Ramadhan is the 9th month in the Muslim calendar, and to roughly 1.2 billion people, it's a very special and holy month. During this time, they devote themselves to abstinence, prayer and helping the community.
Thursday, 19 August 2010
Introducing Ramadhan
Friday, 5 March 2010
On the Dangerous Topics of Islam and Translations
Those whom I follow on Twitter can quite easily be categorised.
- News sources: @reuterskl, @staronline
- Humour and merriment: @ichcheezburger, @qdb, @aaronkaro
- Entertainment: @thesuperficial, @junkonline, @klue
- Hoping for good deals/freebies: @airasiadotcom, @digi_telco
- Friends
And then there are those that even I don't know why I follow, like the subject of today's blog post: @EvilBibleQuotes. I want to say that it's a source of humour and merriment, so that I can laugh at those idiot heathens (j/k... or am I?) and their silly ways. Like in this tweet:
American Family Assoc.: Exodus21 demands executing whale and SeaWorld director after whale "murders" its trainer. http://bit.ly/954YOK
Pat Robertson: "Waving those [Gay Day] flags in God's face... will bring earthquakes, tornadoes and possibly a meteor." http://bit.ly/58vQry
The last one is fun because it reminds me that it's not only Malaysian dignitaries that make stupid comments.
But the fact is that @EvilBibleQuotes doesn't just quote the Bible. They (quite rightly, I might add) also quote the Koran, the Torah and I assume other bibles of other faiths.
It's actually a bit disturbing, some of the quotes that come up:
Men are in charge of women...for those women who you fear may rebel, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and beat them. Sura 4:34
Gentiles who study the Torah deserve death, for it's written: Moses commanded us
a law for an inheritance-it's ours, not theirs. Sanhedrin59
And the last, the one that prompted this post:
O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him. Bukhari 52:256
That one set me thinking: it's unlikely that the Koran would have propagated such a thing, because in all technicality, Muslims are allowed to marry the people of the 4 bibles - the Koran, the Torah, the Zaboor and the Injil (the original Christian bible) without them converting because all are recognised to be people of God. In fact, in all technicality, a Muslim can marry Orthodox Christians and Orthodox Jews without them converting.
So how can it be that the Koran advocates the killing of Jews - the people of the same God? Could it be due to a mistranslation due to the current political headwinds of the time? Don't forget, up until a few hundred years ago, reading was not a right - it was a privilege and a hobby for the rich because books were difficult to print and thusly expensive. In fact, it was only in the 1400s that printing books became efficient enough to be cheap and done mechanically.
Most books printed before the invention of movable type were actually copied out by hand, slowly and painstakingly by scribes who played a very important role in civilisations. Obviously, mistakes were made sometimes, though scribes prided themselves on accuracy and speed. And just as obviously, it was easy to subject the translations to the interpretation of the times due to political/religious warfare. And we all know how that ends.
How is it, then, that the Koran advocates the killing of a Jew?
Various Disclaimers:
I've read the Koran in Arabic a few times but I don't speak Arabic so I don't pretend to know what it means. Also, this is pure speculation on the part of someone who's not educated in any of these fields other than everyday Islamic tenets. And also, if you flame illogically, I won't post your comment. And this post was not intended as a flame for @EvilBibleQuotes. I don't think they're doing anything wrong. They could actually be perpetuating mutual understanding.
Wednesday, 11 March 2009
On the Dangerous Topics of God, Allah and Oh Tuhan
This is going to be a pretty controversial topic. For those who care, anyway. As you may or may not know, there is an issue with Christian newspapers using the name Allah to refer to God. From Reuters: Malaysia Christians battle with Muslims over Allah:
To some, it may seem like a "What's the big deal?" thing, while to others it's heresy. Let's try to shed a bit of light on it.Those concerns led to the ban on the Catholic Herald newspaper's use of "Allah" to denote God. The Herald is now suing the government to overturn the ruling, made after it appeared the paper would be allowed to use "Allah" provided it stamped "For Christians" on the front page of the paper.
Language is what the issue boils down to, and let's not pretend that language doesn't matter. In England, 'pakis' is considered a derogatory term referring to Pakistanis, while in Malaysia, it's a fern. In America, 'bastard' is a derogatory term, while in France it's not unusual to find people named Bastard.
In the same vein, in Malaysia, Allah isn't a word referring to God in general, but a name and a proper noun referring specifically to the Muslim God. In Malay, the word Tuhan is used to refer to God in general, be He Christian, Muslim, Hindu or otherwise. Therefore, for a newspaper - a publication that should have a good command of language and custom - to use the world Allah to refer to the Christian God is a major faux-pas (fox pass). It's sort of like referring to Vishnu as Jesus Christ Almighty.
Like it or not, there really is a pretty big difference between referring to Jesus as Allah, or the other way. Actually, if a mosque took to referring to Allah as Jesus (it won't, but let's hypothesise here), they'd be called heretics by Muslims and deviant Muslim terrorists by everyone else.
To put it in perspective, why does this newspaper have to use the term 'Allah', anyway, knowing full well that it is a proper noun? What's wrong with Tuhan? What's wrong with God as a generality? You have to wonder what the point is. If it's to fight for the freedom of speech, there are other (less stupid) ways to do so, and I will back you on it.
Friday, 13 February 2009
On the Dangerous Topics of Islam and Days of Celebration
I just got this email from a relative:
It's interesting how things are suddenly so much less clearcut once religion gets involved. The email was very interesting in the detail of the history of Valentine's Day, and I think not many people were aware of the actual myth behind it.Love in Islam is a daily affair, love of Allah and his messenger,family friends and the like.
VALENTINE: A pagan and Christian ritual
Abu Sa'eed al-Khudri (may Allah be pleased with him), narrated that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said:
"You will certainly follow the ways of those who came before you, span by span, cubit by cubit, until even if they were to enter a lizard's hole, you would follow them." We said, "O Messenger of Allaah, (do you mean) the Jews and Christians?" He said, "Who else?!" (Bukhari: 8/151; Muslim: 4/ 2054)
What the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) spoke of; has indeed come to pass and has become widespread in recent times, in many of the Muslim countries. Many Muslims follow the enemies of Allah in most of their customs and behavior, and imitate them in some of their rituals and in celebrating their holidays. Valentine's day is one of them.
REALITY BEHIND VALENTINE
Pagan origins of Valentine's Day:
The first information about this day is found in pre-Christian Rome, when pagans would celebrate the "Feast of the Wolf" on February 15, also known as the "Feast of Lupercalius" in honour of Pastoral Gol Lupercalis (who had many love affairs with nymphs and goddesses), Februata Juno (the Roman goddess of women and marriage), and Pan (the Roman god of nature). On this day, young women would place their names in an urn, from which boys would randomly draw to discover their companion (without any moral restrictions) for the day, the year, and sometimes the rest of their lives. These partners exchanged gifts as a sign of affection and love for each other.Likewise, virtually naked, arrow-shooting picture of Cupid on Valentine cards is a peculiar symbol of Valentine and according to Roman mythology, is the son of Venus (the goddess of love and beauty), who induces love in people by shooting his arrow at them.
Christian Influence:
When Christianity came onto the scene in Rome, it wanted to replace this feast with something more in line with its ethics and morality. A number of Christians decided to use February 14; a day on which the Italian Bishop St. Valentine was executed by the Roman Emperor Claudius II for conducting secret marriages of military men (forbidden to marry) in the year 270 CE. According to the details, during the time of the Roman Emperor Claudius II due to continuous infighting, Rome was the center point of wars. The declining figure of male fighters (as men would not want to leave their wives and go the battle front) in his army forced him to impose a ban on marriages. So that young men may be persuaded to go on the battlefront. St. Valentine started performing secret marriages at that time.When his actions were revealed, Claudius threw him in jail and sentenced him to execution. In prison, he (St. Valentine) fell in love with the jailer's daughter, who would visit him, but this was a secret because according to Christian laws, priests and monks were forbidden to marry or fall in love. But he is still regarded highly by the Christians because of his steadfastness in adhering to Christianity when the emperor offered to pardon him if he renounced Christianity and worshipped the Roman gods. He also offered him to be his closest confidantes and he would make him his son-in-law. However, Valentine refused this offer and preferred Christianity. He was executed on 14 February 270 CE, the eve of February 15 on the festival of Lupercalis. Before he died, he wrote a letter to jailor's daughter and the closing of the letter read as, 'From your Valentine'. These very words are used on most of the Valentine's greeting cards in commemoration of the same incident.
There are at least three different Saint Valentines, all of whom are Christian martyrs of February 14. It was in the year 496 CE that Pope Gelasius officially changed the February 15 Lupercalia festival to the February 14 St. Valentine's Day to give Christian meaning to a pagan festival. Pope Gelasius ordered a slight change in the lottery for young women during the pagan festival. Instead of the names of young women, the box would contain the names of saints, men and women were allowed to draw from the box, and whoever drew the name of the respective saint, he would copy his (saint's) ways for the rest of the year.
(Source: Britannica / Catholic Encyclopedia)
ISLAMIC PERSPECTIVE
1. In Islam, the festivals are clearly defined. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), while referring to Eid-ul-Fitr, said: "Every nation has its own Eid (festival) and this is our Eid" (Bukhari: 952, Muslim: 1892)
2. Celebrating Valentine's Day means resembling the pagan Romans and Christians. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "Whoever imitates a people (nation), he is one of them." (Ahmad: 2/50, Abu Dawood: 4021)
3. The purpose of Valentine's Day in these times is to spread love between all people, believers and disbelievers alike, which is undoubtedly prohibited. Allah says: "You (O Muhammad) will not find any people who believe in Allah and the Last Day, making friendship with those who oppose Allah and His Messenger, even though they were their fathers or their sons or their brothers or their kindred (people)." [al-Mujaadilah 58:22]
4. The love referred to in this festival ever since the Christians revived it is romantic love outside the bonding of marriage. Which results in spread of zinaa (fornication and adultery) and immorality. Allah says, "For those who like that indecency should spread among the believers, they deserve a painful punishment in this world and in the Hereafter." [an'Noor: 19]
5. The very foundation of the society established by the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) was laid on the purity of bashfulness, in which not only the commission of adultery but the reasons leading to its propagation was also a crime. However, it seems that now the Muslim Ummah feels "overburdened" by carrying this weight. Hence they would do whatsoever they would feel like. A quotation of the holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) befits the situation: "If you do not show the bashfulness, you are free to do what ever you feel like." (Bukhari)
6. Furthermore flagrant disregard of Allah's commandments such as music, dance and drinking is the core of this tradition, which in no way has any role in Islam.
7. Valentine promotes the reasons to illicit infatuations, which keeps involved the brain and heart faculties of a human being unnecessarily. This not only becomes the reason of diversion from the Straight Path but also distances us from the teachings of our Deen.
8. Islam does not encourage flirting or suggestions of romantic relationships before marriage. Love between families, friends and married people does not need to be celebrated on a day with such un-Islamic origins. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) has advised us that if we love (excluding forbidden relations) somebody we should let him know (Abu Dawood). For that very purpose he instructed to spread "Salam", the Islamic greetings (Muslim).
Alas! Those who believe in so pure and eminent teachings of Islam take the western culture as their ideal and derive a sense of superiority in celebrating their traditions.
Hence, this tradition reflects on our insensitivity, indignity and ignorance of Deen.
STOP NOW!
For those who are doing it out of ignorance try to make them aware of it, lest we fall prey to the wrath of Allah and our future generations might not be celebrating these days as the days of mourning.
More relevantly, to steer this monologue in the right direction, is this history relevant to us? Of course. History is always relevant, as history tells us where we've been and what mistakes we've made. However, does this mean that celebrating Valentine's Day is wrong?
The argument is always contentious, depending on how stolid you are in what you believe and how you believe. In my personal interpretation of Islam, I have always believed that Islam is a religion of intentions. Islam has always taught that if you pray and your heart and mind are not praying with your body, then there's no point in praying. This teaching has always been what I based my beliefs on.
For example, let's take the comment of the 'naked Cupids' that grace Valentine's Day cards. The Cupids are cherubs, depictions of a sexless child who are sexless because of the fact that they are children. This isn't pornography, and isn't intended to be pornography by the same reasoning that those young children who you always see running around Malaysian swimming pools and beaches topless/bottomless/clotheless aren't flashing people or "outraging a person's decency" because they're just young kids.
It is on this basis that, also, I think most Muslims today who may celebrate Valentine's Day are not celebrating Valentine's Day for the purpose of honoring a Christian Saint or the pagan history behind it. I don't contest that the practice of choosing a partner as per the history is wrong. However, I do think that the Valentine's Day celebrated today is substantially different.
Take the following description from Wikipedia, for example:
It doesn't say that it is a celebration of the deaths of saint so-and-so, or that it is a day dedicated to a pagan tradition, but just a holiday celebrated to express love. In this respect, I infer that Valentine's Day has evolved to mean to us just a day where we express our affection for our loved ones, be it our lovers, our mothers or our friends. How can a day that is dedicated to love be wrong?Valentine's Day or Saint Valentine's Day is a holiday celebrated on February 14 by many people throughout the world. In the West, it is the traditional day on which lovers express their love for each other by sending Valentine's cards, presenting flowers, or offering confectionery.
Valentine's Day today is much like Chinese New Year or Deepavali in Malaysia, where the holidays become a time to gather together and celebrate a solidarity between races and friends. In a multicultural country like Malaysia, Eid-il-fitri is celebrated by non-Muslims not as a Muslim religious holiday, but as a national holiday where everybody celebrates the holiday together by visiting and gathering, regardless of religion. To the non-Muslims, it is a time that means , "I will share these special moments with you because you are a loved one. Today, you're happy. Let's be happy together." At least that's what it means to me.
To say that Valentine's Day is a pagan celebration or a celebration of a Christian saint is to turn back the clock and live in the past. While it may not seem like there's anything wrong with that, let's think about it. If I believed that, I think that I'd have to believe that the world is flat, but I don't, simply because science has come that far and instead of saying, "But the world is flat!!!", I say, "We used to believe that the world was flat. Now we know better."
To tie it back to the idea of intention, there is no intention of celebrating a pagan celebration, or of worshipping a Christian saint. Certainly there is a history that is honored, but history is not the present. It is a story of where we came from, and a salute to how far we've come. Valentine's Day is a day where we can look back and say, "How pagan. It's a good thing we don't do things like that anymore (so to speak) because we've found religion and learned morals. Instead, let's express our affection, not our lust."
Tuesday, 28 October 2008
On the Dangerous Topics of Islam and Feminism
BBC always being a good source of interesting opinions, outtakes and news bits has given me something to chew on. They had an article on women's rights in Islam with bits from female Muslim scholars around the world. Essentially, it's put down into words everything that I've ever thought: that the Islam we see today has been irrevocably influenced by the Arabic patriarchal culture, and that the Islam advocated in the Qur'an is essentially equal to both sexes.
I think this issue is something that all Muslims should understand, regardless of sex or race, and Malaysians are fortunate enough to have Ustazs who are understand this and are able to openly discuss it.
From BBC: Fighting for Muslim women's rights:
Some of the world's leading Islamic feminists have been gathered in Barcelona for the third International Congress on Islamic Feminism, to discuss the issues women face in the Muslim world.
Some of the women taking part in the conference explained the problems in their home countries, and where they hoped to make progress.
ASMA BARLAS, Author, Pakistan
Religions always come into cultures, they don't come into abstract and pure spaces. Islam came into a very patriarchal, tribal and misogynistic culture. One of the deepest damages to Islam has been its reduction to "Arabisation".
I'm not going to say that the Arabs are particularly misogynistic in a way that nobody else is, but I do think there are very particular traits and attitudes towards women that have crept into Islam.
I have a friend who has been studying the interface between what he calls the Persian models and the Arabist models of Islam in the subcontinent and surprise, surprise: the Arabist models are misogynistic, authoritarian, unitarian and the Persian models are much more plural and tolerant.
This is a fight on two fronts - on the one hand we are struggling against the kinds of oppression dominant in Muslim patriarch societies and, on the other, Western perceptions of Islam as necessarily monolithic, and confusing the ideals of Islam with the reality of Muslim lives.
If we read the Koran as a totality rather than pulling out random verses or half a line, that opens all kinds of possibilities for sexual equality.
RAFIAH AL-TALEI, journalist, Oman
Oman is relatively liberal, women are free to choose what to wear, and can choose their jobs and education. And the law does not require us to wear any particular form of clothing. But there are strong social and cultural factors - coming from the fact that we are in Arabia - that limit women.
As a journalist, it has not been hard for me to work among men, but it has been hard for some of my colleagues whose families told them this was not "appropriate" work for them.
The biggest difficulties are the social and cultural factors, and some aspects of law. For example, women who marry a foreigner cannot pass on their nationality to their children, whereas men in that situation can.
Religion is not an issue in our struggle, although there are problems with family law about divorce and marriage status. Omani laws are based on sharia law. Sharia is fair, but it is the wrong interpretations that are the problem. Male judges often don't understand the principal goals of sharia. We feel the law is fair, but ends up being unfair for women because of how judges interpret it.
Cultural and social factors often get mixed up with religion. Educated women can be more empowered and separate the two, but many don't dare challenge the conventions.
NORANI OTHMAN, Scholar-activist, Malaysia
I don't think it is any more difficult to be an Islamic feminist than a non-Muslim, or secular feminist.
Feminists in general have to face up to political and cultural obstacles, to achieve our objectives of women's rights. Even Western feminists have had a similar history - having to engage with certain religious beliefs not conducive to gender equality.
Perhaps the only distinctive difference peculiar to Muslim feminists is that we are caught in the cross-currents of modernisation and a changing society, due to a modern economy on the one hand and the global resurgence of political Islam on the other.
Political Islam wants to impose a world view about the gender order that is not consistent with the realities and the lived experiences of Muslim men and women in contemporary society.
There is a difference between South East Asian Muslim countries and the ones in the Middle East - culturally we are less patriarchal, we can always respond to our detractors by pointing out we don't have the cultural practices that they do.
Our detractors would hurl empty accusations at us - calling us Western, secular or anti-Islamic.
Our arguments are rooted within Islam - we want renewal and transformation within the Islamic framework. They don't like that.
We have a holistic approach, seeking gender equality within the Islamic framework, supported by constitutional guarantees. We see that these are not inconsistent with the message of the Koran, particularly during its formative stages. We have to understand the history and cultural context and extract the principle that will be applicable in modern times.
SITI MUSDAH MULIA, Academic, Indonesia
In my experience, I find that it is very difficult to make Indonesian Muslim women aware that politics is their right.
In Indonesian society, politics is always conceived as cruel and dirty, so not many women want to get involved, they think it is just for men.
We try to make women understand that politics is one of our duties and rights and they can become involved without losing their femininity.
Personally, I'm non-partisan, I'm not linked to one political party because, in Indonesia, the political parties often discriminate against women.
I struggle from outside the political sphere to make it women-friendly, to reform political parties and the political system.
One day, I hope to be involved more directly, if the system becomes more women-friendly. We have passed a law about affirmative action and achieving 30% female representation, but we won't see if it is implemented until after 2009 elections. We are waiting.
In Indonesia, some groups support us, but some radical groups oppose what we are trying to achieve. They accuse me, accuse feminist Muslims, of being infidels, of wanting to damage Islamic affairs.
According to their Islamic understanding, women should be confined to the home, and the domestic sphere alone.
AMINA WADUD, Academic, United States
There are many more conversations going on today between different interpretations of Islam. Some interpretations are very narrow, some are more broad, principled, ethically-based.
Unless we have sufficient knowledge about Islam, we cannot bring about reform of Islam. I am not talking about re-interpretation, I am talking more about gender-inclusive interpretation.
We have a lot of information about men's interpretations of Islam, and of what it means to be a woman in Islam. We don't have equal amounts of information about what women say it means to be a good woman in Islam. Now it's time for men to be active listeners, and after listening, to be active participants in bringing about reform.
There is a tendency to say that it is Islam that prohibits women from driving a car, for example, when women drive cars all over the world except in one country. So then you know it is not Islam. Islam has much more flexibility, but patriarchy tends to have the same objective, and that is to limit our ability to understand ourselves as Muslims.I have always defined myself as pro-faith and pro-feminism.
I do not wish to sacrifice my faith for anybody's conception of feminism, nor do I sacrifice the struggle and actions for full equality of women, Muslim and non-Muslim women, for any religion. Islamic feminism is not an either/or, you can be Muslim and feminist and strive for women's rights and not call yourself a feminist.
FATIMA KHAFAJI, Consultant, Egypt
In Egypt, Islamic feminism is a way for women activists to reach a large number of ordinary women in the villages and in urban low-income areas, using a framework of Islam. So there would be a reference to Islam when talking about women's rights. Experience has shown that that is an easy way to get women to accept what you're saying.
Not many women get information about women's rights easily, so you have to counter what has been fed to them, to both men and women, from the strict, conventional, religious people who have more access to women.
They have their own idea of women's rights in Islam - that is, patriarchal, still limiting opportunities for women. But women have been receiving this concept for ages, through the radio, TV, mosques, so the challenge is how to give them another view, of enlightened Islam, that talks about changing gender roles. It's not an easy job.
Historically, in Egypt in the feminist movement, there have been both Muslim and Christian women. It has never been a problem. Unfortunately nowadays, it has become a problem. Religious discrimination has been dividing people very much. We have to think carefully about how to supersede the differences.
With family law, we're aiming to change the philosophy of the law itself. Traditional family law puts women down. I can see this whole notion of "women do not have control over their bodies" in so many laws, in the penal code and family law. For example, sexual harassment is happening because men think the control of women's bodies is a matter for them. Even the decision whether to have children is the decision of men. This whole notion has to be changed in a dramatic way if we are really going to talk about women's rights in Egypt.
Thursday, 11 September 2008
Ramadhan Madness
- You can't really go with the 'Don't go food shopping when you're hungry' rule during this period, but be sensible. When you're at your local pasar Ramadhan and shopping, don't buy more than 2 or 3 dishes for yourself. You're not likely to be able to finish it. Remember, during Ramadhan, your stomach shrinks, and you feel full much faster.
- Be a bit more active at night. Take a walk, swim a bit, or go to the gym for some light exercise. This will work off your bloated feeling. It will also help keep you fit and lose weight.
- Always drink water after sunset. This is very important in keeping your body hydrated.
- If you have problems waking up for sahur, then eat sahur before you go to sleep.
- Stay away from foods full of sodium during sahur, as this will stimulate your stomach enzymes and make you feel hungry when you wake up.
- Eat plenty of fruits to help keep your body loaded with vitamins.
- To help keep your energy up, take a nap during your lunch break. After all, you're not eating, right?
Happy fasting.
Friday, 9 May 2008
On the Dangerous Topic of Islam and Conversion
From BBC: Malaysian woman can leave Islam:
A religious court in Malaysia has allowed a Muslim convert to leave the Islamic faith, in what is being hailed as a landmark ruling.
Penang's Sharia court ruled that Siti Fatimah Tan Abdullah was free to return to Buddhism, following the collapse of her marriage to a Muslim man.
It was decided she had not had proper counselling during her conversion.
Malaysians are rarely allowed to renounce the faith - those who do can be prosecuted under stringent laws.
That's actually a pretty fair and just ruling. Even though she was officially converted, she never did it for the right reasons. It's probably very difficult to fulfill that burden of proof, but someone who converts in name and doesn't believe it isn't really converting at all, is it? It's just getting all the right and proper documents to do the things you want to do. In this case, marriage. And boy, have I seen that happen.
Then again, I've also seen first hand how spending more than half your life in the presence of a religion can actually pull you to believe and practice. I suppose with time, it could have been possible with her. Conversion: a cardinal sin for one religion that guarantees your entry into heaven by another.
Wednesday, 27 February 2008
On the Dangerous Topics of Islam and Hadith Reformation
I'd previously written on the revision of the Hadith by Ankara University (from BBC: Turkey in radical revision of Islamic texts). I decided to have a looksee as to what the reception to this announcement was, and I was quite surprised.
Recent surfing of the internet over the past few months have shown me that staunch Muslims today are very open to using the internet as a method of communication to discuss relevant issues, and to seek advice on what is proper and what isn't. What's awesome is that these forums sometimes require you to cite sources for whatever argument it is that you're touting, which discourages the ridiculous flamings that you get at regular forums. Also, I think they're very strictly moderated.
Responses to the proposed revision are mixed. More mixed than expected. SunniForum, for example, has a good mix of opinions. To quote a few from SunniForum: Hadiths being reformed:
So you see, Muslims aren't quite as close minded as many think. Someone also mentioned that there are books on Hadith, which discuss what is weak and what isn't. This interests me."Does anyone have the article from an Islamic website, I don't want to make any judgements based on what BBC is telling us"
"They actually started doing project last year or the year before, when they removed some hadith like the saying that a woman was a bad omen.We really need more information on their methodology. This needn't be the disaster it's looking like at present, inshallah."
"i will look at the proof they come up with for WHY they deny this or that hadith. then, i will decide if i am convinced or not!we need to quit being so close minded though. i am sure that there will be some things they implement that may not be good, but at least wait until they finish the project to see if they are right or not. do not judge yet because we do not yet have their reasoning.i find some hadiths to be silly, like that the earth was created in 6 days, or that fevers come from fire of hell. some of these defy modern science and logic. therefore i am not going to blindly follow a hadith.so i will wait for their proof and see. maybe it will convince me, maybe not. let's just wait before jumping to conclusions!"
"These so-called scholars think it right to determine what was said and what wasn't by RasoolAllah (saw).. Sounds very funny coming from a country which does not allow a mere headscarf at their universities or workplaces.. I think it would have been more understandable if Oxford wanted to carry out the study.. May Allah show the misled people in Turkey the right way.. Ameen"
Moving on, I found a damned interesting article referring to a Ignác Goldhizer, a Jewish Hungarian orientalist (I don't know what that means either), who was quite renowned in the fields of Islamic study. His pièce de resistance? An essay called Muhammedanische Studien, which, according to Wikipedia: Ignác Goldhizer:
Which I always suspected but obviously could never prove or find the time to research. Going back to the interesting article which was apparently addressing a different issue, I believe this quote serves my purpose quite well. From ArmenianDiaspora.com: Debating Islam's "Golden Age":[S]howed how Hadith reflected the legal and doctrinal controversies of the two centuries after the death of Mohammed rather than the words of Mohamed himself. He was strong believer in the view that Islamic law owes its origins to Roman Law ...
I believe this is the problem that the Ankara University is trying to rectify. The problem is in drawing the line between arbitrary interpretation, educated guesses, and justifiable modifications.The problem now is that such acts have been attributed to the Prophet Muhammad who is the model to be emulated by all Muslims. Hence, while even worse wars might have been perpetrated in the world by rulers long since forgotten, the acts and sayings of Muhammad concerning non-Muslims are still binding for over a billion Muslims today.
I think the conclusion then, is that maybe this revision isn't a new idea, but was a long time coming. The reception may be warmer than expected, but this article only came out today, and the Muslims who've found the internet and the forums that I've found may just be looking for Muslims much like them: those who are willing to discuss it. Malaysian Muslims are famously single-minded and closed to discussion, much like the education system brought us up to be. I still think there's going to be trouble.
I smell trouble brewing
From BBC: Turkey in radical revision of Islamic texts:
Er, how do I comment on this? On the one hand, this is exactly what I've been touting all the while: that some of the things we hold dear were never said by the Prophet SAW, but by others. What we take as haram was haram for good reason back in the day, but there is no reason for it to be today.Turkey is preparing to publish a document that represents a revolutionary reinterpretation of Islam - and a controversial and radical modernisation of the religion.
The country's powerful Department of Religious Affairs has commissioned a team of theologians at Ankara University to carry out a fundamental revision of the Hadith, the second most sacred text in Islam after the Koran.
The Hadith is a collection of thousands of sayings reputed to come from the Prophet Muhammad.
As such, it is the principal guide for Muslims in interpreting the Koran and the source of the vast majority of Islamic law, or Sharia.
But the Turkish state has come to see the Hadith as having an often negative influence on a society it is in a hurry to modernise, and believes it responsible for obscuring the original values of Islam.
It says that a significant number of the sayings were never uttered by Muhammad, and even some that were need now to be reinterpreted.
'Reformation'
The forensic examination of the Hadiths has taken place in Ankara University's School of Theology.
An adviser to the project, Felix Koerner, says some of the sayings - also known individually as "hadiths" - can be shown to have been invented hundreds of years after the Prophet Muhammad died, to serve the purposes of contemporary society.
"Unfortunately you can even justify through alleged hadiths, the Muslim - or pseudo-Muslim - practice of female genital mutilation," he says.
"You can find messages which say 'that is what the Prophet ordered us to do'. But you can show historically how they came into being, as influences from other cultures, that were then projected onto Islamic tradition."
The argument is that Islamic tradition has been gradually hijacked by various - often conservative - cultures, seeking to use the religion for various forms of social control.
Turkey is intent on sweeping away that "cultural baggage" and returning to a form of Islam it claims accords with its original values and those of the Prophet.
Revolutionary
But this is where the revolutionary nature of the work becomes apparent. Even some sayings accepted as being genuinely spoken by Muhammad have been altered and reinterpreted.
Prof Mehmet Gormez, a senior official in the Department of Religious Affairs and an expert on the Hadith, gives a telling example.
"There are some messages that ban women from travelling for three days or more without their husband's permission and they are genuine.
"But this isn't a religious ban. It came about because in the Prophet's time it simply wasn't safe for a woman to travel alone like that. But as time has passed, people have made permanent what was only supposed to be a temporary ban for safety reasons."
The project justifies such bold interference in the 1,400-year-old content of the Hadith by rigorous academic research.
Prof Gormez points out that in another speech, the Prophet said "he longed for the day when a woman might travel long distances alone".
So, he argues, it is clear what the Prophet's goal was.
Original spirit
Yet, until now, the ban has remained in the text, and helps to restrict the free movement of some Muslim women to this day.
As part of its aggressive programme of renewal, Turkey has given theological training to 450 women, and appointed them as senior imams called "vaizes".
They have been given the task of explaining the original spirit of Islam to remote communities in Turkey's vast interior.
One of the women, Hulya Koc, looked out over a sea of headscarves at a town meeting in central Turkey and told the women of the equality, justice and human rights guaranteed by an accurate interpretation of the Koran - one guided and confirmed by the revised Hadith.
She says that, at the moment, Islam is being widely used to justify the violent suppression of women.
"There are honour killings," she explains.
But this writer needs to be a whole lot more careful when she writes about this, because it looks like she's saying Islam as it is today justifies honour killings.
Wednesday, 10 October 2007
On the Dangerous Topics of Islam and Hijabs
I just realised something. I'd mentioned in an earlier entry that the hijab was wajib and quoted a reference to the text that made it so. I'd been sitting here thinking about the text because as I recall, it mentioned somethings very interesting. From the reference:
The translation [of the text]:
"And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms..." [Abdullah Yusuf Ali]
The style of the language employed in the verse is very important. Allah Most High begins with the imperative form of the verb "qalla," which means to say or tell. Thus, Allah Most High is commanding the Prophet, peace be upon him, to tell the believing
women to take a series of steps:
To guard their gaze, which is an important factor in modest interaction; To guard their chastity or sexuality; To conceal their adornment and natural beauty, which scholars have interpreted to mean the whole body except for the face, hands, and (for Hanafis) the feet. And, finally, to emphasize the above point, Allah Ta'ala uses the phrase, "wa-lyadhribna bikhumurihinna ala juyubihinna." The verb "yadhribna" which means "to draw or pull over" appears as a feminine plural, thus going back to the original subject of the verse, the believing women. Most importantly, it starts off with the letter "lam," which is called "lam al-amr." Lam al-amr, when prefixed to a present tense verb, such as "yadhribna," makesthe verb an imperative, that is, a command. It is not understood as a recommendation, but a specific command directly from Allah Most High to His slaves among the believing women.
The part highlighted in red specifically tells us that the relevant text only tells Muslim women to conceal their "adornment and natural beauty". It was only the scholars that interpreted that to mean the whole body. The only thing that was specifically mentioned to cover was their bosoms. Interesting, no?
Wednesday, 3 October 2007
On the Dangerous Topics of Islam and Other Things
So I've been browsing http://www.sunnipath.com/ and found some interesting things that we're supposed and not supposed to do. For your benefit, I will summarise:
- Men and women are not allowed to dye their hair black. However, it is sunnah for them to dye their white hair red (with henna) or yellow (with saffron).
Reference: http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=3&ID=3661&CATE=418
Interestingly, according to my uncle and ustaz, this is because we cannot sama-kan what has been created by Allah (SWT), meaning that those who are blonde cannot dye their hair yellow and those who have brown hair cannot dye their hair brown. But the verse quoted didn't mention anything about that, so I'm not sure on that point.
- The hijab is wajib, the niqab isn't. The verse only specifies that women must 'veil' their neck and cleavage.
Reference: http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=3&ID=5849&CATE=329, http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=3&ID=7123&CATE=329
- Most surprisingly, it's not haram (in the Hanafi school) to consume wine vinegar!
Reference: http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?id=15860&hd=1&cate=0&t=rss
- It is haram for men to let their clothing fall below their ankles if it is done out of pride, makruh if it is done for other reasons.
Reference: http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=3&ID=2163&CATE=377
- It might be "disliked" for men to wear pure red when it is not mixed with other colors. Who knew?
Reference: http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=3&ID=3093&CATE=377
Ok, that's enough for today. This "Dangerous Topics" thing might become a repeating occurrence.
Monday, 1 October 2007
Part 2: On the Dangerous topics of Islam, Tattoos, and others.
Answered by Shaykh Amjad Rasheed
Translated by Shaykh Hamza Karamali, SunniPath Academy Teacher
Q: I read from some answers on here that tattoos are not allowed due to the colour being mixed with blood and then something being left on the outer surface of the skin which is firstly impure and also prevents water from reaching the skin. Modern tattoo methods have changed. Pigment is now inserted underneath the skin so therefore, there is no blood on the skin and also nothing prevents water from reaching it. Therefore is it allowed?
A:1) Modern Tattoos are not Necessarily Filth
[h: The tattooing process referred to by the scholars of Sacred Law is, “to prick the skin with a needle until blood exits, after which a powder-dye is sprinkled on it to leave a blue or green mark [h: on the skin].” (Hashiyat al-Shirwani `ala al-Tuhfa, 2.128). The mark that remains on the skin is thus a trace of the blood that was drawn out, and the prayers of a person with such a mark are not valid until the tattoo is removed because blood is filth and it is not valid to pray with traces of filth on one’s body.]
As for modern tattoo methods, if they do not involve the mixing of dye with blood after it exits onto the outer surface of the body, then the tattoo is not considered a trace of filth [h: and one’s prayers are thus valid with such a tattoo on one’s body].
2) Modern Tattoos Nevertheless Remain Unlawful
Scholars mention three legal reasons for the unlawfulness of tattooing: (1) the unnecessary infliction of pain caused by the needle that penetrates the skin, (2) the being affected by filth caused by the mixing of the dye with the blood that exits after the needle’s penetration, and (3) the altering of Allah’s creation without necessity. Each of these three reasons suffices to independently make tattooing unlawful, even if the other reasons are not present.
The great late Egyptian Shafi`i scholar, Ahmad al-Halwani al-Khaliji said by way of explaining the reason for the unlawfulness of tattooing,
“The legal reason [for the unlawfulness of tattooing] is … that tattooing comprises infliction of pain, filthification, and it and the matters that are mentioned alongside it [h: in the hadiths that prohibit tattooing] comprise altering of Allah’s magnificent creation. [h: This last legal reason is derived from the fact that when prohibiting tattooing, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) described the tattooing women as] “those who alter Allah’s creation,” which is a hint to the Quranic verse, “… and I will surely command them, and they will then surely alter the creation of Allah.”” (al-Wasm fi al-Washm, 25)
The great Shafi`i hadith scholar, Munawi, also mentioned in his book, Fayd al-Qadir, that the reason for the prohibition of tattooing is that it involves altering Allah’s creation.
If the first two legal causes for the prohibition of tattooing are no longer found in modern tattooing methods, then the last legal reason nevertheless remains. It therefore seems to this needy soul—after contemplating the words of the scholars of Sacred Law, and after consulting our teacher, Shaykh Muhammad al-Khatib (may Allah preserve him)—that tattooing is unconditionally unlawful regardless of the method that is employed because it involves altering Allah’s creation without necessity, even if it no longer comprises the infliction of pain or the filthification of the skin. This is clearly implied by the words of Shaykh al-Islam Zakariyya al-Ansari in his book, Sharh al-Rawd, and also by the words of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) in the hadith related by Bukhari and Muslim, “Allah curses women who tattoo themselves or have themselves tattooed, those who remove their facial hair, and those who part their teeth, [all] for the sake of beautification, altering Allah’s creation.”
Reference: http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=3&ID=13513&CATE=365
Aww, so close and yet so far.
And yet, Islam encourages Muslims to take care of their appearance, and makes beautification (not excessively, though) sunnah. On the one hand, we could argue that it's a form of adornment of Allah's creation, and not a form of mutilation. But that's a very shaky argument.
The other issue that arises is the alteration of self for the sole reason of beautification. If I interpret this correctly, this probably means that braces are haram (unless not wearing them would cause you har), because it's not only just for beautification, but it's also painful.
Quite luckily, I already found the entry that said that plucking is (to an extent) alright.
I think this is going to be an ongoing topic.
Not Halal
So apparently, I've really taken this non-halal way of life to a whole new level. Apparently, because I work in a bank, and a bank's income with which they use to pay me is derived from interest, the income that I earn is not halal. Not only that, I "will go to the fire" because I preside over their activities.
Maybe I shouldn't have come back to Malaysia. This is a hell of a guilt trip.
Reference: Mufti Says
On the Dangerous topics of Islam, Tattoos, and others.
This is a topic that we've much discussed, and since
- I've forgotten all my research,
- I've lost all my research,
- The internet has proliferated since the conduct of my research, and
- My Google skillz are much better now
I've decided to begin research again. If this doesn't apply to you, you need not read this entry. And in the conduct of my research, I've found some very useful websites which actually facilitate constructive conversations on Islamic topics:
Yes, Muslims have found the internet. Ph33r. And now we begin. Let's call this Part 1.
Part 1: Arguments Against Tattooing
The basic gist of it is as follows, and read this carefully:
The meaning of the verse [And obey the Prophet] (4:59, 5:92, etc.) is not that the Prophet saws is also a judge whose orders and prohibitions are law issuing from him rather than Allah Most High. Allah Most High declared the obligator ness of obeying the Prophet saws only in the sense that He made it obligatory for us to obey him in whatever he saws orders and makes obligatory for us to do.
It is Allah Most High Who makes it obligatory for us both to obey and to do, except that the order for some of the acts are formulated by the Prophet saws. Such formulation is only a proof or sign of Allah's own binding order. The meaning of [And obey the Prophet] is therefore "Know that whatever the Prophet saws commands or forbids you to do, it is I Who commands and forbids you to do" as explicated in the verse [And whatsoever the Messenger gives you, take it, and whatsoever he forbids, abstain from it] (59:7).
Without such order, the Prophet's saws command would not have been binding upon us. Illustrating this principle is the following narration from `Alqama:`Abd Allah ibn Mas`ud ra said: "Allah Most High curses women who tattoo others, women who have tattoo applied to them, women who have their eyebrows clipped, and women artificially tooth-gapped, all for cosmetic purposes, changing Allah's fashioning." News of this reached a woman of Banu Asad called Umm Ya`qub. She came to him saying: "O Abu `Abd al-Rahman! I heard that you cursed such-and-such." He replied: "Why should I not curse those whom Allah's Messenger saws cursed?"
She said: "Lo! I certainly read all that is between the two covers [of the volume of Qur'an], and I did not find this." He replied: "Had you read it you would have certainly found it. Did you not read [And whatsoever the Messenger gives you, take it, and whatsoever he forbids, abstain from it] (59:7)?" She said yes.
He said: "Allah's Messenger saws forbade it."Narrated by al-Bukhari and Muslim in their Sahihs, Abu Dawud and Ibn Majah in their Sunan, Ahmad and al-Darimi in their Musnads, al-Bayhaqi in al-Sunan al-Kubra (7:312) and Shu`ab al-Iman (6:170), Ibn Hibban in his Sahih (12:314), `Abd al-Razzaq in his Musannaf (3:145 #5103), al-Humaydi in his Musnad (1:53), and Ibn `Abd al-Barr in Jami` Bayan al-`Ilm (2:1181-1182 #2336-2337). Al-Dhahabi narrated it in al-Kaba'ir [the Enormities] and he said: "It is agreed upon [by Bukhari and Muslim]."Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalani said in Fath al-bari (10:378) in commentary of this hadith:Nawawi said: "An exception from the prohibition of plucking away facial hair is when a woman has a beard, mustache, or hair growing between her lower lip and chin, in which cases it is not unlawful for her to remove it, but rather is commendable (mustahabb)," the permissibility being on condition that her husband knows of it and gives his permission, though it is prohibited if he does not, because of the deception it entails. End of excerpt.
Mufti Lajpuri in his Fatawa Rahimiyya declared it required (wajib) for her to pluck such hair from her face.There is a kind of temporary metaphorical "tattoo" that is desirable for women: to dye the hands and feet with henna. Of course women also use it for the face and hair, and men for the beard. In some countries of the Borneo peninsula men also apply it on their hands and feet on the occasion of weddings, although it is actually forbidden in their [Shafi`i] madhhab. However, it would be wrong to call all this tattoo since that word lexically means an indelible marking of the skin.
A man came to the Prophet, Peace be upon him, with his hands dyed with saffron. This is a removable, temporary skin ornament, yet the Prophet saws did not even return his salam. All he said to him was: Go wash this away. He went and came back, and there was a little bit left. Again the Prophet saws did not address him except to tell him to wash it away more thoroughly. So this is a lesson for men that decorating/altering the skin in such manner is not allowed.Another factor which makes it prohibited is that tatooing is the fashion of unbelievers, and the Prophet saws said: "Whoever looks [i.e. wilfully] like a people is one of them." And Allah knows best.
There you have it.
On the other hand,
Women and Hair Removal
Answered by SunniPath Answer Service Team
Q: Is it permissible for women to remove facial hair, and hair from the arms and legs? I am in the beauty business and I do waxing for my clients. Please tell me if it is permissible in Islam.
A In the Name of Allah, Most Merciful & Compassionate
From a previous question answered by Shaykh Abdurrahman ibn Yusuf:
Taking the hadith and the various statements of the Hanafi jurists into consideration the following could be concluded:
- It would be permitted for a woman to remove a beard or a moustache that appears on her face. Even though it is facial hair, but since it is to stop women from resembling men, it is permitted. This is the opinion of the majority of scholars, in fact they have said it is recommended, not just permitted. The same will be to bleach this hair instead.
- If the eyebrows are linked in between, it would be permissible to remove the excess hair from in between to separate them [i.e. the hair above the nose]. The reason for this is that linked eyebrows are looked upon as a defect, hence it would be permissible to remove it.
- A 'few' stray hairs around the eyebrows would be permissible to remove by clipping them off, if it looks defective, or for married women creates abhorrence in their husband. This does not mean it is permitted to remove a whole line or two of fine hair from around the eyebrows [as is the case nowadays].
- Dense bushy eyebrows may be trimmed down to a more normal size. However, one must exercise great caution in this regard, since one does not want it to fall under the warning of the hadith. If one is not sure how to determine the normal size they should not act on the benefit of the doubt, but rather follow the more cautionary approach and trim less. What so called 'regular' [especially non-Muslim] people consider nowadays as the norm i.e. eyebrows that are shaped in particular unnatural or reduced to thin lines can not be considered as acceptable in Islamic law due to the severity of the hadith.
- Great caution has to be exercised in this regard, since the hadith is very strict and there are some Hanafi scholars who have taken more strict position. For instance, Mullah Ali al-Qari (Allah be pleased with him) comments [relating from Imam Nawawi] that plucking of the facial hair is haram (unlawful) for a woman with the exception of moustache or beard hairs (Mirqat al-Mafatih 8:218). The concessions mentioned above are for the removal of a defective appearance and not for purely beautification purpose, hence, caution in this matters is the way.
Wassalam,
SunniPath Fiqh Team
On the one hand, tattoos are forbidden because they are said to be blemishes on the perfection of Allah SWT's creation. On the other, some concessions are made to fix the defects of the perfection of Allah SWT's creation. I think the questions here to be raised are:
- What determines what is a defect worth being fixed and what isn't?
- Who are you to say that Allah SWT did not intend for women to look this way?
The good news is that there are contradicting opinions. I'm yet to find solid references to put up. Never fear. I got time. To be continued...
Thursday, 27 September 2007
BBC: Quest to become 'UK's first female imam'
I know I'm averaging like three posts a day. Shut up. This is what the blog is for.
Quest to become 'UK's first female imam'
(etc...)Salma Qureshi, a computer programmer and British Muslim, tells the BBC of her ambition to become one of the UK's first female imams.
Like many young women in their thirties, computer programmer Salma likes shopping, aerobics and yoga. But her personal mission to be a religious leader poses one of the biggest challenges to the Muslim world today.
"I'm quite religious but at the same time I'm quite a liberal person myself," she says.
"What I'm doing at the moment is something new. Until now there hasn't been a female imam - the imams have always been men.
"They never think about females as imams, and what I'm about to do is very challenging."
Passing on Knowledge
Taught by her father, Ms Qureshi had read the Koran by the age of seven. She said that when she was younger, she could not "differentiate what was religion and what was culture," and that she thought Islam imposed "too many restrictions" on women.
"It's only afterwards I realised that this is all cultural - religion doesn't really stop women doing anything," she added.
"In fact women can do anything that they want providing it doesn't go against the religion."
(etc...)
Navid Akhtar, a commentator on Britain's Muslim community, explained that because the vast majority of the community is very traditional and has a "quite basic" understanding of Islam, it is "very patriarchal, very tribal" and expects women simply to pray at home.
"So the idea that a woman trains to become an imam or wants to play quite a leading role in the running of a mosque would be a real shock," he said. "They would see it as a real challenge to their established power base."
Ms Qureshi said that both her husband and brother had reacted by saying "How can a woman be an imam?" when she had told them of her plans.
But she pointed out that Ayesha, wife of the Prophet, had carried out teaching and prayers, "passing on Islamic knowledge and teaching". "So why can't it be done now?" she added.
She also stressed she felt there was a need for this, "because at the moment we don't have leadership amongst women, there's just male imams".
(etc...)
"I was really surprised that I had younger girls coming up to me, teenagers and younger girls, and they said to me 'You are actually breaking the ice. There's a gap there between male and female and you're trying to fill that up'."
Yes, I know we live in a modern world where everything is unisex and co-ed, but some people are just more comfortable being around women. I don't mean that they have to never ever come in contact with men, but it's just more comfortable, and I know how they feel.