CONFESSIONS (cont'd)

Over the previous few months or so I have been frequently asked questions, in the wake of my last few articles on being a traditional-yet-Liberal Muslim, and of Islam NOT being a religion of the right. For the purposes of space, time, and--in all honesty--the attention span of potential readers, I refrained from elaborating exhaustively on some of the postulations I made. Perhaps now is the time to build on the developments of past articles and further detail their positions.

The first question that seems to always arise in response to my claims of being a 'liberal' Muslim is how I can reconcile Islam, and some of the absolutes that it undeniably professes, with the relativism that sits at the root of modern day liberal ideology. First, it is important to establish that I am a liberal in my political ideology only. I don't attempt to use liberalism as a means to guide the spiritual or moral quests in my life. For such exigencies, I have my religious faith. Yet, I am also not trying to say that I have compartmentalised my moral, political, economical, and spiritual thoughts into fragmented facets of ideology. Rather, my liberal underpinnings affect everything from personal ethics to my understanding of theology, or even to the scholars I appreciate.

Now, when I say 'liberal' underpinnings, I mean a predisposition to look at issues holistically and teleologically, even if this requires a more expansive interpretation of facts or issues than meets the eye empirically. It is this very intrinsic bias that forges the nuances of my understanding and subsequently my hermeneutics (scriptural interpretation), ethics, and politico-economic thought. Yet it is important that any such tendency be limited by fundamental religious teachings and morality where such can be objectively discerned from primary religious sources.

It is perhaps this very fact that distinguishes me, as a traditional practising Muslim, from others such as the Progressive Muslims of Canada, who tend to squander the true substance of Islam leaving it a substitutable ideology with no distinct utility. In other words, rather than subjugate religion to ideology, I believe the relationship should function precisely the opposite. Where there is a conflict or overlap between religion and ideology, objective religious parameters must supersede. However, given my tendencies, I would be predisposed to find as 'liberal' an opinion as possible, while remaining true to the objective tenets of Islamic theology and law (read my earlier article on how much of what is considered 'Islamic law' today is merely the structures created by Muslims who use religious profession to validate cultural mores. When this excess baggage is excised, Islam's flexibility that has allowed it to flourish and exist across many cultural and epochal lines is restored).

Allow me to engage you with an example. Homosexuality has been prohibited in Islam since its inception, something that is clearly established in the Qur'an. The objective for such a principle was clear, the biological perseverance of humanity. Hence, I would disagree with a person who attempts to say that Islam allows homosexuality; this object-based principle is intransigently inscribed in the Qur'an, obviously the most definitive source of knowledge in Islam. Further, there has been no discernible change in human biology that would warrant reevaluation on the basis of this objective.

However, whereas some earlier predominantly Muslim civilisations may have chosen to persecute homosexual individuals on the basis of their social stigmatization, it is important to keep perspective. While it is true that homosexuality is not permitted in Islam, it is not nearly the greatest 'sin' committed by humans (In fact, as far back as the 8th Century, Imam Abu Hanifa recognised the dichotomy between the act, and the actor. While the act may be impermissible, its commission did not place one outside the fold of Islam.). Disbelief in, and the association of deities with God are the greatest, followed by other enormities (major sins) such as crimes like murder. Yet, on a daily basis many Muslims have favourable dealings with atheists and polytheists without having any sense of contempt, and rightfully so. Why then is there utterly disproportionate hostility towards those who merely perform a personal sin justiciable with God alone? It may very well be that by committing such acts homosexuals contravene traditional Islamic principles, yet so do those who drink, fornicate, lie, or even Muslims that miss their obligatory prayers. We live peacefully and with respect amongst such people everyday. Perhaps most importantly, it is relevant to remember the words of Jesus when he said: "Let he who is free of sin cast the first stone". There is not a person amongst us today who is inoculated from performing personal sin. Who are we then to judge others when we have no true understanding of their plight and varying pathologies?

It is scientifically clear today that homosexuality can have its roots in human biology, by which I mean to include chemical processes at work in the body. Subsequently, biology is very much a determinant of psychology and human behaviour, giving rise to the many moral and cerebral dilemmas we grapple with on a daily basis. These dilemmas form the basis of our 'tribulation' as people. For people, the interaction between their bio-chemical underpinnings and their social nurture can create dispositions and tendencies to perform certain acts. For example, a person hardwired in such a way as to have a bad temper and short fuse, can in a particular social setting become a violent criminal. Yet, it is the moral 'struggle' to fight these predispositions that forms the basis of this individuals tribulation in life, by which God will gauge/assess his candidacy for salvation in the hereafter. The same goes for a Muslim who has homosexual tendencies. Many Muslims ask how a person can be born gay if God intended it be an unlawful act. A person who is born with such a biological disposition has this as part of their tribulation in life, which is not any different than everyone else and their unique situational tribulations.

This is where the issue of relativism versus absolutism arises. How can a person who embraces absolutisms such as the Oneness of God and the Prophethood of Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) also be a liberal who, by his ideology, must then subscribe to notions of relativism and the maxim of 'to each his own'. Remember that relativism in and of itself cannot logically be asserted to mean that EVERYTHING is relative and that there are no absolutes, as this would make it an absolutism. Relativism thus is logically self limiting. Hence, one can induce that relativism, to the extent that it is LESS than an absolute (thereby allowing the existence of absolutes) cannot preclude belief in the same (absolutes). To this effect, I believe in relativism as a mechanism by which we can enjoy dialogue and peaceful coexistence.

A Muslim must believe in the absolute reality of Monotheism and Muhammad as the last Messenger, above and beyond all else. This, he or she believes, is an absolute that applies universally. Yet he or she would have access to knowledge of this absolute by circumstances and religious experiences (Hidayah in Arabic, 'divine guidance'), resources that others who do not share in these beliefs may not have had at their disposal. Hence, how can that Muslim then expect others who have NOT had the benefit of similar resources and experiences to subscribe to belief in, and have knowledge of these absolutes? This is where relativism applies. Even if a Muslim does believe in certain absolutes, the fact that others DO NOT subscribe to them does not falsify the absolutes. It simply means that the others do not have the ability, or willingness, to 'see it that way'. Hence, a person's inability to subscribe to the aforementioned absolutes is in most cases, relative to their circumstances, contingent upon whether God has given them the unique collage of experiences that would amount to Hidayah ("Divine Guidance"). Even in the instances where it IS the conscientious choice of one not to subscribe to said absolutes, society and individuals would have no way of ascertaining such. Hence it would be unjust to speculate on the nature or value of this person's spiritual disposition, and thus immoral to attempt to impose such spiritual absolutes upon them.

Further, if one TRULY believes in certain absolutes, then he should have no issue with others critically examining them for their intrinsic worth, instead of feeling the need to impose them upon others. Any person with true belief or faith, regardless of their spiritual denomination, must also believe that such scrutiny, in the end, can only lead to the verification of their beliefs.

That is, of course, IF they truly believe.

WHAT IS SO 'RIGHT' ABOUT ISLAM?

We are within an age where a seeming dichotomy between those of religious conviction and those with progressive values of social inclusion is increasingly pitted as 'right versus left', a neat yet irresponsible characterisation that likely fulfills ulterior agendas more than anything else. It is within the context of this mischaracterization that many assume that organised religion presupposes a disposition on the right side of the political spectrum. However, it is clear that in the interests of a need for greater perspective a more nuanced approach is required.

Eventually, one is led to the question of what side of the political spectrum Islam and Muslims should be better assosciated with. Would it be the right and its emphasis on the conservation of the status quo and long established values and practises? Or would it rather be a leftist religion based on the rights of society over any individual, a faith seeking to promote as wide a base of social enfranchisement as possible?

To arrive at the answer we must first make a distinction. As the political spectrum continuously shifts towards the left and redefines its positions, it is important to clearly define the positions being discussed. For example, conservatives of the 21st century would be liberals in the 7th Century, that of Islam's inception. Liberals of the 17th Century would be conservatives today. As such, it is important to establish whether we intend to contextualise our discourse of Islam's politcal stance as of 'today', or at the time of its origin.

Although its useful to discuss both scenarios, looking at Islam's origins would likely shed more light on the religion's original purpose. In the 7th Century, the status quo was that of autocratic monarchs who sought to centralise the power and resources of the state into as few hands as possible (royal family, aristocratic class). Hence, the Monarch and those loyal to him held the vast majority of the power, wealth, and influence. Any measures or attempts to subvert this order would be repressed by those in control, in an effort to 'conserve' such a status quo. This faction formed the right conservative arm of society, as it stood in their favour to retain the current political order. (In fact, the term 'right wing' was later coined after being inspired by the French Revolution, when those aristocrats loyal to the King sat to his right in Parliament, whereas the liberals who sought greater social participation and human rights sat to the left.)

Islam, much like the other two monotheistic faiths, did not arrive as a religion of the nobility. It was a religion whose movement caught popularity with the common and disenfranchised of society as it instantly guaranteed more liberal rights than they had ever enjoyed before. Women were guaranteed rights of inheritance and contract, and were hence given a greater sense of being individuals in society. Foreigners (non-Arabs) were declared to be equal to natives. Slaves were freed and were told to stand next to tribal chiefs as peers in prayer. The poor were exempted of certain obligatory rituals on the basis of financial incapacity. As the new faith was clearly antithetical to the political structure of the day, the early Muslim community was met with great hostility and repression by the nobles in Mecca, the founding city of Islam. The radically 'leftist' stance of equality between the races, sexes and classes proved far too radical for the majority of the Meccan elite. In fact, of the early converts to Islam, it can be argued that only three (Khadija, Abu Bakr, and Uthman) were from the wealthier stratosphere of society.

Although many religions can claim to have offered this to a people, what distinsguished Islam was that such values were institutionalised into a legal system of government within the lifetime of the religion's founder. The Islamic state was established in Medina in 622, and held true to its promises of greater social participation and enfranchisement. The hadith (Prophetic narrations) indicate to us that the Prophet sat amongst the people as one of them, and shattered institutions of the old guard such as the aristocracy and nobility. He founded a public treasury, a large portion of which was allotted to the poor and 'people of the bench'--individual paupers and ascetics who were provided the means of subsistence by the state similiar to the modern welfare system. During his Caliphate, Umar (634-644) also began to issue allowances to new and lactating mothers, to assist with the costs of weaning a new born child.

To fund the public treasury, the Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him) partially relied on a mandatory luxury tax that modern scholars extraopolate amounts to 2.5 percent of an individuals annual residual wealth (dormant money that has accrued for a year). As promised, women were empowered by being given the right to inheritance and contract, including the right to refuse an arranged marriage, even dictating prenuptual terms to their intendeds. People were now expressly forbidden from burying female children, and paradise was now deemed to exist 'beneath the feet of your mother'. (It is this unique undercurrent of egalitarianism that must be at least partially credited for the emergence of a dynasty of former slaves in a 13th Century Muslim Sultanate in India.) In all, viewed within the millieu of 7th Century Arabia, such developments by vintage Islam were radical revolutions in the field of human rights.

Such a system of government promoted by the Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him) differed markedly from the traditional aristocratic monarchy that offered little in the way of social compassion toward the masses and especially the underprivileged. Islam did not attempt to preserve any previous order or status quo, but rather sought to abolish the traditional order of its society. Such deviance from the right wing positions of the day dropped Islam far to the left, politically and economically. It seems obvious then, that Islam at its inception was never intended to be a rightist religion or employ such a model of governance.

Although some may dismiss the above as obvious, perhaps the answer to where Islam stands today is not as legible. In the context of modern liberal democracies, the right wing no longer harkens to values of feudalism and monarchical elitism but rather to 17th century liberalism, and the notion that 'the government that governs the least, governs the best'. Modern day conservatives on the right wing espouse ideas of individual liberty free from the bounds of societal intervention in a manner that allows them to pursue wealth and goodwill uninhibited. As per capitalism, any intervention by a state from the right would then amount to something of the negative variety, as the state's priority would be to simply remove as many obstacles from individuals' paths as possible in their pursuit of freedom and happiness. Such notions, while sounding wonderful in theory, are naive at best and willfully blind at worst.

The complexities of the world provide uneven circumstances for different members of society, which serve to deprive many individuals the same opportunities as others. If a state is to truly promise 'freedom' to its citizens then it must be willing to 'even the playing field' in order to allow the less advantaged in society the true freedom of opportunity to pursue their ambitions and life endeavours. This is the typical approach of leftist liberals today, which underscores the rationale for a welfare state that the Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him) advanced 1400 years ago.

In any case, in order to 'even the playing field' the state must place limits on some freedoms in order to emancipate some from the shackles of their circumstance. Such limits would typically include taxation of the wealthy (directly and indirectly on luxury items for example) in order to fund governmental programs such as financial relief and education assistance for the less fortuante.

In the modern era, the 'right' further represents a 'pro-corporate' stance that idealogially leads to a greater centralization of national resources in the hands of private actors (in the absence of a central state authority). Conversely, what we can derive from the traditional Islamic model by its provision of welfare, its implemenation of luxury tax, and hence its emphasis on an entirely enfranchised society (with an even 'playing field'), is that Islam at the very least is not meant to fall on the right side of even today's spectrum. Perhaps it is this very leftist bias inherent in Islamic ideology that contributes to many Americans' misunderstanding of Islam, as that nation is a bastion of right-wingism in the present Western world.

Also typical of communities on the left is greater state activism and responsibility, as exemplified by Umar (the Second of Four Rightly Guided Caliph's) when he exclaimed "If (even) a sheep were to (injure itself) within my realm of responsibility, I would be liable for it." Later, in the years of the Ottoman Sultanate, there was a minister directly designated as 'Guardian of the Trees' responsible for the environmental issues of the state. Although the Ottoman Empire was not a truly Islamic State, the underlying rationale was that the Sultan and the state would be held accountible in Islam for any mistreatment of the environment. Rhetoric for expansive state responsibilities is engrained in the culture of Islam, a decidedly non-rightist quality.

Finally, there are many that would point to Islam's possession of certain unalterable values as being indicative of a right-wing stance. However, it is inaccurate to postulate that any vestige of religious values and morality belong to the right. Such would be to suggest that any movement towards the left would be coupled with a corresponding loss of those same values, which would be preposterous. For one, the values that those on the right retain (that are assosciated with right wing conservatism) are often those that are loyal to the political order rightists strive to recreate. More importantly, it is possible to exist on one side of the spectrum and to share a characteristic common to the other side; one can be a religious person on the left just as it is possible for another to be an atheist or civil-rights activist on the right. In other words, one side does not have complete monpoly over those tenets with which it is generally assosciated. Hence, the assumption that Islam is a right-wing religion SIMPLY on the basis of its steadfast devotion to certain values is unfounded, given the remaining of its political and economic principles and the historical context of its origin.

It is clear then, that Islam was never intended to be a religion of the right, regardless of any such confusion brought about by its instransigence on core values. At inception, it never sought to conserve any traditional political or economic order but rather shattered one. An investigation of vintage Islam against the context from which it emerged demonstrates its radical departure from the status quo of its day, clearly indicating its leftist stance at the time. It also has not attempted to empower the individual free of the bounds of society in such a manner as could be deemed capitalist, individualist, or libertarian--ideologies from the right.

Rather, the state took a more active role in the daily lives of its constituents often on the back of those who are more fortunate in society, creating an early incarnation of a welfare state. Thus even today, its fundamental politcal-economic doctrine starkly contravenes a typically rightist model. Islam envisages a society in which individuals are granted liberty and freedom to pursue their ambition, yet one where the welfare of society is still made top priority through the rectification of inequities.

Now it very well may even be that Islam falls on the centre of the political scale. It is after all Ummatun Mutawassita ("the nation of moderation") as proclaimed by the Prophet Peace Be Upon Him). Based on the above discussion, it is very likely that Islam has some leftist tendencies along with this moderation. Yet regardless of Islam's exact position on the spectrum, historically or current, one thing remains clear: If the Prophetic tradition is any indication, Islam is NOT a religion of the right.

CONFESSION OF AN ORTHODOX MUSLIM

I have a confession.

It is one that is likely to shock many people reading this article. No sooner will readers have read the confession itself that presuppositions and generalizations will fly, a stigmatization will be engaged, and some may consider boycotting this website. All i ask is that you read and allow me to explain my position before drawing whatever conclusions you will.

I am a liberal Muslim.

Still here?

I am a liberal Muslim. If I could hear the thousand whispers going through readers minds they would probably sound something like this:

"What? He's a gay-hugger?"
"That means he must believe in the ultimate corruption of
society, devoid of morality..."
"So he believes in criminal rights?"

Allow me to preface by explaining that terms such as 'liberal' and 'conservative' only have a value when juxtaposed alongside an external standard within a spectrum. That being said, the mere fact that I possess unalterable religious values would be enough to indict me on charges of 'conservatism' by many North Americans. However, since I identify myself primarily as a Muslim, it is that spectrum that I will use to benchmark myself.

Those who are acclimated with political and ideological theory will be the first to point out that there are many strands, definitions, and manifestations of 'liberalism'. Allow me to substantiate why I identify myself as a 'liberal Muslim' and what I do not intend to accompany this label. From a political standpoint I believe that every person is sovereign in their own right, subject only to God. Institutions such as polities and state-structures only have the right to intervene in this sovereignty if it presents a material risk to the rest of those within the community. Hence, the private sphere ends ONLY where the interests of the individual begin to conflict with that of society. As such, no human or any product of human construct has the legitimate right to interfere with the private affairs of an individual, except where those private affairs become deleterious to those around him.

What I DO NOT intend to imply with this self-annointed moniker is the notion that the practise of Islam is subject to those who are practising, allowing a Muslim to practise as he will as long as he or she beleives in God. In fact I would like to categorically denounce any affiliation with the platform of so-called 'Progressive Muslims' such as Tarek Fata or Irshad Manji.

For Islam to be Islam as intended by Allah and His Messenger (PBUH), there is an objective standard that must be met that gives Islam its strength. One way my 'liberalism' departs with many Muslims however, is that I donot believe that Muslims, or Muslim establishments have the right to 'police' or attempt to control the behaviour of other Muslims, or even to judge them (save for those circumstances where one has a right to do so (for the purpose of marriage, assessing qualification for a position, etc.,). In many ways, an attempt to 'judge' other Muslims as morally or religiously inferior to oneself is at best an incursion to the business of others, and at worst an attempt to control the behavior of others over whom one has no right.

Of course there are many who will point to the Prophetic saying "He who sees his brother performing a wrong, let him correct it with his hand, then with his tongue, and then let him hate it with his heart..." While this may be valid, many don't consider other sayings such as (Min husnil islaami mari'i, tarkuhu maala ya'neehi') 'Among the best characteristics of a Muslim, is that he leaves that which does not concern him" or where the Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him) implored Muslims to offer '71 excuses' as to why a Muslim may be performing a questionable or ostensibly forbidden act, and then to offer 71 more when those were exhausted.

Any duty a Muslim has to correct the behaviour of another remains only to the extent that such can be done without harming the latter. There is the story of Abdul Qadir Jilani, who once noticed a person performing Wudu (ablution) incorrectly. Rather than confronting the person, it is reported that he asked the man to correct him if he was performing his ablution incorrectly,
implicitly delineating to the man the proper procedure of performing the wudu, without offending him. The objective is to 'correct' the behaviour, and if one's words or actions will not do so but rather offend the person, then the objective is not being served and the corrective action is useless, if not undesirable. Further, in keeping with the 'spirit' of Islam, its obvious that such 'correction' should be done with goodwill and in a manner that has the spiritual best interests of the disaffected person in mind. Condescending behavior, malicious activity, terror, and acts of vigilantism are clearly not intended by this rule. For those who contest on the grounds that I am not a scholar must then show me even one case in the Prophetic tradition where he acted CONTRARY to the aforementioned principles.

As for judging others, perhaps the greatest reason why one should refrain from such is the simple fact that God tests everyone differently. As such, every person has intrinsic weaknesses that form the basis of their tribulation as humans. In the Qur'an, God says "No soul is burdened more than it can bear". Hence, the mere fact that God has tested a person indicates that the person has the ability to overcome this trial and succeed. It stands to reason then, that the greater the test, the greater God's esteem of the person's potential, irrespective of whether or not it is ever realised. For some people, the tribulation is homosexual inclinations, for others it is alchohol or indulgence in the opposite sex. Everyone has such weaknesses, yet some are tested much more rigorously than others. Think of judging others as the equivalent of maligning a person from war-torn Bosnia for not having pursued an education, despite not having any of the opportunities that many here in North America are afforded. Such would be sheer arrogance, and underappreciative of the advantageous existence God has granted us with life here. Similarly, we don't know what opportunities another person may have had to either become more religious or increase in their spiritual cadence. Afterall, God is not looking for results, or a bottom line. Rather, He is looking for a person to make the best of his potential given the circumstances within which he is placed. Only God has knowledge of the varying opportunities he has granted everyone and only He then is privvy to judge.

Nevertheless, note that by 'judging', I intend only judgement that is passed on another's religious spirituality or other acts that are strictly of a personal nature. For example, there are acts such as alchoholism or homosexuality that are prohibitted by God. However, in most cases these 'crimes' do not have a victim. Hence, they then fall squarely within the private realm, which is solely the concern of that person and God alone. In fact, it is important to realise that as Muslims we do not dislike the actors in such commissions, but rather the actions.

However, there are also acts that society needs to be able to judge in order for its proper function. Such offenses occur where the individual's spirituality (or lack thereof) becomes deleterious to those outside his person, such as a person who commits rape or murder. In these instances, the individual clearly had a weakness, and their failure to overcome this weakness caused an outward manifestation injurious to another, which now makes the issue the concern of the society around him. That society must then have the legitmacy to pass judgement and mete out penalties. However, this authority should only be viewed as a neccessary evil, and is only legitimate while being implemented in accordance with principles of due process and procedure.

This is an important distinction to make. Without due process, there can be no judgement or sentencing. For so called 'muftis' and 'mullahs' to be passing fatwas to kill 'infidels' or 'enemies of Islam' extra-legally, is absolutley absurd and against any true Islamic precedent. While the Prophet (PBUH) was in Mecca as a commoner, no acts of vigilantism, terror, or murder were performed at his behest; Islam has no place for such vices. The only sentencing that the Prophet would have passed on someone would be when he became the head of state in Medina and was acting in the capacity of the state judge. In fact, given the personal oppression and humiliation he faced while in Mecca, he would be as justified as anyone in defending himself with pre-emptive acts of vigilantism and spearheading a violent revolution in Mecca. However, the message he chose to make was decidedly clear: Islam would be spread with peace and compassion, not on the back of violently vindicating personal and community rights. What right do we have to abrogate this message?

This brings us to the definitive characteristic of being a 'liberal' Muslim. A liberal Muslim, or even scholar, is one who understands that the spirit of the law supercedes the letter of the law. If the letter of the law is ever implemented in a manner that contravenes the spirit, then the law or principle no longer has any meaning and is simply a formalistic implementation devoid of any of the direction and purpose that is essential to a legal system. The letter of the law is a time-specific means that is the product of measuring the spirit of the law (objective) against the conditions and neccessities of the time. The spirit of the law however, is a timeless objective, the implementation for which there can be many measures employed.

One example of this would be the law against theft. The spirit of this law would be to protect the integrity of one's individual property by deterring individuals from willfully stealing that which belongs to others. Yet Saydna Umar, the second Caliph, was once faced with a man who had stolen under the duress of starvation during the times of a great famine. The punishment for theft was to sever the hand of the thief, which Umar refused to do. Severing the hand of a man who was stealing out of necessity did not meet the objectives or the spirit of the law. Moreover, he saw the man's starvation as a failure of the state to provide the basic necessities of life for all citizens. Hence, he further placed a moratorium on severing the hands of any thieves during the famine so as to not contravene the spirit of the law.

This is never more of an issue than when the issue of 'corporal' punishment (Hudud) comes into play today. Many Muslims accross the world push for a formalistic implementation of 'shariah' simply because, as Dr. Tariq Ramadan puts it, it is a more visual assurance of Islam. What many don't realise however, is that in most of these cases they are calling for a formalistic implementation where the necessary preconditions do not exist. Hudud is merely a penal consequence of committing an act against the existing legal framework. A legal framework CANNOT be said to exist without the rule of law. In many of countries where 'shariah' (and I use the term, VERY loosely) is in effect, the only people who are meted out hudud penalties are the poor, or women. Aristocrats, members of royal families, and heads of state are seldom subject to the law, if at all.

Clearly, this is not the rule of law as demonstrated by the Prophet (Peace Be Upon) when he swore that he would sever the hand of even his own beloved daughter Fatima if she stole, or when Umar flogged his own son, the corporal punishment for fornication. Hence the spirit and objective of the hudud penalties and the entire shariah framework was to instill the rule of law and order into the entire community; random and partial implementation is in many ways worse than lawlessness. If this underlying 'spirit' is not being carried out, then simply enacting an arm of the law without the body is not only useless, but dangerous. It's time to show patience and realise that the most effective changes are made from the bottom up, rather than from the top down.

This is the challenge facing our scholars and us today: we have lost sight of the 'spirit' of our religion. Many feel the overwhelming need to be 'literalist' in their interpretation to counter many foreign ideas that have inevitably come with the changes of the modern world. Many others feel the need to follow formalistic interpretations of Islam that offer a counterimage to what they deem to be foreign impressions on their native lands. While such responses might seem natural to observers, they have come at the price of losing the true spirit of Islam, without which little remains. In a day and age where the term jihad (literally 'struggle') is misunderstood and misrepresented by Muslims and non-Muslims alike, it is the struggle to prevent such ideologies and interpretations from hijacking Islam altogether that will determine the fate of Islam and Muslims for quite some time.

A chink in the armor...

I'm sorry that I haven't had the diligence to update my blog for quite some time-- I've been strapped with exams and the end of the school year approaching. Just wanted to bring to the attention of everyone that wikipedia's 'neutral and objective' disposition may now be up for debate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shariah

I tried to make some changes but they were dismissed by editors as 'blatantly point of view' statements or 'unsourced', as if some of the sources being used were so credible. Please, if you get a chance, go to the website and try and read it. At the very least, try and add to the discussion that is happening amongst mostly the editors under the 'discussions' tab. At most, if you have the expertise to be able to documentably offer a more 'neutral' point of view (with sources etc.,) please do so. It is a total abomination of the shariah and reaks of classic orientalism. Seems like the same ol' corporate lines are being pulled out against the Muslims...In any case, hope all else is well,

A Neccessary Re-Evaluation

Roughly eighty-eight years removed from the existence of a centralised Islamic state and over a century or two since the existence of a viable Muslim international power, many of us are confounded with the question of where 'Islam' went wrong. In a room of ten informed Muslims, ask the question of 'what went wrong' and you'll probably find just as many answers as people. In the end, you'll likely hear everything from the inability of the religion to adapt to the conditions of the modern world, to conspiratorial postulations about British and American designs to destroy the monotheistic faith, as theories.

To me the problem is much deeper, and a lot closer to home than we think. The problem in fact is NOT with 'the British' and is not with 'America'. The fact that many feel this way is in fact part of the problem that will be discussed later. First things first, the problem with 'Islam' today is not 'Islam', but rather 'Muslims'.

After all, was it not 'Islam' that was practised by Arabian, Persian, African, and Turkish Empires throughout Muslim civilisation's ascension and hegemony? Was it not 'Islam' that was practised by Empires whose subjects included Russian Orthodox Slavics, Catholics, and Jews (many of whom held high office) in a demonstration of unprecedented 'tolerance' in the pre-modern world? If Islam has been successfully applied to such a diverse spectrum of cultures and civilisations in the past, how can it suddenly be the problem today? The fact is, Islam has proven amicable to diverse conditions before and has been the driving force behind one of the most influential civilisations in the history of man, a claim that few other religions can make, if any. There is nothing intrinsic in the doctrines of Islam that would prevent it from adapting to the modern world as it has so readily embraced change and diversity before. The issue lay with our culturally created notions of the religion and how we feel it ought to be interpreted.

Culture by definition is the pattern of behaviour constructed by human beings to reconcile the rift between their biological needs and the environmental surroundings in which they are submerged. As such, it is clear that culture will change subject to a variation in conditions. There are no two places in this world where conditions are the same, and cultures invariably differ to reflect this diversity. Thus it would be foolish to think that a culture could be superimposed upon conditions that vary from those within which it was originally created. Doing so would not only defeat the purpose of a culture but undoubtedly lead to tension and irregularity.

So how does culture apply to my argument? Moving beyond biology, culture can also be inferred to include the structure humans create to connect the chasm between their core religious and moral values, and the social environment within which they live. Muslims bring with them many culturally varied brands of Islam, which is fine. Islam was meant to be amenable to culture, which allowed the prosperity of its followers for so many years across so many different ethnic and national lines. However, this becomes problematic when Muslims lose sight of where their underlying religious values end and the cultural extensions that they have created begin. It is this very conflation that the Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him) sought to avert when he warned his followers of the dangers of "bid'ah", or "innovation to religion". When something of cultural grounding becomes idiosyncraticly infused with religion, then Muslims have gone too far.

Let me give you an example. In many cultures Muslim females lead a very secluded and conservative lifestyle. In these lifestyles women may either wear niqaab (complete veil over the face) or refrain from entering the public space. These values represent many different cultural underpinnings. For example, in places like Damascus, or Hyderabad, much of this culture arose from the nobility, for whom it was a status symbol to not require the women of one’s house to go to the market place and purchase the necessities. Such work could be done either by a servant or a merchant coming directly to the home. Contextualise this in a society that is much more gender conservative and you will invariably have a more strict interpretation of religiously underwritten values of wariness towards gender interaction. The result would be a 'culture' of very little contact between the female, and the world outside the home. In effect, it would become ‘demeaning’ to have one’s wife or daughter to go the market place and in the open.

Over time, any attempted 'interaction' between the female and her outside world may be 'stigmatised' as it would go starkly against the grain of her society. Hence the particular expression of the principles of Islam would have reflected the social climate of that specific setting and would be entirely appropriate. Now, if said family were to move to Canada or the United States, this 'culture' would not only be inapplicable, but entirely inappropriate. In so saying, I DO NOT detract from the value of the cultures themselves. Rather, I emphasize the specific context within which the values originated, and how the entirely different conditions of the new setting render the old culture inapplicable.

Now, it is important to note that in the above scenario, there is nothing in the doctrines of Islam that would mandate such a lifestyle by the woman. Rather, the setting lent to a certain interpretation of the fundamental religious values that call for ‘civility’ and ‘modesty’ between the genders. However, outside of the physical parameters laid out in the Qur'an and Sunnah, what is 'modesty' in Spain may be 'lewdness' in India. These values are very subject to interpretation. Hence, the lifestyle is merely the CULTURE being created by Muslims, who in many cases can no longer make the divorce between culture and religion as time passes and it is here that the problem arises. In this scenario, it would be a disservice to consider the aforementioned culture to be part of the religion, as once it is so considered, it would destroy the flexibility of Islam that has allowed it to adapt time and time again to differing circumstances. This is one of the issues that plague the Muslim world today: a false indigenization of our cultures to Islam and a subsequent failed attempt to re-impose this body upon different conditions. While cultures are integral to human survival, remember that they serve specific settings: they must be reconfigured in reponse to situational change.

One such culture that has likely arisen from many Muslims being native to lands formerly colonised by Western powers, is a dichotomization between 'The West' (or so they are grouped by Muslims), and 'Islam'. It is an 'us' vs. 'they' approach that has not only alienated Muslims from much of the world, but has gone entirely to the detriment of every Muslim's CORE mission in life: the best possible projection of Islam in the image of the Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him). If you are estranged from your neighbours, they will not get an opportunity to find those qualities in you that may be of use to them, regardless of how many you may possess. The opposite is also true; Muslims living isolated in the world, especially in the West, are obviated from seeing those qualities in the 'Western' experience that can definitely be of remedial value to themselves.

What do I mean specifically? I mean aversion to protocol and process. Muslim-created polities everywhere in the world are routinely discarded by agents in pursuit of their own interests. Bribery is so common in the predominantly-Muslim countries (that I have been to) that it is hard for those accepting it to distinguish it from their salary. Even on a rudimentary level, you will find shoes at a mosque scattered everywhere but on the shelf, especially beyond the limit described in the 'No Shoes Beyond This Point' sign that is clear for all to see. It seems that since so many Muslims feel that they are the exception to the protocol, we have yet to develop a culture of deference to structure that would allow us to return to our days of pre-eminent contribution to humankind.

In many Western countries this predisposition towards protocol is obvious. There are systems in place where even the head of state can be held on trial for immorality. A disenfranchised man can sue the state for obtrusion into his 'inalienable' rights. Although the degree to which these structures are followed may differ depending on the people filling the institutions, the fact remains that standards of social justice (namely, the rule of law) and quality of life are far superior to any country that is predominantly Muslim, in countries such as Canada and the United States.

This culture of deference to protocol was not always so. Rather it was created by precedent. Precedents set by people such as President John Adams, the first head of state of the United States to lose an election in 1801. Despite having the apparatus of state at his disposal in a newly founded system not yet settled, he chose to step aside and honour the election of his adversary Thomas Jefferson. Hence, a very critical precedent, now taken for granted in the United States, was established.

A few years later John Marshall, the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court made an unprecedented move and struck down a United States Law that granted him more power than originally intended for his position in the Constitution (Supreme Law of the Land). President Jefferson recognised the ruling of the court as being binding upon his government, and the contravening law was repealed. The precedent was thus established whereby the independent judicial branch of the United States could keep the Government in check, a cornerstone of the U.S system and any system of government that boasts to be democratic. Of course, it would be naïve to suggest the parties involved did not have their own motives, yet the important idea to remember is that ALL parties advanced their interests within the confines of the protocol, and in so doing, allowed it to develop even if it came at the expense of partial personal concession.

So what is the problem with Muslims today? The problem is that Muslims need to realise the difference between 'Islam' and ‘cultures arising from Islam' and learn to compromise the latter where necessary. The conflation of cultures with Islam has inhibited the religions ability to adapt to the contours of modernity and life in the West. Only when this confusion is eliminated, will we realise that there is nothing antithetical in Islam to life in the West, the modern world, or being a 'Westerner'. The fact is, much of what many believe to be 'Islam' is in fact 'cultures arising from Islam' and are therefore subject to adaptation and compromise. Part of this problem of maldeveloped culture is Muslims lack of heed for protocol and structure, a trait that can be borrowed from the North American political experience if need be. In the end, Islam is well, alive, and has never had to change in order to thrive. It is on the Muslims to recreate their culture in a way that would allow an appropriate application of Islam given the circumstances.

Yet another illustration of our density

Blashpheming the Prophet Sallallahualaihi wa sallam will never be tolerated. Not by Muslims, not by me. Whenever any party or organization should be so reprehensive as to take to such acts, Muslims will, as they have shown time and time again, respond. It is powerful to see, alhumdulillah.

What is the problem? The problem is our stupidity, thats the problem. Muslims are meant to be just and fair to all parties involved, and there is absolutely NO precedent in our jurisprudential or political history that would condone vigilantism or terrorism. If any scholar says something to the contrary, I would question how he feels the right to contravene 1439 years of credible scholarship and history on the matter. It does not fly.

The Danish newspaper that pulished those caricatures was out of line, and from the sounds of it, violated the criminal code of their own nation. I personally have not been able to fully understand the comics myself, and as such, have not been able to contextualise it, which is imperative in coming to any judgements on the matter. To me though, that is the issue. Are we Muslims just jumping on this 'protest' bandwagon or have we justly assessed the scenario through the lens of justice and due process?

Think of me as being overly methodical or deliberate on matters? Forgive me, I am a law student. I am predisposed towards structure, procedure and ethics--EVERYTIME. No exceptions. Exceptions open the door to injustice. Exceptions to due process and methodological prosecution will mean the abondoment of the fundamental principles of justice and the rule of law. These are the very principles which, mind you, Muslims have played a MAJOR part in developing, if not founding. Example? An independent judiciary that holds the executive branch of a state accountible to the laws of the land is the cornerstone of ANY modern government that claims to be democratic. Who was the first statesmen to establish this? Umar ibn Khattab, second Caliph of Islam. Imam Ali (fourth Caliph of Islam and the last of the Rightly Guided) was also known to have lost a civil case against a Jew whom he felt was sure had stolen a possession of his. If these RULERS felt the need to follow the structure of the law, why are we any different?

That brings me to the issue of the comics. The Newspaper agency was wrong in publishing what they did in a manner they must have known would offend Muslims. To the extent of the political and demonstrational backlash, they reaped what they sew, no question. However, Libya wants an apology from the Danish government for the publication? Again, i don't have enough information of the political structure of Denmark, but i would imagine the state does not have anything to do with media agencies. I'm looking at it from my own frame of reference. Does the New York Times or Toronto Sun publishing an anti-Islamic article have anything to do with President Bush or the Prime Minister of Canada? No. Now Muslims are burning down Danish embassies around the world??? This is preposterous and TOTALLY outside the confines of our Islamic teachings and shari'ah no matter how you slice it. Now Iran is banning ALL Danish reporters from reporting in their country? What?? What is that, the 'Iranian final solution'? Lumping all reporters together, is that ANY different than lumping all Muslims together as terrorists? Where are our brains? Do we just put them on standby everytime something emotionally charged gets the best of us? That is EXACTLY why at times like this we NEED to defer to the proper procedure and structure and assess the situation critically, in order to protect ourselves and those we mean to assess from the atrocities of our sense of justice turning into reprisals and over-vindication.

Before I leave, let me do so with one question on the table. Did the Prophet Peace Be Upon him EVER EVER EVER act vindicatively or exact reprisals against anyone?

Thats what I thought. If we are going to DEFEND the Prophet (peace Be Upon Him), why don't we do it the way he would have defended himself, with justice and honour. The man fought in numerous campaigns, everytime on the front line, yet is reported to have never killed a soul....May the Absolute Peace and Blessings of God Be Upon him and may his teachings live forever. Ameen.

Canada Makes Its Choice

Well...less than half of it anyway, whatever that represents. Its official, Steven Harper and the Tories are back, stronger than ever, a tribal merger with Alliance firmly in hand, and Paul Martin's supreme idiocy propelling a collapse of epic proportions.

Wait, the Tories are in power? WHAT?? Didn't that go out back in the 80s? I always thought those were vintage images from my preteen childhood. You know, Rod Stewart, Magic Johnson, mullets, BRIAN MULRONEY AND THE RIGHTY WHITIES!!...No? Guess I should've known..been around long enough to know that anything is possible and even the most antiquated trends can in fact return triumphantly to culture.

How did I vote? Well, for some reason I don't really beleive in voting 'strategically'. I almost call that voting 'negatively'. Vote positively for the platform that accords best with your conscience and lifestyle. So many people overlooked the neccessary 'electoral disciplining' that Paul Martin and the Little Red Riding Hoods deserved and voted middle for fear of the evil 'Darth Vader regime' from the right. Personally, I knew the Tories would win, but nobody in their right mind was saying they would take a majority. Knowing this, and the fact that the Tories would need to coalign with someone else in the House to pass their policies, why not vote to the left and create bi-polarity. This would make life tougher on the Harpers, since the NDP is the LAST party thats would make a deal with them unless its severely watered down. Voting Liberal simply sends Team Red the message that we are upset but its Ok, you can get away with it because your still Canada's darling (whether out of love or fear for other parties coming in). I've heard so many people who WANTED to vote left but couldn't. No offence to anyone, but it almost seems like apathy to me. The only way the platform of the socialists can be pushed is if people actually vote for them to GIVE them a chance to win. Yet nobody votes for them because they don't think they have a chance. So if NDP is your thing, vote NDP. In the end, I'm a leftist liberal, but I could NOT get myself to vote for the Libbies this time.

Enough of politics. Anyone seen Kobe's performance on Sunday night? What a day for sports! First, Ben Roethlesberger (sp??) starts generalling like his last name is Guerion and the Steelers knock off the Horses in Denver. I still can't beleive that Mike Shanahan got outcoached in a big game, but I digress (Broncos Quarterback Jake Plummer's a stiff anyway). Second, you had Matt Hasselbeck and the Seahawks showing they are for real. Carolina was NEVER in the game, and Mr. Playoffs Jake Delhomme ended up in timeout like a misbehaving 6-year old. Ahhh...gotta love it. Then, you have the Raps jump out to a nearly insurmountible lead and have Chuck Swirsky declare "Leo, I really don't see how the Lakers are going to get back into this"...55 second half points later, Kobe Bryant has single-handedly obliterated to Raptors efence (No 'D') and dropped the second highest total in NBA history. I honestly NEVER thought 81 points was possible, but Kobe, much as I hate him, is that good...well, good enough to capitalise on the Raptors matador defence. Can you believe they kept single teaming him? He scored 81 points to his teammates 41. You do the math and figure out who they should've started focusing on sooner or later...Alas, thats Sam Mitchell and the Raps for ya though, quite the heartbreakers.

Again though, whatta day in sports.