Main

April 24, 2008

Don't kill the fattened calf for Ed & co

An unusually perceptive Ziauddin Sardar finally delivers a dissenting view of the media's lionising of "Sir Edward Husain" and his clique in today's Guardian, on the grounds that it ignores those who always resisted falling into the hands of the extremists:

The embrace of former extremists is a slap in the face for Muslims who have worked tirelessly to build a British Muslim identity and foster inclusion by constructive community activity. It's another attempt at the marginalisation of the overwhelming majority who never had a moment's doubt that Islam gives no sanction for such murderous and misguided perversion of belief.

I am troubled by the fact that former extremists are seen as the only people who know how to deal with extremism. Just because you have been an inmate of a mental hospital does not mean you are an expert in clinical psychology. But former extremists are being lionised because they confirm the basic tabloid prejudice that violence is a natural part of being a Muslim. So whose ignorance is being vindicated? Certainly the potential of an open, unapologetic belief in Islam as a valuable part of British society is not on the agenda.

March 5, 2007

On Zia Sardar and the Power 100

Technorati Tags:

Once in a blue moon I find myself agreeing with the ultra-modernist Ziauddin Sardar, who writes a column in the New Statesman (you can see what I've written about his other writings in the "ZiaWatch" category). In this week's New Statesman, he has an article in reaction to the recently published "Muslim Power 100", which was sponsored by the Islamic Bank of Britain and Carter Andersen (I'm not sure what they do, because the only website under their name is at the time of writing suspended for non-payment of hosting fees). This is supposedly a list of the hundred most powerful Muslims (or people with Muslim names) in the UK right now. Sardar's article sums it up:

A careful reading of the Muslim power list shows a parade of the usual suspects. Some of them may be millionaires, but they are totally without influence. Some of them may be community leaders, but they have never bothered to gather a real following, or build substantial institutions that engage with and minister to the needs of the mass of British Muslims. Many are self-selected and surrounded by their contacts, their friends and others with whom they organise meetings and conferences in desperate attempts to show that not all Muslims want to turn Britain into an Islamic state.

Continue reading "On Zia Sardar and the Power 100" »

August 20, 2006

Zia tells us to embrace Qadianis

It looks like Ziauddin Sardar has finally overstepped the mark ... in his latest column in the New Statesman, he insists that we Muslims "respect differences among ourselves - particularly when they appear to be unpalatable", in this case the differences between us and the Qadiani (or Ahmadi, as they call themselves) sect. This is not the first time I've heard him advance these kinds of viewpoints; addressing an audience in a London Borders bookstore next to Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, he mentioned imams who insist that Qadianis are not Muslim, and said that they were now also claiming the same about Ismailis, the sect to which Alibhai-Brown belongs. (In fact, Ismailis, like other extreme Shi'a groups, have always been regarded as outside the fold of Islam.) Article here - the site has a "one free article per day" policy.

Continue reading "Zia tells us to embrace Qadianis" »

July 2, 2006

New Statesman slanders Dr Quick, boosts Hargey

Technorati Tags: , , , , ,

This week's New Statesman (the first I've had through the door on a now ended subscription offer of £4.80 for three months) has on its front page a feature marking the anniversary of the 7th July bombings last year. There are two long articles, one by Shiv Malik (yep, him again) on the background of the bomber Shazad Tanweer and one by Ziauddin Sardar (yep, him again) on young British Muslims. Laughably Shiv's feature is entitled The Suicide Bomber in his own words, which refers to the personal statement on his UCAS (university application) form that he's managed to get hold of. Depressingly, as I noted last year when writing about political magazine coverage of the bombings, these two were the only voices within the community the NS could find, with Shiv concentrating on Hizbut-Tahreer, which had nothing to do with the bombings.

Continue reading "New Statesman slanders Dr Quick, boosts Hargey" »

June 25, 2006

Zia Sardar on intelligence

Technorati Tags: , , ,

Zia Sardar in the current edition of the New Statesman on the folly of "intelligence-led" police operations:

Don't be fooled by the mantra that intelligence is an extremely difficult business, prone to absurdly wide margins of error. If that were so, Britain would have lost the Second World War. The remarkable success of British intelligence, including counter-intelligence, during that war proves that we can produce reasonable - say, 25 or even 50 per cent - rates of success.

Intelligence may be difficult to gather but it is not impossible to get right. It must follow certain simple rules and principles. One has to ask some fundamental questions. Is the source reliable? Clearly a source that has been tortured is going to tell you whatever you want to hear. If you are going to recruit your source from a mosque, you have to make sure he doesn't harbour grudges against certain members of the group that you are targeting - which is probably what happened in the Forest Gate case. Can the source's evidence be corroborated? The official excuse that the police have to act on every single tip-off, however dodgy the source, without bothering to corroborate it, is not only ridiculous, but dangerously so. Intelligence, to be intelligence, has to be based on more than one source. And then, to increase the margin of success, one has to check out the intelligence, using proper surveillance.

His conclusions are that these "intelligence-led" jobs are often the fruit of political expediency, often involving people who entered into conspiracies at the instigation of the informers themselves. The whole article can be read once per day only, other than by subscribers.

December 2, 2005

The next holocaust?

Ziauddin Sardar for once has an article worth reading in this week's New Statesman, entitled The Next Holocuast. It's on the site's front page, and can be read once, but is on a "read once, then pay" basis, so don't go anywhere else as it will do this even if you return to it with the "back" button. Sardar and his photographer colleague Mike Turner travelled in Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium and France and interviewed various people: local Turkish women, a German insurance broker with his Polish girlfriend in a bar in Dortmund, an economics professor in the same city, a cab driver and the shisha and backgammon set in Eindhoven, Muslim women and an armed police officer in Antwerp, and a fashion designer and a halal butcher in Roubaix. What he found was a pattern of discrimination and alienated communities in all four countries. (Mere Islam has answers to some of Zia's article.)

Continue reading "The next holocaust?" »

September 9, 2004

Zia's fallen into the "change" trap

In this week's New Statesman, there's an article by Ziauddin Sardar, entitled Can Islam Change, which approvingly documents how Muslims everywhere are abandoning traditional Islamic law in favour of various kinds of "modernity". The article is disturbing, because it plays directly into the hands of the enemies of Islam who demand that we "change" the religion of Allah Almighty, when in fact they would be satisfied with nothing less than its elimination. In India and Morocco, according to Sardar, "modern" laws are being introduced which are supposedly superior to "traditional" Shari'a, and Islamically justifiable. Notably in India, what has come under attack is "triple talaq", by which a man can irrevocably divorce his wife in a drunken rage, or in anger, or when under threat. This has "inherent absurdities" for Sardar, but this is the Shari'a, by absolute consensus, and it has never been challenged until the enemies of Islam challenged it. As for the drunken rage bit, everyone knows that Muslims are not allowed to drink alcohol, and if he does something rash in a drunken state, it's his own fault. Our shaikh has said that "divorce" is not part of our vocabulary.

In Morocco the attack on Muslim marriage law has struck at both the beginning and the end of marriage. The new Mudawwana increases the age of marriage for women to 18, bans polygamy except where a judge gives his permission, and removes the right of a man to unilaterally divorce his wife. This ignores the reality of marriage and divorce in Islam, which is a marriage becomes a fact when the parties agree to make it so, as long as their agreement is itself Islamically correct. There are rules concerning suitability, which differ from school of thought to school of thought, but a minimum age for the bride is not one of them in any school of thought, nor is the permission of a judge. The Salaf married girls who were much younger than the age of consent in any western country, and by agreeing to the attack by Moroccan crypto-secularists on Islamic marriage law, he falls into the trap set by the kuffar - setting laws which would class the Salaf as criminals. In the case of the Prophet (sall' Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam), this is outright kufr.

In the case of Morocco, the age of marriage for girls is actually higher than that in some countries in Europe! In the UK the age of both consent and marriage is 16, and recently I had to abandon plans to conduct a marriage in Morocco to a 16-year-old lady, which would have been quite legal in the UK if the father had agreed. The new law helps nobody, certainly not the urban intelligentsia who don't marry young anyway, nor the peasantry, for whom early marriage may be a necessity, and has been part of their culture for centuries, even millennia.

Of course, some of the pseudo-Sharia laws which are in place in some countries are unjust and should be reviewed. Nobody could not be horrified by a young girl being punished for being raped, but the answer is a return to genuine Sharia under the control of people who know its ins and outs and are willing to "ward off the hudood by means of ambiguities" as one of the Sahaba (I believe A'isha, radhi Allahu anha) told us, and don't regard large numbers of hand-cuttings and floggings as the mark of an Islamic state. The fact is that our decline began after un-Islamic ideas penetrated our thinking, and we can gain nothing by succumbing to pressure from the enemies of Islam.

April 16, 2004

More on Sardar

The New Statesman finally got round to printing replies to Ziauddin Sardar's "open the gates of ijtihad" waffle two issues ago (I blogged on this about a week ago). They didn't print mine, but they did print one from Angela Pinter of east London, who makes a number of accusations against Islam and Muslims:

  • "In some Islamic countries anybody proclaiming the truth of evolution could be in serious danger of being killed": the fact is that this is not "truth" but mere theory. Western "science" has a history of making things "facts" when they are not, right up to the recent disasters involving Roy Meadow and his theories on cot death. Nobody believed this nonsense until the late 19th century. Most people still don't believe it.
  • "In Saudi Arabia, the minister for higher (yes, higher) education stated that the earth was flat": whoever believes this is at variance with Muslim beliefs. Muslim scholars have never believed that the Earth is anything but round. Ibn Hazm communicated consensus on this (see Nuh Ha Mim Keller, Port In A Storm, Wakeel Books, Amman (Jordan), p.85) and told us that there is a verse in the Qur'an which in effect states this.
  • "Since [the 11th century] it has been accepted in Islam that the pursuit of knowledge means the pursuit of religious knowledge": which is for most people more important than physical knowledge, because it teaches us how to live our lives and achieve success in the Hereafter. If your job is selling oranges or driving trucks, you don't need to know much else, although it doesn't hurt.
  • The Qur'an "describes not science but transcendent knowledge, which is not subject to empirical observation": which is true, but we are not required (as far as I know) to disbelieve anything we see. In fact, the words of the Qur'an have the beauty of remaining relevant even when physical facts are shown in a new light by science. Of course, the "science fetishist" believes in nothing but what can be verified by empirical observation, but the belief that the Unseen does not exist is, itself, mere dogma. We don't believe your dogma.

April 9, 2004

Reply to Zia Sardar

Last week in the New Statesman they had Ziauddin Sardar, a darling of the British liberal media, spouting some of his well-known ideas. I am quite interested in Sardar because it was one of his books, now known as Introducing Islam, which was instrumental in influencing me to accept Islam. Nevertheless, the ideas put forward in his article in the NS last week, and in Introducing Islam, are just plain wrong, and worse, they are presented as fact and as widely-held opinion. They are, in fact, the opinions of a small intellectual group. Sardar's thesis is that, around the 14th century, Muslim scholars who were concerned about threats to their influence over Muslim society "closed the gates of ijtihad", in other words, banned fresh reasoning on religious issues. (Ijtihad means striving; it means personally exerting oneself to find answers to religious questions. It implies honesty, not judging by one's desires or opinions.) He alleges that it was replaced with taqlid, which he falsely translates as "blind imitation" when it actually means following qualified scholarship - in fact, most of the Salaf were people of taqlid as are most of those who criticise the practice today.

He complains that this resulted in an intellectual degeneration, and was a major reason for the ease with which the Muslims were later colonised. Sardar advocates the re-opening of the "gates of ijtihad" and misrepresents the reason, and extent, to which they have been closed. The gates of ijtihad on new issues, such as the Islamic response to newly-available medical procedures, has never been closed, but ijtihad is restricted to qualified people. It takes years to reach the standard of knowledge necessary to make genuine ijtihad. A contemporary scholar (an American convert who studied for decades in Jordan and Syria) told a gathering I attended that he met many people who compared themselves to the early imams of ijtihad, and none of them could even properly recite the Fatiha, the short opening chapter of the Qur'an, properly, which Muslims are expected to recite at least seventeen times every day!

The issues on which the gates are closed are old issues, such as the particulars of worship and purification, which were settled in the first few hundred years of Islam by far better qualified people than are available today. Those that wish to open them today are in many cases reactionary Wahhabis, and their propaganda has caused much discord in the modern Muslim community. On top of this, the classical education in the four schools of thought is what stands to put the Muslim community back on its famous "Middle Path" and steer it away from extremism. To quote Abdul-Hakim Murad, "with every Muslim now a proud mujtahid, and with taqlid dismissed as a sin rather than a humble and necessary virtue, the divergent views which caused such pain in our early history will surely break surface again. Instead of four madhhabs in harmony, we will have a billion madhhabs in bitter and self-righteous conflict. No more brilliant scheme for the destruction of Islam could ever have been devised" (Understanding the Four Madhhabs: the Problem of Anti-Madhhabism).