Zia Sardar weighs in on Wadud debate
It's been a few months since I last contributed an entry to the "ZiaWatch" category, which lies sort-of orphaned with just three entries. Ziauddin Sardar's writings are a topic which is dear to my heart because the book he wrote, Introducing Islam, was a heavy influence on my becoming Muslim. The problem is that he presents the opinion of a relatively small number of academics as Islamic fact, declaring these opinions to the western media. He has an article in the present edition of "emel" (meaning ML, for Muslim Lifestyle), which is published in east London and is edited by Sarah Joseph. It won't surprise anyone that he supports Amina Wadud's action.
The article (Three Cheers for Women Imams, issue 11, page 19), in its tone, actually reads like it was intended for MWU. It starts out sarcastically and mocking the scholars of Islam:
The heavens have been shaken. Imams, mullahs, sheikhs and the ulama are hopping mad. A centuries old custom has been challenged: a woman has led a mixed gender congregation for Friday prayers in New York. Whatever next? Women claiming the right to do ijtihad?
His claim that this action has been some sort of earth-shattering event is exaggerated; it has become well-known because of its heavy publicity. A few men have decided to nullify a prayer by praying behind a woman, drawing mockery and hostility on our community in the process. It's interesting that he compares this to women doing ijtihad, as there has been a whole history of Muslim female scholars, including the teachers of several major Imams (notably Sayyida Nafîsa, the teacher of Imam al-Shafi'i).
In his next paragraph, he slanders the people who run the International Islamic University in Malaysia. Apparently they were sufficiently deceived by her "deep Islamic knowledge" to give her a teaching position, and when they realised that she was a "natural born rebel" - or was it before they realised her extremely deviant ideas? - they kicked her out. They certainly would not have found a place for her if they had heard her say that it was the Qur'an that gives us the authority to "say no to the Qur'an".
Not content with slandering the IIU in Malaysia, he next slanders the whole community, and particularly its scholars:
How have the great leaders of this great ummah of ours reacted? To begin with there were the inevitable death threats.
Where's the proof that any "leader" was behind this? Perhaps the threats actually came from Wadud's supporters in an attempt to smear her opponents; perhaps it was someone outraged by her attack on what everyone knows is proper Islamic practice. Where is the evidence that it was an organised campaign, let alone that any leader did it or called for it? And as for being incapable of civilised behaviour, her opponents did not resort to slander or to playing the race card, which is more than can be said for Sardar and Amina Wadud.
Apparently, the organisers of the "mixed jumu'ah" had to vet their congregation to make sure there were no hostile elements! I wonder if they employed the people who do the same at George W Bush's rallies. (According to some Islamic authorities, a jumu'ah is not valid anyway if it's not open to everyone.)
He then trots out the notorious straw-man argument that the reason people oppose women leading jumu'ah is to do with their menstrual cycles and the possibility of spillage! Now, some imam somewhere may have said this, but no proper scholar would suggest that it was relevant. If it were, women might be prohibited from sitting on the same chairs as men, in case the man later got a drop or a trace on his trousers or thobe. It is actually not Islam which is superstitious and fearful of women's menstrual cycles. We are not the people who tell women not to cook for their families during their periods, or that a man becomes impure if he touches the bed a woman sleeps on during her period. There is even a hadeeth in Bukhari in which the Prophet (sall' Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam) prayed on a mat on which one of his wives, who had her period, was sitting. Bear in mind, it was more difficult then to protect clothes from blood than it is now.
Sardar admits that the argument "is inapplicable in any case as women do not do the ritual prayers during that time"; but one wonders if the argument had genuinely been advanced by anyone. Imams do have wives - they are not like celibate priests, and even they are raised by mothers and often with sisters and other female relatives around. It's very rare that a man sees anything of his female relatives' periods other than what they use to protect their clothing. If anyone had really said this, it would have been better to point it out to him in private, rather than to repeat it in the press as a basis for people to ridicule him and the entire body of Islamic scholars.
He next goes onto the issue of a man being led astray by the sight of a woman's behind in front of him while he prays, using the usual sarcasm and mockery:
I mean, if our brothers are so lacking in moral fibre that the mere sight of a woman covered from head to toe like an Egyptian mummy can lead them astray then there is something seriously wrong with them.
The problem, of course, is that a lot of brothers could be distracted. There is huge wisdom in having women pray behind the men if they pray in the same room; look what most men wear during the salaat - jeans and a T-shirt, usually - and imagine that a lot of women will be wearing a pair of trousers or a skirt, a cardigan or pull-over and a headscarf. A few, of course, will wear a jilbaab of some sort. Bear in mind that in a lot of Muslim countries sexual harrassment is a huge problem, even for sisters in hijaab. It is as logical not to have a woman in front when a man prays as it is not to have advertising, because a man should, indeed, be thinking about his prayers, not women or anything he might buy.
He then goes on to celebrate the infestation of opinionated women with faulty ideas about Islam - he's a big fan of Fatima Mernissi, for example. Apparently "almost every Muslim community now has a leading female scholar of Islam determined to challenge every unjust custom, every oppressive tradition perpetuated in the name of Islam". Of course, he confuses academics with scholars of Islam - you won't find any of them, I'm sure, who have memorised any large part of the Qur'an or large body of hadeeth, although they will be perfectly able to find scholars of whatever persuasion to give some (ostensibly) favourable opinion. One suspects he is not so fond of those women (and men) who learn the deen through the proper channels, at the feet of the scholars (male or female), in order to impart knowledge of the deen to a community desperately in need of it.
Comments
Oh man i used to respect Zia totally disgusted with him now. Yusuf i ask again any reason why you have chosen not to comment on the MPACUK documentary Operation Muslim Vote?
Posted by: aafreen | May 23, 2005 10:05 AM
as salaam alaikum
ya know I've always thought of the women praying in the back in a different manner. Although a man eyeing up my rear in salah is just an eerry thought. But if you think about the set up of a masjid, the doors at the rear, behind the front lines. So say salah is done, we all want to go about our buisness and sisters in the front are suppose to squeeze through the gathering of brothers now at the door?
The back of the line is the best line for women according to hadith. Its also closest to the door. I can't stand when men huddle by an entrace or exit, and a sister has to squeeze by. Making sure to squeeze in what usually pops out on a womans body. (not trying to be too graphic, but you have to think like a womans body not a mans)
Posted by: Nzingha | May 23, 2005 2:05 PM
You know, I'm no rocket scientist but I'm guessing Yusuf isn't addressing the MPACUK thingy majiggy because it just doesn't float his boat. Sometimes even silence is an answer. Take a hint.
Posted by: Debbie | May 23, 2005 7:05 PM
Nice post. Yes, Sardar continues to disgust me as well. His baseless claim that the ulama were "hopping mad" has its roots in his wishful thinking and is simply slanderous. Personally, I just feel sorry for Amina Wadud and those that followed her, since they're obviously suffering from some sort of delusion. Also, I also see seem as traitors that are playing into the hands of the enemies of Islam who are now going to expect other Muslims to follow this "liberal" and "enlightened" example or else be considered a "fanatic" or an "extremist". I just wish Amina Wadud and company would just go off and follow their own little version of Islam without trying to convince those of us who are simply doing what Muslims for over 1,400 years have been doing that we're wrong.
Posted by: Abdurrahman Squires | May 24, 2005 1:05 PM
I am at a loss with "progressives". I thought Islam came to purify the heart - between these guys and the wahabbis I'm surprised that anyone unearths the true meaning to Islam at all - everything is politics and sociology....
Posted by: eyes2see | May 24, 2005 8:05 PM
Debbie cant you let Yusuf speak for himself? Hes criticised MPACUK plenty of times in the past and when pushed admitted they do good work i just wanted to know what he thought about their doc i dont think thats an unreasonable request....
Posted by: aafreen | May 26, 2005 7:05 AM
I think he is "speaking" for himself.... just an opinion... shrugs.
Posted by: Debbie | May 26, 2005 9:05 AM
Get a grip
Posted by: Debbie | May 26, 2005 12:05 PM
what did you think of the MPACUK doc? was just a question so sorry it offended you so much, Debbie. And im sorry Yusuf needs you to speak for him and chooses not to respond to my perfectly innocent question.
Posted by: aafreen | May 26, 2005 12:05 PM
get a life and stop interferring with other peoples queries.
Posted by: aafreen | May 26, 2005 1:05 PM
LOL puh-lease how old are you
Posted by: Debbie | May 26, 2005 6:05 PM
Salams yes I remember reading something by him in a magazone a very long time ago where he openly disrespected the Ulama by calling them names which was quite uncalled for, and especially when the pont of view he was putting accross was of a narrow view. WS
Posted by: Ahmed | May 26, 2005 6:05 PM
obviously older than your intefering self,debbie!. Yusuf may i suggest you have a email on here so i can send any quries directly to you? You have a link to MPACUK website, a documentary about them was shown on channel 4 i was interested to have your opnion on it, it would have been courteous if you had responded...oh well never mind.
Posted by: aafreen_UK | June 1, 2005 7:06 AM
zia has bartered his soul to evil for western acknowledgments
Posted by: zain | November 2, 2005 3:36 AM
Those who are criticising the efforts of Zia Sardar above may like to read the following review of his book which describes where his main motivation in addressing Islamic issues comes from: LOVE. All would-be religious people from any tradition would do well to remember that this is the basis of all religions.
ADVENTURES OF AN INNOCENT ABROAD
Jerry Ravetz enjoys a rollicking good read about one Muslim's search for his own Truth.
Desperately Seeking Paradise Ziauddin Sardar Granta Books, UK, 2004, £16.99
THIS IS AN important book, for several reasons. First, Zia Sardar is a principal writer and intellectual, having written on many different subjects, including Islam, science and America. He has always shown them as seen through his eyes. Now he writes about himself, again through his own eyes. He provides us with a unique insight into the personality and endeavour of someone who is one of the genuinely prophetic voices of our age.
Further, in this book Sardar provides us with a unique insight into the religion that defines his work and his life. This is very important just now, when Islam is the 'antichrist du jour', sandwiched between the Red Menace of yesteryear and the Yellow Peril soon to come. His portrait of Islam is certainly individualistic. It may even be idiosyncratic and eccentric. But for those who do not need a fiendish 'Other' for security in their picture of the world, it is reassuring. Muslims are really just like everyone else in their struggles and their follies.
Sardar's refreshing perspective on Islam comes through clearly in the very first chapter. He is collected by some eccentric holy men, who barrel around the country like a comedy team, coming to rest at a conference where the same old banal pieties are proclaimed as the secret to the salvation of Islam and the world. But there he meets a kindred spirit, an Englishwoman convert who kept her religion even when her Muslim marriage collapsed. They arrange a secret rendezvous, out of sight of the enthusiasts, and there agree, "Let's get the hell out of here!"
This was the first of Sardar's many and varied adventures in search of paradise. Going on for some three decades, they took him across the whole Muslim world, including extended stays in Saudi Arabia and Malaysia. The one represents, in concentrated form, much of what is wrong with Islam; and the other seemed, for quite a long while, to provide the hope that Islam could really make a great contribution to contemporary civilisation.
Through all his experiences, his message becomes ever more clear. The Prophet was a man of supreme mercy, compassion and forgiveness. The Holy Koran conveys his message about right behaviour in this world, and the quite indescribable glories and bliss of the next. But when Islamic civilisation settled down, the jurists prepared a harsh and misogynistic legal code: the notorious Sharia. Later, when Islam went into decline, belief and Muslim identity oscillated between dry (and frequently cruel) legalism on the one side and anti-rational (and easily corrupted) mysticism on the other. Every reforming tendency went wrong; thus Wahhabism started as an extreme Puritanism and eventually became a vehicle of Fascistic intolerance. On top of this, Islam's decline coincided with the rise of the West, and so its thinkers suffer all the ills of inferiority and failure, retreating to literalism or fantasies of as many sorts as may be imagined.
With characteristic self-confidence, Sardar set out at an early age to change all that. He and a small band of comrades (whose eccentricities are lovingly portrayed here) wrote books, edited short-lived journals, and eventually became advisers to the saintly Anwar Ibrahim in Malaysia. It was always precarious, for they were inherently subversive to just about every established interest in the Islamic world. With the fall of the Berlin Wall, they sensed that Islam would be next; then, after the first Gulf War and, finally, the destruction of Anwar, their mission became ever more hopeless in practical terms.
But Sardar never really became desperate. Indeed, the only false note in the whole book is the term 'desperately' in the title. His existence and identity are secure, thanks partly to his family background and also to his profound experience of the truth of his religion. He is also sustained by his deep knowledge of the history of Islam, its prophets, priests and philosophers. The great Muslim debates on God's place in the world, to which much of European medieval and modern philosophy is indebted, have been familiar to him from childhood. All this foundation explains just what sort of 'sceptical' Muslim he is: one who can doubt anything that anyone else needs for their security, because he really knows, or rather Knows, what it is all about.
But I would not want to give the impression that this is a 'serious' book. On the contrary, as the initial adventure indicates, it is a rollicking good tale of the adventures of a sort of innocent abroad. He will go anywhere, try anything, talk to anyone, and always be devastatingly honest. Who else would think of challenging the fundamentals of the Shia faith while being the passenger of a Shia colleague driving in the middle of nowhere in Iran? For his pains, he was dumped on the road, and hitchhiked his way back to civilisation. Dictators personally quoted his criticisms back at him, but then let him go to criticise again. Revolutionary guards in Iran seriously considered executing him as a spy, especially when he told them that their Islamic paradise was turning into a standard-issue totalitarian dictatorship. Some Saudis once turned up with a cheque for five million dollars or pounds (it didn't seem to matter which), to help in his work - if only he would be more tactful.
Sardar's qualities as a travel writer have already been shown in his lyrical homage to Kuala Lumpur. Here we follow him through another sort of travel: that of the seeker, with an irrepressible zest for life. We have the mixture of delightful pen-portraits of friends, acquaintances, opponents and great Muslims of the past, together with sharp analyses of various cultures and tendencies. Through it all is this central character, rather like Candide in his openness, almost reminiscent of Kim in his earnestness and sensitivity, frequently impassioned, sometimes depressed, but never giving us a dull page.
Jerry Ravetz co-authored Cyberfutures and Introducing Mathematics with Zia Sardar. His own work is focused on policy-related science in the 'post-normal' age; his book The No-Nonsense Guide to Science is published by Verso.
Posted by: Leonie Humphreys | November 2, 2005 7:55 AM