Hamza Yusuf's Blog, page 3

War is Not the Way: Peace is the Path

The pursuit of peace is a most noble human endeavor. The Qur’an states, “Now if they incline towards peace, then incline to it, and place your trust in God, for God is the all-hearing, the all-knowing. And if they mean to deceive you, surely you can count on God” (8:61-62). This verse indicates that one should not avoid reconciliation out of fear that it may only be an enemy’s subterfuge. That is not our teaching. We are asked to seek peace and place our trust in God. Such is the preciousness of peace that its mere possibility, however remote, demands our most sincere and faithful efforts. The New Testament also reminds us, in words attributed to Jesus, peace be upon him, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the dependents of God.”

Shaykh Abdallah b. Bayyah is a peacemaker and has placed his trust in God. He believes that peace is not simply the starting point but the only point. War, should it arise, is a disruptive suspension of peace, one that all men of intelligence should seek to end by any means necessary. Shaykh Abdallah once said that the only blessing in war is that when it befalls men, they fervently hope for peace. As for those who claim that calling to peace is canceling out jihad, the converse is true, as Shaykh Abdallah cogently argues: Jihad is not war, and while it does have military applications, Muslims waging war on other Muslims is not one of them. That is called fitnah, something our Prophet, God’s peace and blessings upon him, shunned so much that he sought refuge from it. Shaykh Abdallah, a master of usul – the tools of ijtihad – and a man who profoundly understands the time we live in, is uniquely qualified to determine when the military application of jihad is valid and when it is not. Hence, his call for peace, far from cancelling out jihad, is itself an act of jihad.

The pre-Islamic Jahili Arabs knew war all too well, as they lived in societies rife with strife: blood vengeance was their way, and the cycles of violence, like a millstone grinding its grain, constantly ground the bones of their bodies. When Islam appeared as an oasis in the desolate desert where wars were far too common, and the Prophet Muhammad, God’s peace and blessings upon him, offered another path, the path of peace through submission, the Arabs saw a way out of their wanton violence that invariably left children without fathers and women without husbands. A new world order was born, and though not immune at times to violence, it was one in which learning, science, and commerce prevailed, not war, violence, and vengeance. These became the pursuits of men who went forth to form societies that became some of the most tolerant and peaceful in human history. But that was then: this is now a turbulent time for Muslims. Failed states, senseless violence, and teeming refugees now characterize large parts of the Muslim world.

Despite these troubles, some Muslims are still calling, like pre-modern physicians, for a bloodletting to cure the social body. But blood leads only to more blood, and the body, far from being healed, is further sapped and drained of its strength. Much like the pre-modern patient whose bloodletting often led to his demise, today’s victims of this militant bleeding are drowned in rubble, dazed and confused, wondering when it will all end.

Shaykh Abdallah is calling Muslims to end the madness and restore the way of the Prophet Muhammad, God’s peace and blessings upon him, the way of peace and prosperity. He is reminding us by using our own sources – the Qur’an, the Sunnah, and the prescriptions of our pious predecessors – that peace, not war, is the only way out. For those who would believe otherwise, let them contemplate the words our Prophet, God’s peace and blessings upon him, repeated throughout his life after each daily prayer: “O Allah, You are Peace, and from You is Peace, and to You returns Peace, so let us live, O our Lord, in Peace.”

Shaykh Zayed Al-Nahyan, the Father of the United Arab Emirates, was committed to peace and unity, and it is no surprise that his honorable sons, following in his illustrious footsteps, would be the ones to host and support this powerful initiative from Islam’s teaching by the great Mauritanian scholar, Shaykh Abdallah b. Bayyah. With war being waged on peace all around us, Shaykh Abdallah’s message is a simple cure: Wage war on war in order to have peace upon peace. For war is not the way: peace is the path. The path is peace.

Striking Necks: It Must Be the Kharijites!

To paraphrase an aphorism coined by a 20th century philosopher, those who fail to learn the lessons of history are condemned to repeat them until they learn them.

The earliest strain of extremism in Islamic history emerged in the late 7th century with the Kharijites, a sect that scholars have said will continue until the end of the Ummah’s time. In other words, as long as there are Muslims, the pathology of extreme sectarianism and anathematization of fellow Muslims will persist in segments of the community.

It is imperative that the Muslim community, especially the youth, be made aware of the dangers inherent in extremism. To do this, we must understand the mentality of extremist sectarianism, its etiology, and its outward signs and symptoms, which will help us to counter it when confronted by it. The most problematic aspect of the Kharijites and their ilk is that they are often cloaked in religiosity and may even exhibit intense devotional practices, especially prayer, Qur’an memorization, and its recitation. This display of puritanical piety often leads many Muslims to deem them rightly guided.

Below is a translation of a narration given by Imam al-Dhahabi, in his magisterial Biographies of Noble Notables(Siyar A’lam al-Nubala’), concerning Wahab b. Munabbih’s insights into the pathology of sectarianism and its degenerative effects if left unchecked.

Wahab b. Munabbih was a Yemeni scholar and transmitter of hadith. He is sometimes described in the biographical literature as a Jewish convert to Islam due to his vast knowledge of the Torah and Talmudic stories, but other scholars mention that he was actually of mixed descent, his father being a Persian aristocrat and his mother a Himyarite Yemeni, though not Jewish. In any case, he was born during the Caliph ‘Uthman’s reign, in year 34 after Hijrah. Wahab b. Munabbih was a student of several notable companions, including Ibn ‘Abbas and Jabir b. ‘Abd Allah, from whom he narrates one of the earliest hadith collections.

The vast majority of hadith scholars considered Wahab b. Munabbih a sound narrator: both imams al-Bukhari and Muslim narrate his transmissions. Imam al-Nasa’i, who has some of the strictest requisites for narrating hadith, considers him absolutely reliable. Ibn Hajar said that Wahab b. Munabbih was “trustworthy” (thiqah). Unfortunately of late, he has come under attack from some modern redactors of Islam because he narrated what are known as Isra’iliyat or Jewish stories, and they accuse him of introducing unsound Jewish traditions into Qur’anic exegesis (tafsir). These attacks are in spite of the Prophet’s permission to “Relate the stories of the people of the Bible, but neither assert nor negate their veracity.” (It is permitted to use our own sources to assert or negate them; scholars negate them if they clearly contradict our sources, especially those narrations that put prophets in a bad light, such as the story of Bathsheba and Uriah with David, or that of Noah and his daughters).

The following story illustrates the dangers of sectarian pathology in the social body of Islam and why it is imperative that scholars and advanced students of knowledge warn simple believers, especially those among the youth who may fall prey to such seductively simplistic yet ultimately destructive distortions of Islam.

Imam al-Dhahabi relates the following in his section on Wahab b. Munabbih in his work, Biographies of Noble Notables (Siyar A’lam al-Nubala’):

Dawud ibn Qays narrates the following story about Wahab b. Munabbih:

I had a friend who was called Abu Shamir Dhu Khawlan. I departed from Sana’a to visit him in his village. As I approached his village, I stumbled upon a letter addressed to Abu Shamir. Upon my arrival, I found him disconsolate and depressed. When I inquired as to why, he explained, “A postman from Sana’a came to deliver a letter from some friends I have there but confessed that he had lost it.”

“No worries, I found it!” I said.

He cried, “Praise be to Allah!” He then opened its seal and read it silently.

“Why don’t you read it to me?” I asked.

He replied, “I consider you a little too young.”

So I asked him, “What is in it?”

He said, “The striking of necks!”

I then said, “Maybe some people from among the Haruris [Kharijites] have written it.” 1

Nonplussed, he asked, “How did you know that?”

“Because my friends and I sit with Wahab b. Munabbih,” I replied, “and he always says to us, ‘Beware all of you young and inexperienced ones from these extremists: don’t you let them pull you into their deviant views. Indeed, they are an evil that has afflicted this Ummah.’”

At this point, Dhu Khawlan tossed the letter to me, and I read the following in it: “Peace be upon you. We praise Allah to you and counsel you to piety. Verily, the religion of Allah is discrimination and guidance. Surely this religion is obedience to Allah and disobedience to whoever disobeys the way of His Prophet, Allah’s peace and blessings upon him. When our letter arrives, ponder deeply, in sha Allah, whom you fulfill your zakat obligation through. By doing so, you will earn a close place with Allah and the protection of His allies” [i.e. the Kharijites].

I then said to him, “I prohibit you from associating with them.”

To this, he replied, “Tell me why I should follow your opinion and abandon one from those older than you.”

I then suggested to him, “How about if I take you for an audience with Wahab so that you can hear his counsel?”

He agreed, so we set out for Sana’a, and I took him to Wahab b. Munabbih. At that time, Mas’ud b. ‘Auf was the governor of Yemen appointed by ‘Urwah b. Muhammad. When we arrived, we found a group of people sitting with Wahab. One of them said, “Who is this elder with you?”

I said, “He has a problem that needs addressing.”

The group stood up, and Wahab said, “What is your need, Dhu Khawlan?” 2

On hearing his name [from one he had never met], he was rendered mute from fright. Wahab turned to me and said, “Speak on his behalf.”

I said, “He is a man of Qur’an and virtue, as far as I know, but Allah knows his inner state. He told me that some Kharijites had appealed to him and said that his poor-tax paid to the rulers was invalid because they do not distribute it to its rightful recipients. They said to him it was valid only if paid to them. Given that, I thought it appropriate to bring him to you, O Abu ‘Abd Allah Wahab b. Munabbih, knowing that your words would have more of a healing effect on him than mine.”

At this, Wahab said to Dhu Khawlan,

Is it your wont to become an extremist at this late age of yours, Dhu Khawlan? Do you want to testify that those better than you are astray? Tell me, what will you say to Allah tomorrow when He has you stand on the Day of Judgment with those you have condemned as disbelievers? Allah testifies to their belief, and yet you claim they are disbelievers! Allah declares they are guided, and yet you claim they are astray! Where will you end up if your opinion contradicts Allah’s decree and your testimony belies His testimony? Tell me, Dhu Khawlan, what are these extremists saying to you?

Now able to speak, Dhu Khawlan said to Wahab, “They demand that I give charity only to those who follow their opinion and that I should ask forgiveness for them alone.”

Wahab responded:

Yes, what you say is correct: this is their calamitous, deceitful sedition. As for their claim about charity, it reached me that the Prophet, Allah’s peace and blessings upon him, said that a woman from Yemen was punished for locking up a cat [and starving it to death].

Is a human being who is free of idolatry and worships Allah declaring His oneness closer to Allah or is that cat? Isn’t this person who worships Allah free of idolatry more worthy to be relieved of his hunger than that cat? Allah says, “They give food out of love of Allah to the destitute, the orphan, and the prisoner.” As for their saying that none should seek forgiveness for others except for those who are like him, are they better or the angels? About the angels, Allah says, “They ask forgiveness for whoever is in the earth.” By Allah, the angels are doing only what Allah commanded them to do, as He tells us, “They don’t do anything before they hear the word from Allah, and they do what they are told to do.” It has been made clear in the verse, “They ask forgiveness for those who believe.”

Dhu Khawlan, I saw the beginning of Islam. By Allah, this group of Kharijites and all others like them did not appear except that Allah scattered them due to the evil of their states. And none of them puts forward their opinions except that eventually Allah destroys him. Had Allah allowed their views to spread and flourish, corruption would fill the earth, and you would see no security on the roads or even for those on the Hajj, and this religion of Islam would become an ignorant and zealous affair (jahiliyyah). And then every group will declare their caliphate, each one fighting the other. Every group of ten thousand will fight all the others, each group accusing the others of disbelief, until the believer is afraid for his life, his religion, his blood, and his wealth and doesn’t know who to be with. Allah says, “Had not some protected others, the whole earth would be corrupt,” and “We will give victory to Our messengers and those who believe.” If they were true believers, they would be given victory, as Allah says, “Our soldiers will have victory.”

Dhu

Khawlan, does not Noah’s response to the idolaters of his time suffice you in responding to these extreme Muslims today? The idolaters challenged him about the believers following him, saying, “Should we believe like these lowly outcasts believe?” [Noah merely responded, “And what knowledge have I of what they did? Their reckoning is only with Allah, and I am not going to drive away the believers. I am but a plain warner.”] 3

Dhu Khawlan then said, “What do you tell me I should do?”

Wahab replied, “Give your zakat to those who Allah has put over us. Dominion is Allah’s alone. It is in His hand, and He gives it to whomever He pleases. If you give it to whoever is in charge, you are absolved of your obligation. If anything remains, give it to your next of kin, those in your employ, your neighbors, and your guests.”

At this point, Dhu Khawlan declared, “Bear witness all of you that I no longer follow the deviant opinions of the extremists!” 4

It is worth pondering the lesson of this story from the early years of Islamic history, given that history does indeed repeat itself, and once again we are faced with a strain of extremism first embodied by the Kharijites. Wahab b. Munabbih’s remarkable concluding statement should be a reminder to many modern Muslims, especially the extremists, who have lost sight of this truth: “Dominion is Allah’s alone. It is in His Hand, and He gives it to whomever He pleases.”

When Muslims prove themselves worthy of being caretakers of power through moral rectitude, Allah will restore once again our glory, but as long as we are in the inglorious condition that we find ourselves in, the destructive and corrupting danger of power is best kept from us. Many of the Prophets in the Qur’an were oppressed, but they were always exemplary in their response to oppression. Imam al-Ghazali, who witnessed the collapse of the Seljuk state and the advent of civil strife during that period after the assassination of Malikshah, knew that states collapse but that the righteous man, if purified and protected, does not collapse. Politics invariably fails us, but piety never fails us. “And whoever is pious, Allah will prepare for him a way out and provide for him from where he least expects.” Imam al-Ghazali then set out to record a roadmap for the traveller who lives in this world of instability and uncertainty. That roadmap is always available – in times of light and in times of darkness. It begins with knowledge and ends with death.

The Haruris were Kharijites from Harura’ near Kufa in Iraq. They are the very first innovators in Islamic tradition, and this was their base. When they opposed Imam ‘Ali, their headquarters was in Harura’, and so they came to be known as Haruriyyah. It is essentially synonymous with Kharijite or extremist. In a sound hadith, ‘A’ishah was asked why women have to make up fasting from menstruation but not prayers. She replied, “Are you a Haruriyyah?” It is interesting to note that upon merely hearing his cryptic phrase “the striking of necks,” Dawud b. Qays suspected that it was from the Kharijites.
Wahab knew the man’s name without previously knowing him or being told his name, which frightened the man leaving him unable to speak. This is known as kashf and can occur among the deeply righteous whereby they know something that is not possible for them to know by ordinary means. Usually the righteous hide this gift, but sometimes it is necessary for them to reveal it, as it can help their words to penetrate the heart of the one they are trying to guide. I have witnessed this many times with my own teachers, so it does not strike me as contrived, which is generally how orientalists, unfamiliar with this phenomenon, view such narrations. Kashf can also occur without the one at whose hands it occurs being aware of it, but the one hearing it will know clearly that Allah inspired that person. This is due to the veil that many of the righteous have concerning their own state with Allah.
Wahab knew this man was a man of Qur’an, so he quoted only the first part of the story. The verses are in the chapter entitled “The Poets.” The disbelievers challenged Noah, peace be upon him, concerning those who followed him, saying they were lowly and insignificant people, so why should they, in their stature, follow along with these lowly ones? Noah’s reply is what Wahab is telling this man to follow – that it is not our business to judge people who follow or claim to follow prophets. Allah will judge them. In judging them ourselves, we will end up driving away true believers, which is exactly what the Kharijites and their ilk among fanatical and sectarian Muslims do to other Muslims: they drive them out of Islam.
Siyar A’lam al-Nubala’, Volume 4, 554-557.

Falling Down – and Taking Innocents with You

How do we make sense of the murder of three American Muslims?

Sudden and brutal murders are always troubling but never so much as when they seem inherently mad and senseless. When a young man strides into a school and annihilates little children without even wild and cruel vengeance as a motive, we are all the more confounded by the meaninglessness of the crime: bewildered and numb, as believers, we are forced to confront a nihilistic abyss that greatly challenges our theodicies. For some it even jeopardizes or results in loss of their faith, and for still others simply confirms reasons for their lack of belief altogether. To add insult to injury, we are then subjected to the maddeningly predictable media framings of the tragedies with their asinine questions, such as “How do you feel?” and “Did you ever think this would happen?” posed to survivors of the victims who awkwardly attempt to answer them, often with shell-shocked faces.

The recent murders of three college students at Chapel Hill in North Carolina have an added poignancy for American Muslims, for it is an unusual instance here in the U.S., though all too common abroad, when the victims, not the perpetrators, are Muslim. Stunned by the tragedy, some Muslims have condemned this as “terrorism” aimed at Muslims. A few cooler heads, including Congressman Keith Ellison, Duke University’s Abdullah Antepli, and CAIR’s Nihad Awad, have acknowledged that it may very well be a hate crime but have cautioned people not to rush to judgment. This is good advice because those who want it labeled as “an act of terrorism” are falling into the same trap, making the same mistake the media invariably makes whenever the perpetrator happens to be Muslim.

While hatred of Islam, if not the main motive, appears to be a factor in this crime, the gunman was nevertheless an equal-opportunity hater. Craig Stephen Hicks had loathing and disdain for all theistic religions with equal passion as evidenced by his posts online. At the same time, oddly enough, he advocated for tolerance and even posted that people have a right to practice the religion of their choice, and, in a largely red state, at the risk of losing some friends, he expressed support for the LGBT community. So was this a hate crime precipitated by a disputation over a parking space, or were there other factors at work?

His ex-wife has said that he was obsessed with the 1993 film “Falling Down” and that he “watched it incessantly.” I have not seen the film but, according to the extensive Wikipedia entry, in it Michael Douglas plays an unemployed and divorced man who, in his own mind, is deeply “moral” and finds himself an alienated white man in the midst of modern urban America awash in immigrants, minorities, and a culture lacking “American virtue.” He has a mental breakdown on the highway of life, triggered by his car breaking down on a hot day. That begins his descent into a violent rampage. He soon meets everyday people, such as checkout cashiers with blank bovine stares that mirror the vacuity of their jobs. As the film progresses, he encounters some minorities and reacts violently to affronts both real and imagined. In one scene, he informs a neo-Nazi, who disgusts him with his foulness and racist attitudes, that unlike him, he is an American. The Douglas character threatens, maims, and kills with guns, knives, and baseball bats people who have vexed him in one way or another on his way to his daughter’s birthday before he has a tragic end of his own.

The late film critic Roger Ebert said, “What is fascinating about the Douglas character, as written and played, is the core of sadness in his soul. Yes, by the time we meet him, he has gone over the edge. But there is no exhilaration in his rampage, no release. He seems weary and confused, and in his actions he unconsciously follows scripts that he may have learned from the movies, or on the news, where other frustrated misfits vent their rage on innocent bystanders.”

This may very well be an accurate description of Hicks’ crime, in which he acts out, subconsciously or not, the Douglas character’s behavior through a scene of his own making. His victims were three decent, well-liked, successful, law-abiding Arab-Americans, with all the things apparently lacking in his own life: religious devotion, college degrees, friendliness, personability, and a positive outlook on life. In the case of Deah, unlike the antisocial Hicks with his grumpy-neighbor persona, friends and acquaintances described him as greeting everyone with hugs. Hicks, in my opinion, seems to be a violent version of Dostoevsky’s Underground Man, envious and seething with Nietzschean ressentiment, contemptuous of society, always on the verge of violence, waiting for a spark to set him on fire, perhaps even something as trivial as a parking dispute.

Some Muslims have seized the moral capital accrued by this event in which the victims were three bright young Muslims and started hashtags such as #MuslimLivesMatter. But tragic as this homicidal event is, it is not Ferguson, which was the tip of a 400-year-old iceberg of racial injustice in this country. The #BlackLivesMatter movement, which began in 2013 and gained momentum after Ferguson, is aimed at addressing a long history of police brutality, systemic racism, and the frighteningly high rates of murder among black youth. While the hashtag is appropriate given that the lives of Muslims do matter, as a community, we need to be more vigilant about bringing attention to other hate crimes in less fortunate communities, such as the one that resulted in the death of 15-year-old Abdisamad Sheikh-Hussein, a Somali boy who was brutally run over by a man driving an SUV with an anti-Muslim message in the back window. The victim was a devout Muslim boy who was memorizing the Qur’an and used to lead prayers for his community.

In Canada, young Somalis have been killed in alarming numbers for a nation with one of the lowest homicide rates in the world. Mustafa Mattan’s death is unknown to most, but he was a young man remembered for his acts of kindness, such as taking off his winter coat to give it to a homeless man. The day before the Chapel Hill murders, he was shot dead in his home. His death devastated his family. While no arrests have been made, some in the community believe it was a hate crime. His distraught family is struggling to raise $15,000 to cover his funeral expenses.

And while these deaths have occurred in the U.S. and Canada, we should also raise our voices to our government about wrongful drone strikes. For instance, just a few weeks ago, on January 26, a 13-year-old Yemeni boy, Mohammed Tuaiman, whose father and brother had been mistakenly killed by an American drone strike in 2011, was killed by another drone strike. What is particularly poignant about his death is that just months before he was interviewed by The Guardian; he told of the terror he felt living under the “death machines” that filled his sky on a regular basis. With the death of his father and 17 year-old-brother, he was left to tend a family of almost thirty people. He had said the drones made everyone there live in terror and that the children had frequent nightmares about them. Those of us privileged to live in relative comfort and security should remember, especially at times like these when our security is shaken, that others around the world live in constant terror due to misguided policies supported by our tax dollars.

Lives, whether Muslim or not – especially those of children – should matter everywhere. While this last case is emblematic of flawed policies in Muslim lands, those cases here at home are indicative of something deeper and harder to grasp in the soul of the American psyche: it is our fascination with violence. This culture of violence reflected so blatantly in our media and our popular entertainment is related to both the violence perpetrated here at home and that which is exercised abroad. While hate is a possible motive in these crimes and definitely was in the case of Abdisamad Sheikh-Hussein, mental illness exacerbated by unrelenting viewing of violent films and games or watching over and over again a movie like “Falling Down” may more likely be the culprit in many of the so-called “lone wolf” attacks, including the one in Chapel Hill. It can also be argued that the irrational hate that these people express is itself a mental-spiritual illness.

The second matter that I find troubling in relation to this incident is how the pervasive environment of anti-Muslim sentiment that has arisen in America is affecting all of us. It is the result of a highly orchestrated and well-funded campaign of hatred. The media glare has been unrelenting in showing predominantly negative images of Muslims for the last fifteen years. The constant rhetoric and relentless barrage in the media and the movies of how prone to violence the Muslims are fly in the face of vast evidence proving the opposite, albeit in stable societies. M. Steven Fish’s book, Are Muslims Distinctive? A Look at the Evidence, clearly demonstrates with rigorous social science that Muslim societies have considerably less violence than Western societies. Murder is a rare occurrence in places like Turkey, Malaysia, and Morocco, and almost unheard of in many traditional areas such as Senegal, Mauritania, and Gambia. But here in America, we have a highly violent culture where top-selling video games such as Grand Theft Auto and blockbuster movies like “American Sniper” both reflect and promote the murderous reality on the ground.

I wonder if Hicks had seen “American Sniper,” a film that Pulitzer Prize winning war correspondent,

author, and activist Chris Hedges says is an invitation to kill Muslims. I wonder what type of books, if any, Hicks read, what Internet sites he frequented, what movies besides “Falling Down” he watched, and what video games he played that may have contributed to setting him on a path that ended in a murderous rage last week in the home of innocent neighbors just starting their own paths.

After 9/11, the American people, by and large, displayed extraordinary and exemplary outreach to Muslims in America. Mosques were flooded with flowers. My own mosque received countless calls in the immediate aftermath, and for each expression of animosity, well nigh a hundred voiced sincere concerns as to the safety and wellbeing of Muslims in our community. However, as time has passed, a virulent and viciously hateful campaign has succeeded in defining Muslims to the greater public as extreme, violent, not to be trusted fifth columnists who need to be watched constantly by our intelligence community. Some, like the arsonist in Houston, have chosen to take the law into their own hands, given, from their perspective, the “pussyfooting” of government about the matter. On a daily basis, pundits and politicians express with impunity vitriolic statements about Muslims, and we can easily imagine the moral outrage that would ensue if the word “Muslims” were replaced with “Christians” or “Jews.” But the campaign has been profoundly successful, and a pervasive hatred towards all things Muslim has now infected many segments of American society. This is no doubt aided and abetted by the barrage of beheadings at the hands of those practicing perversions of Islam that are graphically highlighted on the news and social media. Never mind the fact that beheadings go on all the time just south of our borders at the hands of monsters empowered by the immense wealth that comes from our own country’s insatiable appetite for drugs. The brutally violent drug wars are a relatively minor story rarely highlighted in the news. Moreover, the Muslim children killed by drones in places such as Northern Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Yemen are never shown to the American public, but any perusal of mainstream Arab media let alone alternative Islamist media will result in a sickening feeling overcoming anyone with a heart who can stomach the graphic images of American collateral damage.

Muslims and others have every right to protest the embarrassingly evident double standards in the media. When a white male who had lost his wealth to the IRS and flew his plane into an IRS building leaving behind a political screed that countless “anti-tax patriots” could relate to, he was simply labeled a demented man. Even Bill Maher admitted that if his name were Muhammad it would have been labeled terrorism. But we must also question the double standards within our own community.

The danger in immediately labeling violent acts as terrorism is the politicizing of what often may be an act that resulted from mental illness, whether clothed in political rhetoric or not. In September 2014, 30-year-old Alton Nolen, an African American, was fired from his job at a food processing plant in Oklahoma; he immediately went home, grabbed a knife, went to the company’s office, and beheaded a white woman who worked there. Nolen was clearly mentally unstable, having a record of cocaine convictions, a prison sentence, and anger management issues. Yet that murder was presented in the media as an act of terrorism because Nolen was a convert to Islam. His violent crime was linked to his being Muslim even though local mosques had asked him to leave their premises due to his bizarre behavior.

Mental illness knows no boundaries, but America has an especially serious mental illness problem. As mentioned earlier, this wasteland of violent entertainment goes largely unaddressed, and that it is clearly contributing to mental illness or exacerbating already existing pathology is, in my estimation, undisputable. The philosopher, Karl Popper, the doyen of defenders of a free and open society, advocated in one of his last interviews the increasing need for censorship of the levels of violence on television and in films – video games were not yet on the radar during his time. This is the man who wrote The Open Society and Its Enemies. He stated,

Some years ago, I was asked by the Social Democratic Party in the House of Lords to give them a lecture on the problem. My thesis was that we are educating our children to violence by way of television and other such means. And I said that, very unfortunately, we do need censorship…. The rule of law demands non-violence, and if we forget about this then the law will have to interfere more in areas like publication and television. It is a very simple principle which is always the same: to maximize the freedom of each within the limits imposed by the freedom of others. But if we go on as we do now, we shall soon be living in a society where murder is our daily bread.

It is now projected that a school shooting will occur about every two months. In their important book, Stop Teaching Our Kids to Kill: A Call to Action Against TV, Movie & Video Game Violence, authors Lt. Col. Dave Grossman and Gloria DeGaetano show cogently that people who grow up watching violence in films, television, and video games become desensitized to real violence, and thresholds of graphic violence rise as people become accustomed to it. One would hope that like the Hays Code of the 1930s, which established self-imposed moral guidelines for motion picture producers, censorship today would be self-imposed based upon violence on the screen and its clear correlation to violent behavior in real life – despite the cries of statisticians to the contrary. One needs only to observe 10-year-old boys after they have just watched a kung fu movie kicking each other for the next hour to know the truth of this statement. Mirror neurons and the effects of violence on them are well known.

Muslims have increasingly been the targets of much violence across the world. In India, they’ve been targeted by Hindu fanatics, in Burma by Buddhist bigots, in Central Africa by Christian militias, and in Iraq and Afghanistan, they’ve suffered the consequences of an American invasion that led to countless deaths but numbered in the hundreds of thousands and clearly led to the rise of the insane conditions that have bred the worse forms of extremism. In the ongoing crisis in Palestine, they have borne the brunt of a decades-long occupation. When they choose to resist subjugation and state violence, they are labeled as terrorists as more violence against them ensues. Witness the killing of Muslims with impunity by Chris Kyle, the “American Sniper,” who repeatedly referred to the Muslims in Iraq as “savages” and boasted the highest number of kills without any guilt or remorse. This attitude of his I find particularly ironic considering that if the Iraqis had invaded America, he would have surely used his sniper skills to fight them tooth and nail. Yet, he, who was part of an invading army, seemed unaware that international law gives people the right to defend their lands from foreign invasion. But this simple principle seems to be lost on so many Americans who believe that when they invade a country people must welcome them with flowers because Americans always have good intentions and want only to help them, of course. Hence, if those invaded don’t welcome them, they must be terrorists.

Three young people with hopes, aspirations, and immense talents were mercilessly slaughtered by a deranged man who, according to his ex-wife, was not only obsessed with the film “Falling Down,” but more to the point, “had no compassion at all.” Hicks was a misfit in the midst of a divorce, stuck in junior college at the age of 46 trying to acquire skills to enable him to work for lawyers. Years of exposure to violence on the screen and in real life combined with failure, frustration, and the seductive pull of atheism – all of this exploded in a violent rampage targeting his American Muslim neighbors. His young victims were just beginning lives on the path to success, service, and gratitude to a country that provided them opportunities so desperately lacking in Palestine, Syria, and Jordan, their respective lands of origin. They met a darker America: the America that plays Grand Theft Auto, that mocks religion, and that lines up to see films like “American Sniper.”

Let us hope and pray that the tragic loss of these three innocent Muslims as well as other Muslim victims of violence, whether by drones, SUVs, or otherwise, can inspire us all to help this nation better understand what the world religion of Islam that comprises one fourth of humanity actually is and how it instills in countless Muslims, like the Chapel Hill victims, a desire to dedicate their lives to public service and charity. Let us also help this nation to address the current culture of media-generated animus towards our faith that increasingly erupts in scourges of ignorance and violence.

On the Passing of the Young Abdullah Abdullatif Alkadi* and a Postscript on Charlie Hebdo

*Abdullah Abdullatif Alkadi was the cousin of the noble scholar, Shaykh Abdullah Alkadi.

For several years, I was fortunate to spend Ramadan in Mecca and Medina and to celebrate Eid in Dammam and Al-Ahsa in eastern Saudia Arabia. I came to know that latter city and its notable families well, and they had grown so accustomed to my celebrating Eid with them that some joked that if I didn’t come for Eid, they would keep fasting thinking my absence must mean Ramadan had not ended yet.

I spent so many Eids in Dammam and Al-Ahsa because it meant I could be with the Islamic scholar and world-class city planner, Shaykh Abdullah Alkadi, whom I was introduced to about twenty years ago by a mutual Irish friend, Muhammad Abdal Bari. That introduction took place when Muhammad, whom I knew from my earliest days as a convert to Islam in Great Britain, had moved to Portland, Oregon, where Shaykh Abdullah Alkadi was completing his Ph.D. in city planning at Oregon State University. (Portland is a testimony to excellent city planning, and the university boasts one of the best programs in the world.) When Muhammad visited me in the Bay Area, he told me about an “amazing Saudi” whom he insisted I should meet. He also told Shaykh Abdullah about his American convert friend and said that he should meet me. Eventually, Shaykh Abdullah visited the Bay Area, and we met at the home of a Syrian friend, Basil Dayyani. We had a memorable Syrian breakfast among friends who all emanated love and respect for one another. I will always be grateful that Muhammad insisted that I meet Shaykh Abdullah: Our encounter was for me the beginning of a deeply spiritual love for a man whose character and comportment have affected me profoundly over the years.

Shaykh Abdullah hails from a noble family whose lineage traces back to ‘Aqil bin Abi Talib, a cousin of the Prophet, God’s peace and blessings upon him, and the brother of Sayyidina ‘Ali, the Prophet’s son-in-law as well as cousin. Shaykh Abdullah is a product of the school of the late Shaykh Ahmad Dughan, the Eastern sun of Arabia, who revived the traditional sciences in Al-Ahsa and had a lasting influence on the character of many of its residents. He was well over ninety years of age when he passed away last year, leaving behind three sons, each one a scholar. He also trained countless other scholars, including Shaykh Abdullah, who have spread all over the world.

Shaykh Abdullah had studied several sciences with Shaykh Ahmad Dughan, including Shafi’i jurisprudence. He mastered the science of inheritance laws under Shaykh Ahmad’s tutelage, as Shaykh Ahmad especially emphasized this subject because it is the first of the Shariah sciences to be lost according to a hadith. Shaykh Abdullah also memorized the Qur’an and studied Arabic, hadith, Qur’anic exegesis, Prophetic biography, and the other traditional sciences. Instead of assuming the life of a traditional scholar, he set out to master Western knowledge, as he felt too many traditional scholars were ignorant of the age in which they lived. He excelled in science and math and pursued higher studies in architecture and city planning, which led to his studies in Portland.

It speaks to his humility that most of his colleagues are unaware of his competence in the sacred sciences as well as his expertise in Prophetic biography, Qur’an, and Shafi’i jurisprudence. They know only of his Western education and think of him as a city planner and college administrator since he works at the University of Dammam. I was once with a Sudanese professor in West Africa, and upon hearing that he taught in Dammam, I asked if he knew Shaykh Abdullah Alkadi. When he replied that he did, I said his university was fortunate to have such a learned Muslim scholar. He shook his head in confusion and asked if we were referring to the same person, as he had no idea that in addition to his Western education, Shaykh Abdullah was a master of Islamic scholarship.

Over the years, Shaykh Abdullah has taught at Deen Intensives and other programs. His modesty, genuine humility, and impeccable prophetic character always made him a favorite teacher amongst the students. At closing sessions, when he made his final remarks and bid farewell, rarely a dry eye was left in the audience. We taught programs together in the U.S., Canada, Spain, Turkey, England, and, most memorably, in Medina and Mecca. In all the time I spent with him, I never once saw him lose his temper, speak unkindly, or mistreat anyone. He was always positive and made people love the religion simply because of the character he embodied.

An anecdote that reveals his endearing nature was related to me by Muhammad Abdal Bari, who first introduced me to Shaykh Abdullah: When he lived in Portland, Shaykh Abdullah led night prayers at a masjid during Ramadan, and after prayers, at around nine-thirty, he visited a nearby coffee shop with friends. He established a wonderful rapport with the young baristas there. One night, the prayer went on longer than usual, and afterward his friends noted that it was too late to make their usual stop, as the coffee shop would be closed. Shaykh Abdullah, however, decided to stop by anyway to see if the workers were still there. When the group arrived, they found that the employees had kept the shop open after closing time, waiting for Shaykh Abdullah, hoping he would come by as was his wont.

When I spent Ramadan with him in Mecca and Medina, I noticed that Shaykh Abdullah devoted his time entirely to Qur’anic recitation and completed the recitation of the Qur’an several times during the month. He explained that Ramadan was his opportunity to make up for any neglect he had toward the Book of God during the rest of the year. We also had many wondrous adventures meeting people who loved God and the Prophet, God’s peace and blessings upon him. We visited great scholars, most of who have now passed on, and read sacred texts with them to gain their blessing.

During this time, I came to know Shaykh Ahmad Jabir Jibran, a man very similar to Shaykh Abdullah in his piety and humility. In Al-Ahsa, Shaykh Abdullah and I were invited to many different homes. Each home was emblematic of the entire culture: hospitality, warmth, deep piety, and family informed every gathering. During those years, I came to know and love the entire community, especially the families that make up what are called in Arabia al-a’yan (the notables). These families have excelled in learning and contributed the most to society. They have long-standing kinship ties, and although they generally marry within the clan, it is not unusual for them to marry from other notable clans. I was always the immediate guest of the Al-Kadi clan, but the Al-Dughan clan also showed immense hospitality to me during my stays.

I also felt a special connection to the al-Mubarak clan. One of their notable scholars, Shaykh Ahmad al-Mubarak, had moved decades ago to the U.A.E. to serve as the religious head of their court system. He welcomed me to the Emirates when I was a young student, and he allowed me to sit with the many great scholars he hosted throughout the year. The Al-Mubarak clan is the largest remaining Maliki family in Saudi Arabia. Though the majority of the peninsula followed the Maliki school for centuries, the traditional four schools began to die off due to the spread of Ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab’s reform movement, and now a loosely affiliated form of Hanbalism permeates the peninsula.

Given my close relationship with the city and its families, I felt immense pain upon learning that one of their sons was recently murdered here in my home state of California. The murdered young man was the son of someone who had welcomed me in his home and the cousin of my dear and beloved friend, Shaykh Abdullah Alkadi. Usually when I call to speak with Shaykh Abdullah, his voice is filled with joy and enthusiasm, so when I called to offer my condolences and prayers for his cousin, I was even more grief-stricken to hear the sadness in his voice. He simply said, “Qaddara Allah ma sha’” (God enables what He wills).

Violence permeates our world. We read of suicide bombings, military sorties, murders, and mayhem on a daily basis. The recent massacre in Gaza left many of us sleepless, knowing that bombs paid for by U.S. tax dollars were dropping on innocent women and children. But when violence is personal, when it hits home, it strikes us in our hearts in ways disembodied violence never can. In his book, The Theory of Moral Sentiments, Adam Smith, the Scottish moralist, points out that when we read of great loss of life in a distant place, we are troubled, yet we carry on; however, if we find out that our little finger will be amputated tomorrow, we cannot sleep out of worry. Though he finds this paradoxical, he also sees redemption in that many a man would willingly lose his finger in order to save millions that he does not even know.

I would give my right hand to see my friend’s cousin restored to life, and it pains me greatly that his life was stolen while he was studying in my country as a guest from a place that showed me such immense generosity and hospitality. The deceased, Abdullah Abdullatif Alkadi (who happened to share a similar name as my close friend, Shaykh Abdullah Alkadi), was a 23-year-old who had just earned a degree in electrical engineering and was selling his car before returning to his family, when a depraved and greedy man decided to murder him and abscond with the car. So many Westerners view Muslims as violent, but I know that someone who grew up in Al-Ahsa, Saudi Arabia, would never have even heard of a murder in his town or have thought to take precautions against such

a possibility. In a relatively recent book, Are Muslims Distinctive?: A Look at the Evidence, M. Steven Fish, a social scientist and professor at U.C. Berkeley who studied Muslim societies to see, among other things, if they were more prone to violence than other societies, reported that the evidence clearly shows that murder rates are far lower in Muslim societies than in other societies.

Another aspect of this tragedy that impacted me was the young man’s tweets: they were mostly prayers for various people and words of advice. In an age when so many youth are tweeting inane comments, he was tweeting prayers for his family, friends, and others and sharing words of wisdom. In one of his tweets, he asked God not to deprive him of being reunited with his father.

[image error]May God shower him in His grace and grant him a martyr’s death. May God ease the pain of his family, the Alkadi family that I love so much: a humble, pious, and learned group of descendants of ‘Aqil bin Abi Talib Al-Qurayshi. I am sure the whole town of Al-Ahsa was devastated by the tragic news and undoubtedly spent the following days visiting the murdered young man’s family. Life there will eventually return to normal, as this tragedy becomes a memory, but for a time the people in Al-Ahsa will grieve collectively for their loss. Meanwhile, in America, the dehumanization of Arabs and Muslims is on the rise, fueled by many in the media who openly broadcast the notion that Muslim lives do not matter. Our military operations have killed hundreds of thousands of them and left many of their countries in total chaos. Yet our pundits focus only on the “violent and savage jihadi Muslims” and will never see the grace, hospitality, and beauty of a little town in eastern Arabia now grieving from the violence against one of their own. But God is generous and takes care of His own, sometimes with majesty, mystery, and pain: the 23-year-old Abdullah Alkadi’s prayer was answered; he was returned to his homeland and reunited with his father who, surrounded by mourning friends, family, and loved ones, buried his newly graduated son in the Prophet’s city, Medina, with ten thousand of the Prophet’s companions as his neighbors, on October 25th, 2014, after the dawn (fajr) prayer was offered. He will rest there until we all see the day of true retribution, reward, and restoration.

Some of Abdullah Alkadi’s Tweets (translated from his original Arabic):

O God, make me happy more than I have been in pain, and in more ease than I have been in difficulty, and don’t disappoint my hopes, for You suffice me and are a Beautiful Support.

6:38 PM – 14 Sep 2014 (his final tweet)

O Lord, whenever my dad and mom raise their hands to You, spread your treasures for them and make them happy and lengthen their lives – because I have no life without them.

5:19 PM – 23 Jul 2014

Be loving to your parents, supportive to your brother, a help to your sister, faithful to your friend, and beautiful to your neighbor – this life is perishing, and we are all journeying. 

3:47 AM – 7 Jun 2014

Postscript on Charlie Hebdo

An intriguing aspect of Muslim culture is that murders are rarely committed over wealth. While there may be theft in Muslim countries, theft that involves murder is almost unheard of. The idea of killing someone over something as ephemeral as a car or money or a cell phone is a rarity (except perhaps in war-torn countries where all civil society has broken down). Murder in Muslim societies tends to be motivated by political issues but more often by a misguided sense of honor. This was the case earlier this month in France, where clearly deluded and uneducated men from the ghettos of Paris, after rediscovering their faith, felt compelled to take their misperception of Islamic law into their own hands in order to “uphold the honor” of their prophet who, they believed, was being denigrated by the cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo. Without a doubt, such murders are criminal and wrong, but they can be rationally understood within the context of a society that holds the sanctity of prophets, those men of God, above all else.

In classical Muslim law, any willful and knowing denigration of a prophet is a capital offense. Blasphemy laws have always been the prerogative of the government, implemented only after trial and sentencing, and limited to Muslim lands where it was understood that this law was applicable. Historically, however, Muslim rulers were loathe to execute these laws without attempting to find excuses for the accused. In the case of the “Martyrs of Cordoba,” for example, when fanatical Christians, distraught at Christian conversion to Islam, attempted to revive Christian zeal by entering into mosques and denigrating the Prophet, the Muslim rulers, troubled by the deaths of their Christian subjects, used the ruling of insanity to exempt them from the offense. Such pre-modern laws, while also found in Christianity and Judaism, are no longer considered valid in the West due to a long and complicated process of secularization that has not occurred to the same degree or even in the same fashion in the Muslim world. Hence, many Muslims still feel strongly about the sanctity of all the prophets but specifically of the Prophet Muhammad, God’s peace and blessings upon him, and while the vast majority of Muslims would not think of killing anyone for doing so, they will not find it hard to understand why some would. The prophets, such as Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad, and their lives and what they stood for represent the Muslim world’s highest values.

What then, in the West, do we hold above all else? It seems wealth has now become the highest value, and murders are often attempts to take that away from another. People kill others to take their money, their cars, their cellphones, or their drugs. Some even engage in meaningless violence, simply going into a public place and killing innocent people, not for any misguided political sensibilities, nor for wealth, but simply because they feel an urge to do so (perhaps acting out Grand Theft Auto or some other pathologically violent video game in order to experience the thrill of the real deal). Undeniably, like the West, the Muslim world also has mentally disturbed people, but they don’t go into schools and kill little children for the thrill of it. In fact, the horrific assault last December on the school in Pakistan was done in classic Jahili retaliation for murders of their own youth. There was a method to that madness, as they did not indiscriminately kill anyone in sight but spared the young children and targeted only those who had passed the age of puberty, as they were considered adults. While it was a brutal assault, it had a type of misguided rationality that can be understood in the context of vengeful tribal cultures in a way that Western school shootings cannot, irrespective of their context.

While the “whole” world is mourning the cartoonists who made their livelihoods as equal opportunity denigrators, perceiving this as an attack on freedom of expression, there is an aspect of this that is disturbing. The West displayed no moral outrage over the countless lives of innocent and honorable people whose only crime was being at home when a drone, intentionally or not, bombed them out of existence. No one is shedding tears over the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, Afghans, Palestinians, and many others in the Muslim world who were killed due to Western misadventures in the region. The Brookings Institution has noted that for every drone strike that has occurred, ten or so civilians have died. More people, many of them civilians, have been killed by U.S. drone strikes than were killed on 9-11. Take a look at the Wikipedia page that lists the drone strikes on Pakistan alone since 2004; and keep in mind that drone strikes are also waged against people in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Algeria, Iran, Libya, and Somalia.

The murders of Charlie Hebdo’s staff were a crime; they were wrong, plain and simple. But lest we forget, the people at Charlie Hebdo knew exactly what they were doing. They acted much like Steve Irwin, the Australian crocodile hunter, who went around poking wild animals only to provoke a response from them. Eventually, he decided that the countless land and river animals were not enough and chose to dive into the vast ocean in search of sea creatures to provoke until a stingray, in apparent solidarity with its fellow land and sea creatures suffering at the hands of humans like Irwin, poked back and killed him. But, like the Charlie Hebdo staff, Irwin well knew the risks he was facing when provoking these wild animals and fell victim to the consequences. The editor ofCharlie Hebdo knew the game he was playing and enlisted a guard to protect his staff given the many death threats they had received. He was cognizant of the real dangers of provoking those he deemed open game and sport for the paper’s “satire.”

Today, much of the Western world expresses its moral outrage in solidarity over the murder of twelve people who knew the risks of provoking angry extremists yet argued, “These people want to

frighten us into respecting their religion; therefore we will not be frightened”; and so they continued to poke fun at that which Muslims hold most sacred. This was not done in the long-standing Western tradition of satire, which takes aim at the powerful to empower the powerless; these cartoonists engaged in mockery for the sake of mockery and had no higher purpose. They suffered the fate of a man who gratuitously calls another man’s mother a whore and is surprised when that man stabs him. Pope Francis said it well: If a close friend “says a swear word against my mother, then a punch awaits him,” he explained. “One cannot provoke; one cannot insult other people’s faith; one cannot make fun of faith.” This is a man who believes in “turning the other cheek,” yet true to his Argentinian roots, he displays classic Latin attitude toward the dishonoring of one’s mother. For Muslims, the Prophet reminded us, “None of you truly believes until I am more beloved to him than his own parents.” Hence, to slander our Prophet is a greater injury than an attack on our mothers. If the Pope will punch someone, even his close friend, should he insult his mother, then what are we to expect from uneducated and volatile street urchins with the same sense of honor?

Retaliatory murders for honor or otherwise are clearly wrong under Islamic law, or any other reasonable system of law, as they should be. But even the cofounder of Charlie Hebdo, Henri Roussel, blamed the editor for knowingly endangering the lives of his employees. “What made him feel the need to drag the team into overdoing it?” Roussel wrote in Nouvel Observateur. “He shouldn’t have done it, but Charb did it again a year later, in September 2012.” Roussel continued, “I believe that we [were] fools who took an unnecessary risk…. We think we are invulnerable. For years, decades even, it was a provocation, and then one day the provocation turns against us.” Addressing the slain editor, whom he referred to as a “blockhead,” Roussel said, “I really hold it against you.”

Just for a moment, let us imagine that this incident had been about twelve murdered black Nigerian cartoonists instead of white French ones: would world leaders have descended on Lagos to march lock-armed with President Goodluck Jonathan in solidarity? Can we imagine Netanyahu heading to the West Bank to hold hands with Abbas in solidarity for the dozens of Palestinian journalists who, in clear crimes against free speech, were targeted by Israeli forces for simply being witnesses to atrocities and reporting to the world about them? No, there will be no demonstrations or gathering of world leaders held for the untold numbers of innocent civilians, including women and children, who, without any provocation, have borne the brunt of bombings, drone strikes, and other nefarious means of modern warfare. It is at times like these when it seems as though we live in a cartoon world where millions are shedding tears or displaying moral outrage for twelve white people who, without denial, were brutally murdered, while too many of those same eyes remain blind and dry to the countless deaths and suffering of the world’s Muslims.

Tempest in a Teapot: Islamophobia Meets Homophobia

A group of the extremists among the Imamis consider the legal obligation [to believe] in the inviolability of their leaders. They consider that to even be consistent with their treatment of animals and their servants. They have gone to an extreme in such matters that they have removed the veil of modesty from their faces [...]

The post Tempest in a Teapot: Islamophobia Meets Homophobia appeared first on Sandala.

Tempest in a Teapot: Islamophobia Meets Homophobia

The English love their tea, and some also seem to relish tempests in their teapots. In America, we love our mountains, and we tend to make them out of molehills. Making a big hullabaloo over small matters is a common human affliction.

Recently, a storm has been brewing in one of the tearooms of Cambridge, and it involves someone I have known and respected for more than three decades. Dr. Tim Winter, who teaches theology at Cambridge University’s Wolfson College, has been accused of homophobia for making remarks about homosexuals that, according to some, warrant his expulsion from Cambridge’s prestigious faculty.

The offending remarks are from a Rihla (Muslim teaching program) in 1995 when Dr. Winter was answering questions from a group of Muslim students, and they surfaced now through a video clip that was posted online. Dr. Winter answered a student’s question regarding homosexuality with what would pass as a normal response in almost any mosque throughout the Muslim world, and is the belief held by hundreds of millions of Muslims worldwide. In essence, he said that homosexuality is an aberration and not consistent with the natural functions of the body.

The root of the problem here lies in not distinguishing between the same-sex attraction that many people, including obviously some Muslims, feel, and the actual act of sexual relations between two people of the same sex. As Dr. Winter explained in his answer, some people appear to be born with the tendency towards homosexuality, but “if they do not act upon this tendency, they are not sinning.” Unfortunately, that distinction is not commonly drawn, and this troublesome conflation—and the rarely understood nuanced difference in our religious tradition—is increasingly causing problems for Muslims. Too many of us alienate many good Muslims when we fail to make this distinction and simply demonize them.

Our scholars clearly made these distinctions in the books of Islamic jurisprudence and use the termma’bun to refer to someone with same-sex tendencies. Imam Dasuqi says that if such a person leads the prayer, his prayer is valid. In fact, the actual text he was commenting on addresses who can or cannot lead the prayer. Quoting Mukhtasir Khalil, Dasuqi writes, “It is discouraged [but not prohibited] for a eunuch (khasi) or homosexual (ma’bun) to be a regular prayer leader.” In his commentary on this, Dasuqi, who died in 1815, explains:

It is disliked [but still valid] for a ma’bun to be an assigned leader of the obligatory prayers as well as for communal supererogatory prayers, but not tarawih, or travelers’ prayers, or as someone who leads them on occasion. And the intended meaning of ma’bun is a male who is effeminate in his speech, similar to a woman’s speech, or someone who desires rectal intercourse but doesn’t practice it, or someone who has practiced it but since repented yet, nonetheless, has set tongues wagging.

In the wake of the storm that engulfed Dr. Winter, he has apologized, and his retraction and clarification should be taken at face value as genuine maturity and growth in understanding.

Unfortunately, some critics and many troll commentators have suggested that Dr. Winter is practicing “taqiyyah,” a word now entering the Western vocabulary as Islamophobes increasingly promote it to insinuate that Muslims represent a “fifth column” of subversive quislings hell-bent on putting every pig farmer in the West out of business and forever banishing pork rinds from convenience stores. But, as the above-mentioned quote of Imam al-Juwayni shows, while taqiyyah is practiced by a small minority of sectarian Muslims, it is not in any way part of the Sunni tradition that Dr. Winter adheres to, and it is not permissible for a Sunni Muslim unless that person is under immediate threat of death. It is certainly not morally acceptable to practice taqiyyah simply to save face with a verbally hostile public or to preserve one’s job. Islamophobes will naturally argue that I am practicing taqiyyah here, so you can’t really win with them. But if that was the case, morality would lose all meaning, and a man’s word would be of no significance, something incomprehensible to anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of the Prophet Muhammad’s character—he was called “al-Amin” (the trustworthy) because he was known never to break his word, ever.

Fascists demand always that there be only one way of thinking, living, or believing. But ours is a pluralistic world, and our grandmothers and grandfathers fought a great war to prevent fascists from having their way in it. In a free society, Dr. Winter is entitled to believe in his faith, and his faith prohibits and deems sinful the act of sexual relations between unmarried couples whether gay or straight (since some states have now legalized same-sex marriage). What he has retracted and apologized for is the manner in which he said what he did at the time. “I believe—and Allah is my witness—that I was right, in Sharia, and considering the maslaha [commonweal] of the Muslims, to dissociate myself from the lecture and to apologize,” he wrote recently.

And then he added: “The key point is this: mercy and understanding are better than recrimination.”

One critic argued that Dr. Winter’s characterization of his comments as “youthful enthusiasms” is unacceptable given he was in his mid-30s at the time. However, in the Arabic language, the word “youth” (shab) indicates a period of one’s life that lasts until the age of 40, and, while perhaps not in the case of that critic, most of us are full of folly before the age of 40 and too many of us well after that. As someone who has known Dr. Winter over the years, I can say that while he, like all of us, is capable of mistakes and, like the rest of us, carries the baggage of “youthful enthusiasms,” he has always been one of the youngest wise men I have ever known.

Whatever his opinions on any subject, he is never fanatical and never imperious in his approach. Moreover, the guidance that he would impart to fellow Muslims who share the same beliefs as he does would naturally differ from his lectures whereby he would be sensitive as a professional and acknowledge the diverse sensibilities of a post-modern student body with all the varieties that that entails. I am sure that those who have been fortunate to study with him at Cambridge, whether gay or straight, would concur.

Meanwhile, let us be aware that much more formidable storms are raging in the world. We should be far more occupied with putting out the fires of war and tending to the needs of the refugees of real tempests than trying to get someone fired for “youthful enthusiasms.”

One critic argued that Dr. Winter’s characterization of his comments as “youthful enthusiasms” is unacceptable given he was in his mid-30s at the time. However, in the Arabic language, the word “youth” (shab) indicates a period of one’s life that lasts until the age of 40, and, while perhaps not in the case of that critic, most of us are full of folly before the age of 40 and too many of us well after that. As someone who has known Dr. Winter over the years, I can say that while he, like all of us, is capable of mistakes and, like the rest of us, carries the baggage of “youthful enthusiasms,” he has always been one of the youngest wise men I have ever known. Whatever his opinions on any subject, he is never fanatical and never imperious in his approach. Moreover, the guidance that he would impart to fellow Muslims who share the same beliefs as he does would naturally differ from his lectures whereby he would be sensitive as a professional and acknowledge the diverse sensibilities of a post-modern student body with all the varieties that that entails. I am sure that those who have been fortunate to study with him at Cambridge, whether gay or straight, would concur. Meanwhile, let us be aware that much more formidable storms are raging in the world. We should be far more occupied with putting out the fires of war and tending to the needs of the refugees of real tempests than trying to get someone fired for “youthful enthusiasms.”

Whatever his opinions on any subject, he is never fanatical and never imperious in his approach. Moreover, the guidance that he would impart to fellow Muslims who share the same beliefs as he does would naturally differ from his lectures whereby he would be sensitive as a professional and acknowledge the diverse sensibilities of a post-modern student body with all the varieties that that entails. I am sure that those who have been fortunate to study with him at Cambridge, whether gay or straight, would concur. Meanwhile, let us be aware that much more formidable storms are raging in the world. We should be far more occupied with putting out the fires of war and tending to the needs of the refugees of real tempests than trying to get someone fired for “youthful enthusiasms.”

Sticks and Drones May Break Our Bones, but Fitna Really Hurts Us

What is apostasy, and how does it differ from simple error? When a Muslim suspects a fellow Muslim of apostasy, how should he or she act? Recently, certain Muslims have been attempting to “expose” me as a deviant Muslim by highlighting mistakes I have made in my talks that are on the Internet. Some of these attempts[2] have been so ridiculous that I will not waste time refuting them. Nevertheless, they raise some important issues that I want to address: What is a proper response to error? And what should a Muslim do when accused of apostasy? In this essay, I will explain how I fell into one error, and I will apologize for it. I will also review the larger issues of kufr, takfir, and fitna, and their interrelations.

An Error and a Retraction

The error I wish to clear up concerns a statement I made some years ago while commenting on Imam al-Tahawi’s creed. In dealing with the section on the “seal” of prophecy in that text, I brought up the false interpretation of that concept used by the false prophet, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. In retrospect, perhaps I should have refrained from providing a detailed explanation. Instead, I ventured into a thorny area, based upon my understanding of the key figures of the Ahmadiyya movement, and in doing so, I made some statements that I am obliged to retract.

My error was in differentiating between the status of the two groups – the Lahoris and the Qadianis – of the Ahmadiyya movement, and stating that the Lahoris are not outside the fold of Islam. My understanding of this issue came from people I trust, not to mention Al-Azhar University’s approval of Muhammad Ali’s[3] Religion of Islam as well as his insistence in the introduction to his Qur’an translation that he was a Muslim who accepted the finality of the Prophet Muhammad, God’s peace and blessings be upon him. Though I clearly stated that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was a false prophet and is considered outside the fold of Islam, as are his followers, and I warned people about reading Muhammad Ali’s books, I inappropriately commended his English translation of the Qur’an. I am certainly not the first Muslim to have done so, as some well-known scholars of the past have acknowledged the merit of Muhammad Ali’s translation, and some translators, including Yusuf Ali and Marmaduke Pickthall, not only relied heavily on it but also praised it. Regrettably, I was in error by doing so. Adherence to the sound principles of our Prophet, God’s peace and blessings be upon him, is our only salvation from error. According to a hadith, to praise deviants and innovators is to aid in the destruction of Islam. I seek refuge in God from that and ask forgiveness for anything done unwittingly to that disastrous end.

When the issue concerning the difference between the Lahoris and Qadianis was brought to my attention, I made several calls to scholars I know and trust, and received different opinions about the religious category under which the Lahoris fall. One prominent and well-known Pakistani scholar informed me that while there is a nuanced difference between the two groups, both, however, are equally anathematized in Pakistan. Another well-known American scholar of Islam informed me that he was under the same assumption as I based upon Al-Azhar’s certification of Muhammad Ali’s Religion of Islam. He stated that Al-Azhar would never certify an apostate’s work on Islam. Nevertheless, since that time, several fatwas and statements of various scholars I trust stating the contrary opinion have come to my attention and convinced me of my error.

Al-Azhar has ruled that both sects are outside of Islam, and I accept the ruling of the former rector and mufti, Shaykh Al-Azhar, Gad al-Haqq, may God have mercy on him. I am very cautious of takfir, but if a body as meticulous as Al-Azhar issues an official position about a group, we are obliged to concede to them. I have great respect for the balance and moderate tradition that Al-Azhar represents and know that they do not take takfir lightly. Hence, I defer such judgment to them, and retract my previous statement. As the saying goes, “The people of Mecca are more familiar with their mountain trails.”

For all these reasons, I request that my statements about the Lahoris be removed from the Internet, as I am not qualified to have an opinion about the matter and cannot make takfir of a group or individual on my own, as that is a judicial responsibility in Islam.

Why Does This Matter?

Many modern Muslims are probably unfamiliar with the great loss of life this particular fitna caused in the past. In 1953, Pakistan was shaken by protests aimed at removing the Qadiani minister, Zafar Allah Khan. The protests succeeded, but over ten thousand Pakistanis lost their lives in the process. I hope that the few Muslims who have seized upon my mistakes will refrain from reawakening a fitna that has had such frightful consequences in the past. A hadith says, “Fitna is asleep; may God curse the one who awakens it.” The use of fitna as a method for social disruption is increasing in our communities. Muslims must be more vigilant about those within and without us who wittingly or unwittingly cause strife and conflict, which increasingly is leading to loss of life and limb. The Internet has become the number one source and weapon for this phenomenon, which may herald the introduction of what the Prophet, God’s peace and blessings be upon him, referred to as “the age of fitna.”

In refutation to those accusing me of disbelief or questioning my faith, I would like to clarify something that is obvious to most people who know me: I am an orthodox Muslim. I follow the Maliki school of law; I believe in and accept the creeds of Imam al-Tahawi, Imam al-Ash’ari, and Imam al-Maturidi as all being valid understandings of the Divine in our faith and sources for sound dogmatic theology; and I am also a believer in the agreed-upon path of Imam al-Junaid and of those who are rightly-guided among the Sufis, such as Abu Talib al-Makki, Imam al-Qushayri, Imam al-Ghazali, Sidi Ahmad Zarruq, and countless others. I am not a Perennialist and never have been. I believe Islam abrogated previous dispensations, as asserted in the major creeds of Islam, but I do agree with Imam al-Ghazali’s position of the possibility of salvation outside of the faith of Islam and am not exclusivist in that manner. When I said, “I don’t believe in exclusivist religion” I was referring to that position and was not attributing Divine sanction after the advent of God’s final dispensation, Islam, to any other faith tradition.[4]

I sincerely thank those who defended my honor in the light of these attacks and made excuses for me, as that, according to the Prophet, God’s peace and blessings be upon him, is a hallmark of the believer, whereas seeking out mistakes is a quality attributed to hypocrisy. I was asked by several people to clarify this issue due to an apparent obsession that a few people seem to have with exposing my mistakes on the Internet, as opposed to writing to me privately and edifying me that I might correct them, especially at a time when Muslims are so disunited and fragmented. Their claims to have contacted me are bewildering, as I received nothing to that effect.

Our community is currently dealing with many grave matters: suicide bombings, sectarianism, civil wars, our great scholars of the past having their bodies dug up from their graves and desecrated, mentally challenged adolescent girls accused of blasphemy, embassies destroyed and ambassadors killed or under threat, … the list continues. As a result of the madness in our community, increasingly, for the first time since I became Muslim thirty-five years ago, I am hearing pleas such as, “Help my son – he has left Islam; help my daughter – she is having a crisis of faith.” I now receive letters and emails requesting that I talk to Muslim youth who no longer identify with our faith. Sadly, harsh-hearted haters among our community are driving people from the mosques and making the most beautiful teaching in the world appear ugly.

What Is Apostasy, and How Should We Respond to It?

A concerned brother from England, asking me to address the Lahori statement, pointed out that some brothers have declared me a kafir based upon the argument “one who does not make takfir of a kafir is also a kafir.” Their reasoning is this: Lahori Ahmadiyyas are kafirs; Hamza Yusuf did not call them kafirs; therefore, Hamza Yusuf is a kafir. To edify those seeking clarification on the issue of declaring Muslimskafirs, I have provided the explanation that follows.

The precept articulated is related to a precept known as “lazim al-madhhab madhhab,” which is not as simple as some would have it. Regarding apostasy, Sidi ‘Abd Allah Ould al-Hajj Ibrahim, the great usuli scholar, states: “Anyone who demeans the sanctity of God, His prophets, or His angels leaves Islam. The condition of intended apostasy when demeaning is a disregarded position.”

What

he means is that anyone who diminishes the exalted station of God or any of His prophets, angels, or symbols (such as by spitting on the Ka’ba or throwing a copy of the Qur’an into the trash) is an apostate, whether that person intended to leave Islam or not. There is an opinion that the intention of apostasy must precede the act in order for it to be considered apostasy, but that is a weak opinion.

Sidi ‘Abd Allah then says, “The scholars are harsh on a mufti who says that one is not a kafir who is akafir. Indeed, disbelief is feared for one doing so.”

“Disbelief is feared for one doing so” is the precept that the young man from England was referring to when he said, “one who does not make takfir of a kafir is also a kafir.” However, note how Sidi ‘Abd Allah articulates it. He refers to a “mufti” who does not deem as disbelief that which scholars have concluded is disbelief, whether in word or in deed. The scholars censure such a person severely, as a mufti’s implication that he accepts those proscribed words or deeds as permissible can lead to the disbelief of others.

Another aspect of this is contained in the related maxim, “What is implied or inheres in a statement is also a statement” (lazim al-qawl yu’addu qawlan). In other words, if a person does not declare to be kufrsomething that is considered kufr by a consensus of the scholars, then that disregard for the consensus of the scholars on that issue is, in effect, kufr. That is, if one does not deem kufr to be kufr, it follows that one accepts the kufr. However, implied in this principle is that one is pleased with the kufr or at least views it as acceptable for another person. In that case, the acceptance of the kufr is indeed kufr. In the case of grey areas, however, when possible, one should attempt to interpret the offending word or deed in such a way whereby implications of disbelief are overlooked.

To illustrate the nuances mentioned here, let us look at the problem of anthropomorphism. Someone who attributes to God qualities of His creation may not understand the inherent problems that such a position engenders. Some scholars declare such people outside of the faith, while others do not. Shaykh Abu al-Qasim al-Tawati says, quoting al-Takmil, “This is based upon the principle that ‘what is implied or inheres in a school is also a school’ (lazim al-madhhab madhhab). But this is a matter of difference among scholars.”

Shaykh al-Tawati continues, “Does the derived meaning of a statement function as the same statement or not? Many have been considered disbelievers based upon this, like the one who asserts rulings and attributes and yet denies them also – what innovation! [He is referring to the Mu’tazilites and others.] This includes also the Anthropomorphists. It follows that what they worship is other than what Muslims worship.”

His argument is that to attribute to God literally those things that are attributes of His creation, is, in essence, idolatry. That is because those who do so, while not worshiping anything physical, have conceptualized in their object of worship qualities that imply physicality, such as limbs and direction. Hence, some scholars have deemed them idolaters given that their literalism declares a deity who exists in space, is physically located on something, etc., all of which delimits the limitless true God of Islam.

On the other hand, a more lenient scholarly opinion holds that while such an understanding of God is erroneous, it does not render such people idolaters because they are merely asserting what God states in the Qur’an but are mistaking it as literal, failing to understand that such an interpretation results in profound theological problems. In his commentary on Ibn ‘Ashir’s poem, Ibn Hamdun says about this strain of Hanbali Anthropomorophists (Mujassimah), “Their faith (iman) is accepted only if their intellects cannot grasp the subtle distinction [between their conceptualization and its attendant problems].”

Hence, in a desire to avoid takfir, some scholars have rejected the principle, “What can be deduced from a statement is also a statement” (Lazim al-qawl yu’addu qawlan), given that it does not account for the person’s intention or heedlessness to the implications of their words or subsequent conceptualizations. This is a more merciful approach and one taken by the greatest scholars of Islam.

Sidi ‘Abd Allah then states, “[Charging] apostasy should be avoided if another interpretation can be found [to the act or statement].” This approach invokes the virtue of mercy, of being generous and charitable, if there is doubt in how we may be interpreting someone’s words or deeds, or if there is doubt regarding that person’s intention.

Shaykh al-Tawati comments, “If a statement implies disbelief or something else, one should not deem it apostasy but rather use an alternate interpretation, if it bears that, in order to prevent bloodshed.”

Sidi ‘Abd Allah then quotes a statement attributed to Imam Abu Hanifah: “To deem a thousand disbelievers Muslim is safer with God than to deem one Muslim a disbeliever.” Quoting Waking up the Sleeper (Iqadh al-wasnan), Shaykh al-Tawati states,

It was said to Malik, “Are the heretics (ahlu al-ahwa) apostates?”

He replied, “On the contrary: their heresies were an attempt to flee from disbelief.”

For example, in the case of the Anthropomorphists, they took their position of literalness out of fear of denying the Book of God or God’s attributes. Hence, they were indeed attempting to flee from disbelief, not fall into it.

In the same book, Taqi al-Din al-Subki was once asked if one should declare extreme innovators disbelievers (takfir ghulat al-mubtadi’ah), to which he replied:

Absolutely not! Know this, questioner! Anyone who fears God, the Exalted, will deem it an enormity to accuse someone who says, “La ilaha illa Allah, Muhammad rasulullah” of being a disbeliever. Indeed, this is an affair most grave and dangerous, because the one who calls another [Muslim] a kafir is really saying, “I know he will be forever in the hellfire; his blood and wealth are permitted in this world [apostasy was a capital offense according to most pre-modern scholars in the three Abrahamic religions];[5] he cannot be married to a Muslim woman [his marriage would be nullified]; and the rules of Islam do not apply to him, either in his life or after death.” Indeed, to mistake a thousand disbelievers [as believers] is better than to make a mistake that causes blood to flow from a Muslim. And a hadith states, “That a ruler should mistakenly forgive a criminal is dearer to God than that he should punish an innocent man.” So takfir should be reserved for one who clearly falls into apostasy, states it openly, chooses it as his din, rejects the testimony of faith, and leaves the religion of Islam altogether.

Conclusion: Sectarianism and Fitna

Some modern Muslims have become so sectarian that they are “quick on the [apostasy] draw,” ready to gun down anyone who disagrees with them – at times not just figuratively. Due to this misuse of learning, many Muslims have lost faith in the scholastic community, dismayed by the pettiness with which some half-baked imams and mullahs too often use their “knowledge.” As Allama Muhammad Iqbal so cogently and eloquently stated, “Neem hakim khatra-e jaan; neem mullah khatra-e iman.”[6] And, in the wise words of Shaykh Abdallah bin Bayyah, referring to these same “scholars”: “Ta’rifuna ma qala rabbukum, wa la ta’rifuna lima qala rabbukum.”[7]

The seriousness that our earlier scholars applied to this issue is clear. Imam al-Ghazali begins his opus,Revival of the Religious Sciences (Ihya ‘ulum al-din), with a powerful indictment of the scholastic community whom he refers to as “formalists,” people who have become so trapped in the trappings of religion that they have forgotten its true essence. Echoing the Qur’an, Imam al-Ghazali pointed out that most people follow what they were born into and taught by their parents and elders. Moreover, it is the originators of false creeds and ideologies who are the real transgressors, not the unfortunate people who have unknowingly imbibed false teachings from early childhood, which makes discovery of truth much harder for them. These same people, after years of indoctrination, in turn indoctrinate their own children, unwittingly perpetuating the cycles of falsehood that the Qur’an came to end. God says, “Oppose theleaders of disbelief” (9:12), given that they are the ones who disseminate error and thus mislead the trusting masses. But as for their misguided followers, we should have compassion for them and help them see the truth. That is only achieved through mercy.

It is not in my nature to hate people. I actually desire good for all people, including Hindus, Jews, Buddhists, Christians, Atheists, Agnostics, and certainly my brother and sister Muslims. I would hope to see humanity guided as opposed to misguided. The Prophet, God’s peace and blessings be upon him, said, “That a person should be guided at your hand is better than the world and what the sun sets upon.”

The Qur’an says to the Prophet

Muhammad, God’s peace and blessings be upon him, “It is a mercy from your Lord that you are so gentle toward them. If you had been harsh and hard-hearted, people would have fled from your presence” (3:159). It is indeed the harshness and obstinacy of some overly zealous Muslims today, combined with the absence of mercy in their hearts, which is driving people out of Islam and deterring others from considering or even respecting it. They are conducting themselves based upon some misguided adherence to their understanding of Islam. They are uncertain in themselves, and so they feel threatened by anyone who might differ with them; through fanaticism, they attempt to protect themselves from doubt but result in only obscuring their view. Fanatics are blinded by the light of God as opposed to guided by it. The Prophet, God’s peace and blessings be upon him, warned of these people when he said, “Perish they who go to extremes.” We should try our utmost not to be one of them.

Ibn Qayyim said, “Forgiveness is more beloved to God than vengeance; mercy is more beloved to Him than punishment; acceptance is more beloved to Him than wrath; and grace is more beloved to Him than justice.”

I sincerely thank those many people who defended my honor as well as those who, with courtesy, brought this mistake to my attention that I might redress it. The Prophet, God’s peace and blessings be upon him, said, “All of you make mistakes, and the best of those who do so are those who repent from them.” Thank you for pointing out my mistakes that I might repent from and correct them. I am deeply sorry for any confusion they may have indirectly caused by allowing those who seized upon them to awaken a sleeping fitna.

When a woman chastised the caliph Omar for his claim that dowries should have limits, Omar, may God be pleased with him, said, “All of you are more learned than Omar” (Kullukum afqahu min ‘Umar).[8]

[1] Fitna (Arabic: fitnah): “Sedition, dissention, discord.” The word’s root is related to “enticement,” “allure,” “intrigue,” and “temptation.” Fattan means “fascinating,” “captivating,” “enchanting”; “tempter,” “seducer”; “denunciator,” “informer,” “slanderer” (Hans Wehr Arabic-English Dictionary). The close relationship of these words indicates that fitna can be seductive and enticing to some. When fitna broke out, the Salaf would often quote these lines of poetry: “War, when it first appears, is as a beautiful woman to every young ignoramus.” Under normal circumstances, such people do little or nothing but when exposed to a fitna suddenly become filled with zeal and actively engaged in “righteously” setting something right, often under the guise of duty and loyalty to the faith. This enticement is something from which we must guard our hearts.

[2] For example, I gave a talk to a group of Christian theologians, ministers, and students about the ill effects of usury, in which I argued that Christians had abandoned their prohibition of usury that had lasted for almost two thousand years. I used Dante Alighieri’s Inferno as a frame for the discussion. During the talk, I pointed out that Dante viewed the Prophet, God’s peace and blessings be upon him, as a schismatic Christian as opposed to a false prophet, as I wanted them to reflect on Dante’s subtle acknowledgement of the doctrine of Islam, as argued by the Catholic priest and scholar, Miguel Asin Palacios. Hence I told them that I wanted to “defend Dante a little bit.” These Muslims seized upon my use of the word “defend,” by which I meant, “explain,” which is a synonym of “defend.” On this basis, they argued that I “defended” Dante for insulting the Prophet, God’s peace and blessings be upon him – a claim so patently false and unfair, not to mention absurd, that I won’t even entertain refuting it.

[3] Muhammad Ali (1874–1951) was the most prolific student of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and split with the Qadianis in 1914 over the issues of the succession and the claim to prophecy of Ghulam Ahmad, which Muhammad Ali argued was an addition by his son Bashiruddin and not part of the original teachings of Ghulam Ahmad. Muhammad Ali is considered the founder of the Lahori branch of the Ahmadiyyas.

[4] For a more detailed explanation of Imam al-Ghazali’s view on what makes a person a disbeliever, see my article in Seasons Journal, “Who are the Disbelievers?” Also, my article “Generous Tolerance in Islam and Its Effects on the Life of a Muslim” explains the noble character Muslims should have. Both articles can be found here: http://sandala.org/multimedia/articles/

[5] Punishment in this world for apostasy is not mentioned in the Qur’an; however, some sound hadiths indicate that it is a capital offense. These are not absolutely certain (mutawatir) traditions, and some scholars, such as al-Nakhi’ and others, argued against it. Imam Abu Hanifah’s school does not mandate capital punishment for a female apostate due to the mutawatir tradition prohibiting killing women or children, which he saw as limiting the singular hadiths enjoining capital punishment on apostates. Today, it could be strongly argued that the aim (maqsad) of considering apostasy a capital offense, which was to protect the faith, is lost in application, given that modern people suffer a crisis of faith due to such applications.

[6] A half-baked doctor is a danger to the body; but a half-baked religious scholar is dangerous to the soul (lit. faith).

[7] You know what your Lord says, but you do not know why He said it.

[8] According to one narration, Omar, may God be pleased with him, says, “The woman is more learned than Omar,” but in another he states that everyone is more learned.

The UAE: Where Murder Still Means Something

There’s a special providence in the fall of a sparrow. If it be now, ‘tis not to come; if it be not to come, it will be now; if it be not now, yet it will come: the readiness is all: since no man has aught of what he leaves, what is’t to leave betimes? [...]

The post The UAE: Where Murder Still Means Something appeared first on Sandala.

Biography of Sidi Fudul al-Huwari

One of the great traditions of Islam is what is referred to as “tabaqat” literature. It is essentially biographical material that highlights the lives and qualities of the great sages, scholars, ascetics, and saints of Islam. The earliest biographical literature, such as Ibn S’ad’s Tabaqat, pertains to the lives of the Prophet’s Companions. The benefit [...]

The post Biography of Sidi Fudul al-Huwari appeared first on Sandala.

Don’t Let Wikipedia Become Wickedmedia

Islam is rooted in the idea that knowledge is the most potent force on earth. The more one knows, the closer one gets to the One who knows all. The Prophet, peace and blessings of God be upon him, loved knowledge, and it is the only prayer the Qur’an commands him to supplicate: “Say: O [...]

The post Don’t Let Wikipedia Become Wickedmedia appeared first on Sandala.