Technorati Tags: gillian gibbons
Last Thursday morning, Ed Husain and Massoud Shadjareh (of the Islamic Human Rights Commission) appeared on the Today programme on BBC Radio 4 - you can download it until next Wednesday here (Real). It is obviously disappointing to hear them invite Ed Husain because of his total lack of authority other than having recently had a book published. The performance of Massoud Shadjareh, when pushed by the interviewer John Humphries, also left a lot to be desired. (More: Ummah Pulse.)
Massoud Shadjareh pointed out that many people name their children Muhammad, which he said did not mean they intended that their children would be prophets, that there was no indication that any insult was intended, and that he was surprised that it had gone this far. He alleged that there "has been an attempt in the West to associate this with Islam, and there seems to be becoming more of an item because it sort of confirms what we love to hate". Humphries then said,
"There are reasons for that, aren't there? For instance, you may regard this particular case as absurd, but if you ask people in your position, and I'll put the same question to you, whether you condemn unreservedly the stoning of women accused of adultery, what do you say to that? There are many of your colleagues, perhaps you, who would refuse to condemn that barbarous practice."
Shadjareh replied:
"The fact of the matter is, I mean, I would not condemn the concept of Shari'ah but I do condemn the implementation of barbaric-ism under the pretence of Shariah ..."
Humphries: "And would you include the stoning of adulterers in that? In other words, do you condemn unreservedly the stoning of adulterers?"
Shadjareh: "To my, to my own knowledge I have have failed to see anyone was stoned at the time of the Prophet, peace be upon him, in that way, so you know I actually go along with that."
Humphries: "You go along with ..."
Shadjareh: "With the fact that, you know, it wasn't, there was no stoning done at the time of the --"
Humphries: "So in other words, it should be condemned unreservedly in your view?"
Shadjareh: "Yup."
Humphries: "Yup."
He then brought in Ed Husain, who corrected him by saying that there were indeed stonings done during the life of the Prophet, sall' Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam, who noted that there was "a degree of hesitancy there, in outright condemnation of stoning in our world today", even though Humphries "defended" Shadjareh by pointing out that he did, in fact, condemn it. Shadjareh brought up the usual issue of whether a Christian should be expected to condemn the parts of the Bible which say that homosexuality is an abomination, but Ed, when he was brought back in, claimed that the stonings which happened at the time of the Prophet, sall' Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam, happened in a particular historical context which was no longer relevant, "and therefore Muslims should go far as to say that other modes of reaching the noble aims of the Shari'ah, in other words protection of life, property, reason, religion and so on, if we can attain those aims by other means, i.e. imprisonment and so on, then why we do we need to go down that barbaric, inhumane and outdated mode of stoning and flogging people".
Two things stand out here. First, imprisonment is not a greatly more humane mode of punishing someone than flogging them, because a flogging is over pretty quickly while imprisonment lasts months, during which one may well be at the mercy of much more serious criminals and malevolent guards; depending on where the imprisonment happens, you may also be exposed to life-threatening diseases, through general conditions or food unfit for consumption, and denied medical care. Ed Husain, despite posing as a moderate, orthodox Muslim, is clearly nothing of the sort.
Second, Massoud Shadjareh allowed himself to be sidetracked by Humphries onto a discussion of a completely different aspect of Islam. The topic at hand was not adultery but the case of one woman, accused wrongly of a crime against Islam. I think the IHRC should put up somebody who speaks English better than Mr Shadjareh and better able to handle an aggressive, opinionated interviewer next time an Islamic spokesperson is required in an emotive situation like this one, so that he would not be intimidated into making a false and apologetic statement about Islam, because if you do that, you may well be exposed; in this case, it happened within the minute.
Sometimes, I get a little weary of these Muslims speaking on my behalf. Take Dr Abdul Bari. The first time I saw him interviewed on C4 after becoming MCB top man, he was articulate and charming. But since then, a steady decline has been in evidence, culminating in an interview on C4 midday news this week, where he responded to questions about Gillian Gibbons and the media response to the same with a great deal of shoulder shrugging. Inayat Bunglawala has lost his form, too, crassly calling this debacle 'A silly affair'.
The alternative to these 'leaders', of course, is the pro-Neocon SMC and a gaggle of other self-appointed spokespeople, the more specious of which pretend to speak for no one but themselves (and want no one to speak for them) whilst engaging in the worse kind of populism.
What we need, very simply, are people who know how to deal with the media at the same time as being sympathetic to the broad spectrum of interests within the British Muslim community. And they are out there, but it seems to me the media are more interested in talking to the trouble makers and the twerps!
There "has been an attempt in the West to associate this with Islam, and there seems to be becoming more of an item because it sort of confirms what we love to hate".
WASn't the attempt to associate it with islam made by muslims actually? AS the sharia-based Sudanese court found that it was a crime against islam, it looks like it was a crime against islam and we can draw our own conclusions about the criminal code of islam from that fact.
A flogging may be over pretty quickly but the scars often last for life.
frankly.
the sudanese are playing politics with the brits who they cannot tolerate. Lets face it the duckin intelligence brits have a reputation that is skilled in trying to rule.
teddy bear or not teddy bear. that doesnt mean three sh(thers)ites. flogging reminds me of martin annis and his words and views. they are short and untasteful but their effect lasts a long time and most likely breeds psychos and killers.
the sudanese were wrong from a pr perspective. still they scored heavily against the brit intelligence ducks. the same lame ducks who will have you lock up the new messed up young "terrorists" for as long as they like.
as for ed hussain. say no more...please. he should innovate a new brit sponsored qadiani movement and meet his fate in the bog.
and...as for the muslim bloggers you's all are a delusion to us and to all. specially you yyi.
muslims dont have any more rumi's so those with typewriters and without good day time jobs voice their "intelligent" views on the web of concreit. those with no thought use their hands and their feet. a few stand out for merit.
so, as for the muslim "ummahhhhh"....it's all a big dellusion.
there is no ummah until you's all can live and practice the "small" before you try to act all big.
in the meantime i ask HIM for help for me and for you all.
as for you ijb carry on your all work.....
ijb, I like your work.
again, i am sick and tired of people being defensive about indefensible actions. if you believe in Allah and take it as a serious belief, do you not think that Allah will guide you through divine signs......lets look at it like this....say one's daughter shoplifted something from a sweet shop - would one's neighbour want us to stone the daughter?
again i dont care what kind of interpretations you want to take from the Quran to justify your leanings on shariah. the Quran gives you principles by which to live - it doesnt keep you huddled in a primitive life mode like some "learned" people would like others to believe.
these are things that have to change with time. i am not talking about changing things like belief in Allah or the unseen or the revelations or the unchangeable things of the Quran....i am talking about the things that change with social evolution. belief and worship in Allah does not change with the times....neither does the word of Allah in the Quran. if there was a prophet today and was sent down to muslims....i cannot believe that this prophet would recognise the "universal" islam we see around us....you have people intent on stoning, growing long beards, and correcting other believers on how to perform minor cultural rituals ....all this more than being kind and honest to one another and giving charity. i once heard a leader of congregational prayer on friday saying that if muslims wanted to change the world then the first place they needed to change was in their hearts. i sincerely beleive that. (take the hajj and those criminals who organise and rip of the believers - these organisers dont believe with their hearts I bet...if they did .....in the same god as mine,.....Allah,...I know that they would be humbled with tears in their eyes).
i will never defend stoning - rather i will agree that the countries that implement stoning as a form of punishment are socially retarded and isolated from the rest of the world....by the way........this is not something unique to muslim countries coz right now most of europe seems to be going back to its medieval retarded roots in its glutonous lusfull hatred of foreigners and foreign beliefs.
I end....is the believer who dons a lovely long beard and prays in congregation every day truer or closer to Allah than the believer who prays in his own humble abode, and gives and gives and is unoticed to the extent of the unseen? i dont know if i would like to shout the answer...but one's contract is with Allah once you read those terms and conditions in the Quran... your contract is not with your peers or those trend setters around you.
look at your contract....listen and be guided by the signs of Allah and see if you are fair.
I saw a relevant posting by a Sister (Safiya??) a couple of days ago on this thread. That posting has now disappeared. There was nothing wrong with that comment was there?
As-Salaamu 'alaikum
No, I can't imagine it would have been - I must have deleted it along with the spam by mistake. Please repost if you can remember what you wrote!
ted hussain, i wish he would cease to exist or something. he does great damage when he utters words, condemning things like the maqasid to languish in the statements of public field negros like himself. Oh and the put on posh accent is really annoying. I really feel sorry for the guy... well something between that and wanting to (discursively) smash his face in.
As for Massoud, i like him just for the IHRC being interesting. He isnt damaged goods like ted...
Salaam Alaikum,
I did wonder where my comment went :)
What I wrote is that we should not be ashamed of our deen.
Stoning for adultery is a punishement laid out in the sharia'a. Anyone who looks into the requirements around it will see the very strict circumstances surrounding it's enactment and that it is meant as a deterrent and to illustrate how wicked and grave a sin adultery is.
Adultery wrecks lives and destroys families. How many people are murdered each year due to the fallout from people cheating on their partners?
i thought mpacuk had a couple of quite articulate spokespeople that did a good job they also organised a protest outside Sudanese embassy along with Emel and one of there 'lax hijab' sisters was featured in Guardian...you could try to give credit where credit is due Yusuf.
"Adultery wrecks lives and destroys families. How many people are murdered each year due to the fallout from people cheating on their partners?"
So you would deal with the problem of erring wives or husbands being murdered by killing them slowly and painfully legally?
What about where people accept or consent to their spouse's adultery- open marriages they are called?
Thersites-
It is actually extremely difficult to be convicted of adultery under actual sharia'a standards.
One must be:
Muslim, In an Islamic state and actual penetration must be witnessed by four, upstanding, honest witnesses. If there are less then four witnesses, then there is insufficient proof.
The punishment exists to demonstrate the severity of zina to Allah swt and to act as a deterrent for it, rather then an excuse for execution. Hence, there are only a few occasions of it being carried out in the time of the Prophet saw.
Also, I would state that since there are no real Islamic states functioning today, that this punishment should not be carried out today.
As for open relationships, these are not recognised in Islam, though polygyny is.
So the punishment for adultery is so seldom appled that it makes no effective difference at all.
However- like the death penalty for apostasy or "insulting" Mohammed- its existence probably encourages people to carry out extra-judicial "executions".
Thersites - To someone who believes in Allah and His Messenger and that they will be punished or rewarded in the next life for their actions, such a law makes a great deal of difference.
Belief is the first pillar of Islam for a reason.
What reason?
If it matters so much to muslims, such a law should only apply to muslims, not to those whose opinions and tastes differ.
It does only apply to Muslims.
So if someone stops being a muslim it would never apply to them?
adultery is bad.
so is being insidious.
stoning is as Islamic a concept as that of religous priests in Islam.
having said that i am sure that such a torturous pain for insiduous individuals would be more fitting than some of the 21st century Western Civilisations Christian torture methods used in Guantanamo and US military prisons for innocent muslims picked up on whims.