under|progress

Why cultural Islam is important

The Raddical Middle Way announces that Dr Umar Faruq Abd-Allah will be touring the United Kingdom. Dr. Abd-Allah is Chairman of the Board and Scholar-in-Residence at the Nawawi Foundation.

The event that I will try to get to will be "Cultural Jihad - Making Islam Matter" to be held in The Brunei Gallery at SOAS on 17th November (7 - 9.30pm):

"For Muslims living in the West the future lies not in the tinkering of theology but in the production of culture. But how is this process of cultural relevancy to take place? Is it taking place? What are its discernible forms? What are the challenges that need to be surmounted before a genuine cultural expression takes root? And what and who is to define what is ‘genuine’? To what extent is cultural output in Islamic civilisation a utilitarian exercise? In the global village of specialised economies and shared global tastes where does the process of being consumers stop and that of being producers of culture begin? What needs to be done to convert Western society to associate Islam with the beauty of the Taj Mahal and the Majesty of the Dome of the Rock rather than with the blasted Twin Towers of New York or the shattered Buddhist statues in Afghanistan? Can we develop an agenda of cultural do’s that would harness the energy of our young people – to teach them that singing, creating, beautifying and being joyous are all part of the Islamic agenda?"

This is a very crucial point, which I am always banging on about: the lack of any real engagement with wider society outside the confines of politics and rights. These have their place, but is that all one can define 'Islam' (in its broader sense) by? It's probably the reason why John Humphrys, in his search for faith, asked Rowan Williams about God, spirituality and philosophy, but asked Tariq Ramadan about politics and law. I am glad to see someone of repute like Dr. Abd-Allah, is keen to address this issue.

Muslims as political footballs

(This post has been updated and revamped.)

Personally, as I've made clear in the past, I don't weigh in on the 'what Muslim women must wear' issue, partly because I'm not female, but mostly because there are already enough men (Muslim or otherwise) telling Muslim women what and what not to wear, whether they're French or German or Iranian or Saudi. I am sure Muslim women are intelligent enough to come to a conclusion that fits with their conscience. Although it appears freedom of expression and conscience, trumpeted by Champions of Freedom and Liberty, goes out of the window when it comes to a Muslim, especially a Muslim woman, exercising it.

Is Jack Straw specifically targetting Muslims? Yes, and no. He wants a "debate" and that's fine. Muslims should not develop shrill voices should such concerns be raised. Instead, we should take the spirit of 'inviting them in the best ways' (something I also need to take on board) in responding. Straw could, however, begin by asking his friends who run Blackburn's mosques to let women into the 'public sphere' where Muslims debate issues. Instead, he's taken the easy route, with one eye on a potential deputy leadership position post-Blair (something he's obviously dismissed), and picked on a minority within a minority. What better way to show the country that he's going against the (perceived) grain, and showing off his political machismo, by telling a few Muslim women (since the percentage of Muslim women veiling is probably small) what they should wear. It's generally risk free, and gets him a few plus points for being 'tough in defending British values' from certain sections in the press. In this respect, he isn't specifically targetting Muslims, but merely continuing the long, dubious, tradition of picking on some kind of 'folk demon' of the day. Single mothers, immigrants, gypsies and teenagers have all been used in a similar manner by various politicians over the years.

If he wanted a fair(er) debate, he should also have pointed out the unfair and discriminatory attitudes that people have towards Muslim women, whether or not they wear the niqab, which checks their progress in wider society. In this he would have at least been seen to balance his concerns with the niqab; and there is nothing to say he can't have such concerns or, indeed, express them openly. What's more, he should clearly come out and say that in the interests of the debate, people who disagree with him be given the chance to express their views without being silenced under the threat of being labelled extremists, fanatics, etc. What's also worth noting is how far does a politician talking about religious practices violate the separation of church and state? Of course, we do not have a complete separation of the two.

And the BBC reports that a Muslim woman had her veil snatched from her while standing at a bus stop in Liverpool, by a man shouting racist abuse. Nothing to say its related to Straw's comments, but maybe the man was distressed by the veil and took pre-emptive action?

Let's hope and pray our friends from al-Muhajiroun al-Ghuraaba The Saviour Sect Brothers Against Car Insurance do not turn up and do something completely stupid (heckling extremists like Comrade Reid is alright with me though).

Open Letter to Local Authorities across Britain

It is only early October, but as the leaves begin to fall and the weather turns cooler, the country is slowly turning its head towards Christmas. Companies are sending out their Christmas invites to employees. Supermarkets and high street shops are preparing themselves for bumper sales. People are planning Christmas trips away to New York, the Carribbean and Australia. And, somewhere, in some council, some members of a local authority will look at a planned nativity or some overt display of Christianity at a school, hospital or some other part of the public sphere, deem it offensive to minorities, and rule it be banned.

The real irony of such displays of 'sensitivity' is that they are a form of unthinking racism; a patronising attempt to 'read' the 'mind of the minority' and deem what they might find 'offensive'. Such steps merely hand ammunition to the real bigots and racists who mysteriously find their lost Christian roots at this time of year, and wish to reinforce the myth of Britain being 'swamped' by 'outsiders'.

In fact, anecdotal evidence would suggest that minorities, especially religious minorities (i.e. Muslims), support such displays of Christianity (however nominal) and do not, in anyway, find nativity plays and the like "offensive" (I point out Muslims because they're the most likely target of such stories, since Jews get a free pass, Hindus are usually more worried about stamps, and no one knows what Sikhs think.) Certainly, I can see lots of more observant and conservative Muslims nodding their heads in agreement with Rowan Williams' comments that he made last year, on promoting a more Christian Christmas:

"The truth is [other religious people will] usually [be] much happier with the idea of a Christian festival than with some general excuse to have a good time in midwinter."

So, I ask these local authorities who run councils, schools and hospitals not to violate the humanity of people who are considered 'minorities' and put words in their mouths by assuming they'll find something 'offensive'. I ask them to stop providing ammunution to bigots. I ask them to consider the traditions of this country. Putting up lights, trees and singing carols is not offensive and should not be considered so. Specifically, as a Muslim, I ask them to consider that in Muslim India, the nativity appeared in a Muslimised format, and that there is no major theological disagreement between Islamic and Christian narratives on the birth of Jesus (peace be upon him) (or none that I am aware of). I'd be happy to be considered a part of any Christmas which thinks more about the spirit of goodness and humanity, and is more about helping the poor, sheltering the homeless, defending the abused, standing with the reviled, shielding the hated and protecting the tortured, as opposed to one which glorifies desires in a mass orgy of Randian selfishness that underpins consumero-fascism.

Yours etc.

A Concerned Muslim

Benedict XVI should read some Ibn Hazm

Abu Muhammad: "[The Pope's remarks lacked] sufficient concern for historical reality and an in-depth knowledge of Muslim philosophy. After reading the text of Ratzinger's speech quite a few times, I am still perplexed regarding the line of his reasoning; namely that faith in an absolutely transcendent God whose acts and will cannot be grasped completely by human reason can possibly lead one to conceive His images which are capricious and may be against all truth and goodness. The argument becomes further ironic as Pope strangely chooses to abduce views of a multifarious Muslim writer who can equally be classified as a quasi-liberal writer/poet, a literal jurist, a controversial philosopher, an innovative grammarian or above all a compassionate ethicist."

Ramadan Mubarak!

I pray that God accepts all of our good deeds during this blessed month, and may He forgive our sins. Ameen. Please remember me in your prayers. Some mosques announced last night that Ramadan would start today. Others, I've been informed, will be starting on Sunday.

Here are some Ramadan links (updated):

Ramadan.co.uk, a website by Salaam.co.uk.

Ramadan-Kareem, a Ramadan-related blog by Shaykhspeara.

Ramadan on Wikipedia.

IslamOnline's on Change for the Better collection on Ramadan.

Abu Eesa reminds us about the importance of Ramadan.

Hood Bradford gives us a round up of the start of Ramadan around the Muslim world and why Muslims should congratulate each other on the commencement of this month.

The fiqh of fasting by Shaykh Abd al-Rahman al-Jaziri. Ibn al-Hyderabadi (1, 2, 3, 4) also collects some fiqh. Shaykh Faraz Rabbani gives a free online course on the fiqh of Ramadan at SunniPath.

Zaytuna's Ramadan Section. They also have a couple of lectures on the fiqh of Ramadan by Imam Tahir Anwar.

The good doctor gives us some tips on healthy eating during Ramadan. And brothers, please try and give up that extra helping of biryani.

Babar Ahmed, still locked up in prison, tells us of Ramadan in captivity.

Ali Al-Timimi on Reaping the Benefits of Ramadan.

Muslims Downunder have created the Ramadan Awareness Campaign.

Abd al-Rahman shares some poetry on Ramadan.

The IHRC calls for help this Ramadan with its fundraising.

Across some major cities in the UK, Radio Ramadhan begins broadcasting. You should be able to listen online.

Islamic Forum Europe provides a Ramadan timetable for Londonistanis and some guidance on how to calculate the times for other major cities.  Alternatively, if you're a Brummie, visit the Birmingham Central Mosque for their timetable.

Cambridge Muslims' Ramadan section. And not to be left behind by their city rivals, the Oxford Muslim Community Association also has a Ramadan corner.

Ibrahim Abusharif tells us what Rumi said of fasting.

Indolent Strangers for the Welfare State strike again

Given the recent confrontation between the egotisical media-whores from Indolent Strangers for the Welfare State and the fomer(?) Communist, who was once a sympathiser for a mass-murdering war criminal (how's that for mud-flinging?), it is worth reading Yakoub Islam's response to the latter's patronising drivel on how Muslim parents should raise their children. Some will see Reid's comments  as a specific targetting of Muslims. Personally, I see it as part of the general nannying approach which Neo-Labour has adopted when trying to solve social issues (perhaps this is a consequence of the total transformation of the family and general loosening of social bonds). In this case, even Omar Brooks (pictured), a professional Angry Muslim, is right when he says the government should not be interfering in parent-children relationships. (One might also see Reid's lecturing as an example of the patronising tone about "British values" adopted by prominent politicians, largely playing to the gallery, when addressing people still seen as 'immigrants'.)

And whenever I see these professional Muslim Extremists, I am always reminded of T. J. Winter's essay, "The Poverty of Fanaticism".

Update (21/9): I'm watching Question Time, and a good point was raised. Since when was heckling politicians ever considered a crime (whatever one thinks of Brooks' views)? Have people not seen Prime Minister's Question Time?

Update (22/9): See some more on Comrade Reid's altercation with Brooks at Indigo Jo, Rolled-Up Trousers and Bloggerheads.

The establishment of religion

Islamic Law, Etc: "[T]he first thing that came to mind when reading [James Madison's discussion on the establishment of religion] is the "Traditional" sort of religious leadership that is always promoted amongst Muslims as being the crux of our "heritage" and the real representation of how Islam is supposed to work in society. Many aspects of a literate society would seem to take care of these problems, yet there will always be a group of people who are a throw-back to another century."

Prayer and violence, despair and disbelief

Ibrahim N. Abusharif has another couple of brilliant posts. The first is on how the Qur'an connects despair and disbelief; the second on the subtext of many reports on "radical Islam" which link salat and the ritual practice of Islam with violence and extremism.

Despair and Disbelief: "Despair and disbelief are soul-mates, according to the Quran: “None despairs of God’s mercy except people who disbelieve” (12:87). What’s implied here specifically is the loss of hope for God’s compassion as a quality of those who willingly or unwittingly scoff the sacred, or, as the word kufr strongly suggests, those who are ungrateful to the point of denial." 

Prayer and Violence: "I noticed something in the two-hour report -- something which I had noticed before in many a documentary or report on "radical Islam" -- that the film footage accompanying the narration that speaks of OBL's radicalization process included men praying in a mosque. Now this is hardly the first time we see the Ritual Prayer of Islam linked (through image) with a scripted narrator's screed about violent teachings and extremism. We all sense it: image is a formidable conveyor of a message, especially in a time of intellectual sloth in which "image" is paramount culturally, politically, and commercially, more so than the written word, which also struggles with dilution."

Forced conversions in Gaza

I got back from a weekend away (it was a long Bank Holiday weekend here), to find the world in pretty much the same sorry mess I left her in.

I did catch something about the release of two American journalists taken hostage in Gaza. Israel/Palestine is not something I blog about for a number of reasons. But what did prick my ears about this story was the video of the two men being forced to convert to Islam (note, you might the comments distasteful on that link), after which their ordeal ended:

"Mr [Steve] Centanni told Fox News the two had been forced to convert to Islam at gunpoint [...] I have the highest respect for Islam... but it was something we felt we had to do because they had the guns and we didn't know what the hell was going on," he said by telephone from Gaza City."

Thankfully, the journalists were not harmed and Centanni himself seemed to acknowledge that his 'conversion' was not considered part of Islamic practice or belief. But Steven Guess opines:

"It distresses me greatly that thusfar no Islamic websites I visit have made any mention on their blogs/news outlets that this was wrong and inhumane."

He acknowledges that people, Muslims in this case, perhaps don't feel the need to speak out against something which they obviously bear no responsibility for. One could cite scripture, but that is not the point here. The crux of the matter is this: should a Muslim feel compelled to speak out against something 'done in the name of Islam' which they believe to be totally contrary to their faith?

One side would argue that no matter how loudly a vast number of Muslims will shout about terrorism, murder and so on being against Islamic beliefs and principles, bigots will still claim that such acts are 'part of Islam'. Further more, as the blogger in that link says, no one asks the English to apologise for the acts of English hooligans abroad. The flip side is explained by Tariq Nelson:

"[The] political realities, even though we may not like it, make it necessary for the Muslim organizations to distance Islam from it in a clear and unambiguous manner. Given the constant barrage of negative images of Muslims the common person sees on a daily basis, and our relative isolation from society, I don’t think it is reasonable to expect a person not to ask a few questions about this or expect to see some type of condemnation of things done in the name of Islam."

The (sad) reality is that, ordinarily, people do not inform themselves of what they see or hear in the popular media. Even when they do out to seek more information, it can end up simply being a task to enforce their own prejudice (which might explain the popularity of certain blogs and the comments on the videos of the 'conversion' at YouTube). In our media-saturated environments, and especially in more affluent societies (where everyone, rich or poor, has access to a television), sound bites, opinion polls and visual images on the box-in-the-room seem to form the staple diet of information today. It's not that television cannot be informative; it most certainly can. Nor is it the case that everyone should become a scholar of the subject under discussion. Rather, when watching television people may not be discerning or critical and accept everything at face value (the same approach, should be taken when reading a book too, of course). So, if the news reports that two hostages were forced to convert to Islam whilst showing videos of these 'conversion', but does not report that such 'conversions' are considered contrary to Islamic principles and that even the most ardent "fundamentalist" would reject such a forced conversion, then Muslims are left in a bit of quandary.

For me, it comes down to personal preference. Some people do not feel compelled to speak out against such matters. Others, including myself on occassions, do. For me, speaking out against actions is not necessarily 'apologising', but part of the general attempt to take back the usage of Islamic terminology and principles which have become villified in the popular media, whether at the hands of extremists amongst us or those hostile to us.

Needless to say, on this occassion, such 'conversions' deserve to be derided and rubbished, and I am glad that the two journalists are free and appeared to have a better opinion of their Palestinian hosts, than the Palestinain kidnappers had of them.

Update: Aziz, Eteraz look at the issue in greater detail.

Christians understanding Muslims

Dappled Things, a blog by Fr. Jim Tucker (who has linked in the past to my musings on Dr. Sherman Jackson's views on Islamic law and the Cartoon Affair), extends himself to try and understand Islam and the concept of Divine love within its traditions. And by way of Dappled Things, I also found another Catholic blogger, Bill Cork, also rising to the defence of Islamic traditions:

"It was suggested (and I'm not linking to that blog right now because I don't want to single it out, because I've heard this often) that the difference between Christianity and Islam is that Islam has no conception of a loving God and that the only relationship that can exist between man and God is a slave/Master relationship [...] This is, of course, completely false and a misunderstanding and slander of Islam."