By Sayyid Abul Ala Mawdudi RA
MAN has been blessed with an innate sense of morality, which has served to guide him through the age, enabling him to distinguish between right and wrong and good and evil. Although the degree to which a certain quality is interpreted as being either good or evil may vary from person to person, there is more or less a universal consensus regarding the classification of what constitutes a moral deed or attribute and what does not. Thus, virtues such as bravery and truthfulness have always elicited praise. In contrast to this, we find that at no time in the history of man have qualities such as dishonesty and breach of trust ever been upheld or regarded as worthy of praise. Fidelity, magnanimity and integrity have always been valued, whilst selfishness, cruelty, miserliness and bigot, have never received the approbation of society at large. Perseverance, determination and courage are qualities that are much admired and appreciated by man, whereas impatience, fickleness and cowardice are given little consideration. Dignity, restraint, politeness and amiability have always been regarded as virtues as opposed to snobbery, arrogance and discourteousness, which have never been recognized as good moral qualities. A person who possesses a sense of responsibility and devotion to duty has always been high regarded and respected whilst he who is lazy, negligent of his duties and undisciplined is largely ignored and looked down upon.
Similarly, a society that is founded upon and actively promotes equality, justice and freedom is looked upon a positive light. A society in which injustice, disorganization, disunity and social imbalance manifest themselves is considered to be on the verge of collapse, having allowed itself to decay over time through the implementation of policies destructive to the very core upon which it is based. Robbery, larceny, murder, adultery and fraud have always been condemned. Slander, blackmail and bribery have never been regarded as wholesome social activities. Contrary to this, we of the aged, loyalty to friends, helping one's kith and kin in times of need, concern for neighbours, assisting the week and oppressed and nursing the sick are all activities that have been highly valued since the dawn of civilization.
People who are polite, sincere, upright, dependable, who are prompt in discharging their obligations to others, who live in peace and allow others to do likewise have always formed the core of any healthy society. Good and evil are not myths awaiting resurrection, they are a real part of our everyday lives and hence, Allah has blessed mankind with an inherent sense of right and wrong. Allah says in the Qur'an: "(Allah) has revealed to human nature the consciousness and the cognition of good and evil. " (Surah as-Shams: 8) The questions that now arise are: If the basic values of good and evil are universally recognized, why then, do varying patterns of moral behavior exist in the world? Why are there so many conflicting moral philosophies? Where does the root of these differences lie? What is the position of Islam with respect to other ethical systems? How can we justify the claim that Islam provides us with a perfectly balanced moral system? What is the distinctive contribution that Islam has made in the realm of ethics?
These questions are important and must be dealt with in a direct manner. However, given the limitations of space we shall only be able to touch upon these issues very briefly. The following points will serve to outline the answers to the above questions:
1. The present moral systems fail to integrate moral virtues and norms by prescribing specific limits and as a consequence of this, a balanced and coherent plan for social conduct has not been devised.
2. Each moral system presents a different interpretation of what is good and what is evil, hence moral standards differ. The vindication of a particular viewpoint is complicated further when we realize that the sanction or the authority behind it also differs from one system to another. Likewise, the theories that are formulated to determine the motives that impel someone to follow one pattern of behaviour as opposed to another also differ
3. We find on deeper reflection, that these differences emerge from the conflicting views and concepts regarding the universe, man's place in that universe and man's purpose of existence on Earth. The multitude of religions, philosophies, ideologies and theories that exist are a testament to and a reflection upon the diversity and the divergence of man's views in regard to these fundamental questions and others such as: Does God exist? What are His attributes? What is the relationship between man and God ? Will man be held accountable for what he does in this life? Why was man created?
A man's way of life and his patterns of moral behaviour will be determined by his response to the above questions. Once more due to a shortage of space we find ourselves unable to consider in depth the various ethical systems that exist in the world today, to expound the solutions proposed by each in response to fundamental issues and describe what impact these solutions have had on the moral evolution of societies founded on such concept. Therefore, in light of these limitations, we shall only consider the Islamic concept of morality.
The Islamic Concept Of Life And Morality
According to Islam, the universe is Allah's creation. He is the Sovereign and Sustainer of the universe. He is All Wise, All-Powerful, Omniscient. His Godhood is free from injustice and impartiality. Man is the creation of Allah, His subject and servant born to obey and worship Him. Man has been commanded to live his life in total compliance to the laws of Allah.
Over the course of time, Allah sent prophets to mankind to guide and instruct them in these matters. Man is given a choice as to whether or not he wishes to follow the message of the prophets and adhere to their teachings, yet whichever path he chooses he will be held accountable for it and any consequent actions based upon it. Hence, man's time on this earth may be perceived as an opportunity to prepare himself, as best he is able, for the life hereafter. Everyone is responsible for his own actions and no one be made to bear the burdens of another. Judgement Day provides incentive for all believers to act in accordance with the teachings of Islam, in the hope that they may achieve salvation.
The previous exposition of the Islamic concept of life and morality has shown us that the aim of man is to seek the pleasure of Allah. In Islam, this is a standard by which a particular mode of conduct may be judged and classified as being either good or bad. This standard provides the nucleus around which moral conduct should evolve. Man is not left like a ship without moorings to be tossed hither and thither at the mercy of the winds and the tides. Islam provides man with a stable and balanced set of values and norms for all morally-based activities. Moreover, in establishing the pleasure of Allah' as the objective of man's existence, windows of unlimited possibilities are opened for his moral evolution since, at no time will it be overshadowed by selfishness, bigotry, arrogance or pride.
Our knowledge of vice and virtue should not be based upon mere intellect, desire, intuition or experience, since these factors are subject to constant change, modifying themselves and evolving in accordance with the dictates of external influences. Thus, they are unable to provide us with definitive and categorical standards of morality. Rather, Islam provides us with Divine revelation embodied in the Qur'an and the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). This source of knowledge prescribes a standard of moral conduct that is both permanent and universal, applicable to all times and circumstances. The Islamic moral code covers the smallest details of domestic life and extends to accommodate the broader aspects of national and international modes of behaviour. These regulations free us from the exclusive dependence upon any other source of knowledge.
The Sanction Behind Morality
The Islamic concept of the universe and man's place therein furnishes the sanction that must support all morally-based injunctions. Islam presents powerful arguments, with the aim of inducing mankind to abide by its principles of morality and to construct a political system that would enforce the moral law through its legislative and executive powers. Islam relies upon the inherent urge for good that resides in everyone's heart which in turn is based upon the love and fear of Allah, the awareness of accountability on the Day of Judgement and the promise of eternal bliss.
Thus, before enforcing any moral injunctions Islam seeks to implant firmly in man's heart the conviction that all his dealings in this We relate directly to Allah. A man may be able to conceal certain deeds from others, he may be successful in deceiving others but Allah is fully aware of that which has transpired. Allah is All- Knowing, All-Seeing, All-Wise. Allah knows man's innermost intentions and desires and thus, whatever man does in this life he cannot escape from the fact that one day he will die and be compelled to account for what has passed. On that Day there will be no advocation, no favours, no impartiality, fraud and deception will be of no avail; justice will be done.
Therefore, it has become clear that only a deep-rooted belief can motivate man to incorporate these moral injunctions into his everyday life. If popular opinion and the coercive powers of the state enforce these injunctions so much the better, otherwise the true believer must rely solely upon his faith in Allah.
Distinctive Features Of The Islamic Moral Code
Islam has furnished mankind with the highest possible standards of morality making Divine Pleasure one of man's main objectives in life.
Islam does not provide any novel moral virtues nor does it seek to minimize the significance of established moral norms. Morality is approached with a sense of balance and proportion assigning a suitable place and function to each moral virtue within the total scheme of life. Indeed, their scope of application is widened somewhat to cater for every aspect of man's life on both an individual and a collective basis from the cradle to the grave.
Islam enjoins upon man a way of life that promotes goodness and frees society from evil. Muslims are invoked not only to practice virtue but to actively establish it in their immediate environment and to eradicate vice and corruption. This task is the collective responsibility of the Muslims and it would be a day of mourning indeed if the efforts of a particular community were directed towards establishing evil and suppressing good.
Tuesday, 29 December 2009
Saturday, 19 December 2009
Women in Islam: Oppression or Liberation? By Umm Tahi
(as published in www.islamonline.net)
For centuries, Muslim women in all corners of the world have been aware of the liberation achieved by wearing a scarf or hijab. Current world events have once again brought the issue of women's liberation in Islam to the forefront.
Can a Woman Wearing a Scarf Be Liberated?
The picture painted by the media is biased and unsubstantiated. The impression that some Muslims give to the world is often not a true reflection of Islam. Islam takes the question of gender equality very seriously. It sees the liberation of women as essential, as it considers modesty, good character, and manners to be the way to achieve such liberation.
Too often, the image of a covered woman is used to represent her silent oppression. Her very existence is described in terms that convey ignorance and unhappiness. Words like “beaten,” “repressed,” and “oppressed” are bandied about by the Western media in a desperate attempt to convince the readers that women in Islam have no rights. Descriptive and intrinsically oppressive terms such as “shrouded” and “shackled” are used to portray an image of women who have no minds, and who are the slaves or possessions of their husbands and fathers. In the 19th century, T. E. Lawrence described women in Arabia as “death taking a walk,” and from that time onward, the true status of women in Islam has been shrouded by mystery. The truth about women and Islam is far from this melodramatic portrayal.
Over 1,400 years ago, Islam raised the status of women from a position of oppression to one of liberation and equality. In an era when women were considered possessions, Islam restored women to a position of dignity.
In order to gain a true insight into the real and lasting liberation that Islam guarantees women, we must first examine the concept of liberation as viewed by the West. In Western countries where liberation encompasses unlimited freedom, women are actually finding themselves living lives that are unsatisfying and meaningless. In their quest for liberation, they have abandoned the ideals of morality and stability, and found themselves in marriages and in families that bear little resemblance to real life.
Girls as young as 6 years old have been diagnosed with eating disorders, teenage pregnancy is rampant, and women who choose to stay at home to raise their families are viewed as old fashioned or unemployable. Yes! Women in the West are free to choose: to choose which of twenty different brands of lipstick to wear, to choose their own career path so they are independent and capable. Yes!
Women in the West are liberated: liberated to the point that they are no longer free to choose the life that is natural for them. They are free only to choose from the selection of consumer goods offered to them by their masters. The so-called liberated women of the West have become slaves. Slaves to the economic system, slaves to the fashion and beauty industries, and slaves to a society that views them as brainless machines, taught to look desirable, earn money, and shop. Even the career woman who has managed to push her way through the glass ceiling is a slave to the consumer society, which requires her to reside in a spacious house, wear only the latest designer clothes, drive a luxurious car, and educate her children at the most exclusive and expensive schools.
Is This Liberation?
A Muslim woman knows her place in society and knows her place in the family infrastructure. Her deen (religion) is her first priority; therefore, her role is clear-cut and defined. A Muslim woman, far from being oppressed, is a woman who is liberated in the true sense of the word. She is a slave to no man or to any economic system; rather, she is the slave of Allah. Islam clearly defines women’s rights and responsibilities spiritually, socially, and economically. Islam’s clear-cut guidelines are empowering; they raise women to a revered position both in their families and in the eyes of the Muslim Ummah.
Women in Islam have no need to protest and demonstrate for equal rights. They have no need to live their lives aimlessly acquiring possessions and money. With the perfection of Islam as the natural and only true religion came the undeniable fact that women and men are equal, partners and protectors of one another.
So their Lord accepted from them (their supplication and answered them), "Never will I allow to be lost the work of any of you, be they male or female. You are (members) of one another, so those who emigrated or were driven out from their homes, and suffered harm in My cause, and fought and were killed (in my cause) verily, I will expiate from them their evil deeds and admit them into gardens under which rivers flow; a reward from Allah, and with Allah is the best rewards. (Aal `Imran 3:195)
And whoever does righteous good deeds, male or female, and is a true believer in the Oneness of Allah, such will enter paradise and not the least injustice, even to the size of a speck on the back of a date stone, will be done to them. (An-Nisaa’ 4:124)
And the believers, men and women, are protecting friends one of another; they enjoin the right and forbid the wrong, and they establish worship and they pay the poor-due, and they obey Allah and His messenger. As for these, Allah will have mercy on them. Lo! Allah is Mighty, Wise. (Tauba 9:71)
Women in Islam have the right to own property, to control their own money or money that they earn, to buy and sell, and to give gifts and charity. They have formal rights of inheritance. They have the right to education; seeking and acquiring knowledge is an obligation on all Muslims, male or female. Married Muslim women are completely free from the obligation of supporting and maintaining the family.
They are in no way forced into marriage, but have the right to accept or refuse a proposal as they see fit. Women in Islam have the right to divorce if it becomes necessary, but they also have the right to save their marriages.
Islam teaches that the family is the core of society. In Western cultures, the fabric of society is being torn apart by the breakdown of the family unit. It is in these crumbling communities that the call for the liberation of women arises. It seems to be a misguided and feeble attempt to find a path of security and safety. Such security is available only when the human being turns back to God and accepts the role for which he or she was created.
Liberation means freedom, but not the freedom to do as one pleases. Freedom must never be at the expense of oneself or of the wider community. When a woman fulfills the role for which she was created, not only is she liberated but she is empowered.
The modestly dressed or covered woman you see in the street is liberated. She is liberated from the shackles that have tied the feet of her Western sisters. She is liberated from the economic slavery of the West, and she is liberated from the necessity of managing a house and family without the support of her husband or the help of a wider community. She lives her life based on divine guidelines; her life is filled with peace, happiness, and strength. She is not afraid of the world, but rather embraces its tests and trials with patience and fortitude, secure in the fact that true liberation is only achieved by full and willing submission to the natural order of the universe.
Oppression is not defined by a piece of material, but rather by a sickening of the heart and a weakening of the mind. Oppression grows in a society that is crumbling because its members have lost sight of the true purpose of their existence. Liberation arises and takes root in a society that is just, cohesive, and based on natural order and divine guidelines.
For centuries, Muslim women in all corners of the world have been aware of the liberation achieved by wearing a scarf or hijab. Current world events have once again brought the issue of women's liberation in Islam to the forefront.
Can a Woman Wearing a Scarf Be Liberated?
The picture painted by the media is biased and unsubstantiated. The impression that some Muslims give to the world is often not a true reflection of Islam. Islam takes the question of gender equality very seriously. It sees the liberation of women as essential, as it considers modesty, good character, and manners to be the way to achieve such liberation.
Too often, the image of a covered woman is used to represent her silent oppression. Her very existence is described in terms that convey ignorance and unhappiness. Words like “beaten,” “repressed,” and “oppressed” are bandied about by the Western media in a desperate attempt to convince the readers that women in Islam have no rights. Descriptive and intrinsically oppressive terms such as “shrouded” and “shackled” are used to portray an image of women who have no minds, and who are the slaves or possessions of their husbands and fathers. In the 19th century, T. E. Lawrence described women in Arabia as “death taking a walk,” and from that time onward, the true status of women in Islam has been shrouded by mystery. The truth about women and Islam is far from this melodramatic portrayal.
Over 1,400 years ago, Islam raised the status of women from a position of oppression to one of liberation and equality. In an era when women were considered possessions, Islam restored women to a position of dignity.
In order to gain a true insight into the real and lasting liberation that Islam guarantees women, we must first examine the concept of liberation as viewed by the West. In Western countries where liberation encompasses unlimited freedom, women are actually finding themselves living lives that are unsatisfying and meaningless. In their quest for liberation, they have abandoned the ideals of morality and stability, and found themselves in marriages and in families that bear little resemblance to real life.
Girls as young as 6 years old have been diagnosed with eating disorders, teenage pregnancy is rampant, and women who choose to stay at home to raise their families are viewed as old fashioned or unemployable. Yes! Women in the West are free to choose: to choose which of twenty different brands of lipstick to wear, to choose their own career path so they are independent and capable. Yes!
Women in the West are liberated: liberated to the point that they are no longer free to choose the life that is natural for them. They are free only to choose from the selection of consumer goods offered to them by their masters. The so-called liberated women of the West have become slaves. Slaves to the economic system, slaves to the fashion and beauty industries, and slaves to a society that views them as brainless machines, taught to look desirable, earn money, and shop. Even the career woman who has managed to push her way through the glass ceiling is a slave to the consumer society, which requires her to reside in a spacious house, wear only the latest designer clothes, drive a luxurious car, and educate her children at the most exclusive and expensive schools.
Is This Liberation?
A Muslim woman knows her place in society and knows her place in the family infrastructure. Her deen (religion) is her first priority; therefore, her role is clear-cut and defined. A Muslim woman, far from being oppressed, is a woman who is liberated in the true sense of the word. She is a slave to no man or to any economic system; rather, she is the slave of Allah. Islam clearly defines women’s rights and responsibilities spiritually, socially, and economically. Islam’s clear-cut guidelines are empowering; they raise women to a revered position both in their families and in the eyes of the Muslim Ummah.
Women in Islam have no need to protest and demonstrate for equal rights. They have no need to live their lives aimlessly acquiring possessions and money. With the perfection of Islam as the natural and only true religion came the undeniable fact that women and men are equal, partners and protectors of one another.
So their Lord accepted from them (their supplication and answered them), "Never will I allow to be lost the work of any of you, be they male or female. You are (members) of one another, so those who emigrated or were driven out from their homes, and suffered harm in My cause, and fought and were killed (in my cause) verily, I will expiate from them their evil deeds and admit them into gardens under which rivers flow; a reward from Allah, and with Allah is the best rewards. (Aal `Imran 3:195)
And whoever does righteous good deeds, male or female, and is a true believer in the Oneness of Allah, such will enter paradise and not the least injustice, even to the size of a speck on the back of a date stone, will be done to them. (An-Nisaa’ 4:124)
And the believers, men and women, are protecting friends one of another; they enjoin the right and forbid the wrong, and they establish worship and they pay the poor-due, and they obey Allah and His messenger. As for these, Allah will have mercy on them. Lo! Allah is Mighty, Wise. (Tauba 9:71)
Women in Islam have the right to own property, to control their own money or money that they earn, to buy and sell, and to give gifts and charity. They have formal rights of inheritance. They have the right to education; seeking and acquiring knowledge is an obligation on all Muslims, male or female. Married Muslim women are completely free from the obligation of supporting and maintaining the family.
They are in no way forced into marriage, but have the right to accept or refuse a proposal as they see fit. Women in Islam have the right to divorce if it becomes necessary, but they also have the right to save their marriages.
Islam teaches that the family is the core of society. In Western cultures, the fabric of society is being torn apart by the breakdown of the family unit. It is in these crumbling communities that the call for the liberation of women arises. It seems to be a misguided and feeble attempt to find a path of security and safety. Such security is available only when the human being turns back to God and accepts the role for which he or she was created.
Liberation means freedom, but not the freedom to do as one pleases. Freedom must never be at the expense of oneself or of the wider community. When a woman fulfills the role for which she was created, not only is she liberated but she is empowered.
The modestly dressed or covered woman you see in the street is liberated. She is liberated from the shackles that have tied the feet of her Western sisters. She is liberated from the economic slavery of the West, and she is liberated from the necessity of managing a house and family without the support of her husband or the help of a wider community. She lives her life based on divine guidelines; her life is filled with peace, happiness, and strength. She is not afraid of the world, but rather embraces its tests and trials with patience and fortitude, secure in the fact that true liberation is only achieved by full and willing submission to the natural order of the universe.
Oppression is not defined by a piece of material, but rather by a sickening of the heart and a weakening of the mind. Oppression grows in a society that is crumbling because its members have lost sight of the true purpose of their existence. Liberation arises and takes root in a society that is just, cohesive, and based on natural order and divine guidelines.
Monday, 14 December 2009
Misinterpreted Verses and Hadiths about Violence - By Jamal Badawi
Dr. Jamal Badawi, PhD, is a Famous Da'iyah and Member of the European Council for Fatwa and Research and a well famous Ikhwanul Muslimoon's leader.
Question
What is the best argument in trying to convert a Born-Again Christian to Islam?
Answer
I personally prefer the term "revert" as it connotes returning back to the pure innate nature of believing in the one true universal God. Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) indicated that each child is born "Muslim", so when a person accepts Islam, he or she actually reverts to the true natural innate faith. Many of the born again Christians are sincere people who are trying to find meaning in life and pursue spiritual fulfillment. Some of them were involved in negative behavior and so how religiosity changed their life for the better.
Our role as Muslim is to share the truth as we believe in it and understand it in kindness and love without undue pressure and to be patience and pray for them to have even greater fulfillment and greater understanding about our common creator.
Question
How to rightly interpret the following verses in the Qur’an:
(a) Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians, - any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve. (2:62) Is this verse still applies to Christians and Jews who live today or only those who lived prior to Prophet Muhammad's (PBUH) lifetime. Some consider this verse being abrogated by other verse(s) in the Qur’an.
(b) And whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers." (3:81-85) How to interpret the word 'Islam' in this verse correctly? If a Christian or a Jew or even a Hindu believes in the oneness of God, will that be acceptable to Allah.
Answer
This verse must be understood in the light of other verses in the Qur'an dealing with the same topic. It is clear in the Qur'an that rejecting beliefs in any prophet is tantamount to rejecting belief in all of them. Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) to Muslims is the last, final and universal messenger to all humankind. As such rejecting belief in him and in the divine revelations or word of God given to him is tantamount to rejecting all of the prophets. Therefore, this verse maybe referring to those who followed their prophet prior to the mission of Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him). In fact, these people who followed the unadulterated message of their prophet are in effect "fellow Muslims", literally those who sought peace through submission to God.
But this argument, however, is only on the theological level; it has nothing to do with the kind and just treatment of any person or any other faith community who coexist peacefully with Muslims. This might be similar to the truth claims made by fellow Christians who believe that trinity is the "theological truth" for them. Our duty as Muslims is to express our belief without animosity and let God judge all on the Day of Judgment.
As for the verse 3:81-85, it seems to be categorical and as such the word Islam may be interpreted legitimately in more than one way. It could mean generic Islam, literally achieving peace through submission to God, which applies to any follower of any legitimate prophet throughout history. Secondly, even if it refers to accepting Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), then it is up to Allah, not us, to accept or reject those rejected Islam. This means that we are not allowed as Muslims to mistreat them in any way as the one who accepts or rejects is Allah and not us.
Question
How should we deal with verse 9:5, which seems to be in conflict with verse 2:256 "la ikraha fi deen"?
Answer
This ayah has been frequently quoted out of its textual and historical context.
The ayah has nothing to do with compulsion in religion.
It deals with mushrikeen which means idolatrous people who have nothing with Jews and Christians (see 98:1) which means a clear distinction between mushrikeen and People of the Book.
The ayah does not even include all idolatrous people nor idolatrous Arabs at the time of the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) since it excludes those idolatrous Arabs who did not engage in murder and hostilities against Muslims. See for example verse 4 in Chapter 9.
The reason for fighting those idolatrous Arabs is not because they rejected Islam but because they broke the treaty of Hudaybiya and murdered innocent people. In fact the reason for fighting is given in verse 10 and 13, which shows that fighting them was because of their aggression and not because of their rejection of Islam. As far as the ending of verse 5, "that if they repent, establish prayer and paid the poor-due, then leave them alone", this does not mean that they must accept Islam to be left alone but it seems to indicate that since their aggression was promoted in the first place by hateful and irrational aggressive hate of the message of Islam that if they willingly accept Islam then the reason for their aggression will be voided not that it is a condition or stopping the war against them. Resorting to war and battlefield in Islam is only allowed to repel aggression or severe oppression. That simply gives another option for them, either to stop aggression and remain idolatrous or to willingly accept Islam and become brethren in faith.
There is absolutely no contradiction between the two verses you mentioned.
Question
Is there a special context for understanding many of the verses in Surah Al-Tawba which deal with war in Islam, like for example verses (9:5) and verse (9:123)? Is Surah Al-Tawba a "special case", as it's the only Surah in the Qur'an which does not start with "Bism Allah Al-Rahman Al-Rahim"?
Answer
The answer to 9:5 was already given in this session, please refer to previous answers. As for Surah 9, ayah 123, this must be understood in the light of a rule in Tafsir known as the general which is meant to refer to the specific, which has many examples in the Qur'an. This ayah for sure falls in that category, meaning that this does not apply to all non-Muslim neighbors all the time or under all circumstances. The historical context was that early Muslims were surrounded by style and even aggressive neighbors, some were "People of the Book", others were idolatrous Arabs while others were pre-Islamic Persians. History recorded instances where some of them engaged not only in intimidation and threats against Muslims but also inciting murder and engaging actually in murderous acts. As such it was a matter of physical security of the emerging of the young Muslim community who had to abort the surrounding dangers through legitimate pre-emptive strikes.
Another evidence or proof that this is limited to that situation or similar ones that may arise is that the general rule in dealing with non-Muslim neighbors, individuals or states has been explicitly stated in the Qur'an (Surah 60, verse 8 and 9) which indicates that those who peacefully coexist with Muslims are entitled to just and kind treatment.
Surah at-Tawbah is not a special case, it is not the only chapter that deals with the regulations of the legitimate warfare (to repel oppression or aggression). The fact that it does not begin with basmallah is explained better by referring to the statement made by Uthman, may Allah be pleased with him. For details, please listen to Islamic Teachings, under the Qur'an/preservation, which is available on Islamonline.net.
Question
Surah Bara'a (immunity) is the last surah revealed to the prophet [pbuh] and many of its verses seem to abrogate almost everything that went before in the Qur’an in terms of war and the relationship with Christians, Jews and pagans. I find this confusing. Can you please explain?
Answer
There is no evidence whatsoever of the abrogation of the Qur'anic verses dealing with freedom of religion or the kind and just treatment of those who peacefully co-exist with Muslims such as Chapter 2, verse 256, and Chapter 60, verse 8 and 9 or Chapter 29, verse 46, and Chapter 16, verse 125. Surah 9 deals with a situation of aggression and oppression of Muslims and the two categories of verses are both applicable in their particular contexts; none of them abrogates the other. Please see the previous answer about some verses in the same Surah such as 5, 123.
Question
Some people say that Islam is a religion of peace and war and not only peace and that war is part of Aqeeda in Islam. What do you think?
Answer
I believe that Islam is ultimately the religion of peace. Islam is defined as peace through submission to God. It is one of the names and attributes of Allah. It is the name of Paradise and it is the common greeting of all Muslims. The Qur'an describes the mission of Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) as mercy to the worlds (21: 107). However, in order to maintain the state of peace it is necessary sometimes to resort the use of force to stop the aggressors and oppressors who disturb the peace sought by the masses. As such, peace is the ultimate objective (in this life and in the life to come) and war is the exception as the last resort to achieve and maintain the state of peace.
In fact, the Qur'an describes fighting as "a hated act" (Chapter 2: 206) and Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) hated that a person would call himself harb (war) whereas peace has always been praised and never referred to as a hated act. Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) also exhorted his followers not to be anxious to engage in fighting and to pray for peace and security. The Qur'an in more than one place emphases that imminent battles were averted such as the incident of the trench and the victorious return to Makkah without engaging in battle. It should be stated that war, the hated act, is only a necessary means (in some circumstances) to an end which peace, but not the other way round.
Question
Prophet said: “I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god but Allah…?” How can this meet with the verse in the Qur'an: “there is no compulsion in religion”?
Answer
It is impossible to interpret that hadith to mean all people as this understanding clearly contradicts numerous verses in the Qur'an including, “there is no compulsion in religion”. The hadith apparently refers to the Makkan chiefs who broke the treaty of Hudaybiya then fled after the opening of Makkah and conspired with others to initiate the battle of Hunain. When they were defeated they fled again. Such people were guilty of what we call today "war crimes" and murder of innocent people. While they deserve to be fought against they were given a magnanimous option that if they willingly wish to accept Islam that their previous transgression or crimes will be forgiven and their life and property will be safeguarded. In any case, it is an option, not force, it is a positive and constructive option to reconcile their hearts and assure them if they accept Islam willingly that they will not be punished for their previous atrocities.
Another aspect that confirms this understanding is that the use of the term "hatta" in the hadith does not necessarily mean that it is a condition for them to be safe and it could mean in this broad textual context that the reason for Muslims being permitted to fight against aggression or oppression is to safeguard their religious freedom and those of others. So the ultimate objective of averting war may be realized more effectively if the religious enmity on the part the enemy is removed and the most effective way of removing it will occur if they see the light and open their hearts to the truth.
Question
It will be funny to say that Islam is peaceful and that it does not preach violence. Muhammad pbuh stated clearly that he loves war and that fighting is a means of making livelihood in Islam; he said: "my rizq (sustenance or provision) has been made under the shade of my armor?
Answer
There is no agreement on the authenticity of this hadith among specialists in hadith sciences. Among those who questioned its authenticity are Ibn Hajar in "Taghliq at-Ta'leeq" and also Adh-Dhahabi in "Mizan Al-'tidal.
Secondly, that disputed hadith is contrary to what Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) said about not being anxious to engage in the battlefield and to pray for peace and security instead.
If indeed the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) loved war or fought for "sustenance" he would have had a great opportunity to achieve these goals when he entered Makkah victoriously and unopposed. Instead he declared a general amnesty and ordered no plunder which showed that his mission was that of guidance and mercy and not war, destruction or plunder.
If we studied honestly and objectively the life of the Prophet from authentic and unbiased sources we will find that he never engaged in the battlefield nor did he approve of battles other than to repel aggression, including legitimate pre-emptive strike against pending attack, or to stop aggression or persecution.
It is known that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) lived in a very simple and self-imposed simplicity like any poor person lived. When he died he owned virtuously nothing. Even on his deathbed he insisted that whatever money he had must be given to the poor. This is the total documented broad picture which stands in utter contrast to selectively quoting a disputed text that is out of sync with multitude of verses in the Qur'an as well as sayings of Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him).
Please read my article for greater detail:
http://www.islamonline.net/english/Contemporary/2005/04/Article01.shtml
Question
How can you explain the verse: "Kill them wherever you find them..."? And also the verse "Fight them till there is no more Fitna (oppression...)”? Also in the Sunnah, we have the well-know Hadith of the Prophet that goes as thus: "I'm ordered to fight people till they testify to the oneness of Allah and that I am the Messenger of Allah..." Don't you think that these texts show that Islam sees that "sword" alone is the tool of making people embrace Islam? Don't you agree with me that these texts and other fall into the hand of extremist people like Al-Qaeda and so on?
Answer
The problem here is quoting one part of this verse (2:191) because the remaining part says "and drive them away from wherever they drove you away, for oppression is worse than killing." Therefore, this verse does not give a license to kill even idolatrous Arabs who are meant in this verse but only those who committed aggression and oppression against Muslims by driving them from their homes and towns without justification. So it is a case of legitimate fight against severe oppression which the Qur'an describes as "worse than killing". The same verse also continues to prohibit Muslims from fighting near the Sacred House unless the enemies fight against them first.
If you continue in the same section, you will find that the next verse indicates that if the oppressors desist from fighting and aggression, then Allah is indeed Forgiving and Merciful. The following verse clearly states that the reason for fighting is "to stop oppression especially that the common oppression at that time which took the form intimidation, torture to death or murder of those who chose Islam. This is why the verse says: "until persecution is no more and the choice of religion is between the person and God". The same verse continues to say that if they desist (i.e. from oppression) then there should be no more hostility except against the oppressors. As to the hadith you mentioned, please refer to the other answers in the same session for explanation.
Question
What are the examples of those verses and ahadith that are wrongly misinterpreted in your opinion? I suppose also that by violence you are suggesting "terror" as defined by the West, isn't it? If that is the case what are the rules of engagement in Islam if someone or an enemy brings war, violence or terror right in your doorstep?
Answer
For examples, please see my paper on Islam on that link: http://www.islamonline.net/english/Contemporary/2005/04/Article01.shtml In the absence of any comprehensive internationally accepted definition of terrorism, it may be defined as "any indiscriminate act of violence committed against the innocent by individuals, groups or states whether the victims and/or culprits are Muslims, Christians, Jews or any other faith community. As to the rules of warfare, when necessary, they are explicit to avoid hurting non-combatant. The Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) forbade hurting women who are not fighting, children, elderly, clergy, and other unarmed civilians. He also forbade killing an injured person in mistreating prisoners or destroying livestock or trees or what we call today the infrastructure of cities inhabited by the enemy.
Question
My question is regarding the 'official Ulama' in many Muslim countries and especially the 9/11 events who seems to be deviating from the true teaching of Islam. They usually justify whatever being done or endorse policies of the ruling regime (Even if it is not Islamic at all!). I am so disgusted with these ulama when they will justify that the current leaders in most Muslim countries is "ulil Amri' and it is an obligation for every citizens to follow them! To cite the case of those in the Middle east and Gulf States where these leaders are clearly tools of the West and selling Muslim and Islamic interest for the sake of clinging to their power and rule. And at the same time, jailing many true ulama whom that have spoken up against these tyrrant regimes. Need your sincere comment.
Answer
Justifying wrong aggression or tyranny by any person is unjustified and I exhort all my Muslim brothers and sisters whether common people or scholars or rulers for that matter to fear Allah SWT and develop the quality of taqwa and to realize that one day all people will stand equally before the creator to be questioned about their words and actions. We pray for all as nobody is above advice and nobody can claim they have no need for exhortation and prayers of their brethren.
Question
How about the hadith that claims "Kill whoever changes his religion."?
(a) If a person changes his religion, is it considered as a profound insult to Allah and to all Muslims but Allah says in the Qur’an "Let there be no compulsion in the religion" (2:256).
(b) What about the status of the hadith. Is it sahih (sound), hadith al-ahad (isolated) or dhaif (weak)?
(c) What if a person changes religion from Christianity to Judaism? Does this hadith still apply to that person?
Please shed some light on this hadith.
Answer
The question of apostasy has been debated among scholars based on their interpretations of some hadiths since the Qur'an does not specify any worldly punishment for it. For example, there was a case at the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) where a man came to him in three consecutive days and told him that he wanted to apostate. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) never took any action against him, and when the man finally left Madina, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) never sent anyone to arrest him, let alone kill him. This hadith appears in more than one version in Sahih Muslim and is authentic.
This is why some scholars distinguished between individual apostasy and apostasy which is accompanied by high treason. For example, one version of a hadith narrated by `A'isha concerning apostasy (and one who left his religion and fought against Muslims). The topic is broad and most Muslims are acquainted only with the only common view and interpretation of these hadiths.
The rule of "no compulsion in religion" which appears in several verses in the Qur'an and is consistent with its message of willing submission to God. These verses are no doubt definitive and explicit. Other texts, in the Qur'an or Sunnah, which are speculative (mutashabih or texts that could be interpreted in more than one way without violating basic rules of interpretation) in meaning must be interpreted or re-interpreted in the light of the definitive.
Question
Since Muslims are entitled the right to defend themselves or at least to maintain some kind of balance of military power, I would like to know what the position of Muslims scholars is with regard with nuclear weapons.
Answer
Experience shows that even in liberal democracies with a developed systems of checks and balances, nuclear weapons were actually used, e.g., in Japan. By its very nature, nuclear weapons indiscriminately kill and maim people and destroy the environment. Therefore, the immorality of using weapons is obvious and is against the Islamic teaching even at the time of war. Some may argue that possessing such weapons may act as deterrent to aggression and prevent being intimated unjustly by those who possess them. However, the real solution to this menace is not the proliferation of such weapons in the name of deterrents but the complete abolition of all stocks of nuclear weapons. There is also a need for the establishment of internationally strict controls against the development of such weapons in the future.
It is the moral responsibility of big powers who possess most of those weapons to give an example for the rest of the world by beginning this process of zero tolerance themselves rather than stockpiling and developing them while trying at the same time to prevent others from developing them. All powers, big or small, must stop stockpiling or developing these genocidal weapons for the sake of true and lasting world peace.
If you feel your question is very important, feel free to contact at EngLivedialogue@islamonline.net and they will try their best to answer your question.
Source: Islamonline Live Dialogue Editing Desk, 10th Sep. 2005, www.islamonline.net
Question
What is the best argument in trying to convert a Born-Again Christian to Islam?
Answer
I personally prefer the term "revert" as it connotes returning back to the pure innate nature of believing in the one true universal God. Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) indicated that each child is born "Muslim", so when a person accepts Islam, he or she actually reverts to the true natural innate faith. Many of the born again Christians are sincere people who are trying to find meaning in life and pursue spiritual fulfillment. Some of them were involved in negative behavior and so how religiosity changed their life for the better.
Our role as Muslim is to share the truth as we believe in it and understand it in kindness and love without undue pressure and to be patience and pray for them to have even greater fulfillment and greater understanding about our common creator.
Question
How to rightly interpret the following verses in the Qur’an:
(a) Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians, - any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve. (2:62) Is this verse still applies to Christians and Jews who live today or only those who lived prior to Prophet Muhammad's (PBUH) lifetime. Some consider this verse being abrogated by other verse(s) in the Qur’an.
(b) And whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers." (3:81-85) How to interpret the word 'Islam' in this verse correctly? If a Christian or a Jew or even a Hindu believes in the oneness of God, will that be acceptable to Allah.
Answer
This verse must be understood in the light of other verses in the Qur'an dealing with the same topic. It is clear in the Qur'an that rejecting beliefs in any prophet is tantamount to rejecting belief in all of them. Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) to Muslims is the last, final and universal messenger to all humankind. As such rejecting belief in him and in the divine revelations or word of God given to him is tantamount to rejecting all of the prophets. Therefore, this verse maybe referring to those who followed their prophet prior to the mission of Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him). In fact, these people who followed the unadulterated message of their prophet are in effect "fellow Muslims", literally those who sought peace through submission to God.
But this argument, however, is only on the theological level; it has nothing to do with the kind and just treatment of any person or any other faith community who coexist peacefully with Muslims. This might be similar to the truth claims made by fellow Christians who believe that trinity is the "theological truth" for them. Our duty as Muslims is to express our belief without animosity and let God judge all on the Day of Judgment.
As for the verse 3:81-85, it seems to be categorical and as such the word Islam may be interpreted legitimately in more than one way. It could mean generic Islam, literally achieving peace through submission to God, which applies to any follower of any legitimate prophet throughout history. Secondly, even if it refers to accepting Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), then it is up to Allah, not us, to accept or reject those rejected Islam. This means that we are not allowed as Muslims to mistreat them in any way as the one who accepts or rejects is Allah and not us.
Question
How should we deal with verse 9:5, which seems to be in conflict with verse 2:256 "la ikraha fi deen"?
Answer
This ayah has been frequently quoted out of its textual and historical context.
The ayah has nothing to do with compulsion in religion.
It deals with mushrikeen which means idolatrous people who have nothing with Jews and Christians (see 98:1) which means a clear distinction between mushrikeen and People of the Book.
The ayah does not even include all idolatrous people nor idolatrous Arabs at the time of the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) since it excludes those idolatrous Arabs who did not engage in murder and hostilities against Muslims. See for example verse 4 in Chapter 9.
The reason for fighting those idolatrous Arabs is not because they rejected Islam but because they broke the treaty of Hudaybiya and murdered innocent people. In fact the reason for fighting is given in verse 10 and 13, which shows that fighting them was because of their aggression and not because of their rejection of Islam. As far as the ending of verse 5, "that if they repent, establish prayer and paid the poor-due, then leave them alone", this does not mean that they must accept Islam to be left alone but it seems to indicate that since their aggression was promoted in the first place by hateful and irrational aggressive hate of the message of Islam that if they willingly accept Islam then the reason for their aggression will be voided not that it is a condition or stopping the war against them. Resorting to war and battlefield in Islam is only allowed to repel aggression or severe oppression. That simply gives another option for them, either to stop aggression and remain idolatrous or to willingly accept Islam and become brethren in faith.
There is absolutely no contradiction between the two verses you mentioned.
Question
Is there a special context for understanding many of the verses in Surah Al-Tawba which deal with war in Islam, like for example verses (9:5) and verse (9:123)? Is Surah Al-Tawba a "special case", as it's the only Surah in the Qur'an which does not start with "Bism Allah Al-Rahman Al-Rahim"?
Answer
The answer to 9:5 was already given in this session, please refer to previous answers. As for Surah 9, ayah 123, this must be understood in the light of a rule in Tafsir known as the general which is meant to refer to the specific, which has many examples in the Qur'an. This ayah for sure falls in that category, meaning that this does not apply to all non-Muslim neighbors all the time or under all circumstances. The historical context was that early Muslims were surrounded by style and even aggressive neighbors, some were "People of the Book", others were idolatrous Arabs while others were pre-Islamic Persians. History recorded instances where some of them engaged not only in intimidation and threats against Muslims but also inciting murder and engaging actually in murderous acts. As such it was a matter of physical security of the emerging of the young Muslim community who had to abort the surrounding dangers through legitimate pre-emptive strikes.
Another evidence or proof that this is limited to that situation or similar ones that may arise is that the general rule in dealing with non-Muslim neighbors, individuals or states has been explicitly stated in the Qur'an (Surah 60, verse 8 and 9) which indicates that those who peacefully coexist with Muslims are entitled to just and kind treatment.
Surah at-Tawbah is not a special case, it is not the only chapter that deals with the regulations of the legitimate warfare (to repel oppression or aggression). The fact that it does not begin with basmallah is explained better by referring to the statement made by Uthman, may Allah be pleased with him. For details, please listen to Islamic Teachings, under the Qur'an/preservation, which is available on Islamonline.net.
Question
Surah Bara'a (immunity) is the last surah revealed to the prophet [pbuh] and many of its verses seem to abrogate almost everything that went before in the Qur’an in terms of war and the relationship with Christians, Jews and pagans. I find this confusing. Can you please explain?
Answer
There is no evidence whatsoever of the abrogation of the Qur'anic verses dealing with freedom of religion or the kind and just treatment of those who peacefully co-exist with Muslims such as Chapter 2, verse 256, and Chapter 60, verse 8 and 9 or Chapter 29, verse 46, and Chapter 16, verse 125. Surah 9 deals with a situation of aggression and oppression of Muslims and the two categories of verses are both applicable in their particular contexts; none of them abrogates the other. Please see the previous answer about some verses in the same Surah such as 5, 123.
Question
Some people say that Islam is a religion of peace and war and not only peace and that war is part of Aqeeda in Islam. What do you think?
Answer
I believe that Islam is ultimately the religion of peace. Islam is defined as peace through submission to God. It is one of the names and attributes of Allah. It is the name of Paradise and it is the common greeting of all Muslims. The Qur'an describes the mission of Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) as mercy to the worlds (21: 107). However, in order to maintain the state of peace it is necessary sometimes to resort the use of force to stop the aggressors and oppressors who disturb the peace sought by the masses. As such, peace is the ultimate objective (in this life and in the life to come) and war is the exception as the last resort to achieve and maintain the state of peace.
In fact, the Qur'an describes fighting as "a hated act" (Chapter 2: 206) and Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) hated that a person would call himself harb (war) whereas peace has always been praised and never referred to as a hated act. Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) also exhorted his followers not to be anxious to engage in fighting and to pray for peace and security. The Qur'an in more than one place emphases that imminent battles were averted such as the incident of the trench and the victorious return to Makkah without engaging in battle. It should be stated that war, the hated act, is only a necessary means (in some circumstances) to an end which peace, but not the other way round.
Question
Prophet said: “I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god but Allah…?” How can this meet with the verse in the Qur'an: “there is no compulsion in religion”?
Answer
It is impossible to interpret that hadith to mean all people as this understanding clearly contradicts numerous verses in the Qur'an including, “there is no compulsion in religion”. The hadith apparently refers to the Makkan chiefs who broke the treaty of Hudaybiya then fled after the opening of Makkah and conspired with others to initiate the battle of Hunain. When they were defeated they fled again. Such people were guilty of what we call today "war crimes" and murder of innocent people. While they deserve to be fought against they were given a magnanimous option that if they willingly wish to accept Islam that their previous transgression or crimes will be forgiven and their life and property will be safeguarded. In any case, it is an option, not force, it is a positive and constructive option to reconcile their hearts and assure them if they accept Islam willingly that they will not be punished for their previous atrocities.
Another aspect that confirms this understanding is that the use of the term "hatta" in the hadith does not necessarily mean that it is a condition for them to be safe and it could mean in this broad textual context that the reason for Muslims being permitted to fight against aggression or oppression is to safeguard their religious freedom and those of others. So the ultimate objective of averting war may be realized more effectively if the religious enmity on the part the enemy is removed and the most effective way of removing it will occur if they see the light and open their hearts to the truth.
Question
It will be funny to say that Islam is peaceful and that it does not preach violence. Muhammad pbuh stated clearly that he loves war and that fighting is a means of making livelihood in Islam; he said: "my rizq (sustenance or provision) has been made under the shade of my armor?
Answer
There is no agreement on the authenticity of this hadith among specialists in hadith sciences. Among those who questioned its authenticity are Ibn Hajar in "Taghliq at-Ta'leeq" and also Adh-Dhahabi in "Mizan Al-'tidal.
Secondly, that disputed hadith is contrary to what Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) said about not being anxious to engage in the battlefield and to pray for peace and security instead.
If indeed the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) loved war or fought for "sustenance" he would have had a great opportunity to achieve these goals when he entered Makkah victoriously and unopposed. Instead he declared a general amnesty and ordered no plunder which showed that his mission was that of guidance and mercy and not war, destruction or plunder.
If we studied honestly and objectively the life of the Prophet from authentic and unbiased sources we will find that he never engaged in the battlefield nor did he approve of battles other than to repel aggression, including legitimate pre-emptive strike against pending attack, or to stop aggression or persecution.
It is known that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) lived in a very simple and self-imposed simplicity like any poor person lived. When he died he owned virtuously nothing. Even on his deathbed he insisted that whatever money he had must be given to the poor. This is the total documented broad picture which stands in utter contrast to selectively quoting a disputed text that is out of sync with multitude of verses in the Qur'an as well as sayings of Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him).
Please read my article for greater detail:
http://www.islamonline.net/english/Contemporary/2005/04/Article01.shtml
Question
How can you explain the verse: "Kill them wherever you find them..."? And also the verse "Fight them till there is no more Fitna (oppression...)”? Also in the Sunnah, we have the well-know Hadith of the Prophet that goes as thus: "I'm ordered to fight people till they testify to the oneness of Allah and that I am the Messenger of Allah..." Don't you think that these texts show that Islam sees that "sword" alone is the tool of making people embrace Islam? Don't you agree with me that these texts and other fall into the hand of extremist people like Al-Qaeda and so on?
Answer
The problem here is quoting one part of this verse (2:191) because the remaining part says "and drive them away from wherever they drove you away, for oppression is worse than killing." Therefore, this verse does not give a license to kill even idolatrous Arabs who are meant in this verse but only those who committed aggression and oppression against Muslims by driving them from their homes and towns without justification. So it is a case of legitimate fight against severe oppression which the Qur'an describes as "worse than killing". The same verse also continues to prohibit Muslims from fighting near the Sacred House unless the enemies fight against them first.
If you continue in the same section, you will find that the next verse indicates that if the oppressors desist from fighting and aggression, then Allah is indeed Forgiving and Merciful. The following verse clearly states that the reason for fighting is "to stop oppression especially that the common oppression at that time which took the form intimidation, torture to death or murder of those who chose Islam. This is why the verse says: "until persecution is no more and the choice of religion is between the person and God". The same verse continues to say that if they desist (i.e. from oppression) then there should be no more hostility except against the oppressors. As to the hadith you mentioned, please refer to the other answers in the same session for explanation.
Question
What are the examples of those verses and ahadith that are wrongly misinterpreted in your opinion? I suppose also that by violence you are suggesting "terror" as defined by the West, isn't it? If that is the case what are the rules of engagement in Islam if someone or an enemy brings war, violence or terror right in your doorstep?
Answer
For examples, please see my paper on Islam on that link: http://www.islamonline.net/english/Contemporary/2005/04/Article01.shtml In the absence of any comprehensive internationally accepted definition of terrorism, it may be defined as "any indiscriminate act of violence committed against the innocent by individuals, groups or states whether the victims and/or culprits are Muslims, Christians, Jews or any other faith community. As to the rules of warfare, when necessary, they are explicit to avoid hurting non-combatant. The Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) forbade hurting women who are not fighting, children, elderly, clergy, and other unarmed civilians. He also forbade killing an injured person in mistreating prisoners or destroying livestock or trees or what we call today the infrastructure of cities inhabited by the enemy.
Question
My question is regarding the 'official Ulama' in many Muslim countries and especially the 9/11 events who seems to be deviating from the true teaching of Islam. They usually justify whatever being done or endorse policies of the ruling regime (Even if it is not Islamic at all!). I am so disgusted with these ulama when they will justify that the current leaders in most Muslim countries is "ulil Amri' and it is an obligation for every citizens to follow them! To cite the case of those in the Middle east and Gulf States where these leaders are clearly tools of the West and selling Muslim and Islamic interest for the sake of clinging to their power and rule. And at the same time, jailing many true ulama whom that have spoken up against these tyrrant regimes. Need your sincere comment.
Answer
Justifying wrong aggression or tyranny by any person is unjustified and I exhort all my Muslim brothers and sisters whether common people or scholars or rulers for that matter to fear Allah SWT and develop the quality of taqwa and to realize that one day all people will stand equally before the creator to be questioned about their words and actions. We pray for all as nobody is above advice and nobody can claim they have no need for exhortation and prayers of their brethren.
Question
How about the hadith that claims "Kill whoever changes his religion."?
(a) If a person changes his religion, is it considered as a profound insult to Allah and to all Muslims but Allah says in the Qur’an "Let there be no compulsion in the religion" (2:256).
(b) What about the status of the hadith. Is it sahih (sound), hadith al-ahad (isolated) or dhaif (weak)?
(c) What if a person changes religion from Christianity to Judaism? Does this hadith still apply to that person?
Please shed some light on this hadith.
Answer
The question of apostasy has been debated among scholars based on their interpretations of some hadiths since the Qur'an does not specify any worldly punishment for it. For example, there was a case at the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) where a man came to him in three consecutive days and told him that he wanted to apostate. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) never took any action against him, and when the man finally left Madina, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) never sent anyone to arrest him, let alone kill him. This hadith appears in more than one version in Sahih Muslim and is authentic.
This is why some scholars distinguished between individual apostasy and apostasy which is accompanied by high treason. For example, one version of a hadith narrated by `A'isha concerning apostasy (and one who left his religion and fought against Muslims). The topic is broad and most Muslims are acquainted only with the only common view and interpretation of these hadiths.
The rule of "no compulsion in religion" which appears in several verses in the Qur'an and is consistent with its message of willing submission to God. These verses are no doubt definitive and explicit. Other texts, in the Qur'an or Sunnah, which are speculative (mutashabih or texts that could be interpreted in more than one way without violating basic rules of interpretation) in meaning must be interpreted or re-interpreted in the light of the definitive.
Question
Since Muslims are entitled the right to defend themselves or at least to maintain some kind of balance of military power, I would like to know what the position of Muslims scholars is with regard with nuclear weapons.
Answer
Experience shows that even in liberal democracies with a developed systems of checks and balances, nuclear weapons were actually used, e.g., in Japan. By its very nature, nuclear weapons indiscriminately kill and maim people and destroy the environment. Therefore, the immorality of using weapons is obvious and is against the Islamic teaching even at the time of war. Some may argue that possessing such weapons may act as deterrent to aggression and prevent being intimated unjustly by those who possess them. However, the real solution to this menace is not the proliferation of such weapons in the name of deterrents but the complete abolition of all stocks of nuclear weapons. There is also a need for the establishment of internationally strict controls against the development of such weapons in the future.
It is the moral responsibility of big powers who possess most of those weapons to give an example for the rest of the world by beginning this process of zero tolerance themselves rather than stockpiling and developing them while trying at the same time to prevent others from developing them. All powers, big or small, must stop stockpiling or developing these genocidal weapons for the sake of true and lasting world peace.
If you feel your question is very important, feel free to contact at EngLivedialogue@islamonline.net and they will try their best to answer your question.
Source: Islamonline Live Dialogue Editing Desk, 10th Sep. 2005, www.islamonline.net
Sunday, 6 December 2009
LAICITÉ - French Concept of a Secular Society, WOMEN’S RIGHTS, AND THE HEADSCARF ISSUE IN FRANCE
by Raja el habti, The Vice President and Director of Research of Karamah Muslim Women Lawyers for Human Rights.
The recent French law banning visible religious signs that display a student's religious affiliation in public schools has unleashed heated debates on wearing the Islamic headscarf/veil/hijab. Although this law does not apparently target the French Muslim community in particular and will affect other religious minorities such as the Jewish and Sikh communities, it is obvious that it will affect essentially Muslim girls wearing hijab.
The law supposedly aims to protect the French principle of laicité, which loosely refers to the idea that religion should be excluded from civil affairs and from public education. French officials and proponents of the law vehemently reject accusations that the measure discriminates against Muslim girls who wear headscarves. Some others, mainly French feminist groups, including some Muslim women’s organizations, point out that the veil/hijab symbolizes women’s oppression by patriarchal Muslim societies and groups, and denotes the interiorization of such oppressive values by Muslim women themselves, and therefore should be banned. Finally some more honest voices evoke the widespread fear of growing Islamic fundamentalism in France, where the Muslim population is estimated to be the largest in Western Europe with more than 5 million Muslim. They urge French authorities to counter attack and respond to supposed this threat.
For a critical mind, it does not take much to figure that the proposed law has nothing to do with defending laicité or limiting the role of religion in French life, or even with defending the rights of women and children. The ban is an attempt to avoid real problems that the Muslim community as well as other immigrant communities have in France. In fact the French official discourse is inconsistent, as it suffers from:
1. Deliberate vagueness and misuse of the concept of laicité;
2. A stereotypical and condescending view of the Other; and
Does the Islamic headscarf threaten the French Principle of laicité?
We are using the term "laicité", which means religious neutrality, instead of "secularism" that refers to rejection of religion. The prohibition of "ostentatious religious symbols" is justified by the majority of French officials and intellectuals in the name of universalism, the basis of French laicité. Another argument, which comes back quite often in the official French discourse, is protecting Muslim girls who do not wear the veil from the pressure they are subject to in schools from girls who do wear it. It is legitimate to ask some questions here:
a. Does the Islamic headscarf threaten the French principle of laicité?
b. Is in France the non-negotiable principle of laicité, as described by President Chirac, observed so firmly when other religions are involved? And
c. Do Muslim girls who wear the headscarf have enough power to exert pressure on their peers who do not wear it?
First, through the French history, laicité has been a principle of emancipation and freedom, never a principle of exclusion. It is rather paradoxical for French officials and feminists to consider those young girls who wear headscarves as "poor victims of patriarchal systems of thinking" and yet exclude them from the educational system and leave them behind facing "their oppressors". It is certain that the French principle of laicité refers, among others, to the necessity of upholding the separation of church and state in education. It requires the neutrality of the state, the public sector, public schools and the educational system in general. However, it does not require students and users of public services to be neutral themselves, and to renounce their identity in order to be able to access those services. Students should be able to practice their religions and their beliefs peacefully without state interference as long as they are doing so without provoking and intimidating others. The 1905 law of separation between the church and the state, as well as the French Constitution and the general regulations of the French national educational system, does not mention anything relating to "neutrality of students". All what is required from students, in addition to assiduity, is respect to others whether they were other students, teachers, or staff. Article 1 of the 1905 law states: "The Republic assures the right of conscience and guarantees the freedom of cult."
French historian René Rémond, who was a member of the Stasi commission2, points out the misuse of the concept of laicité. He says, “I read the law of separation [of state and church], I accept it as a whole, without being a fundamentalist of laicité. I see that article 1 says, and God knows that the first article is always important: "the French Republic guarantees the free practice of cults". This article captures the religious act in its collective and social dimension. It is not true that this law ignores the religious act (…) Not only it does not ignore it but also it commits to guarantee it… I am little surprised by the lecture you [referring to Joachim Salamero (la Libre Pensée)] make of it [the 1905 law], a lecture that is restricted, fundamentalist and extremist".
Moreover, the European Convention on Human Rights ratified by France in 1974 and that has become opposable to public authorities before the European Court of Human Rights in 1981, clearly states: "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance."
The argument that France must protect the public school, witch is a space of integration and where the citizens of tomorrow are being taught, by banning signs of difference and promoting instead what is universal and common, is for the least questionable. It reveals a certain fear of difference that should rather be, if well handled, a source of strength. De Saint Exupery once said: "your difference, my brother, far from scaring me, enriches me." It would be rather difficult for French officials to teach their children to live together in diversity if they think that expressing differences is dangerous for school and public space. And if they manage to cover religious differences, it would be impossible for them to erase more inherent differences such as the color of skin and gender differences.
Second, it seems that the principle of laicité is not set in stone and actually accommodates exceptions. In fact, defenders of the French banning law prefer to set aside the fact that a type of cultural particularism tends to dominate in the French society, where only those holidays of a Christian origin are implicitly recognized. Clergy in the eastern provinces of Alsace and Lorraine still receive government salaries. And despite the French government claim to be laic, it provides 80 percent of the budget for Catholic schools where two million study. In the past years, Jewish schools have also grown by 120 percent, whereas only one Muslim school exists in all France, which took eight years of negotiations with the government before it opened. This also means that Muslim private schools are not an option for Muslim girls who refuse to take off their headscarves. Their last resort would be to enroll in Catholic schools or to drop out, which many Muslim girls have already opted for.
Third, let us state the fact that of the two million female students in French schools, only 1500 wear headscarves to school. According to the government report, that was used to justify this law. This represents less than one percent of the 500,000 students from Muslim families. It is hard to believe that this small number of Muslim girls wearing headscarves threatens the French laicité. Moreover, being such a minority, these girls are unable to exert any kind of religious or moral pressure, such as the one described in the French official reports, over other Muslim girls who do not wear hijab. The opposite would be more likely to happen.
Muslim girls will be excluded from public schools, condemned to live in ghettos, and will become an easy target for radical groups. If the French government is sincere in its attempt to counter the raise of fundamental Islam, this is a curious way of doing so.
Behind the ban: Fear of difference and Speaking for the "Other":
In an article about the headscarf issue in France, Patrick Weil, one of the 20 members of a presidential commission that proposed the law in December said: "Whereas for a majority of women the headscarf is an expression of the domination of women by men … it can also be the articulation of a free belief; a means of protection against the pressure of males; an expression of identity and freedom against secular parents; a statement of opposition to Western and secular society. The state has no right to "adjudicate" between these meanings, or to interpret religious symbols tout court."
This is a wise statement from a person who rejects the accusations that the ban discriminates against Muslim girls. However, the same Patrick Weil flatly states in another setting with American journalists this time: "I am surprised that in America, where the fight for sexual equality has been fought so early on, no one says anything. This is frankly surprising. The veil carries a symbol of inequality and domination, right?"
Mr. Weil chooses the right tone for the right audience. Even worse, some proponents of the law go as far as to formulate their fear for a supposedly "threatened laicité" in words that are for the least racist: "We won’t let those people alter our traditions", "it is necessary to restrict the freedom of conscience", we should have "the lucidity of recognizing that those Muslims ("Allah’s crazy") reproduce like rats", "our Muslim guests must comply with the laws of the Republic".
The terms of the debate have subtly changed. We are no more talking about banning a piece of clothing from schools but a whole religion and a whole community from France. It is now about "we" and "our traditions" as opposed to "they" and "their practices". French Muslims are in the best-case scenario guests that must comply with their host’s rules.
In another statement, from a feminist point of view this time, "Elle" magazine printed an open letter to President Chirac signed by leading French feminists who called for an outright ban.
"The Islamic veil sends us all — Muslims and non-Muslims — back to a discrimination against women which is intolerable," said the letter.
(http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/11/international/europe/11CNDFRAN).
It is clear that minds were set to strip the Muslim community in France not only from their women’s headscarves but also from their identity and their right to speak for themselves. In fact, no body seems to remember that those women subject of the debate can express themselves and should be able to decide for themselves. Nobody cared to ask them what they think, because nobody really wants to know. These women are "oppressed", "victims of patriarchy", and women who say that they have chosen to wear a headscarf are "brainwashed". French feminists and officials know what is better for these "self-oppressed" women. This attitude brings back to memories the days of colonial France in Algeria, when the French generals had Algerian women unveiled by French women in a public event that took place on May 16, 1958 to show to the world that Algerian women are on their way to becoming modern. This event was one of many French attempts to appropriate Algerian women’s voices and to silence those among them who had begun to take revolutionaries women as role models by not abandoning the veil. This is, with small shift in appearances, the tone and stance of today’s French feminists and officials.
However, what French feminists and officials seem to ignore is what Franz Fanon rightly underlined when he narrated the may 16, 1958 event: the immediate response of many Algerian women "who had long since dropped the veil once again donned the hayek (veil), thus affirming that it was not true that woman liberated herself at the invitation of France and of General de Gaule." Marnia Lazreg, an Algerian sociologist, states that this incident "did lasting harm to Algerian women. It brought into limelight the politicization of women’s bodies and their symbolic appropriation by colonial authorities."
This is something to think about for those who condemn Islamist groups and governments for using women’s bodies to ideological ends. Moreover, the proponent of the ban, feminists and others, seem to forget what the veil means for women themselves. The Islamic veil is part of a complex system aimed at both sexes in order to manage the community’s sexual needs and social relations. It bears no demeaning implications for women; on the contrary, many Muslim women see veiling as an empowering practice that allows them to move freely through their professional and social life. So the veil symbolizes for many Muslim women not only a religious obligation but also a different way of being a woman.
But this is exactly what French feminists do not like: the physical image of difference. It is indeed clear that those feminists are not willing to listen to the plural voices of women and to learn from them. They have their own version of freedom and modernism, and anything that parts from it is a manifestation of oppression, patriarchy, and obscurantism. Secular liberal feminists’ unexpressed desire is that all people will be happy and well integrated once "they" abandon "their" practices of differences. In this process the principal party concerned, Muslim women, is forced to be voiceless and passive. Once again, they are denied the right to choose for themselves, and this time in the name of women’s rights.
It is time that French feminists and officials hold up their own practices to the same critical scrutiny they use to examine and to judge foreign cultures. For no matter what one thinks about the veil, forcing women to take it off is no better than forcing them to wear it, both ways are discriminatory and undemocratic.
The crisis of the French policy of integration:
"The headscarf today symbolizes a defeat for the French government, which has failed to integrate these minorities," says Francoise Gaspard, a sociologist at the Advanced Group of Social Studies in Paris, who opposes the veil ban.
The French banning law is in fact the tree that hides the forest. For years the situation in French ghettos has been explosive. Periodically there are violent youth rebellions. The denial of rights for immigrant workers and their exploitation has been until recently a prominent feature of French society. Immigrant workers, who are mainly North African, have played a key role in the French labor market ever since the Second World War. It took France 40 years to realize that those workers have families they left behind and to allow them to bring their families to France.
But even then France expected them to assimilate to its culture, while they were still subject to racist attitudes in hidden and open forms. The debate about laicité has pushed aside the real alarming social and economic problems, the increasing gap made of inequalities, poverty, discrimination, and racism all exacerbated by international political tensions.
However, in the minds of many French officials and intellectuals, racism and discrimination against French Muslim from immigrant origins is just "a dream." This state of mind is very well expressed in a book that has been of great influence to the Stassi Commission and to the public opinion in France, "Territoires Perdus de La Republique". Emmanuel Brenner, the editor of the book, flatly states: "If one was to assess the feeling of rejection, the North African population living in France suffers certainly the most among all other populations of foreign origins from this feeling. However, it is not rejection itself that matters, but most importantly acting upon this rejection. If some of our contemporaries nurture dreams of eradication [of North Africans], they usually do not go further. A police of dreams was never an objective of democracy." After quoting this passage, Alain Gresh, Chief Editor of Le monde Diplomatique wonders whether all forms of discrimination against North African immigrants from failing to find a decent job, decent housing, accessing school, to the police racist acts and use of unnecessary violence, are just dreams (should we say "nightmares"?) not daily realities. It is rather not surprising that radical Islam in its most violent forms flourishes in ghettos and feeds on feelings of frustration and anger generated by racism, discrimination, and marginalization.
The recent French law banning visible religious signs that display a student's religious affiliation in public schools has unleashed heated debates on wearing the Islamic headscarf/veil/hijab. Although this law does not apparently target the French Muslim community in particular and will affect other religious minorities such as the Jewish and Sikh communities, it is obvious that it will affect essentially Muslim girls wearing hijab.
The law supposedly aims to protect the French principle of laicité, which loosely refers to the idea that religion should be excluded from civil affairs and from public education. French officials and proponents of the law vehemently reject accusations that the measure discriminates against Muslim girls who wear headscarves. Some others, mainly French feminist groups, including some Muslim women’s organizations, point out that the veil/hijab symbolizes women’s oppression by patriarchal Muslim societies and groups, and denotes the interiorization of such oppressive values by Muslim women themselves, and therefore should be banned. Finally some more honest voices evoke the widespread fear of growing Islamic fundamentalism in France, where the Muslim population is estimated to be the largest in Western Europe with more than 5 million Muslim. They urge French authorities to counter attack and respond to supposed this threat.
For a critical mind, it does not take much to figure that the proposed law has nothing to do with defending laicité or limiting the role of religion in French life, or even with defending the rights of women and children. The ban is an attempt to avoid real problems that the Muslim community as well as other immigrant communities have in France. In fact the French official discourse is inconsistent, as it suffers from:
1. Deliberate vagueness and misuse of the concept of laicité;
2. A stereotypical and condescending view of the Other; and
Does the Islamic headscarf threaten the French Principle of laicité?
We are using the term "laicité", which means religious neutrality, instead of "secularism" that refers to rejection of religion. The prohibition of "ostentatious religious symbols" is justified by the majority of French officials and intellectuals in the name of universalism, the basis of French laicité. Another argument, which comes back quite often in the official French discourse, is protecting Muslim girls who do not wear the veil from the pressure they are subject to in schools from girls who do wear it. It is legitimate to ask some questions here:
a. Does the Islamic headscarf threaten the French principle of laicité?
b. Is in France the non-negotiable principle of laicité, as described by President Chirac, observed so firmly when other religions are involved? And
c. Do Muslim girls who wear the headscarf have enough power to exert pressure on their peers who do not wear it?
First, through the French history, laicité has been a principle of emancipation and freedom, never a principle of exclusion. It is rather paradoxical for French officials and feminists to consider those young girls who wear headscarves as "poor victims of patriarchal systems of thinking" and yet exclude them from the educational system and leave them behind facing "their oppressors". It is certain that the French principle of laicité refers, among others, to the necessity of upholding the separation of church and state in education. It requires the neutrality of the state, the public sector, public schools and the educational system in general. However, it does not require students and users of public services to be neutral themselves, and to renounce their identity in order to be able to access those services. Students should be able to practice their religions and their beliefs peacefully without state interference as long as they are doing so without provoking and intimidating others. The 1905 law of separation between the church and the state, as well as the French Constitution and the general regulations of the French national educational system, does not mention anything relating to "neutrality of students". All what is required from students, in addition to assiduity, is respect to others whether they were other students, teachers, or staff. Article 1 of the 1905 law states: "The Republic assures the right of conscience and guarantees the freedom of cult."
French historian René Rémond, who was a member of the Stasi commission2, points out the misuse of the concept of laicité. He says, “I read the law of separation [of state and church], I accept it as a whole, without being a fundamentalist of laicité. I see that article 1 says, and God knows that the first article is always important: "the French Republic guarantees the free practice of cults". This article captures the religious act in its collective and social dimension. It is not true that this law ignores the religious act (…) Not only it does not ignore it but also it commits to guarantee it… I am little surprised by the lecture you [referring to Joachim Salamero (la Libre Pensée)] make of it [the 1905 law], a lecture that is restricted, fundamentalist and extremist".
Moreover, the European Convention on Human Rights ratified by France in 1974 and that has become opposable to public authorities before the European Court of Human Rights in 1981, clearly states: "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance."
The argument that France must protect the public school, witch is a space of integration and where the citizens of tomorrow are being taught, by banning signs of difference and promoting instead what is universal and common, is for the least questionable. It reveals a certain fear of difference that should rather be, if well handled, a source of strength. De Saint Exupery once said: "your difference, my brother, far from scaring me, enriches me." It would be rather difficult for French officials to teach their children to live together in diversity if they think that expressing differences is dangerous for school and public space. And if they manage to cover religious differences, it would be impossible for them to erase more inherent differences such as the color of skin and gender differences.
Second, it seems that the principle of laicité is not set in stone and actually accommodates exceptions. In fact, defenders of the French banning law prefer to set aside the fact that a type of cultural particularism tends to dominate in the French society, where only those holidays of a Christian origin are implicitly recognized. Clergy in the eastern provinces of Alsace and Lorraine still receive government salaries. And despite the French government claim to be laic, it provides 80 percent of the budget for Catholic schools where two million study. In the past years, Jewish schools have also grown by 120 percent, whereas only one Muslim school exists in all France, which took eight years of negotiations with the government before it opened. This also means that Muslim private schools are not an option for Muslim girls who refuse to take off their headscarves. Their last resort would be to enroll in Catholic schools or to drop out, which many Muslim girls have already opted for.
Third, let us state the fact that of the two million female students in French schools, only 1500 wear headscarves to school. According to the government report, that was used to justify this law. This represents less than one percent of the 500,000 students from Muslim families. It is hard to believe that this small number of Muslim girls wearing headscarves threatens the French laicité. Moreover, being such a minority, these girls are unable to exert any kind of religious or moral pressure, such as the one described in the French official reports, over other Muslim girls who do not wear hijab. The opposite would be more likely to happen.
Muslim girls will be excluded from public schools, condemned to live in ghettos, and will become an easy target for radical groups. If the French government is sincere in its attempt to counter the raise of fundamental Islam, this is a curious way of doing so.
Behind the ban: Fear of difference and Speaking for the "Other":
In an article about the headscarf issue in France, Patrick Weil, one of the 20 members of a presidential commission that proposed the law in December said: "Whereas for a majority of women the headscarf is an expression of the domination of women by men … it can also be the articulation of a free belief; a means of protection against the pressure of males; an expression of identity and freedom against secular parents; a statement of opposition to Western and secular society. The state has no right to "adjudicate" between these meanings, or to interpret religious symbols tout court."
This is a wise statement from a person who rejects the accusations that the ban discriminates against Muslim girls. However, the same Patrick Weil flatly states in another setting with American journalists this time: "I am surprised that in America, where the fight for sexual equality has been fought so early on, no one says anything. This is frankly surprising. The veil carries a symbol of inequality and domination, right?"
Mr. Weil chooses the right tone for the right audience. Even worse, some proponents of the law go as far as to formulate their fear for a supposedly "threatened laicité" in words that are for the least racist: "We won’t let those people alter our traditions", "it is necessary to restrict the freedom of conscience", we should have "the lucidity of recognizing that those Muslims ("Allah’s crazy") reproduce like rats", "our Muslim guests must comply with the laws of the Republic".
The terms of the debate have subtly changed. We are no more talking about banning a piece of clothing from schools but a whole religion and a whole community from France. It is now about "we" and "our traditions" as opposed to "they" and "their practices". French Muslims are in the best-case scenario guests that must comply with their host’s rules.
In another statement, from a feminist point of view this time, "Elle" magazine printed an open letter to President Chirac signed by leading French feminists who called for an outright ban.
"The Islamic veil sends us all — Muslims and non-Muslims — back to a discrimination against women which is intolerable," said the letter.
(http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/11/international/europe/11CNDFRAN).
It is clear that minds were set to strip the Muslim community in France not only from their women’s headscarves but also from their identity and their right to speak for themselves. In fact, no body seems to remember that those women subject of the debate can express themselves and should be able to decide for themselves. Nobody cared to ask them what they think, because nobody really wants to know. These women are "oppressed", "victims of patriarchy", and women who say that they have chosen to wear a headscarf are "brainwashed". French feminists and officials know what is better for these "self-oppressed" women. This attitude brings back to memories the days of colonial France in Algeria, when the French generals had Algerian women unveiled by French women in a public event that took place on May 16, 1958 to show to the world that Algerian women are on their way to becoming modern. This event was one of many French attempts to appropriate Algerian women’s voices and to silence those among them who had begun to take revolutionaries women as role models by not abandoning the veil. This is, with small shift in appearances, the tone and stance of today’s French feminists and officials.
However, what French feminists and officials seem to ignore is what Franz Fanon rightly underlined when he narrated the may 16, 1958 event: the immediate response of many Algerian women "who had long since dropped the veil once again donned the hayek (veil), thus affirming that it was not true that woman liberated herself at the invitation of France and of General de Gaule." Marnia Lazreg, an Algerian sociologist, states that this incident "did lasting harm to Algerian women. It brought into limelight the politicization of women’s bodies and their symbolic appropriation by colonial authorities."
This is something to think about for those who condemn Islamist groups and governments for using women’s bodies to ideological ends. Moreover, the proponent of the ban, feminists and others, seem to forget what the veil means for women themselves. The Islamic veil is part of a complex system aimed at both sexes in order to manage the community’s sexual needs and social relations. It bears no demeaning implications for women; on the contrary, many Muslim women see veiling as an empowering practice that allows them to move freely through their professional and social life. So the veil symbolizes for many Muslim women not only a religious obligation but also a different way of being a woman.
But this is exactly what French feminists do not like: the physical image of difference. It is indeed clear that those feminists are not willing to listen to the plural voices of women and to learn from them. They have their own version of freedom and modernism, and anything that parts from it is a manifestation of oppression, patriarchy, and obscurantism. Secular liberal feminists’ unexpressed desire is that all people will be happy and well integrated once "they" abandon "their" practices of differences. In this process the principal party concerned, Muslim women, is forced to be voiceless and passive. Once again, they are denied the right to choose for themselves, and this time in the name of women’s rights.
It is time that French feminists and officials hold up their own practices to the same critical scrutiny they use to examine and to judge foreign cultures. For no matter what one thinks about the veil, forcing women to take it off is no better than forcing them to wear it, both ways are discriminatory and undemocratic.
The crisis of the French policy of integration:
"The headscarf today symbolizes a defeat for the French government, which has failed to integrate these minorities," says Francoise Gaspard, a sociologist at the Advanced Group of Social Studies in Paris, who opposes the veil ban.
The French banning law is in fact the tree that hides the forest. For years the situation in French ghettos has been explosive. Periodically there are violent youth rebellions. The denial of rights for immigrant workers and their exploitation has been until recently a prominent feature of French society. Immigrant workers, who are mainly North African, have played a key role in the French labor market ever since the Second World War. It took France 40 years to realize that those workers have families they left behind and to allow them to bring their families to France.
But even then France expected them to assimilate to its culture, while they were still subject to racist attitudes in hidden and open forms. The debate about laicité has pushed aside the real alarming social and economic problems, the increasing gap made of inequalities, poverty, discrimination, and racism all exacerbated by international political tensions.
However, in the minds of many French officials and intellectuals, racism and discrimination against French Muslim from immigrant origins is just "a dream." This state of mind is very well expressed in a book that has been of great influence to the Stassi Commission and to the public opinion in France, "Territoires Perdus de La Republique". Emmanuel Brenner, the editor of the book, flatly states: "If one was to assess the feeling of rejection, the North African population living in France suffers certainly the most among all other populations of foreign origins from this feeling. However, it is not rejection itself that matters, but most importantly acting upon this rejection. If some of our contemporaries nurture dreams of eradication [of North Africans], they usually do not go further. A police of dreams was never an objective of democracy." After quoting this passage, Alain Gresh, Chief Editor of Le monde Diplomatique wonders whether all forms of discrimination against North African immigrants from failing to find a decent job, decent housing, accessing school, to the police racist acts and use of unnecessary violence, are just dreams (should we say "nightmares"?) not daily realities. It is rather not surprising that radical Islam in its most violent forms flourishes in ghettos and feeds on feelings of frustration and anger generated by racism, discrimination, and marginalization.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)