Faraz Rabbani and Umm Zaid have linked to an opinion piece in the Times, written by Amir Taheri. It contains of a number of lies and deviant opinions about hijab, among them that it is not required by Islam and - in the form we know today - was invented by one Iranian "mullah" in Lebanon in the 1970s. I'm hoping the Times will make space for an authoritative Islamic answer to Taheri's claims. This is the best, insha Allah, that I can do in my rather fatigued state.
Frankly there are few things that make my blood boil more than "Muslims" who falsely claim that hijab is not a required part of Islam. Regimes such as those in France, Turkey and Tunisia who discriminate against religious Muslim women who wear the hijab fall back on their spurious arguments: that it's a modern development, that the early Muslim women did not wear it, and that there's no evidence for it. What these mendacious and/or ignorant people write and say quite simply opens the way for the harrassment of Muslim women. The experience of women numerous Muslim countries shows that the hijaab is not a barrier to education, other than when secularists decide to make it so.
The first few paragraphs are an aspersion on Muslim opposition to terrorism. I've not got much to say about this other than that nothing Muslims say or do is enough for some people. When people wearing common Islamic dress are accused of "use of their bodies as advertising space for al-Qaeda", this is a whole different situation. Hijab has nothing whatsoever to do with al-Qa'ida. Some women wear it because it's the tradition of where they come from, but many wear it out of obedience to clearly-worded Islamic injunctions on covering and modesty. You can find scholars, of various schools of thought, explaining the Qur'anic verses and hadeeths, and how they have been understood by Muslim people of religious learning through the generations. I suggest SunniPath as a good place to begin.
It's a fact that there was an attack on religious clothing in various parts of the Muslim world in the period after the Muslim lands were colonised. It's also true that, in some places, the common women did not wear hijab as we know it today. But Muslims have always distinguished between what common people do in their ignorance and what is correct Islamic practice. In other places, it was normal for women to wear much more than the hijab we know today - North Africa is a well-known example.
In another article, Taheri has claimed that an unstated style of hijab was invented by an Iranian "mullah" in Lebanon in the 1970s, and was consciously based on the headgear of local Catholic nuns. There are some examples of hijab that look nunnish, but the vast majority, in my observation, don't. In any case, head covering was a fact of life in pre-modern and even earlier modern Europe, a custom continued by nuns and discarded by other women. It was common for women to wear bonnets and other headcoverings when outside in very recent times, and you can still occasionally see older women wearing them today (when I was younger, there were many more of these women around).
His observations on the colours of women's hijabs are fatuous. He suggests that "if some women have been hoodwinked into believing that they cannot be Muslims without covering their hair, they could at least use headgears other than black (the colour of al-Qaeda) or white (the colour of the Taleban)". Is he blind, stupid or both? I see women wearing hijab in all different colours (including different shades of green!) and even patterns. People were wearing clothes of both these colours and others well before these two organisations appeared. I have personally met Yemenis, who have nothing whatsoever to do with al-Qa'ida (despite coming from the same part of the world as Osama) who wear the white turban. The clothing is ancient, the organisations are modern.
He also suggests that we men "consider doing away with Taleban and al-Qaeda-style beards", and that beards have nothing to do with Islam. Has he no shame? There are numerous hadeeths concerning their merit, and stating that the Prophet (sall' Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam) and his male companions grew their beards. Three out of the four main schools of thought forbid shaving off the beard, with the fourth (the Shafi'i) regarding it as offensive. "The bushy beards you see on Oxford Street are symbols of the Salafi ideology that has produced al-Qaeda and the Taleban." Rubbish. Do you even know where the Taliban came from? (Hint: not Saudi Arabia, or any part of the Arabian peninsula.) I know lots of men with beards large and small, most of them not being Salafis or even of the Deobandi school from which the Taliban originated.
Some Muslims also use al-Qaeda and Taleban-style clothing to advertise their Salafi sentiments. For men this consists of a long shirt and baggy trousers, known as the khaksari (down-to-earth) style and first popularised by Abu Ala al-Maudoodi, the ideological godfather of Islamist terrorism. Muslims who wear such clothes in the belief that it shows their piety, in most cases, are unwittingly giving succour to a brand of Islamist extremism.
Shalwar-kameez is, of course, clothing traditional to India, worn by people of all religious persuasions. It is actually spreading among Muslims and non-Muslims in places like Bengal and Kerala. It is simply more practical than some of the other clothing on offer - particularly the sari; you don't have to wind a shalwar-kameez and there's no knack to wearing it. Clothing similar to this is found in the Arabian peninsula as well (a Yemeni once told me that the traditional clothing for women in his country was a thobe and a pair of trousers underneath, that is, a shalwar-kameez with the tunic replaced by a long robe).
Taheri then suggests that "Muslim preachers [pay] a bit more attention to God, which means doing some theology, rather than making speeches about Palestine, Afghanistan and Iraq which are, after all, political, and not religious issues". A commonly-heard complaint about mosques in this country in particular is that they do not talk about politics. Shaikh Riyadh-ul-Haq of Birmingham said in one of his taped sermons (I believe it was The Importance of Change) that he was commonly asked why he did not talk about Bosnia or Chechnya, and he replied that the minbar is not a news-stand. Mosques often oppose political activity on their premises - or even outside them! The most recent political scandal involving Muslims in this country was about postal ballots being redirected in support of Labour. Just because we have a loud minority of radicals doesn't mean that we are in general a radical community.
The article concludes with this blunt paragraph:
Islam must decide whether it wants to be a faith or a political movement. It cannot be both without being hijacked by Salafis or Khomeinists who have transformed it into a breeding ground for terror.
A quite stupid pair of statements; one can think of many breeding grounds for terror, and most of them are conflicts in which western powers have had some involvement. Islam itself is not one of them, and cannot be hijacked by either of the two sects Taheri mentions. When the community is hijacked by secularists, as in Ba'athist Iraq, the results have proven to be as bloody as some cases where the extreme "Salafis" or Shi'a are in control - as any supporter of the invasion of Iraq will confirm!
Salaam Alaikum,
Agreed - that article is completely ridiculous. Again because we (and/or the media?) aren't able to present educated, respected individuals to speak on our behalf, any imbecile who can string two words together gets published in papers. Granted, the Times does come in tabloid size now.
On a slight tangent, the article mentioned that the Prophet, sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, "never sported anything more than a vandyke". That's the first I've ever heard of that - is there any truth to it?
Ma as-salaama,
AT
I'm not surprised. Taheri is being carted around as an expert on Islam by neocons and likuniks. A zionist outfit calling itself "Benedor and associates" has him as a "speaker." A pathetic shill for right wing terrorists.
I guess a poor starving former marxist Iranian living in the states has to do something to make a living.
This makes me crazy. Its the same with thier love affair with Irshad Manji the living lesbian and her class to ijtihad. She can spell nor pronouce the word but uses it to rouse her audience. If I didnt know any better I think she wanted to ijtihad Islam out of existence. What a @#$%!!
âÂÂif some women have been hoodwinked into believing that they cannot be Muslims without covering their hair, they could at least use headgears other than black (the colour of al-Qaeda) or white (the colour of the Taleban)âÂÂ.
Where did he get this from? Right a woman can still be a Muslim if she doesnt cover, this isnt kufr but sinful and disobedient. You are only a kafir when you pronouce kufr like saying alcohol is legal/halal.
With all due respect bro. Yusuf you have played somewhat into these rants as well, namely calling people Wahhabi.
A breeding ground for terrorist are deviant opinions like his.
click on the URL Isnt he cute ?
If a muslim woman does not wear a hijab, does it make her less muslim? Is it prohibited in islam for women to wear comfortable clothes like jeans and t-shirts?
I am a muslim and I have a younger sister who wears pants and skirts to her school. She goes out to the movies with her freinds. Should I consider her a kafir. Ridiculous...!
Whats more important... being a muslim and wearing a hijab all day along...or... being a muslim and living your life productively, comfirtably and peacefully enjoying ? Should we turn our life into hell just to get into heaven when it ends.
I don't understand you guys and don't want to. The day I will start understanding you I will become another suicide bomber and certainly I don't want to become that!! The hell with your expertism on Islam!
You guys are radical fanatics who doesn't want to change with the course of time! Too bad for my lovely religion !
SP,
"If a muslim woman does not wear a hijab, does it make her less muslim?"
If a Muslim woman doesnt wear hijab it essentially means that her sunnah (example of way) is better than or more appropriate than that of the Messenger of Allah sallâ Allahu âÂÂalaihi wa sallam. It is a sign of arrogance. It also shows that you have decreased eman and ibadah. It doesnt make you a kafir, simply sinful. Allahu Alim.
"Is it prohibited in islam for women to wear comfortable clothes like jeans and t-shirts?"
It is prohibited for a Muslim woman to show off her wares, yes. A jilbab is comfortable. It is loose, it can be very hot at times but unlike a pair of snug trousers or pants it allows the genital area to breathe which creates an environment that isnt conducive to yeast infections and vaginitis. Sorry to be so blunt.
"Should I consider her a kafir."
No, you shouldnt consider her a kafir. As I have mentioned above you are a kafir if you pronouce and makes statements of kafr. For instance if you dont indulge in driking alcohol but say it is halal, you are a kafir because you are rejecting the Quran which is kufr. You will have to go to scholars and those with more knowledge on the details of this issue.
"Whats more important⦠being a muslim and wearing a hijab all day alongâ¦or⦠being a muslim and living your life productively, comfirtably and peacefully enjoying ?"
Whats more important is that we obey Allah and his Messenger. Life shouldnt always be about being comfortable. That attitude is very infantile. It is as if to say that I should be doped up all the time so I never expirence depression of sorrow. Sometimes we have to make sacrifices for the greator good.
"Should we turn our life into hell just to get into heaven when it ends."
There is a hadith that says that the dunyah (world) is a prison for the belivers. You should consider that trying to make our life a paradise in this dunyah may turn our akhirah into a hell. Be happy that you are abdur rahman, abdur raheem (slave of the most gracious and merciful, we will all need it)
"You guys are radical fanatics who doesnâÂÂt want to change with the course of time!"
Dear you sound like the radical fanatic. Everything is about me being comfortable, me being this, and me being that. Rather obnoxious too.
Salam DrM
I'm sorry that you did not read my comment or did not understand it. I'm sorry that you carry so much hate in your heart, but I don't think I said that french hatred of hijab should be ignored. I may be ignorant, but at least I wont use insult as a means of dialogue. Why call me rabble ? Can you spell adab ?
masalama
Salams
With all due respect I really don't feel comfortable with this argument. You are throwing bad words at each other instead of having a real conversation. I agree that this Amir Taheri is probably misguiding and should not speak "in the name of muslims" but then about the hijab I believe it's not just a "it is sunnah so there is no discussion" topic. I'm french, so don't hate me on "France bans hijabs" and that sort of crap, most of the things I read are not even informed about what really goes on here. I'm no expert or faqih, but I think it should be a personnal choice for a muslim woman, and I don't want to judge a woman or tell she's sinful if she doesn't wear it. Who would I be to judge ? Am I sinless ? I'm sorry but I'm not always ok when a muslim man gives his word about this, I can't prejudge of his niyah but in some places it's so difficult to wear the hijab that it makes the opposite of what it's meant for : it draws attention instead of protecting the woman, and it puts the weight of islam's "visibility" only on women's shoulders, which is quite unfair. I know of a lot of sisters who would really be happy to wear it but chose no too for this reason or for other reasons. Are they sinners ? No sir ! We have to live where we are, and even if I find it unfair that women can't wear it here without being stigmatised by some ignorant people, I will never think a woman is a sinner or a bad muslim because of that.
Masalama
PS Yusuf I really appreciate your blog
Well sp, it seems to me you've already declared your own stupidity by proclaiming that donning a hijab makes you a suicide bomber. If you dont want to wear it thats your problem, dont claim its not part of the religion because it cramps your style. God forbid, some of these 3rd rate Muslims read what the deen says, oh no....they go out of their way in critisizing those that dare to practice.
As for the French person who thinks that french hatred of hijab should be ignored, excuse me but who gave the authority to set limitations on the debate ? WHo cares what you ignorant rabble think ? Look at you, eating out of this third rate neocon wannabe's hand.
Salaam 'Alaikum
As whenever hijab is the topic, the thread is hijacked and the topic completely turned into something else -- the very tired and old debate about the poor non-hijabis being judged and labeled "kafirs" by Muslims who have never said "boo" on the topic.
Assalaamu alaikum,
Well, this piece is a load of nonsense, of course. But I was also curious about where he came up with the black headgear = Al-Qaeda and White = Taleban, though.
Women from the Arab Gulf countries typically wear black hijabs (not always, and women from other places wear black, too). And men typically wear white. So are all those women associated with Al-Qaeda?
Men in the Taleban were known for black turbans, weren't they? And women in Afghanistan normally wore blue burqas... so where does the white come from?
For sp, wearing hijab is a personal choice, just like whether or not to drink or gamble or pray... but there's no question that drinking and gambling are prohibited, and hijab is required. Women who don't wear hijab have many reasons for not doing so, but they should make that personal choice after understanding the Islamic teachings on the subject.
Assalaamu alaikum,
I just read that other article of Amir Taheri's that you mentioned (at townhall.com).
Just what is this new ("neo") hijab design that was supposedly invented in the 1970s? I've been to various Muslim countries and seen women wearing all kinds of headcoverings - it's not as if everyone has some uniform.
And he says, "When the mullahs seized power in Tehran in 1979, the number of women wearing the hijab exploded into tens of thousands."
Isn't that because although many women wanted to wear the hijab, it was banned under the Shah?
I try to stay away from insulting language, but this guy really is an idiot.
Gee, how many Muslim women around the world wear the hijab and are still able to study and work, not to mention HEAR and SEE? According to him, hijab causes falling academic standards, depression, ad even suicide. Again, anyone who's ever seen hijab-wearing Muslim women studying and working - from Asia to Africa to the Middle East to the West - would have to just laugh at this guy.
This may sound like a dumb question but I have always wondered this-- do we know for sure that Amir Taheri is Muslim and not Jewish? There seem to be quite a few Iranian Jews in the media today and his name is not necessarily an exclusively Muslim name (i.e., it's not Mohammad, Omar, Ali, etc., and both his first and last names are very generic). I'm just curious if there might be Iranian Jews out there speaking about Iran and Islam from their own outside prejudices while banking on the fact that the vast majority of Americans think that all Iranians are necessarily Muslims and would never think it possible for an Iranian to be Jewish and therefore they conseptualize him as a "Muslim dissident" who allegedly has some kind of imaginary inside information.
BTW, his article is very old, why is the bro now talking about it? Just curious.
Assalaamu alaikum,
The post was about a recent article, but he mentioned an older one on the same subject, too. But Amir Taheri writes this kind of nonsense all the time and is published in many different newspapers. He ran one of the Iranian newspapers during the time of the Shah, and that might say a lot about his attitudes.
Yes, we have many like this guy here in the USA. The Iranian community in the US is overwhelmingly secular and anti-Islamic. There is a huge Iranian community here in the metro DC and I have met dozens of them. I have yet to meet one, just one, that is a practicing Muslim. A good 25% of the women were married to Christians.
I am sure they are not all of the way here in the USA, but it sure seems like it sometimes.
I have seen this claim as well. I am a Muslim male convert to Islam married to a Saudi woman. I have seen pictures of her family from the 1940s to the current day and they all are wearing hijab, of the present variety, save with some cultural twists. Anyone who claims that the hijab is a modern invention doesnt know what they are talking about.
Abu Sinan,
I live in Southern California and yes the Iranian people are very secular and either un islamic or anti islamic. They are the biggest dunyah chasers as well. I did go to high school with many Jewish Iranian so I really couldnt tell which was which. Not only that but they blame all thier ills on Islam and Arabs which is rather strange considering that they hold up Muhammed Mossedeq as thier contemporary cultural hero without bothering to consider how this guy left power in Iran and by whom.
A personal question Abu Sinan, how did you bag a Saudi sister, I hear its pretty difficult. Lol... MashAllah...
Ah, hijab. Hijab must be such a blessing for the ugly sisters...they never have to show their faces or be judged on the basis of their looks, hee, hee, hee. But my question is: in the ferocious heat of South Asia and Arabia, don't women feel uncomfortable wearing this heavy shroud? Air conditioning might be common in the richer countries of the Gulf, but it's definitely not that common in many other regions, so are these women sweating puddles under the veil? Does such sweating cause body odor? If so, that must make them even more unattractive to the opposite sex. Koranic aim fulfilled! Bearing such discomfort for the sake of religious piety! Wow, I'm totally impressed.
Considering that many Iranians in the States are monarchists, their attitude isnt at all surprising. Some try to pass themselves off as Europeans because of their fair complextion. Must be sad having a lifelong inferiority complex.
And "faloodaputra" you're an idiot, go back to watching reruns of "Jackass" and "South-park."
No, DrMaxtor, I had no nefarious intentions, I was simply curious. At least in the West, the only women I've seen wearing a head-to-toe burqa seem to be the fat, shapeless, dumpy ones. They needn't have bothered, don't you think? Even if they were walking down the street in a bikini, nobody would have thrown them a second glance. And they're donning this uncomfortable garb to ward off the lustful male glance? Hee, hee, hee.
Dr. Maxtor,
What is with the inferiority complex? They never stop talking about thier glorious civilization and King Cyrus, yet they still want to live like Westerners. Crazy huh? By the way they talk you'd think that before Islam came they were enjoying a Jeffersonian democracy.
It isnt exclusive to them however. Many South East Asians have inferiority complexes. I have always maintained that there are more non-white white supremacist than white white supremacist. I guess its the colonial mentality.
If there is one good thing about being raised in America its that white people really arent all that.
Faloodaputra,
I'll humor you even though you are an idiot. In the ME when its really hot people tend to stay in doors. Sisters, along with having to cover are also encouraged to be at home so as not to get caught up in the streets.
"And theyâÂÂre donning this uncomfortable garb to ward off the lustful male glance?"
Yes, we do wear this uncomfortable gard to as to aid our brothers in thier piety. We are apart of a community and we are brothers unto another. Men and women should lower thier gaze as instructed by the Quran.
My question to you is why are women such a sexual objects for you? Islam recognizes that women are more attractive physically than the male, we were created that way, but you seem to be arguing both sides.
If you are able to deal with women uncovered certainly you can deal with them covered? Men are physically attracted to women, they are attracted to all of women. Why should men have to change thier nature simply because women want to have thier cake and eat it too?
Do covered women make you feel uncomfortable? If you are a woman does thier percieved piety make you feel a little guilty about your morally questionable life? If so, I can understand why.
Falood some men like fat and shapeless just like some like skinny and pubescent.(sp) I never understood how some men could be attracted to a woman who essentially had the body of a 13 year old boy. I dont get it.
The "Young Turks" were the same. They promoted pre-islamic turkish history which consisted of nomadic living and clan rivalry but wanted to westernise their country.
You see a similar thing in western europe during the enlightenment. "Natural man" (e.g. the natives of the new world) who has supposedly been uncorrupted by civillization was held up as a role model and a justification for humanism. One wonders why if they claim these people were so great they don't try to emulate them?
Salaam alaikum,
I thought that "hijab is a modern invention" myth died out years ago. I guess we Muslims who actually live and practice this faith can never be as smart as those who are "elected Islamic experts" simply because their views on Islam run parallel to some secularists. Quite sad.
bikhair said,"I have always maintained that there are more non-white white supremacist than white white supremacist (sic)." I would like to enthusiastically offer myself as the latest member of the "non-white white supremacist" club. There's not enough space here to list the jaw-droppingly enormous contributions made to human progress by the White (read Christian and Jewish) civilization in the past five hundred years. Let me just list a few random examples: medicines and surgical treatments for all sorts of illnesses that used to kill millions of people in the past -- TB, malaria, heart disease, cancer. Radio. Television. Cars. Airplanes. Telephones. Satellites. Piped water. Sanitation. Vaccines. Modern systems of education and government. Computers. The Internet (which we are using to communicate on this forum, hee, hee)Phew...I'm already running out of breath!
And it's not just the material accomplishments, either. Missionaries of which civilization have been treating the sick, feeding the poor, and educating the illiterate in remote corners of Africa and Asia for over two centuries? Which culture do the Mother Teresas and Albert Schweitzers of this world come from?
If we made an inventory, we would find that the Judeo-Christian and Chinese people have together provided the very cornerstone of the modern world civilization (I belong to none of the three racial/ethnic categories listed, let me point out). And what has been the contribution of the Arab/Muslim corner, especially in the past few hundred years? Oil (which is simply a natural resource), hummus and babaganoush. Stacks up nicely, doesn't it?
Hi Faloodaputra,
Your thesis is similar to Cat's. Are you Cat? Cat is one of the "contributors" on this blog. His line or arguments are very similar to yours, and I have tried to help him in the past. I really don't know where to begin to respond to your post - as I can see you see Judeo-Christian people as white. Well...
Anyway, in response to your words, I have the following to say.
First, let us address the issue of race. You talked about yourself as belonging to "non-white white supremacistâ club. This is obviously something you are "enthusiastic" about, and I wouldn't want to take anything from your source of pride. In fact it wouldn't make a difference to us if you were a white supremacist - which is what I assume you would have preferred to be, but "nature" has let you down. As you may be aware, race is something which Islam has no consideration for, and as such a racist muslim (or non-muslim) is usually considered as the lowest of the low. The criteria for human superiority in Islam is piety. As the Koran say: "Verily God does not look at you form or your wealth, but rather he looks at your heart". At this point you should be able to guess how odious your argument will be to a muslim person or someone familiar with Islam. Also the Koran tells us. "Verily I have created you in nations, and races so that you may come to know one another, indeed the best amongst you are the most God-fearing ones". Pick up a Koran to look up these verses for yourself.
Hence, what we are trying to say here is that the contribution of any race to "human progress" (i.e. if we should grant the argument that there has been any progress in the last 1400years - a point I will come back to) has vey little or nothing to do with the superiority of that race. This is because what matters, in Islam, are those actions and intentions that is facing God i.e. done for his sake - Most Gracious - and the sake of "humanity". Otherwise, the Koran addresses us, "Shall I tell you of the Greates Losers in works, it is those who squandered their striving (or efforts) in the world, all along thinking there were manufacturing things". Now, this is not to denigrate the so-called "inventions" of the modern world. However, the question is, what is the backdrop? what are you trying to achieve? what is the point? Think about these questions carefully. Are these things being pumped out to achieve any Real end other than temporal conveniences? This is a serious question every human needs to address at one point of their life.
Coming back to the race issue, I will finish off with a hadith narration I have heard, but I do not know whether it is authentic. The Prophet (peace be upon him) said to his companions, if you ever see anyone aggrandising himself by "virtue" of his nationality/race/tribe/etc, tell him to go and eat his father's penis, and do not use any Euphemism in telling him this". If I get it right, what is he (peace be upon him) is trying to say here is that you should remind such a person of his material source - which a drop of fluid exited from the same tract which is used to dispose urine. So, what is there to brag about regarding race - for God sake.
Leaving that aside, let us look closer at the modern "inventions" that can easily create a false sense of racial superiority in the mind. You will find that there are more destructive things that have been invented over the last centuries that creative ones? I know this will be diffucult to swallow. I will run through some list just as you have done in your thesis - starting with the more obvious: The nuclear bomb (enough to wipe every other inventions!) - what is civil about this for God sake - creating weapons that can destroy an entire city indiscriminately - again you should pause and think about this; ....continuing the list - explosive weapons and their ancillaries i.e. fighter planes, missiles, tanks, industrial equipments that continue to destroy the biosphere/atmosphere, fertilisers and other chemicals that have changed the genetic code of our foods, crude oil extraction methods that continue to destroy the seas and all aquatic life, use of chemical compounds such as 'lead' in petrol that have caused uncountable brain damage in children all over the world, land mines that have maim millions for life, educational methods that have corrupted imagination in children (and adults) and annihilated their potential to connect with traditional metaphysics.... and so on. I am not saying all of these are the fault of any one race. It is the fault of the collective human race. Modernity has come and eternity has disappeared from our view. This is my contention. So, how did eternity disappear? Well, due to some of the points I have listed. When a people is able to destroy other people simply by flicking a button (to launch a bomb), then they begin to lose their sense of value of a human life, and consequently lose sense of the human purpose? When a people begin to eat synthetic foods and less traditional foods, their minds and bodies become composed of those material that makes it difficult for them to believe in and act out traditional values. You should be able to complete the argument for yourself, I can't afford to spoon feed you any longer! In any case, my point is that you shouldn't be overly won over by modern innovations/inventions - because it is not offering much to us in terms of our human purpose. It is good entertainment and frivolity, and there is no harm in this if that is your life ambition. However to use these things to aggrandise yourself or your "white" masters is undoubtedly questionable.
The final argument that is least worth making is that of Arab/Muslim "contribution" to the world. If you ask me to be honest, I will say, Muslims (Arabs or non-Arabs) and non-Muslims have not contributed anything to the world .i.e towards human progress for over 1400 years or so. However, if we are looking at contribution in the terms which I believe is closer to your imagination, of course I can tell you that Muslims have contributed a Great Great deal to "human progress", and don't listen to me - go and read some of the history books of your academic white masters. Grab a book of world history or any encyclopedia where you can read about Muslim civilisation is all fields, Mathematics, literature, geography, astronomy, physics, philosophy, mysticism, etc. All these things are not a big deal as we have already mentioned, what matters is your soul, your destiny. This is what you should be concerned about and not the "Radio. Television. Cars. Airplanes. Telephones. Satellites. Piped water. Sanitation. Vaccines".
/I -- Know that the life of the world is only play, and idle talk, and pageantry, and boasting amongst yourselves, and rivalry in respect of wealth and children, as the likeness of vegetation after rain, whereof the growth is pleasing to the husbandman, but afterward it drieth up and thou seest it turning yellow, then it becometh straw. And in the Hereafter there is grievous punishment, and (also) forgiveness from Allah and His good pleasure, whereas the life of the world is but matter of illusion. -- /I Koran 57.20
Peace.
This is radiculous. Why don't we do something about these retarded individuals?
Hello Anonymous:
Thank you for your heartfelt reply. No, I'm not Cat, but I'm a cat lover. Prophet Mohammed was a cat lover, too, right? Coming to your discourse, fine, you don't like the modern inventions and conveniences? Let's voluntarily give up these conveniences, then: let's not go to modern hospitals for treatment, let's stop traveling by automobiles and planes, let's allow women to die in childbirth as they used to, let's send mail by tying our letters to pigeons' necks (or was it feet?), let's drink water from roadside puddles, let's marry off children when they are six or seven years old....Why don't you super-pious Muslims show us the way by adopting these innovations? If we like what we see, the rest of us will follow.
Peace to you.
Faloodaputra,
I am really sorry you haven't understood a thing from my post.
Best wishes.
There should be a fatwa made against those who think that their "sunnah" is a better way than Allah s.w.t. and His Messenger s.a.w.
Wassalam.
- MENJ
Salams Menj,
I am not sure about a fatwa tho...cos there is permissibility for a lot of things in Islam and we are not to forbid whatever is permissible. A lot of things are mubah even when they are not in line with the "sunnah". Ofcourse one could say they are in line with the sunnah, that is why they are mubah (i.e. permissible). My worry is when people take this to the next level and claim that they have made progress over some previous generations. It is arrogant to argue something as subjective as "progress" in this kind of categorical and bold terms ...such as those of Falood.. and other narrow minded philosophers like him.
menj said "There should be a fatwa made against those who think that their âÂÂsunnahâ is a better way than Allah s.w.t. and His Messenger s.a.w." Bravo! That's the true Muslim way, isn't it? Issue a fatwa against anybody whose opinions you don't like. Other religions allow considerable questioning and dissent against their core beliefs -- take the whole history of Protestantism, for instance. Islam simply shuts up dissenters by threatening them with fatwas and death. I guess that's the reason other religions have had Reformations that led to more enlightenment, more progressive views, less dogma. I guess that's the reason they're not facing 21st century dilemmas with a mindset that is still locked into the 7th century.
Er.
Protestantism spread in part by its adoption by rulers, and in part by proslytisation.
As for toleration... have you ever heard of the revocation of the Edict of Nantes?
Mr Falloodraputra or whatever it is.
While I was trying to pronounce your name I realized it consists of a word aloo-da-putr, which in a language means son of a foolâ¦. DonâÂÂt feel offendedâ¦. I just thought itâÂÂs better if I add it to your knowledge.
Anyway what I wanted to say was that itâÂÂs not always necessary to show how much imbecile and thick you are.
At least the UGLY Muslim sisters (as u put it) have something that canâÂÂt let them ruin their selfrespec⦠Thanx to HIJAB.
But what about the UGLY Christian girls? â¦. Let me thinkâ¦Oh yeah, they can always afford to fall from grace in order to appeal the low sentiments of people like you.
Yusuf bhai, I am commenting for the first time,I just wanted to say that your blog is certainly commendableâ¦And that I am very delighted to meet enlightened Muslims like you.
[Islam simply shuts up dissenters by threatening them with fatwas and death]
Menj is only requesting to issue an authorized Fatwa (Islamic opinion) against these retarded individuals who know nothing 'bout Islam. I don't know why the hell people think Fatwas as some death threat as you had put forward in you above statement??
Hello Mursil:
Aloo-da-putr? Oh, you must be Punjabi! Doesn't "aloo" mean potato? So aloo-da-putr could be translated as "son of a potato," right? Doesn't make me feel bad at all: I love potatoes. Actually, you shouldn't have had so much difficulty in pronouncing my name. Falooda+putra. Y'all eat Falooda (a dessert, like custard) in Pakistan, don't you?
Best regards
Mr. Faloodaputra,
I am so delighted to come across yet another SO KNOWLEDGEABLE person but I would like to add one little thing to your knowledge that you seem to be lacking. ItâÂÂs all about accents so I still stick to what I wrote earlier and by the way I am not Punjabi.
But thatâÂÂs not what we are here to discuss. I donâÂÂt get one thing if you are so sure about whatever your religion has to say and you are simply not ready to accept any truth about our religion despite the fact that itâÂÂs just so rational and reasonable why do you even bother commenting?
â¦Maybe you are beginning to feel inspired by this great religion but you are scared to accept it and in order to convince yourself that you are still sticking to your old dark path you feel inclined to write such ungrounded comments. Of course you feel frustrated. But donâÂÂt you worry. ItâÂÂs just the beginning and you will manage to come out of it if Allah almighty wills. Welcome to the enlightened path, welcome to Islam.
All the best!
Thank you, Mursil, for welcoming me to the "enlightened" path of Islam. Trouble is, more and more people these days seem to think that the path of Islam is not all that enlightened. I'm enclosing a post made by another member so this forum on another thread (you could also look it up yourself under the topic 'Patrick Sookhdeo on Moderate Islam' posted on July 31). Here it is:
John Arthur said,
August 5, 2005 @ 10:15 pm
So, you say that âÂÂnon-Muslims have a very deep misconception/ignorance concerning Islam/Muslims.â No. Non. Nao. I think it would be better (and more honest) to say instead that most âÂÂMuslims have a very deep misconception/ignorance concerning Islam/Muslims.âÂÂ
The fact is that, as we see here, Muslims are in denial. You can read a Koranic verse that tells men to beat their wives and Muslims will say we donâÂÂt understand the âÂÂtrueâ meaning of the text. You read a hadith about the prophet of Islam amputating hands, then burning eyes with hot nails, then finally letting the victim die from thirst and Muslims will look at you with a blank stare and say âÂÂSo what?â You point that violence is characteristic of Muslims all over the world and they say that is âÂÂabsurdâ even as they reading about the latest (Muslim) terror. When you talk about Koranic verses justifying violence against non-believers and designating a clearly inferior role for women, they deny the obvious, or, as above, may admit that it âÂÂseemsâ this may be true, but then they tell us that we donâÂÂt really âÂÂunderstand.âÂÂ
Yes, the world is wrong and only Muslims can see the true Islam, obviously. We all know that the Koran itself claims that it is simple, clear, detailed and perfect, so why would anybody not accept the obvious and actually believe what the book says it means? Like I said, it is not non-Muslims that donâÂÂt understand Islam, it is the Muslims that canâÂÂt see the obvious.
Kactuz "
It's Faloodaputra again. Like Kactuz says, whenever their attention is drawn to the not-so-nice parts of the Koran or the Hadiths, Muslim folks have a tendency of saying that we're not smart enough to "understand" the true meanings of the text. Which is kind of funny, because the message of Islam is relatively simple and straightforward, not as philosophically complicated as, say, Buddhism. Would be interesting to know what your response to such critiques would be.
Regards,
F-putra
There are no "not-so-nice parts" of the Koran or the hadiths.
There can never be.
However, there are many "not-so-nice" interpretation of both, and you obvious subcribe to some of those,...by the way you are perfectly entitled to do that so long as you don't claim it is an objective interpretation. It should be no more than the way you see it.
If I have some time tomorrow, I'll attempt a reply to John Arthur (whom you have quoted above).
In the meantime, it is worth mentioning that the condition/criterion for understanding the true meanings of the text is not formal smartness (as you are thinking). Rather, the criterion is education, and perhaps purity of heart. And what does these mean?
In simple exoteric terms, it means that you at least some sort of connection back to the Author of these texts, with a continuum of teachers back to teachers, back to teachers until you reach the Prophetic source.
So, for instance if you are reading your Islam from a text book or hearing from Television news, it behoves you to have some modesty about your enlightened interpretation of the teaches. This is because you never know, your interpretation may just fall few notches below the required mark.
However, if your source of Islamic knowledge is from a teacher who has sat with a teacher, who has sat with his teacher, and so on, who has sat with the Prophet (peace be upon him). Here, you have a higher probability of coming out with right interpretation of the text.
Faloodaputra wrote: "Like Kactuz says, whenever their attention is drawn to the not-so-nice parts of the Koran or the Hadiths, Muslim folks have a tendency of saying that weâÂÂre not smart enough to 'understand' the true meanings of the text."
No, it's not like what "Kaktuz" said; I know plenty of non-Muslims who understand correctly the Qur'an and ahadeeth. All they've done is what Muslims do: use their brain to understand the Qur'an and ahadeeth in the light of the historical, religious and linguistic contexts. If you read the Qur'an or ahadeeth in a shallow manner, you'll wind up with a shallow understanding. In Kaktuz's case, he reads the Qur'an and ahadeeth in a biased manner. For example, he had written, "You read a hadith about the prophet of Islam amputating hands, then burning eyes with hot nails, then finally letting the victim die from thirst and Muslims will look at you with a blank stare and say 'So what?'â But he had brought up this same hadith on another blog, and was immediately called out by myself and another Muslim for his intellectual dishonesty. You see, he had used only a fraction of the hadith (as he does above), pulling it out of context. What he hadn't said (and doesn't say here) was that the so-called victim was in fact a murderer who was being executed for his punishment. It's not just "So what?" Using Kaktuz as your source of reference is a bad move on your part because, at least in my eyes, Kaktuz has no credibility. To criticize blindly, as you and Kaktuz are doing, is only to lower yourself in our eyes because we Muslims *do* study the Qur'an and ahadeeth, and we know them far better than you do.
But that doesn't mean that you can't understand them too. All it takes is study.
Thank you, guys, for your input. This is a debate that is never going to be satisfactorily resolved, I'm afraid. The thing is, Islam, like Christianity and Judaism, is a "religion of the book," so believers of these religions cannot say that the books don't mean anything, or that their meaning is conditional or context-dependent. On the other hand, religions like Hinduism and Buddhism don't derive their primary authority from their sacred texts (although they do have such texts), so they can afford to be a little more dodgy about the meaning of those texts. Plus, their texts themselves are relatively more harmless. Oh well, have a nice and fun-filled day.
Hi Faloodaputra,
"religion of the book", ...erm... not quite. There's no such thing as the "religion of the book". At least, I am not aware of that terminology.
Perhaps what you meant to say is "people of the book": Jews, Christians are referred to as "People of the book", i.e people who follow a revealed scriptural religion.
The revealed books are best understood according to the interpretation of the Prophets to which they were revealed. The Gospel to Jesus (peace be upon him), from whom the disciples learnt, and so on until there were no longer any disciples and people started learning from books - chopping it up as their fancy dictates. Similarly, the Torah was revealed to Moses. And indeed the Koran was revealed to the Prophet Muhammad (Sayyidu'l Mursaleen - The Masters of the Messengers).
Reading the Koran without reference to the examples of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), and those who learnt from him (i.e. his companions, etc) will be like reading a book on brain surgery without the guidiance of a brain surgeon and then attempting to operate on your patient. The Prophets are the doctors of the soul, the books they brought are the manual. Frankly, these manual are not very useful without the Teacher (except for few rare human beings who perhaps may have some how "incarnated" the Master!).
You can cut yourself and other people really badly without a Teacher! Just like the Terrorists!
So, yes, it is context dependent. And where the context is seemingly not relevant to today, qiyas (analogical reasoning) and mantiq (logic) are tools for deriving rulings. The full story is elaborate.
JD said, "If you read the QurâÂÂan or ahadeeth in a shallow manner, youâÂÂll wind up with a shallow understanding."
Anonymous said, "The Prophets are the doctors of the soul, the books they brought are the manual. Frankly, these manual are not very useful without the Teacher."
Well, maybe so, but aren't plenty of young Muslims -- both in the West and the East -- being indoctrinated with precisely this kind of "shallow" understanding? And as recent events have shown, the rest of the world is having to pay the price of such indoctrination. An individual might try to get a proper understanding of the Quran through the guidance of an enlightened Teacher, but how feasible is this strategy for an entire mass movement? Are there enough such high-minded teachers to go around? And who will decide what version of Islam is to be taught? What if xenophobic and puritanical brands of Islam, such as Wahhabism, have powerful state patronage (e.g., Saudi Arabia)? Who will bell the cat, then?
faloodaputra said:
"...letâÂÂs marry off children when they are six or seven years oldâ¦.Why donâÂÂt you super-pious Muslims show us the way by adopting these innovations? If we like what we see, the rest of us will follow..."
Obviously, Hindus don't need anyone to convince them about child marriage, since it's not unusual; I'm sure you know this, but you probably rightly assume that most people outside of India don't. On "auspicious" days of the Hindu calendar, many thousands of children - including babies - are married in public mass marriages. This past year, a woman had her had chopped off for trying to stop some of them.
(Like the millions of girls missing in India because they're either aborted or killed soon after birth - which for some reason doesn't get much media attention. In some areas, there are only 7 girls for every 10 boys, while the norm would be 10. If only they were forced to wear veils before they were killed, I'm sure the women's rights and human rights organizations would look into it.)