain professions and fields. He condemns female circumcision and genital mutilation as yet another form of repression. He criticizes marrying off girls at an early age and is very passionate about discontinuing domestic violence. All his criticism has been dealt with before by Al Azhar and the Grand Mufti. Just this month Egypt's Grand Mufti declared that Islam does not bar women from becoming heads of state. So if this position is theoretically open to women, what other positions could be forbidden.
Al Azhar held many symposiums on the education of Muslim women, which affirmed women's rights to education. Al Azhar even went as far as saying that misleading social norms and traditions which impede the development of Muslim women should be corrected.

In a recent conference in Cairo, sponsored by a German human rights group and held under the patronage of the Grand Mufti of Egypt, ten of the highest ranking scholars from all over the world met. Their final statement pronounced the custom of female genital mutilation (FGM) as a punishable aggression and an attack on women and a crime against humanity. As a result, the custom can no longer be practiced by Muslims. The conference appeals to all Muslims to stop practicing this habit, according to Islam's teachings, which prohibit inflicting harm on any human being.

In his next post he writes about the increasing phenomenon of black niqabs on the streets. He criticizes them and calls them black shrouds. That too does neither insult Islam nor Al Azhar. Just recently Mohammad Hamdi Zaqzouq, Egypt's Religious Affairs Minister said that the niqab is not a religious object. Zaqzouq said: "Nor is the niqab a duty deriving from the Sharia. I know I will be criticized for my words but I think some Muslims are committing a fundamental error, focusing on external and superficial aspects, without exploring more relevant themes, and hence providing a distorted image of Islam." Zaqzouq went a few steps further a few weeks later by rejecting the appointment of niqab-clad women to work as counsellors in his ministry on the grounds that this would just promote "the culture of the niqab". According to Zaqzouq: "The niqab is a matter of custom and not the faith -- it has nothing to do with the religion".

So far so good! Until now I have not seen anything that insulted Islam or even went against any of Al Azhar's decisions, fatwas, conferences, symposiums or teachings.

He blogs sporadically, about once or twice a month for the next few months. He writes about his neighbour, about Chechnya and more about love and he even starts writing poetry. He writes about Biblotheca Alexandria and about Cleopatra and Mark Anthony, about educating women, about decreasing women illiteracy, how language can be used to disguise intentions and about escaping reality. He also writes about dictators such as Saddam Hussein and George Bush and about the behaviour of a certain group of young Muslims who have been brainwashed into taking matters into their own hands to implement an Islamic society. He describes how they harass people on the streets, allow themselves to stop music, separate girls and boys and generally promote what they perceive as honourable Islamic values and combat what they perceive as vice. He criticises the blind following of so-called enlightened individuals who have a magic hold on many young people by means of lectures distributed via cassette tapes. He writes about the elections, about Ayman Nour, the Kefaya Movement, about Nawal Sadawi and Inas El Deghedi, a female movie director with many controversial and highly critical films.

I went through the entire blog. It took me a couple of days, but I seriously read each and every blog entry. I had to find out why he will be robbed of four years of his life. Why he was denied the right to complete his education. Why he was dismissed from University. Why he was silenced and used as an example to perhaps frighten other bloggers into silence.

The posts that allegedly insult al Azhar only appeared much later. In November 2004 he wrote a long entry about the segregation in al Azhar between female and male students and how this heightens the tension. He explicitly describes the questions asked in fiqh classes about sexual matters and how this whole separation leads to all sorts of sick fantasies. In November 2005 he writes another entry about the cooperation between mosque and state, in other words between Al Azhar and the government and adds pictures of President Hosni Mubarak in various meetings with top clerics, and of Gamal Mubarak meeting Pope Shenouda, pictures mind you that have been posted all over the newspapers. The post discusses the relationship between figures of state and clerics (Muslim and Christian) in a historical context and how the two exchanged legitimacy and power from that relationship. Again nothing that cannot be found in various history books. The contention probably comes from extending the link to modern times and writing about a group calling themselves "Ansar Al Sunna" and how this radical and fanatic group was supporting the President in the elections, as per ads they published condemning other candidates and portraying the President as a just and impartial figure akin to the ancient concept of Amir-ul-mu'minin (Prince of the believers). The next contention comes from his analysis of the failure of Sheikh Al Tantawi to obtain the support of the clerical staff of AL Azhar for the President in his election campaign, on the grounds that they are men of religion and teachers and shouldn't be getting involved in politics, another fact that was published in various opposition papers. His only crime here could perhaps be writing passionately about the hypocrisy of politicising religion.

In August he writes an open letter to the President. He poses many questions to him about forgeries in elections, about his long time rule, about whether or not he intends to fight discrimination in Egypt on religious grounds and about providing job opportunities for the young graduates and about the rumours of appointing Gamal Mubarak as a successor. All his questions come from the President's own campaign speeches and slogans or from articles previously published in opposition papers. Again nothing new here! Perhaps the only thing was that he actually urged the President to reconsider running. But that was also nothing new. The Kefaya Movement has made that its slogan.

In another post in August 2005 he criticises the statement made by Al Azhar to allow the enrolment of Coptic students under the condition that they memorise the Qur'an. Personally I can see the double standards in such a permit.

In March 2006 he blogs about receiving a letter from Al Azhar temporarily barring him from continuing his education there. He writes about Taha Hussein, Abdallah Al Qussaimy and Ahmed Sobhi Mansour who were all expelled from the university at some point, either as teachers or students, for wanting a reform and for asking for it. This very emotional post discusses his decision of not leaving the university, but rather waiting to be expelled. He argues that if everyone left a problem without trying to solve it or attempting at least to draw attention to it then nothing will ever be corrected. He further explains that Al Azhar is a state university funded by taxes collected from both Muslims and Copts and that it was high time to stop its discriminating practices, both on gender and religious grounds.

In a following post he describes the disciplinary council he was summoned to attend for his writings on the internet. He attends it accompanied by Raymon Youssef, a writer for Copts United, and Mamdouh Nakhla, a lawyer and director of AL Kalima (Words for Human Rights). The accusations levelled against Karim transformed personal writings to slandering Al Azhar, labelled his criticism and call for reform as hate inciting and apostasy.

In March 2006 he gets summoned to the Dean's office and the accusations continue and so does his blogging, which now takes a political colouring. He writes more about the demonstrations, the charade democracy, the persecution of demonstrators, the police brutality against demonstrators, about religious fanaticism on the rise and about curbing freedoms. Again nothing new that couldn't have been read in various opposition papers before.

Perhaps the only thing that could be taken against Karim on religious grounds is a post titled "No God but Man". The post, unlike its title though, deals with the law and whether or not the law is there to curb freedoms rather than guarantee them and concludes with a metaphor that the law becomes a god to enforce certain powers reserved for certain humans.

Amazingly, Chapter Three of the Egyptian Constitution which deals with Public Freedoms, Rights and Duties says in Article 47: "Freedom of opinion shall be guaranteed. Every individual shall have the right to express his opinion and to publicize it verbally, in writing, by photography or by other means of expression within the limits of the law. Self criticism and constructive criticism shall guarantee the safety of the national structure. "

This is exactly what Karim has done. He exercised his freedom of opinion. He took his right of expressing his opinion seriously and believed enough in it to write it on the internet in a publicly accessible blog. In my opinion Karim lived up to both his own true self and principles as well as his religion. In his Blogger profile he wrote that he was looking forward to help humanity against all forms of discrimination. The Qur'an implores believers to speak up against injustice, which is precisely what Karim has done.

Once again a religious institution is confusing itself with God, instead of seeing that they are part of the problem, they interpret any criticism of the institution as criticism of Allah, whereas Karim only did what Allah has told every Muslim to do: [4:135]: "O you who believe! be maintainers of justice, bearers of witness of Allah's sake, though it may be against your own selves or (your) parents or near relatives; if he be rich or poor, Allah is nearer to them both in compassion; therefore do not follow (your) low desires, lest you deviate; and if you swerve or turn aside, then surely Allah is aware of what you do."

More Info on Abdel Karim

Shshsh - Don't Laugh! We're Muslims!

tbs — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 15:16:02 EST

I received the article "Little Masquerade on the Prairie" by Tarek Fatah and Farzana Hassan of the MCC, which was published in The Toronto SUN in my email.

The article criticised the show "Little Mosque on the Prairie" aired by CBC. The criticism ranged from not being funny, to being shallow, to painting a false picture of the Muslim community in Canada and that it does not reflect the diversity of Canada's Muslim society.

For me the criticism that the show focuses " singularly on the most conservative segments of the Muslim community" and that it shows "conservative Muslims vs. ultra-conservative Muslims" really made me laugh, for I do not agree with this assessment at all.

It is hardly conservative when a young Muslim woman sits out there at night on the steps (even if they are the steps of a mosque) talking to a young man (even if he is an imam) without a chaperon / mehrem (a male relative). It is definitely not ultra-conservative to show a Muslim wife being "disobedient" to her husband and withdrawing marital relations until a conflict is solved.

Strangely enough on another, more traditional, Muslim mailing list, the equally harsh criticism against the show was because it portrays too many progressive Muslims - showed a husband kissing his unveiled wife in public, presented unorthodox verbal exchanges and discussions thereby encouraging women to speak up against and defy their fathers and husbands.

Further, it accused the show of reducing Muslims to sad caricatures and many a time the dialogue bordering on blasphemy. I guess that nobody can please everybody and it all boils down to one's sense of humour and more so to one's definition of words such as progressive, orthodox and conservative.

On my part, I found the four episodes to be a breath of fresh air, showing that Muslims can indeed laugh about themselves and do possess a sense of humour. I watched them all on YouTube

The insider jokes might sometimes go above the head of a lot of viewers, who do not have sufficient information about Islam, like for example one of the female characters saying something to the effect that this or that can be found in Sura 115 of the Qur'an, which obviously does not exist, since the Qur'an only has 114 Suras or the play on words calling it Halal-oween.

Personally I find the accusation that the script-writer is playing "a deft hand in attempting to sanitize what really goes on in the typical Canadian mosque" namely the "hijacking of Islam, by politicized clerics affiliated with Saudi Arabia or Iran", to be rather ludicrous and if anything at all I think that the humour in it was missed.

The conservative character "Baber" is not really representative of the kind of clerics affiliated with the virulent string of Wahabi Islam, but rather an elderly family man who is desperately trying to control his nuclear family, and perhaps by extension the small Muslim community in that little town. He is portrayed in such a way that his attempts of control - even his discussions with the new and much younger imam about issues such as women praying in the same open space like the men or having an open day at the mosque - end up being exposed as pathetic and laughable.

As an example in episode four, he started off being very much opposed to celebrating Halloween on the grounds that it is un-Islamic and by being totally against his children participating in any of the events associated with it, like trick & treat. He ended up having to go as a Muslim escort for his teenage daughter and enjoying himself even more than his children.

I for one, found myself feeling sorry for him at times. Despite his apparent conservatism, he does, like any other doting father, have a soft spot for his daughter and indeed even repeatedly goes against his own traditional beliefs when it comes to her.

Muslim lives, especially in non-Muslim countries, do indeed not revolve around mosques, but for crying out loud, this is a comedy not a documentary or a reality show. And ideally the mosque should provide a lot more services to a community than only providing prayer space or room for Friday sermons.

The New York Times portrayed a progressive imam, Mr. Shata, who said that he wishes to return the function of a mosque and its imam to what it used to be, by providing a space for interactions and other services. He for one runs some sort of a Muslim dating service from his mosque and chaperons prospective brides and grooms. He lectures at the mosque, settles disputes, makes house-calls to his community members whispering the call to prayer in the ears of newborn babies and "spends hours listening to women's worries and confessions, their intimate secrets and frank questions about everything from menstruation to infidelity."

The show does attempt to show some of the good - if not ideal - sides, like the discussions between the various community members regarding issues of conflict, presenting various opinions ranging from conservative to progressive. It also shows the "ideal" relationship, that should be, between the imam and the small town's priest, where their respective religions do not stand in the way of helping one another out, even if only by listening and offering a shoulder or a cup of tea and thereby co-existing friendly and peacefully.

In some ways it also touches upon some of the complicated matters that could lead to convoluted fiqh questions, like for example if a man was gay, does that still necessitate a woman to cover her hair in his presence, despite the fact that it will in no way make any difference to him at all?

The cherry on top of this article was the statement: "Indeed all of the depictions point to an Islamist agenda that seeks to justify inequities that pervade Muslim communities under the pretext of progress."

Oh please! To imply that a comedy show has a political objective and some sinister hidden agenda, predictably using the catch phrase of Islamist for emphasis, is really a bit too much and for me only shows seeing all sort of 'comical' conspiracies where none exist. A sense of humour is a very personal thing. What people choose to find funny or not is a personal choice, but if someone fails to see through the show to see it as a comedy, as is intended, then I must wonder about a possible own hidden agenda.

I am happy I watched the four episodes aired so far and I will be watching the next ones to come, provided they are uploaded somewhere like the previous ones. Personally I think that Zarqa Nawaz has managed to create a show that is both entertaining and also helpful in removing the fear of the unknown, those Muslims, who in a lot of other places, especially after 9/11 and in too many Hollywood movies are all lumped together and depicted as uncultured, ignorant brutes, terrorists, fanatics or worse.

A recent poll recent poll measuring the level of "Islamophobia" in each nation reported Canadians to be least prejudice against Muslims. Only 6.5% of the two thousand Canadians surveyed, said they wouldn't like to have a Muslim neighbour. Perhaps it is shows like "Little Mosque on the Prairie" that help in removing deep-seated prejudices and show that at the end of the day Muslims are as human as everyone else, fighting their own demons of temptations and misunderstandings and rigid interpretations and long ingrained traditions, all that while trying to find a middle ground between keeping and practicing their faith and fitting in and making a new home in a country of their choice.

And if someone would make a "Little Gurdwara on the East Coast" or a "Little Mandir on the Oil Sands", I would most probably like to watch them as well, as I have no clue about what Sikhs or Hindus might or might not find funny or how being in the temples could be shown in a way that breaks the ice and removes prejudices.

In the New York Times article, Mr. Shata said: "The surprise for me was that the qualities I thought would not make a good sheik -- simplicity and humour and being close to people -- those are the most important qualities. People love those who smile and laugh. They need someone who lives among them and knows their pain."

Zarqa Nawaz, thank you for making me laugh!

Extreme Interpretations of Islam: A Step Too Far!

tbs — Fri, 17 Nov 2006 03:12:52 EST

My cousin, a professor at Cairo University told me about an incident that happened to her. One of her best students, an extremely polite and well-mannered shy veiled girl came into her office crying. Asking her about the reason she said she was asking her professor a question in class, when a colleague of hers wearing the niqab, told her that a good Muslim female student is not supposed to ask her male professor any questions in class to avoid eye contact and raising her voice.

My cousin told me that her student wearing the niqab was also one of her good students and therefore she called her to the office and told her how disappointed she was about the comment she made. She patiently explained that this was because it meant that she did not see this person as a professor who spent years and years of his life for the sake of research and knowledge and then more years towards transmitting and sharing it. She did not see him as a professor or a father or perhaps as an elder brother. All what she saw in him was that he was a man. She also did not see herself as a willing student nor a daughter or a younger sister. She only saw herself as a female, which is very humiliating to them both. I thought that this incident was very significant and needed to be written about.

Never mind, that learning was called a form of worship and Hadith asked believers to seek knowledge all the way even to China, while the Qur'an placed great emphasis on learning as per Sura [39.9]: "... Say: Are those who know and those who do not know alike? Only the men of understanding are mindful...."

Not engaging in any personal, active, immediate, face to face discussions and not even answering or asking questions seems to be based on the misconception that a woman's voice is "awra", meaning that women should lower their voice to whispers or preferably even complete silence, except when they speak to their husbands, male relatives or other females. Many Mullahs have issued fatwas about the act of communication from and by a female as being a source of temptation to the poor male who cannot seem to be able to control himself.

Sadly, the example of this particular student is not an isolated case. Her views are shared by many, way too many. Unfortunately this student represents the new generation, the so-called future hope of the Muslim Ummah. I wince at such mentalities. I flinch at taking every small straight forward concept stated to ensure decency in human exchanges way too far and imposing narrow-minded intolerance on it. What really upsets me the most though, is the jump from the injunction of good behaviour and observing decency to prohibiting something which Allah has allowed and imposing new false rigid ways of behaviour which lead to much harm. It just makes me angry.

The student does not realise that not replying to teacher's questions is a form of treatment that is rather impolite and insulting, to both of them. A female student with a male teacher and vice versa, a male student with a female teacher should be focusing on the curriculum at hand and not on their respective genders. An old Arab proverb says "The teacher is almost a prophet." So were does that leave us today?

Women were teachers even during the Prophet's time and the believers were allowed to engage them in discussions to learn from them. The Qur'an specifically and clearly mentions that those seeking knowledge or any information from the Prophet's wives were to address them (from behind a screen yes, but still address them [33:53]). Since questions require an answer, the Prophet's wives answered questions to those who asked and also narrated Hadiths. This to me certainly implies a conversation. I hardly think that sign language was used as the curtains would surely have prevented that.

Furthermore, women were allowed to question the Prophet even in the presence of men. A whole collection of hadiths proves that fact. This naturally shows us that they were neither prevented from being heard nor from speaking up and neither from participating in an exchange with men. There is one particular case I would like to mention, the case when Caliph Umar was challenged by a woman during his khutba on the minbar. He did not deny her nor cut her off nor ask her to remain silence, despite the embarrassment to him in public, but instead he admitted that she was right and he was wrong.

There are many more examples of women speaking up in public and having their voices heard in the Qur'an, such as the two daughters of the Sheikh mentioned in [28:23] and the Queen of Sheba in [27:44]. All these examples, even those predating Islam, support the fact that women are allowed to speak up and to voice their opinion publicly, for whatever has been prescribed to those before is prescribed to us now.

Taking the words rigidly and stopping at their literal meaning, while denying their underlying principles was never Islam. Twisting definitions and explanations to serve some personal agenda promoting discrimination and denying anyone some rights already granted was never Islam. Injecting personal prejudices and imposing fanatical views was never Islam. Reducing a religion and a living text to becoming only dead words on useless paper was never Islam. Selectively applying words and heartlessly and mindlessly and missing their meanings was also never Islam.

The choice of not listening to a professor and not replying back even if it was solely related to the curriculum denies learning and its value. What happened to tolerance and lenience? What happened to equity and niyyat? The first word of the Qur'an was "Iqra'" (read) and that means learning, acquiring knowledge. It does not mean read the Qur'an only, and then it most definitely does not mean to read it with only your eyes and shut off your mind and thinking.

First the niqabs so women shouldn't be seen and now this, so women shouldn't be heard. Denying females the rights to be heard is imposing restrictions on half the Ummah. Seeing everything in black and white like this reduces every noble value to something ridiculous and downright outrageous.

The second United Nations Arab Development Report examined the methods available to Arab states to overcome the knowledge deficit in their societies. The report noted the high levels of illiteracy among women and highlighted the fact that many children do not have access to basic education. The authors of the report made reference to the fact that an alliance between some oppressive regimes and certain types of conservative religions has led to an (mis)interpretation of Islam which serves governments but is detrimental to human development, particularly with respect to freedom of thought, the interpretation of judgements, the accountability of regimes to the people and women's participation in public life.

The report concluded, on the optimistic note, that there is sufficient human capital in the Arab world for a knowledge renaissance, a return to a society where the acquisition of knowledge is valued and encouraged, but that there are constraints hampering the acquisition. Well, when students behave in this way, then why are we surprised when we see such results and conclusions published?

Sometimes I really think that some Muslims are their own worst enemies.

Dr. Niqab - Comedy or Tragedy?

tbs — Mon, 13 Nov 2006 17:15:20 EST

My doctors suggested pneumonia vaccine for me. I suffer from Asthma and with winter approaching this was a sensible precaution.

After running around all over the place trying to get the vaccine for several days, I had to admit my defeat. My doctor advised me to try getting it from Vacsera. Vacsera is a government owned company that works under the umbrella of the Ministry of Health and has a department which specializes in producing and supplying vaccines and serums. Happy to get some pointers I went to get my vaccine.

Being a government owned company I was confronted with bureaucracy and red tape and sent from one counter to another, one room to the next, receiving slips of paper to be signed and stamped and what not, but that is not why I am writing this. Finally after about half an hour I was sent to the last room to get the vaccine with the added bonus of getting the injection right then and there to avoid transportation issues.

I walked happily into the room where three nurses were chatting animatedly. I was informed that the doctor will be there momentarily. Before the sentence was complete, something entered the room. It was a bit of a shock to me to see this mass of black!

A black niqab, where even the two tiny holes where the eyes would be were covered in black gauze, entered the room. Thick black gloves sticking out of two wristbands attached to the shapeless black garb, tightly fastened, allowing only the black gloved hands up to the wrists to escape the dark cloud were placed the right hand on top of the left one on the chest, as if in a silent prayer. Only a faintly menacing air escaped. I sighed and thought, even God would have difficulty in peering through that entire black sinister garb all the way through to her heart.

I started wondering how this woman was going to get her injection and where she would start to unravel the various black layers to bare an arm. But before I could complete my imaginative answer to that question in my head, the three nurses said in unison: "good morning doctor." I should have taken the first opportunity to escape, because I didn't think for even a split second that this was the doctor everyone was waiting for. Doctor? This perfect image of the angel of death is a life giving healing angel of mercy? A doctor!

For a few more panicky minutes I was trying to figure a way to flee without insulting the doctor and making a complete fool of myself. The shapeless formless black niqab rattled down a few question with a very low and muffled voice, almost a like a strangled whisper of a machine gun staccato: "name, age, type of vaccine."

I was too speechless to answer and my mind was racing frantically in dread, trying to come up with a dignified way to flee from this scene, which more and more resembled a farce from a surreal play. I mumbled and stuttered my name and age to the black back, as she had turned towards a closet. In utter shock and complete terror I witnessed her extracting a pair of latex gloves from the closet and putting them on, right over the thick black woolen gloves she was wearing when she came in. I just couldn't believe this and more and more the surreal farce was turning towards becoming a horror movie. To me it seemed like trying to do open heart surgery while wearing welding gloves and a deep sea diving suit.

Before I could pull myself together and run away, the latex gloves snatched the box with my precious vaccine from me and proceeded to 'load' the injection. I managed to stammer something that sounded like: "I will take that back thank you, I have to go home now." The barely audible muted whisper answered me with a long lecture of which I could only make out a few words, sounding like: "...out of the refrigerator...not more than 20 minutes...transportation...on ice... not allowed to freeze...better here and right now...only a minute...over before you know it...no need to be afraid."

This torrent of words washed over me while I was trying to seize my valuable vaccine from the double gloved clutches of the black creature and murmuring defiantly: "How can you even feel what you're doing with those thick gloves on under the others, I simply refuse..."

Alas, it was too late and I watched wide-eyed as the prized yellowish vaccine was being sucked into the syringe held by that black creature. My resistance faded into nothingness as that black being, now dangerously armed, suddenly and very forcefully grabbed my arm and 'shot' - the vaccine right into it.

The black niqab then turned to the next victim and I was free to go. I almost ran out, happy to have escaped with only a pitiless poke. I will spare you all the now boring and tedious debate about the niqabs, but I have come to understand how it feels like to stand opposite a faceless black creature with a muffled voice and hardly a personal indication of any kind hinting at the humanity and compassion of a doctor, let alone the gender or the living person. The only thought which was in my head now was that this was more a graveside manner than a bedside manner, specially when clad in that monstrous outfit. An Arab proverb eloquently puts it as: "so sad, that it becomes funny."

Reform, Reprogram, Reset: Islam's Fifth Stage?

tbs — Mon, 2 Oct 2006 14:56:16 EDT

In my last fiq'h class the professor explained the development and evolvement of Muslim thoughts with regard to fiq'h and arriving at a useful and workable methodology to be used. He identified 4 stages which are as follows:

Stage 1 - The time of the four rightful Caliphs when the sahaba (companions) mainly practiced shura (consultation)

Stage 2 - Afterwards by the end of the first century of Hijra, different schools were established in various cities, which also used shura to arrive at a local ijma (consensus)

Stage 3 - Abu Abdullah Muhammad ibn Idris al-Shafie (or in short Imam Shafie)(767 - 820), who distinguished between what was agreed upon in various local schools and that which was agreed upon by all schools unanimously, i.e. between local and universal/uniform ijma (consensus) and he placed more importance on universal ijma, which was evidently much more restrictive.

Stage 4 - At the turn of the twentieth century with the emergence of reformers such as Syed Ahmad Khan (1817-1898), Jamal al-Din al-Afghani (1839-1897), Muhammad Abduh (1849-1905) and Muhammad Iqbal (1877-1938) who refused blind taqleed (imitation of and adherence to what was established before) and called for reopening the doors of ijtihad (independent interpretation or personal reasoning.)

With that I received a shock to my system. For an entire millennia nothing happened? All the thinkers, scholars and intellectuals were doing nothing much but reinventing the wheel? It seemed like they were just busy coming to the same conclusions again and again no matter how they phrased or rephrased any question. It was as if there was one and only one way to proceed - as if there was simply no choice. They seemed to have imposed some sort of a self-censorship on thoughts and in turn progress in any direction.

I kept going back to the word taqleed in my mind. The literal meaning is defined as: Taqleed is a verbal noun of the root 'Qa' 'la' 'da' in the second form. The verb Qalada means to place, to gird or to adorn with a necklace. When used in conjunction with human beings, it refers to the wearing of a necklace, pendant or any other such similar ornament. And technically it means: the acceptance of a statement of another without demanding proof or evidence on the belief that the statement is being made in accordance with fact and proof. And I kept thinking that what was placed on our collective ummah's neck was not a necklace but rather a yoke. This yoke did not only affect the intellectuals and thinkers, but it seems to have had an influence on everything else as well.

In 935 the Qur'an was regarded as being in its final written form. Ja'far Muhammad al-Tabari (838-923) was for Qur'anic exegesis what Imam Shafie was for fiq'h. At that time the unity of the Ummah was completely disintegrating, with three different Caliphs focusing more on rivalry than anything else, the Mutazilites (Rationalists) had given up to the Traditionalists and (too) many scholars began to consider the "gates of ijtihad" as closed. And that also was the end of what has been known in history as the Golden Age of Islam (which lasted roughly 750-950).

I keep wondering if there was a relationship between the decline of sciences and achievements and the stagnation of thought and intellectual discourse. There must be. In those last two hundred years the Muslims followed the instruction of the Prophet "to seek learning as far as China", which eventually they did. They published books thanks to the introduction of paper and the establishment of a paper mill. They translated and kept Greek scientific and philosophical manuscripts at Bayt al-Hikmah (House of Wisdom) and later on many other manuscripts. They focused on mathematics, contributed to geometry and initiated algebra. They worked on medicine, gynaecology and ophthalmology. Engineers perfected the waterwheel and constructed elaborate underground water channels. And travellers contributed heavily to geography. Between Baghdad and al-Andalus it was a time of great achievements in all sorts of different avenues including literature, poetry and music. And then not only a decline in all sorts of different discourse and output happened, but seemingly a total standstill.

Until the turn of the twentieth century, there appears to be a deep hibernation up to Mohammed Abduh and his colleagues Jamal al-Din al-Afghani, along with Syed Ahmad Khan and Muhammad Iqbal, who all rejected blind adherence to tradition (taqleed) and independently called for reopening of the "doors of ijtihad" as the chief way to modernise Islam.

Syed Ahmad Khan is quoted to have said: "Acquisition knowledge of science and technology is the only solution for the problems of Muslims." And: "Look forward, learn modern knowledge, do not waste time in studies of old subjects of no value."

Muhammad Abduh aimed at moderniing Islam and bringing it into line with rational thought. Together with al-Afghani he founded the Salafiyyah movement (from the phrase, salaf as-salihiin, 'the pious ancestors'), a reform movement calling for modernisation based on Islamic principles. Included in its ranks were the Islamic world's first feminists, prominent among them was Qasim Amin, who wrote the then two very controversial books, 'The Emancipation of Women' and 'The New Woman'.

Qasim Amin is often credited for having been the first to address the question of women's role in society. He accused the religious luminaries and conservative political leader of resisting any attempt to change the old and by now outmoded social norms. He urged his fellow men to understand that certain traditions had served their purpose and had been established to cater to the interests of their predecessors but must now be seen as incompatible with the 1900s. He insisted that Sharia was based on social and human praxis; and very much capable of accommodating new conditions without violating the fundamentals of Islam. He believed that the line between "Islamic" and "un-Islamic" was obviously drawn by the then dominant Islamic orthodoxy, and not by Islam itself and argued strongly for the equal treatment of women as mandated by the spirit of egalitarianism and equality in Islam. Muhammad Abduh in turn called for reinterpreting the Sharia in favour of women to conform with the spirit of Islam which he perceived as a liberating force for women not a means of repressing them.

Muhammad Iqbal has been called: "the best articulated Muslim response to Modernity that the Islamic world has produced in the 20th century". While he is primary noted for being a poet, he has also been called "the most serious Muslim philosophical thinker of modem times." His book: "Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam" consists of seven lectures on religion and philosophy originally held in English in 1928 at the universities of Madras, Hyderabad and Mysore. The book is characterised by outstanding lucidity, accuracy and passionate thought, reconstruction of religious deliberation. He wrote: "The task before the modern Muslim is, therefore, immense. He has to re-think the whole system of Islam without completely breaking with the past". And one of the most important requirements for this re-thinking process he defined as a critical reception of modern knowledge: "The only course open to us is to approach modern knowledge with a respectful but independent attitude and to appreciate the teachings of Islam in the light of that knowledge."

These revered reformers tried to reawaken Islam and at the same time prove that it was compatible with modern times. That was a century ago. What happened since? Hasan al-Banna, Sayyid Qutb and Sayyid Abu'l-A'la Mawdudi! And not to forget Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab! With them, the small step forward changed radically into a u-turn.

What amazes me the most is, that Al-Shafie was considered then as having his own revival movement. He urged people to follow the Sunnah after a lot of confusion had spread among them. He wrote his famous book, Al-Rissalah towards establishing the fundamentals of jurisprudence and was committed to relying on evidence, and rejected blind imitation. He said: "If you see that my words contradict the hadith, then apply the hadith and disregard my words." He was the first to distinguish and separate between the application of istihsan (equity/discretion in legal matters), and qiyas (juristic reasoning by analogy). But then his revival movement became the yoke that strangled every new thought or reform attempts after him. His rejection of local ijma as insufficient and his insistence on universal ijma turned out to be more of a problem than a solution.

We need stage 5 now. We require it desperately. We need tools that are more useful than historically rooted. We should not merely accept any thought as dogma or doctrine, but ask how this was developed and whether this was the best possible method and the only achievable result. We should consider whether this still fits our time or whether it can be developed further and made compatible with the 21st century. Al-Shafi'I was trying to build something that was fit for his time, but his time has passed and now is our time, which is so very different from his. We are now able to operate on embryos in the womb, walk on the moon and photograph the surface of mars and we are still stuck in medieval thoughts. Instead of living in the past (in more ways than one) and eternally moaning and whining about the lost glory of the golden age of Islam, we should start working at least towards a lead age and then move on to aluminum then copper, then tin and perhaps one day we will again reach silver or even gold or regain some of the lost splendour and sparks.

Islamic Fascists or Give a Dog a Bad Name...

tbs — Sun, 3 Sep 2006 00:57:08 EDT

Islamic Fascism is the new, sizzling catchphrase in America, after George W. Bush said: "The recent arrests that our fellow citizens are now learning about are historical reminders that this nation is at war with Islamic fascists who will use any means to destroy those of us who love freedom, to hurt our nation," commenting on British Prime Minister Tony Blair's announcement about the arrest of 21 British Muslims, charged with plotting to blow up planes while flying to the U.S.

This new phraseology, turned into a battle cry, as it was picked up all over the world by different people to be used either in the same way or implicitly. Canadian Conservative MP Jason Kenney, the Prime Minister's parliamentary secretary compared Lebanon's Hezbullah to the Nazis; BBC presenter Kirsty Wark stated that "we face a global Islamic threat and the West needs to take on 'reactionary Islam' once and for all".

Another person to take it up was Ibn Warraq, a pseudonym for a bestselling author of several books and articles on Islam, which some term as anti-Islamic, while others see them as promoting secular humanism. Ibn Warraq chose to use Umberto Eco's article in The New York Review of Books published eleven years ago titled UR-Fascism for an article titled "Islam, Middle East and Fascism" to "show" that Islam is indeed a form of fascism.

While Umberto Eco "opposes both the believers of a superior elitist culture and those who are so fascinated by mass culture that they have lost their critical judgment", Ibn Warraq appears to be simply opposing Islam, as he is quoted saying: "There may be moderate Muslims, but Islam itself is not moderate. There is no difference between Islam and Islamic fundamentalism: at most there is a difference of degree but not of kind."

As we shall see, the article uses partial data, ignores historically proven facts, confuses tradition with religion and has frequent blanket statements and contradictions. An evaluation of modern Muslim thought that only mentions Banna, Qutb and al-Maududi is one-sided and unconvincing and opens up charges of omission and superficiality, especially in a twenty page article. His use of quotations from the Qur'an is quite one-sided and he has a tendency to take them out of context, ignoring that quotations from the Qur'an should be kept within their historical context and reasons for revelations, as some of the verses were revealed after a particular incident. Furthermore quoting a well known Islamophobe Daniel Pipes makes one wonder about objectivity.

For example, with regard to Muhammad's behaviour towards the Jews he writes: "The treatment of the Jews by Muhammad is certainly not above reproach. The cold-blooded extermination of the Banu Qurayza (between 600 and 900 men), the expulsion of the Nadir and their later massacre (something often overlooked in the history books) are not signs of magnanimity or compassion." I am sure that with a bit of concentrated research into history Ibn Warraq would realise that Banu Nadir were not massacred, but were exiled from Medina after a two-week siege following a battle. Muhammad even married Safiyya bint Huyayy of the Banu Nadir tribe after giving her the option of embracing Islam, which she chose to do.

As for Banu Qurayza they committed high treason by dishonouring a treaty drawn up with Muhammad. It was Sa'ad bin Moa'z, an ally to them from the Aws tribe of Medina, who passed the judgement. Sa'ad ruled that all the adult males of the Banu Qurayza should be killed. One report says Muhammad approved the ruling, as it was based on Banu Qurayza's very own book. It was based on Deuteronomy 20:12-14: "12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies." So the punishment of the Jewish tribe was done under Jewish Law, and most certainly not because of a whim of Muhammad, but because of a serious charge of treason, punishable by death even in liberal democracies today.

Another example would be what he wrote about Sharia: "The Sharia or Islamic Law is based on four principles: The Koran; the sunna of the Prophet, which is incorporated in the recognized traditions (hadith); the consensus (ijma) of the scholars of the orthodox community; and the method of reasoning by analogy (qiyas)." I am afraid the principles of Islamic jurisprudence show that they are many more, not only four. Furthermore Hadith and Sunna are not one item, but two, as the classification of a Hadith also depends on the relevant behaviour to be taken from the Sunna. Other sources in addition to the Qur'an, Sunna, Hadith, Ijma and Qiyas are Ijtihad (personal reasoning), Istihsan (equity), Maslahah Mursalah (consideration of public interest), Urf (custom), Istishab (presumption of continuity).

Writing a point by point complete rebuttal to Ibn Warraq's article would be far too long. A more rigorous approach would be to take Umberto Eco's framework (his fourteen characteristics defining fascism) and using exactly the same epistemological framework that Ibn Warraq used, it will be seen that Islam cannot be considered to be a form of fascism.

Umberto Eco: [1]: The first feature of Ur-Fascism is the cult of tradition.

Ibn Warraq claims in this section that Islam is static, rigid and inflexible and tied immutably to a sacrosanct Qur'an and an untouchable Sunna, as well as the words of the ulema, mullahs and Muslim scholars reflected in the deriving and application of the Sharia laws. Unfortunately this is not so. Interpretations and re-interpretations of the Qur'an happened many times. For example, there are so many tafseers circulating which is a proof of a certain flexibility. To name a few, Ibn Kathir, Jareer at-Tabari, Qazi Abu Saud al-Hanafi, Abu Abdullah al-Qurtubi, Ibn Taymiyyah, Abu Bakr ibn al-Arabi, Mahmud Alusi al-Hanafi all interpreted the Qur'an differently. Furthermore in modern times Sayyed Qutb, Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi, Amin Ahsan Islahi, Muhammad Al-Ghazzali also reinterpreted the Qur'an. In addition, Amina Wadud reinterpreted the Qur'an very recently from a woman's perspective. In any case, if Islam was indeed inflexible, then different sects and different schools of Islamic jurisprudence would not have arisen.

Umberto Eco: [2]: Traditionalism implies the rejection of modernism.
Umberto Eco: [3]: Irrationalism also depends on the cult of action for action's sake.
Umberto Eco: [4]: The critical spirit makes distinctions, and to distinguish is a sign of modernism.
Umberto Eco: [5]: Besides, disagreement is a sign of diversity.

Ibn Warraq adds features [2] to [5] together and says: "I shall show that, mutatis mutandis, Islam also rejects modernism, is hostile to reason, critical thought, fears disagreement, and is terrified of 'intruders,' though Islam's form of exclusion is based on religion and not race."

Space constraints prohibit a thorough debate on each of these points, hence I am concentrating on only one - rejection of modernity. If Islam truly rejected modernism we would certainly not have the problem with terrorism and the impacts of the fundamental Wahhabi doctrine today. It was Ibn Abd al-Wahhab who decided to use his own ijtihad to purify Islam of what he thought were un-Islamic influences. But there were other modernists and reformers who emerged throughout history and I would like to mention a few for balance. Muhammad Abduh taught that modern scientific thought could be accepted without damage to Islam. He opposed taqlid (tradition) only and promoted the legitimacy of reinterpreted Islam. Qasim Amin fought against the subjugation of Muslim women and called that un-Islamic. He denounced the veil, seclusion and arranged marriages arguing that equality of the sexes exists in Islam. Jamal al-Din al-Afghani blamed the ulema for their backward views of Islam. Muhammad Iqbal generated his own synthesis and reinterpretation of Islam, promoted the adoption of Islamic versions of Western concepts and institutions such as democracy and parliamentary government. Sadly, for Ibn Warraq only Banna, Qutb and al-Maududi make it to his list of modernists, whereas they are much better suited to join Ibn Abd al-Wahhab.

As for exclusion of 'others' based on religion as Ibn Warraq argues, the Qur'an says: 3:84. Say (O Muhammad): "We believe in Allah and in what has been sent to us, and what was sent to Ibrahim, Isma'il, Ishaque, Ya'qub and Al-Asbat and what was given to Musa, 'Isa and the Prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between one another among them and to Him we have submitted." (Additional references 5:69, 4:136, 2:136, and 5:5)

Umberto Eco: [6]: Ur-Fascism derives from individual or social frustration.

In this section, Ibn Warraq focuses on the economic hardships endured by Muslims in their countries, the corruption and ineptitude of the governments which he then blames for the 'Islamists' success in pulling the Muslims towards their doctrines. While I agree to the fact that many governments of Muslim countries are corrupt and incompetent, I would like to point out that none of these governments actually practices the Islamic teachings of collecting zakat and redistributing it to the poor as prescribed, which one way of reducing poverty is. Concentrating on economic hardships endured by Muslims alone is strange, as non-Muslims in many countries also suffer from the same poverty. Poverty is caused by bad economics, bad governance, corruption, lack of investments, etc. If poverty was indeed caused by Islam, then one wonders why Hindu India, Communist/Buddhist China, Christian Africa are relatively poor (in terms of individual earnings)?

Moreover, US government statistics showed that the country with the most terror fatalities was India. Most attacks were perpetrated by secessionist groups from the Northern provinces and the Communist Party of India. In second place was Colombia, a country with a population of over 90% Roman Catholic. Following in fifth place were the victims of secular Maoist terror groups in Nepal. University of Chicago's Robert Pape found that the group leading the world in suicide attack numbers between 1980 and 2004 was the Tamil Tigers, a secular group drawing its adherents from Sri Lanka's predominantly Hindu population. Saying that frustration leading to terrorism is a result of some deep flaw in Islam is a blanket statement and not valid.

Umberto Eco: [7]: To people who feel deprived of a clear social identity, Ur-Fascism says that their only privilege is the most common one, to be born in the same country.

Ibn Warraq chooses in this section to focus on a part of the explanation of the point, rather than the point itself and concentrates on conspiracy theories abound in the Muslim world. I think that his choice stems from the fact that Muslims have a clear identity, namely as Muslims. In addition, it is this very identity that allows for diversity, as Muslims are Muslims regardless of their nationality or their country of birth. As Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen argues in his book 'Identity and Violence: The Illusion of Destiny' every person on this planet has multiple identities and prioritizing one identity over the others can result in a very simplistic understanding of the person and what they really represent. In other words the same person can be, without any contradiction, an American citizen, of Latino origin, a Muslim, a liberal, a woman, a vegetarian, a dancer, a historian, a feminist, a heterosexual, etc. There is simply no evidence that Muslims lack a social identity.

Umberto Eco: [8]: The followers must feel humiliated by the ostentatious wealth and force of their enemies.

I do agree with Ibn Warraq on the point that Muslims and Arabs in particular do have a sense of humiliation. He mentions the countless defeats suffered by the Muslims in the Middle East. He blames this humiliation for the hostility towards what he terms 'the enemies of Islam' in form of 'Jewish or Imperialist conspirators'. Most countries in the Middle East have great wealth in terms of resources, be they oil, coal, cotton or advantageous geographical locations facilitating trade. These caused the long years of colonial exploitation in the past and neo-colonialism in present times. It is the resentment with occupation and meddling in local affairs that increases frustration and the urge to resist it, all the way to hostility and bloodshed.

Umberto Eco: [10]: Elitism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology, insofar as it is fundamentally aristocratic, and aristocratic and militaristic elitism cruelly implies contempt for the weak.

This feature is the easiest one to debunk, as Islam focuses on social justice for the weak and vulnerable such as the poor, the hungry and the orphans (for references check the Qur'an ([74:42-44] [93:9-10] [69:33-34] [107:1-3] [4:10] [17:34] etc.). One of the five pillars of Islam is the payment of zakat (religiously mandated and predefined amount of charity) which is also called "the right of the poor on the rich". Moreover Islam doesn't encourage elitism as everyone was created equal; the only distinction is by piety and righteous conduct (49:13).

Umberto Eco: [9]: For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life but, rather, life is lived for struggle.
Umberto Eco: [11]: In such a perspective everybody is educated to become a hero.

In this section, Ibn Warraq discusses the concept of Jihad, the Holy War, whose ultimate aim, according to him, is to conquer the entire world and subjugate it to the laws of Allah. The point that he misses, is the distinction between the greater and lesser jihad. The bigger struggle is not a holy war and endless destruction and bloodshed, but the struggle against the self and its desires to commit sins. All religions ask the believers to struggle and fight against evil and uphold virtue. Islam permits fighting in self-defence by those who have been expelled forcibly from their homes or in defence of justice, or to protect rights and freedoms and fight corruption and oppression. (References: 2:190, 4:75, 42:41-43, 26:151-152).

Furthermore, long before the Geneva Conventions, Islam laid down strict rules of combat, which included prohibitions against harming civilians, destroying infrastructure as in crops, trees, water-wells and livestock. The Qur'an also instructed that if any enemy declared his desire to end hostilities and seek peace at any time, Muslims must do the same. The Qur'an commands every Muslim to be a hero by being a good person, upholding virtue and fighting injustice. That is not fascism. This is simply being a good human being and good citizen.

Umberto Eco: [12]: Since both permanent war and heroism are difficult games to play, the Ur-Fascist transfers his will to power to sexual matters.

Ibn Warraq argues here about the subjugation and suppression of Muslim women. He supplies endless quotes from the Qur'an and Hadith to prove that women are regarded as inferior and that both Qur'an and Hadiths are denigrating and degrading women. Unfortunately, these quotes are taken out of context, therefore much too literal. Women were given full rights (such as the right to divorce their husbands, keep their dowry, receive alimony and child-support, choose their husbands, reject arranged marriages, go out to work, own property, keep their own money and inheritance and much more). If these rights appropriate to women are not applied the way the Qur'an denotes and in accordance with Islamic teachings, be it due to tribal customs, patriarchal societal norms or obsolete traditions one should not blame the religion, but rather the misguided followers for their misapplication.

Umberto Eco: [13]: Ur-Fascism is based upon a selective populism, a qualitative populism, one might say.

Here Ibn Warraq tries to show that there are no individual nor human rights or freedoms in Islam. A comparison between the Qur'an and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights would show this to be incorrect. Article 1 (All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood) is compatible with 49:13 (O you men! surely We have created you of a male and a female, and made you tribes and families that you may know each other; surely the most honorable of you with Allah is the one among you most righteous), Article 18 (Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance) is compatible with 2:256 (There is no compulsion in religion) as well as 34:46 (Say: I exhort you only to one thing, that rise up for Allah's sake in twos and singly, then ponder). Article 16 (Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family.) is compatible with 30:21 (And one of His signs is that He created mates for you from yourselves that you may find rest in them, and He put between you love and compassion; most surely there are signs in this for a people who reflect). It would be much too long to go through all the articles and compare, but that is for another article, another day.

Umberto Eco: [14.] Ur-Fascism speaks Newspeak.

Newspeak is characterised as the use of an impoverished vocabulary, and an elementary syntax, in order to limit the instruments for complex and critical thinking. Ibn Warraq argues about the limitations of Arabic with regard to grammar and vocabulary. While Arabic is indeed the language of the Qur'an, it is not the only and universal language spoken by all Muslims. In fact, most Muslims do not have Arabic as their mother tongue. Moreover it has often been argued that the Qur'an is the highest linguistic achievement of the Arabic language, representing a level of eloquence unattainable even by their most articulate speakers. Attempts to imitate the Qur'an by the finest poets of their time failed miserably. The Qur'an embodies linguistic and literary beauty, introduced stylistic innovations and made extensive use of illustrations, imagery, and metaphor. It was also admired by linguists, Muslims and non-Muslims alike, for its rhythmic patterns. How one can argue about impoverished vocabulary and an elementary syntax is beyond me, especially as he does not show on what basis he compares the various languages in the world with respect to vocabulary and syntax.

As can be seen from the above arguments, based on Umberto Eco's criteria of defining or characterising fascism, Islam is not fascist at all. One could have taken Ibn Warraq's claim seriously, if it did not have serious methodological issues, omissions, and mistakes. In these days of propaganda, polemics and polarity amongst people, it is even more important that objectivity be maintained. Yes, there are terrorists who abuse Qur'anic verses to justify their heinous crimes. Yes, Muslims have to clearly state that these interpretations are wrong. Blaming the religion or calling it fascist for the fault of some of these pathological and disturbed terrorists is like blaming the car for car-accidents. Islam is a means to achieve oneness with Allah, It is a path to God and a way to live, so that the followers are good virtuous people. Do not mistake the path to god with a terrorist's ideology, because they are not the same.