Freedom of worship is one of our most invaluable rights. It means that I have the complete freedom and the human right to worship God the way I see fit or to not worship, provided that I uphold the standards of civil law. Thomas Jefferson so eloquently wrote:
That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in nowise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.
This human right is the cornerstone of our democracy. It keeps the political conversation rational, among other things, and prevents our nation from degenerating further into partisan religious delinquency. So, naturally, I am dismayed when I see this most basic and cherished freedom become a casualty in our national discourse on Islam and Muslims.
Observe Asra Nomani, whom we’ve criticized before for supporting racial profiling, in her latest draconian suggestion; if mosques do not bow to the demands of her ideology, they should be denied tax exempt status (i.e. forced to shutdown from crippling taxes). How did she arrive at such a conclusion?
Nomani says she is fighting Gender Apartheid:
Our goal was to walk through the front double doors designated for “brothers” and pray in the forbidden space of the opulent musallah, or main hall, of the mosque.
She paints herself as a freedom fighter, a successor to Martin Luther King Jr. But the question is: why do Muslim men and women pray in separate spaces? Is it sexism?
Until a point in time when we live in a “genderless” society (maybe something Asra advocates?), men and women are generally considered distinguished entities and traditional religions tend to take this into account. In the case of the majority of Muslims, men and women pray in separate places for the five congregational prayers because the Quran says:
Say to the believing men that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty: that will make for greater purity for them… And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof… (24:30-31)
Pious Muslims are not supposed to gawk with lust at members of the other sex. This applies in daily life and even more so in the ritual prayer in which concentration and focus should be directed towards God and not the opposite sex. Separating men and women in the Muslim prayer is therefore considered a matter of modesty; not that women are inferior or have less rights. Thus, separate prayer halls in themselves are not an indication that women are being mistreated or denied access to the mosque.
But perhaps the issue is that women have a less nice area to pray in or are being denied access to the mosque altogether. On this issue Nomani has a point, and she produces some statistics and studies, although mired by her sweeping generalizations:
In a 2005 publication, “Women Friendly Mosques and Community Centers,” written by two American-Muslim groups — the Islamic Social Services Associations and Women In Islam — the authors confirmed that “many mosques relegate women to small, dingy, secluded, airless and segregated quarters with their children,” some mosques “actually prevent women from entering,”…
It is true that some mosques have less than adequate facilities to accommodate female worshippers, but is it always a case of sexism? If you haven’t noticed, opening or expanding a mosque is not the easiest thing to do in America right now. There are other factors involved other than an alleged omnipresent sexism dominating the Muslim community. Some of these mosques do not have the funding to give women a bigger space; and perhaps, it may be the conservative culture of a particular mosque for women to normally pray at home with their children, usually coming to the mosque only on special occasions, and thus a bigger space is unnecessary.
Nomani could draw from Islamic tradition to support her legitimate goal of helping women increase their presence and participation in the mosque. She could, for example, mention how numerous authentic traditions record that the Prophet Muhammad gave women universal support to go to the mosque:
Do not prevent the maid-servants of Allah from going to the mosque.
[Sahih Muslim, Book 004, Number 0886]
She could engage in a respectful dialogue with notable Imams, scholars and activists, work for grassroots change in her local community, and help establish the model mosque she seeks with their help or of her own volition. Unfortunately, Nomani thinks strong-arm bully tactics and shouting matches in the mosque are the way to go.
First, she travels to different communities to whom she does not belong and demands to violate their sacred spaces. Then, she makes a ruckus in the media to bring pressure on Muslim communities from society at large. That hasn’t worked, so now she wants the government to step in and tell Muslims how they should organize their prayer halls:
I understand the difficulties in having the state intervene in worship issues. I believe in a separation of church and state, but I’ve come to the difficult decision that women must use the legal system to restore rights in places of worship, particularly when intimidation is used to enforce unfair rules.
Unbelievable! One Christian author took the words right out of my mouth:
That is an almost comically irrational paragraph, and yet it ran in a column published in none other than USA Today. Nomani says that she “understand[s] the difficulties in having the state intervene in worship issues,” but shows no such understanding at all. Then, she writes that she “believe[s] in a separation of church and state,” but then she calls upon the coercive power of the state to force doctrinal change in places of worship. She cannot have it both ways…
I am not worried that IRS agents are about to descend on the nation’s churches, mosques, and synagogues to force a new government-endorsed theology on our places of worship. I am very concerned, however, that this kind of argument, left unaddressed, implies a power that the government does not and should not possess.
Undoubtedly what Nomani is asking for is prohibited by the U.S. Constitution’s, First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” She would open the floodgates of government intervention into the most private area of our lives, our places of worship, our sacred spaces, and threaten to raise our taxes if we didn’t worship in a manner consistent with her ideology (a curious double-violation of Tea Party ideology but nonetheless will probably receive a free pass from many on the Right because of the fact that Muslims are Nomani’s target).
She warns us that in mosques “intimidation is used to enforce unfair rules” but she has no problem using the long arm of the law to intimidate Muslims and force them to construct their prayer halls in line with Nomani’s ideology or else be crushed by burdening taxes. So, Asra, how are you not also using intimidation “to enforce unfair rules?” Can anyone else see the double standard?
Don’t get me wrong. Freedom and women’s rights are very vital issues for Muslims to tackle, but not so much for Nomani. She seems far more interested in getting her uninformed and sensational views published than in helping the Muslim community from within.
How else can we understand her aggressive assault on our most basic American freedom?
July 15th, 2011 at 3:21 pm
Good god, where do these people come from??? Women being able to worship is important, but let’s not get the gov’T involved.
July 15th, 2011 at 3:23 pm
With Muslims like her who needs Islamophobes?
July 15th, 2011 at 3:23 pm
She’s on her way to being the Muslim *shiver* Pamela Geller *shiver*…
July 15th, 2011 at 3:25 pm
Lol- Asra Q. Nomani I mean, really what a loon-
July 15th, 2011 at 3:27 pm
Left to their own devices, I predict that assimilated Muslims comfortable in both worlds will eventually do what Orthodox Jews have done — stopped isolating women in drape-covered balconies or ante-rooms and divided the sanctuary right down the middle with a mechitza (divider). But this is a development that took a couple hundred years with the Orthodox, and even then it was their own decision.
July 15th, 2011 at 3:42 pm
Asra really needs to stop beatin’ this dead horse…
#1 I’ve been to several “new” mosques built in the late 90′s and 2000′s and they have adopted a “style” wherein the women’s section are no longer a “small, dingy, secluded, airless and segregated quarters”. Rather, the overwhelmingly majority are opting for balconies above the male section that are anywhere from 1/2 to 3/4 the size of the men’s area below and are IN the main musalla.
#2 Asra is living in a ideologically insistent abstract candyland.
I say ask not only Muslim women, but women in general: Do you WANT to not only stand squeezed in between strange men, but bending and twisting in between them?
As the article pointed out, the reason for the separation in prayers is due to the very physical act of the Islamic prayer. I Doubt ANY woman would think that’s a good idea.
Sorry Asra, but there is a reason Mexico, Japan, etc. have “women only” segregated subway cars. You’re living in a fantasy world informed by your zealous committment to an abstract ideal.
July 15th, 2011 at 4:12 pm
The Quran identified so-called “Muslims” like this Nomani character as the munafiqun, the hypocrites. They claim to be Muslims but their actions show otherwise. They are in reality those who would oppress Muslims if they got the chance.
July 15th, 2011 at 4:34 pm
The whole gender separation issue, as well as the concept of women praying behind the men, is – much like veiling – something that a lot of Westerners, feminists in particular, dwell on incessantly.
There is a lot of nuance that needs to be taken into account to understand the issue, but really, the important point is this: most Muslim women, including those that attend mosque, either support the practice, don’t care, or rank it as a fairly low-priority concern.
So why is it that non-Muslim critics keep putting this issue into the spotlight? Could it be that it simply relates to their own personal problems with Islam, and not concern for the welfare of actual Muslims?
July 15th, 2011 at 4:52 pm
islamispeace: The Quran identified so-called “Muslims” like this Nomani character as the munafiqun, the hypocrites. They claim to be Muslims but their actions show otherwise. They are in reality those who would oppress Muslims if they got the chance.
The Munafiqeen were people who feigned conversion in order to destroy Islam from within. How do you know that Asra Nomani does not actually believe in Islam but is merely pretending to be a Muslim? Moreover, the Prophet(saw) said, “Whoever has (the following) four characters will be a hypocrite, and whoever has one of the following four characteristics will have one characteristic of hypocrisy until he gives it up. These are: (1 ) Whenever he talks, he tells a lie; (2) whenever he makes a promise, he breaks it; (3) whenever he makes a covenant he proves treacherous; (4) and whenever he quarrels, he behaves impudently in an evil insulting manner.”
Can you prove that Asra Nomani embodies all 4 characteristics? No.
July 15th, 2011 at 5:01 pm
As for the whole segregation of the sexes… yes, Islam does have slightly different gender roles for men and women. ALL cultures, by their very nature, have defined gender roles. David mentions the Jewish community, who share many of the same cultural roots as we Muslims. Even in the West, there are still definite gender roles. Women are allowed – sometimes expected – to dress in different ways than men. You don’t see many men walking around in skirts or bikinis, now do you? Even things like unisex restrooms haven’t caught on much here…
If Asra Nomani were sincere in her convictions about changing things, that would be one thing. I know few people who would begrudge her creating a new Muslim organization to better the lots of women in the Ummah, but it seems to me that she doesn’t want to be a part of it. Everything I’ve read about her makes me believe that she is a hypocrite of the highest order. She is willing to be ‘Muslim’ when it is convenient for her, but she doesn’t want to suffer any of the hardships or difficulties of her fellow believers. She advocates racial and religious profiling, but you can bet that she’d be the first to complain were she on the no-fly list. She doesn’t want to marry a Muslim man, because apparently a white Christian knows more about India than people who actually lived there.
Yet she doesn’t convert. She doesn’t walk away. Instead she wants us all to behave like some sort of collective whole that she alone can describe and speak for. If she doesn’t WANT to be Muslim, she can always go somewhere else. I’d much rather not have someone who is insincere in their beliefs mocking my faith left and right. To my mind it is downright offensive that she tries to claim the mantle of ‘reformer’ or ‘protector of women’ when she herself is not even a part of our wider community.
No, like I said, she seems like another brown woman with an ‘exotic’ name who can peddle her supposed knowledge of Islam to non-Muslims. Her ‘Muslim’ background is nothing more than a fake credential to help her sell books…
July 15th, 2011 at 5:59 pm
I knew someone who became interested in Islam but did not pursue this interest. One of the reasons he did not continue was he was not comfortable with the arrangement of the sacred space at the mosque. However he kept this private concern to himself. He only talked about such things when asked. The arrangement of the mosque is for the people who run the mosque to determine; not for governments.
July 15th, 2011 at 6:19 pm
@IbnAbuTalib, yes I am aware of the hadith. Notice the hadith says that if a person has one of the characteristics, he/she will have one of the characteristics of hypocrisy. Now, which ones can be easily applied to Nomani? Well, what about the first one? Whenever this woman speaks about Islam and Muslims, she tells a lie. Why else do you think she is so popular with the Islamophobes?
July 15th, 2011 at 6:22 pm
You may also want to read the following:
http://islamqa.com/en/ref/12387
July 15th, 2011 at 6:39 pm
Islam (roughly) means surrendering to will of the Creator, not cherry-picking.
Islamic worship is strangely enough set according to the rules of the Islamic faith.
If you do not agree with that, why not leave Islam & choose something that satisfies your selfish desires? The sajda places the seat of arrogance in the dust & one says ~”Glory to Allah the most High”.
In Islam, the example of the Prophet (a.k.a. “walking Quran”) is the rule, one cannot overturn his guidance.
The internal rules of worship state that it is compulsory for Muslim males to attend congregational prayer, while females are allowed the freedom to attend to attend to other valued roles e.g. nurturing the next generation. Therefore the optional can cannot be compared with the obligatory. There IS a difference.
The Deformists DO have an agenda, in the same way vegan Hitler attacked Jews for Kosher slaughter. The adoption of Feminazi ideology is not unexpected. Naturally some naive self-hating Toby Muslims will join the Loons in their apparently PC Crusades.
July 15th, 2011 at 7:52 pm
#1 what i don’t like about those kind of people promoting”Mosque politics”
is that they loose sight of the reason why people go the mosque is the first place.who care’s who is leading the prayer or wish spot you pray at people are there to worship God and God alone.NOT for the bickering between(male and female).
#2 there are more urgent problems facing the community,this woman need’s to setup her priorities.If she want,s to help some muslim womans that are in need ,then she should khow that “mosque politics” are not on their priority list…
July 15th, 2011 at 8:08 pm
“Understanding sometimes is not enough to explain something. Only faith is sufficient. The Führer in Nuremberg said: ‘Woe to him who does not believe!’ He who does not believe has no soul. He is empty. He has no ideals. He has nothing to live for. He has no sunshine, no light, no joy in life. He is a poor, poor man. What is wealth? What are possessions? What does it all mean? Problems come despite them, only faith is left. Woe to him who does not believe!”
“Our god is the wonderful law of creation, whose amazing unity of all things shows itself if wonderful flowers, in growing trees, in new born children, in the secrets of a mother, in the growth of our people, in work and accomplishment and creation, in life itself. It is the joy we have in everything. How beautiful everything is. Do you feel the same way? I am so happy to be alive.”
spoken by Robert Ley, Hitler’s gauleiter and henchmen.
July 15th, 2011 at 9:11 pm
I grew up in Cairo, Egypt. There are serious issues facing women in that country,of both faiths. Many times you feel that society at large missed the movement’s for women liberation in the Middle East in the beginning of the last century. Many women are dismissed, harassed, can’t find adequate jobs, etc. There are women and men that are fighting for these rights however and using religion. There is a long history of Women’s Rights activist in Egypt for instance, who gained a lot of respect for fighting against colonialism and sacrificed a lot for their country. These helped and it paid off for instance when in 1954 the Free officers agreed to a clause guaranteeing women the right to vote and participate and their rights as equal citizens. The Middle East has a history of its own that people can rely on, and there is great reason for hope.
My local mosque was quite big. Yes women and men were separated, but the mosque was actually two stories high and the women prayed ABOVE the men. In fact, the first area to get Air conditioning was the women’s area. On Mondays they’d shut down the mosque till noon prayers for women only. That was normal and not anything necessarily progressive.
I live now in a small town in Texas. The community tries to build a mosque but faces opposition. You may have even heard about this, the land owners by us organized Friday night pig races and harassed worshipers. Then we only prayed in a house on a property. A few years later, we’ve been barley able to expand into t-shacks (like the outside classrooms you see in some schools) both the men and women areas are very modest and barley make do. They are trying to get the resources to set up a live feed of the imam so the women can see the sermon without any issues. On the way to enter the mosque however you are faced with two huge signs set up by the neighbors. One is of a giant cross and a star of David, the other says in red letters ‘Jesus is your Lord’ or something like that. The problems facing Muslims and Muslim women in America are not necessarily ones that deal with mosques. They’d be lucky to have a decent mosque in their community. My mom, who wears a hijab, is many times scared to go shopping at clothes stores she used to frequent because some lady a few weeks ago stopped her and told her that she needs to ‘go back home’ and that she scares people. We are all American citizens. There is an issue rarely addressed, Muslim women wearing hijabs and for sure niqabs feel danger whilst walking around in American streets and are easy targets. I reported the incident to the police and they simply responded with saying ‘yeah, we’ve been getting stuff like that lately’. Sometimes I think it’s just because I live in Texas, but I hear stories like that in New York and other places up North.
Just last semester my college republicans invited none other than Robert Spencer to speak at my university. They were handing out posters with the blown up twin towers and asking ‘Is Islam a Religion of Peace?” another posters had pictures of women getting stoned and was like ‘Rights of Women in Islam’. The muslim student association at my university refused to send someone to debate him for some reason, I wanted to, but they advised me against it. Of course the sleazy Spencer was saying the most outrageous things, but most disturbing was how he was tirelessly trying to tell the audience that he is looking for peace and understanding and that he was hoping for change! Yes of course, the change when Muslims convert to Christianity!
July 15th, 2011 at 9:13 pm
I guess Nomani’s “star” has faded considerably for her to resort to bizarre antics. Guess no one bought her crappy books.
I’ll just repeat what I told on her idiot supporters on my site : Islam does NOT come from you or me, but from Allah(swt) through his Prophet(saw), if you like it, keep it, but if not, leave it, but don’t try to change it.
I never believed she was ever sincere given that Muslim children have a greater understanding of the deen then her.
July 15th, 2011 at 11:39 pm
I have a mosque nearby which is quite small and has no minarets but has a spacious space for female worshippers. I do not know whats the big deal with men praying with women when there is nothing sexist, just in Islam while praying we must be focused on god while praying so sexes are segregated to prevent attraction and some dirty men who exploit innocent women
July 16th, 2011 at 12:07 am
@kersho..it is true that westerns muslims womans are getting more and more terrified just be walking down the street,but that’s exactly what’s islamophobes are looking for, their goal is to created fear and identity crise in the harts of muslims,specially the womans and youth.Islamophobes want muslims to fell shame of their identity and start trowing away what they hold precious the most, their (muslim identity),it’s a physiological warfare.So tell your mom and every muslim(men and woman)that you meet, Not to fear but fear itself.
As it happened to many hates groups before them ,islamophobes will fall one by one like fleas, it’s already happening, because justice always
prevales.In the meantime, muslims have to hold their heads up hight and not to gave in to islamophobics pressures.
July 16th, 2011 at 12:20 am
What is this piece even doing on Loonwatch? This piece reads like an apology for the status quo in respect of gender arrangements in US mosque, where spaces for women are not infrequently sub-standard or non-existent. Whilst Asma’s methods are dubious at best, I fail to see how this places her alongside the likes of Pamela Geller et al. I’d be careful about bringing internecine squabbles of this kind to Loonwatch. “Proggie bashing” will do the cause of fighting the real menace of Islamophobia not one shred of good. Islamophobes will not enquire what kind of Muslim you are when they decide it’s time to punch your head in. Savvy?
July 16th, 2011 at 2:34 am
Have people here seen Women Only Jihad, the documentary about how MPACUK is fighting for British Muslim women to have access to mosques?
MPACUK are hardly sellouts — in fact they were subjected to a no-platform order by the National Union of Students, because of their strident anti-zionist views.
July 16th, 2011 at 3:03 am
“Some of these mosques do not have the funding to give women a bigger space” – give me a break! Suggesting poor women’s spaces in US mosques is down to funding, or even “conservative culture” is taking sides with a legitimate issue, rather than criticising Asra’s blunderbuss approach, which is fair comment. Loonwatch can’t have its cake and eat it. If you veer into sectarian squabbles, you threaten your legitimacy as impartial defenders of civil rights, speaking on behalf of all Muslims. You cannot risk being seen as defenders of only those Muslim groups you agree with, otherwise Spencer et al will have you for breakfast.
July 16th, 2011 at 3:59 am
@yakoub. I see your point pretty clearly. And to the one citing them being anti-zionist, we all know that has nothing to do with Islam or being Muslim or extent of such things. Twisting arms doesn’t get things done, that is why I feel people are objecting to it. This type of enforced secularism, is why I believe we have many issues in the Middle East–in which, otherwise sound advancements are diminished by their messengers and their methods. Again, in Egypt for instance we are battling some of the most backwards and vile beings–salafis–who use facebook and Satellite tv channels and coolly talk about how cinema is a sin and how if you find artifacts in your land then its yours. Egyptian cinema is terrible. But there are people who produce films that are overly sexual and have an extensive amount of drug and alcohol use for no apparent reason, but of course grab tickets. Although it is not the producer’s fault, said films only succeed because the supposedly pious populace keeps watching them. However, in a debate about censorship–defending a crap movie with sex scenes and overly dramatic drug use against salafis is defeating your point. We don’t need to go to extremes to prove points especially ones that deal with entrenched societal prejudices. Principle can go to hell, one has to be pragmatic. Also, for instance, I can’t hypothetically argue for Gay rights for instance in Egypt with salafis as a liberal because that completely dismisses my case and makes them win.
July 16th, 2011 at 5:41 am
@ kersho. Thanks for sharing your experiences!
It’s pretty sad to see the so called Christians and Jews behaving this way. They obviously need to go back and read their books again.
Appeasement will never bring you closer to them. Today it’s your hijab, take the hijab off and then it will be your accent, sort your accent out then it will be your skin colour etc etc etc, the list is endless. Do your best to be a strong confident muslimah and tell your mother to do the same. Don’t let them intimidate you into submission to their ways. Engage them in peaceful conversation. Always remember the following
“Never will the Jews nor the Christians be pleased with you (O Muhammad ) till you follow their religion.) meaning, `The Jews and the Christians will never be happy with you, O Muhammad! Therefore, do not seek what pleases or appeases them, and stick to what pleases Allah by calling them to the truth that Allah sent you with.
July 16th, 2011 at 6:34 am
@ Yakoub: This piece definitely belongs here. Gender segregation in Islam is based on the Sunnah of Prophet Muhammad (SAW). It is not an issue of unequal rights. I’ve been to plenty of Masjids where the women’s prayer area is better than the men’s (and usually upstairs).
Asra Nomani is a loon (and Munafiq) of the highest order. She wants the government to tell us how to practice our faith and make it conform to her corrupt ideology. She’s not interested in gender equality. She wants to change Islam to suit her own corrupt desires. She didn’t care about women (other than herself) until she lost an election for a position on the board of the Morgantown Masjid. That is when she started all this nonsense. She’s a media whore who is only interested in her own fame and power. Even most legitimate Muslimas recognize that she does not represent their interests nor does she care about them.
This isn’t a “sectarian squabble” as you call it. She clearly wants to start her own cult and has veered outside the bounds of Islam. As far as civil rights – well how about our right to religious freedom and separation of church and state. She wishes to trample on our civil rights by using the government to force us to follow her ridiculous notions.
July 16th, 2011 at 6:40 am
@Kersho – I agree about the arm twisting. I can remember the idea of State intervention in mosque affairs being argued for on MWU years ago. Such a strategy sides with the kind of Neocon agenda that sees Islam as a problem that only ‘the West’ can solve. Gender justice is a legitimate Islamic issue, no one is denying that, but in pursuing this issue, I concur 100% with the view put forward by anthropologist Saba Mahmood:
“…any social and political transformation is always a function of local, contingent, and emplaced struggles whose blueprint cannot be worked out or predicted in advance. And when such an agenda of reform is imposed from above or outside, it is typically a violent imposition whose results are likely to be far worse than anything it seeks to displace…”
July 16th, 2011 at 6:53 am
@Hatethehaterz You say you’ve “been to plenty of Masjids where the women’s prayer area is better than the mens” – are you suggesting that concerns over women’s spaces in US mosques is not a serious and legitimate issue? I’ve heard many people say otherwise, and in citing cost and conservative culture, this article concedes as much. Asra’s methods are one thing, and I’m not in a position to judge her character, but I’m far from convinced the issue she raised is irrelevant or that this piece doesn’t side a little too much with an issue which divides Muslims. The EDL are more than happy to beat up sincere and “munafiq” Muslims, conservative and progressive, but I for one endeavour to defend ALL Muslims against such hate and prejudice, insha Allah.
July 16th, 2011 at 6:55 am
Oh and if you actually read some her stuff floating around on the internet, you will find that she does basically peddle Islamophobia. She simply sugar coats her criticizms of Islam by saying she wants to “reform” it. Islam was given to us by Allah (the Creator). It is perfect (in our beleif). It is opportunists like her who need to be “reformed.” Sad that there are so many misguided souls who defend her.
July 16th, 2011 at 7:11 am
@ Hatethehaterz There has always been diverse views expressed about Islam by Muslims. Asra is entitled to hers, as you are yours. The way to resolve them is by reasoned discussion, something we all fail to do during the heat of the argument. It’s just Asra seems to fail a little more frequently than most. Louay Safi describes her as a “loner” who “doesn’t have the experience of engaging the community, negotiating and trying to change things gradually.” Reading about her, she reminds me of Taj Hargey. And I have to confess, mention HIS name to me, and I explode!
July 16th, 2011 at 7:23 am
The prophet said that a persons actions are derived from their intentions.
Now ask yourself when Reading asra’s writing what her intentions are. Does she really want to highlight womens rights in islam.
I think everybody can agree that women should have their full rights as prescribed by Allah(swt).
Why does she not write about the important issues Muslim women face in the world. There are hundreds of things she could write about.
She has a go at mosques in America and the prayer arrangements.
This just stinks of hyppocracy!
July 16th, 2011 at 8:02 am
@Yakoub
What is this piece even doing on Loonwatch? This piece reads like an apology for the status quo in respect of gender arrangements in US mosque, where spaces for women are not infrequently sub-standard or non-existent.
The point of the article is that government has no right to tell us how to worship. When did he say women shouldn’t go to mosque or have adequate prayer space? Maybe you missed this line:
“Don’t get me wrong. Freedom and women’s rights are very vital issues for Muslims to tackle, but not so much for Nomani. She seems far more interested in getting her uninformed and sensational views published than in helping the Muslim community from within.”
July 16th, 2011 at 9:13 am
@Yakoub, I understand your objection, but I have to disagree. LoonWatch is not “proggie bashing.” I don’t consider Asra a progressive, she lost all credibility long ago. It is not progressive to support “racial profiling,” it also isn’t progressive to blatantly assault the First Amendment of the Constitution the way she did.
That is the main thrust of the article, to take on her ludicrous notion that the Government should intervene and tell Muslims how to worship. The words she wrote could have come out of the mouths of any Islamophobe.
Our intention is not to enter into any sectarian conflict, or to say which interpretation is the correct one, etc. The article recognizes that gender problems is a serious issue, that many mosques in the US have less than adequate space for women. I don’t think we minimize that at all. At the end of the day the point is that Muslims must change, adjust, grapple with these things through debate, dialogue, etc. within their communities and not with the “long arm of the law.”
By bringing in the government, Asra sounds eerily similar to the Pam Geller’s, David Yerushalmi and Robert Spencer’s of the world.
July 16th, 2011 at 9:33 am
If she has no scholarly credentials then she has no right to tell Muslims how they should practice their religion. And she does suck up to Islamophobes, maybe she craves attention. She is also a friend of Irshad Manji, that says it all really.
These people do not bring Muslims together, rather they cause infighting and division. Her vision of Islam is based on her escapades, not researched. The only people listening to her would be the non-muslims.
July 16th, 2011 at 10:01 am
How far should we go for a genderless society?
Maybe this woman would propose genderless bathrooms, or genderless clothing shops.
The problem with this whole women’s equality is, that they take it as men and women are exactly the same, and that our purpose on the earth is the same, and if we arent treated exactly the same as men, it is discrimination.
What Asra Nomani is saying to people like me is…my attributes as a woman are not as valuable as my wanting to be like a man.
Of course, that is what she is saying in public.
I think however, what she wants is regulation of attrition. That is to make it harder to open or maintain a masjid by using regulation and building codes.
She is doing what is done in Israel to force Arabs out of thier homes, and prevent them from moving into new homes in Israel.
She may be Muslimah, but she is not on the side of the rights of people, or Muslimahs, or freedom of expression.
July 16th, 2011 at 10:06 am
Oh…and even in Malaysia, a nation that has the ‘official religion’ as Islam, the women’s spaces are not as big as the men…mostly because alot of the time, women stay home and pray.
I would say that I have spent much more than half of my time praying at home in my lifetime. Alot of the time because household matters needed attention. Maybe I was cleaning, or caring for my children, or grand children, or cooking. These are also a woman’s duty.
I am 64 years old.
July 16th, 2011 at 12:46 pm
Let her set up her own Masjid with it’s own rules , she is free to do so … but she wants to set HER rules in Masjids build without any of HER efford
July 16th, 2011 at 2:23 pm
@Yakoub: I agree there is a diverse range of interpretations within Islam. But the problem with Asra Nomani (and why she belongs on this site) is that she wants to force her interpretation onto the rest of us. Furthermore, there is a difference between a legitimate interpretation of Fiqh or Sharia within the acceptable framework of Islam; and flat out kufr. She crosses that line. She wants to change Islam to make it acceptable to have sex and relationships outside of marriage. Because, you know, she routinely has sex outside of marriage (by her own admission). She even had a child out of wedlock. So rather than change her morals and behavior, she would rather change Islam to suit her own selfish desires. Furthermore, as per this article she wants to force all Muslims in the U.S. (via the govt.) to conform to her vision of “gender equality” during salat. In other words, she wants to make halal that which is haram and make haram that which is halal. This is one of the characteristics of a munafiq (hypocrit) as per Islamispeace’s link above. So this is not a situation where someone merely has a different interpretation of some nuance of religious practice. Her ideology is completely outside the framework of Islam, and should be exposed as such. Finally, her very assertion that gender segregation is due to sexism is incorrect and belittles legitimate movements for women’s rights in Islam.
July 16th, 2011 at 3:32 pm
Excellent points by Hatethehaterz. Not only is Nomani expressing the signs of a hypocrite, she is also teetering on flat-out apostasy. Anyone who feels they can change Islam, when God has already declared it to be finalized, is trying to play God, which of course is the epitome of kufr.
July 16th, 2011 at 4:04 pm
islamispeace, you do realize that there are many reform-minded Muslims, myself included, who participate in LoonWatch, don’t you? Are we “teetering on flat out apostasy”?
July 16th, 2011 at 4:16 pm
I think Hatethehaterz and Yakoub are both right. Nomani is an opportunist who peddles the same loon thinking as Geller, Spencer, etc, only she plays the Muslim card to make a buck off of it. She holds no expertise or credibility and should be treated as such.
However, this article does, indeed, seem to go well beyond pointing this out, trying to delve into gender separation directly, which is really not something Loonwatch should be doing. Like I said earlier, even though the issue is one that is clearly exaggerated and exploited by Islamophobes, it’s still a legitimate concern, albeit one to be worked out within the Muslim community itself. That’s really all Loonwatch should be saying about the matter, in my opinion. I think Yakoub is correct in stating that this article seems to be trying to downplay or dismiss the issue, which is exactly the kind of thing that loons feed off of when trying to undermine this site. Don’t give them ammunition.
July 16th, 2011 at 4:19 pm
Love how loons claim to fight for “freedom” but want people to have there kind of “Freedom” with rules they make up on the fly……or else you should be deported kicked out
“We want freedom for all…except gays, muslims, blacks, non christians, anyone else we dont like”
July 16th, 2011 at 4:21 pm
Also, islamispeace, to echo what IbnAbuTalib said: the implication that reform is somehow heretical is also music to the ears of the Islamophobes; they want nothing more than to convince non-Muslims that that is the only accepted Muslim perspective. You’re really not helping.
July 16th, 2011 at 6:07 pm
@ibnabutalib
Reform away brother but remember your parameters:
Surah Al-Ma’idah, 5: 3 This day, I have perfected your religion for you, completed My Favor upon you, and have chosen for you Islâm as your religion.
If you expect reform to come from the likes of asra, then good luck to you, you on your own. Read what sister nur alia and sister kersho have said to get a muslimah’s perspective.
I agree with “islamispeace” 100%
July 16th, 2011 at 6:53 pm
“But perhaps the issue is that women have a less nice area to pray in or are being denied access to the mosque altogether. On this issue Nomani has a point…”
I think people here should read the article again. The author does not dismiss the issue but only explains that the lack of adequate prayer spaces is not always a case of sexism. Nomani, on the other hand, believes there is a behind-the-scenes conspiracy of bearded men who hate women and so force them to enter through different doors and compel them to pray in smaller areas. Obviously, this isn’t always the case. As the author correctly points out, Western mosques don’t have an unlimited budget but a growing number of Muslims so priority is going to be given to those upon whom the salat is compulsory. In other words, there are many reasons, other than sexism, that Muslims might decide that women should enter through a different door and have separate prayer areas. In fact, I’ve seen Muslim women themselves demand separate entrances as they didn’t like having to barge through numerous men each time they want to pray.
I’m sure there are cases of sexism in mosques, but none of the facts matter to Asra who decides to sensationalise the issue and present the story as if she is a lone woman battling against brutish Muslim men who are enforcing “Gender Apartheid”. That’s the only way she can sell the story so she has to generalise and pretend this is a common occurrence around the world and that all Muslim women feel exactly the same way.
Ultimately, those criticising the article should see that the author describes what she is fighting for as a “legitimate cause” that is supported by the Hadith, but explains that it would be better if she would “engage in a respectful dialogue with notable Imams, scholars and activists, work for grassroots change in her local community, and help establish the model mosque she seeks with their help or of her own volition.” Respectful dialogue is clearly what Nomani has thrown out the window. Also, Asra Nomani is a Class-A loon for her statements on many other issues such as racial profiling of Muslims so this issue would be best handled by someone else — someone less loony.
July 16th, 2011 at 7:48 pm
IbnAbuTalib and JN, perhaps you should stop putting words in my mouth. When did I say all “reform-minded” Muslims are teetering on apostasy? Like some people, such as Anj, have pointed out already, reform is not a bad thing but it must be done within the limits of Islam. What people like Nomani are trying to do is not “reform”. They want to change Islam to something it is not. Are you one of them? I hope not. Furthermore, there is a big difference in reforming Islam and reforming the followers of Islam. The Quran and Sunnah do not need to be reformed. People like the Taliban need to be reformed. I hope you see the difference.
JN, you say that being ant-reform (which I never said I was) is what the Islamophobes want. Perhaps, but did you ever think that they also want us (I assume you are Muslim; if not I apologize) change our religion to try to impress them? Who are we trying to impress? God or these petty Islamophobes? Think about it.
July 16th, 2011 at 7:58 pm
Asra Nomani and her ilk actually make true reform or education of the Muslim community even more difficult. I look to individuals such as Suhaib Webb, Tariq Ramadan, Khalid Latif, Ingrid Mattson and Heba Ezzat as stewards of a real authentic engagement and progression of Muslim society, community and thought.
July 16th, 2011 at 9:55 pm
It’s tough being a girl
July 16th, 2011 at 10:26 pm
islamispeace, if you don’t want people putting words in your mouth, why did you use the sort of sweeping rhetoric that was in your original comment?
You said that Islam is finalized by God, and that people who think they can change it are kafirs. Do you not see how that’s problematic and scary to reform-minded Muslims and those who support them? You’re adding on addenda to it now that make it more approachable, but it’s still vague and open-ended. Who is going to decide what’s within the “limits” of Islam? What if you and another Muslim have a disagreement on the definition? Do you think that labeling them a kafir is a good idea? Putting aside how bad it looks to non-Muslims, do you honestly think that this attitude is healthy for Muslim communities?
The problem with Nomani is not her alleged concern over the gender issue, it’s the fact that she’s exploiting it and exaggerating it for her own personal gain.
However,a Muslim who, unlike Nomani, has a sincere and genuine concern about the issue, isn’t “teetering on flat-out apostasy.” Even if they want reforms that you don’t agree with at all, or that you think are contradicted by the Quran and the Sunnah, you are not helping matters by labeling other Muslims as kafirs. It’s destructive for any religious community, and yes, it plays directly into the kinds of stereotypes and propaganda that Islamophobes have poisoned mainstream society with.
July 16th, 2011 at 10:58 pm
It’s not a double standard. It’s a single standard. The argument goes that Muslims are evil by nature, and they need to be contained by the government. Asra Nomani hates Muslims, and she tries to justify it by claiming to be a Muslim herself. “Oh, I’m one of them myself. I don’t hate them. I just want to air all of their dirty laundry out in front of the neighbor who is always speaking ill about them, thus giving them more ammunition to speak ill of them.” If she were not a Muslim, she would be up there with the Pamela Geller’s and Robert Spencers of the world. But since she is a Muslim, it is just “criticism” of her community.
July 17th, 2011 at 3:04 am
“She is doing what is done in Israel to force Arabs out of thier homes, and prevent them from moving into new homes in Israel.”
Ah, we can always trust Nur Alia to bring the oh-so-evil Israel into a discussion it has absolutely nothing to do whatsoever with.
July 17th, 2011 at 3:32 am
Anj and islamispeace, would speak out against death penalty for apostates and stoning, among other things, take me outside the fold of Islam? If so, do you mean Sunni Islam or Shia Islam or the hundreds of other sects out there?
July 17th, 2011 at 5:37 am
I think there are a few crossed wires! Nobody is saying reform is bad, infact reform is needed. This reform must be within the limits of islam. See my previous post and the quoted quranic text. If a new contemporary issue arises then of course we have to address that.
Eg- organ donation, ivf, etc etc and learned scholars have to give us guidance in accordance with Islamic principles.
The danger comes from when non learned people who do not use Islamic principles start to mouth off and create an issue out of nothing. As per asra!
This takes us further away from islam not closer to.
Let’s say for one second asra gets her wish. Prayer room, then mix prayer room, then some bright spark may say let’s use the mosque as a wedding venue, girls side party, boys side party, walima, maybe a band too………………………………hey let’s really bollywoodise it, why don’t we walk round the fire too?
Boom and all of a sudden islam has disappeared from view? What say ye now oh asra type reformers? Reformed our way to jahannum!
July 17th, 2011 at 6:48 am
Anj, do you know what a slippery slope argument is?
July 17th, 2011 at 7:24 am
Yep! That is exactly why only Islamic scholars, using Islamic sources, using Islamic methods should attempt reforms on new and contemporary issues.
The likes of asra are a non starter!
July 17th, 2011 at 7:34 am
Anj, you have a very monolithic view of what Islam is. Tell me, do you consider the opinions of Shiite scholars to be authoritative? Or how about the likes of Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd, Fazlur Rahman, Mohammed Arkoun, Khaled Abou El Fadl, Muhammad Asad, Aisha Musa, Asma Asrafuddin, Amina Wadud, Ghulam Ahmed Parwez, Rashid Rida, Muhammad Abduh and others? If you have not heard about these people, or if you are convinced they are deviants because they expound ideas outside of the traditional Sunni framework, then it is safe to say that you have no idea about what reform is about.
July 17th, 2011 at 7:38 am
I am amazed at the bickering that goes on between the Sunnis and Shiites, each calling the other deviant even though they follow the same book. Reminds of Surah 2 verse 113.
July 17th, 2011 at 8:06 am
IbnAbuTalib,
I think Shia from the Jafari school are correct, primarily because the Twelver madhab has been recognized to be authoritative by the established traditional Ulema. However, it is not fair to put Mohammed Abdu and Mohammed Asad with say, Mohammed Arkun, Nasr Abu Zayd (both of whom may God have mercy on,) and Amina Waddud. The first two ARE traditional scholars exploring Islamic texts and scriptures from new angles and perspectives. As for Arkun and Abu Zayd, they have both endeavored to impose antipodal approaches and methodologies to Islamic scripture. Im not saying it takes them to the point of Kuffur, but it is far from what we need. Their approach is too promethian.
As for Amina Waddud (and I would add Khaled Aboul Fadl)Im too wary of individuals who are seeking, like Ms. Asra, to push an agenda. Mr. Fadl is a scholar of the Law, no doubt about it, but his approach to the problems of the Muslim community and his attempt to impose a “rationalist” narrative is worrisome to say the least.
And I do wonder however why you didnt add Sayyid Hossien Nasr, Sherman Jackson, Sayyid Iqbal or Sheik Isa Nur-Ad-Din? or are these individuals too traditional for you?
Bewary of seeking to put the badge of “progress” on you just for the sake of being called progessive.
July 17th, 2011 at 8:13 am
And stop saying “you see Islam as too monolithic and there are hundreds of sects out there and…etc.” This is getting very bothersome to hear. The Ahyl Al-Sunnah contains within it a wide spectrum of doctrinal and ritualistic communities, no one is denying that BUT there is such a thing as heresy, and we should be wary of it and fight it if we can. We shouldnt celebrate “difference” and take a relativistic approach to matters by saying “all is correct” or that “all are Muslim.” There are measures, and there are parameters for what places one within and outside the fold of Islam, and this emerges by the consensus of those knowledgable amongst us. Unless of course, you consider Ahmeddis for instance to be Muslims?Or Bahais? Or even Ishmaelis (though I must say, in the case of the later, there are growing attempts to bring the community back to traditional Shia Islam, so its open to debate.) Yes, we have plurality, and that is a Rahmah as the Prophet (SAWS) said, but we shouldnt celebrate plurality for the sake of plurality in so far as it has the purpose of addressing various contexts and situations appropriate for different mentalities.
July 17th, 2011 at 8:21 am
When was the last time this crazy chick prayed in a mosque???? If we went “co-ed” at my Masjid I would just pray at home.
July 17th, 2011 at 8:24 am
Al Arabi: The Ahyl Al-Sunnah contains within it a wide spectrum of doctrinal and ritualistic communities, no one is denying that BUT there is such a thing as heresy
I take it you are a Salafi?
July 17th, 2011 at 8:45 am
Al Arabi: The Ahyl Al-Sunnah contains within it a wide spectrum of doctrinal and ritualistic communities, no one is denying that BUT there is such a thing as heresy
With an outlook like that, you might as well declare all Muslims outside the traditional Sunni framework as heretics.
Al Arabi; I think Shia from the Jafari school are correct, primarily because the Twelver madhab has been recognized to be authoritative by the established traditional Ulema
Are you suggesting that the Jafari school is valid because the traditional Sunni Ulema think so, as if to imply that it is the Sunni scholars who get to decide what Islam is or isn’t?
July 17th, 2011 at 8:59 am
Imagine if an Islamophobe came to the comments section here. He will be pleased.
Why? Because we are tearing ourselves apart in this comment section with hostile dialogue. Doubly ironic since this is in response to an article about a Muslimah (no matter how much her credentials are in doubt).
So everyone. Take a pause from the keyboard, take a deep breath, say Istighfar (if you’re a Muslim), probably wash your face (or do Wudhoo), and then reply, with a cool head.
Ok?
July 17th, 2011 at 9:16 am
I think that the only person here with a very constrained viewpoint is you IbnAbiTalib, since from what I can read from your replies, you didnt read what I said. No matter. I am not Salafi, since you’re asking, but Im a perennialist to be more exact and a Malki. I do come however from a Salafi household in Saudi Arabia.
I reiterate, the community is open to a wide variety of viewpoints and doctrinal persuasions, but there are lines of heresy, and they should be recognized as such. “Relative” differences are not important, in so far as there are Absolutes that should not be crossed. Otherwise, we might as well hoist every Musaylama as a true teacher of God’s word. Surely you recognize that there are red lines in the faith? That there are “modernist” tendencies and “worship-centered” theologies we should be wary of?Certainly there are many forms of Tasawwuf that are very good in nature, but others have ghullu for instance, and certainly there are forms of Shia devotion that are beautiful, but also lead to ghullu. Likewise, sola scriptura within the Salafi movement/s has its beneifits and appeals to certain minds, but it can only go so far (otherwise, it falls into heresy.)
IbnAbiTalib: Are you suggesting that the Jafari school is valid because the traditional Sunni Ulema think so, as if to imply that it is the Sunni scholars who get to decide what Islam is or isn’t?
I think that, since the Prophet already said that the Ulema are the inheritors of the Annbiyya, it would be prudent to listen to them, especially since they have over a thousand years of accumulated heritage and experiance.
The demoocratization of the Law and doctrine will only lead to disaster (and has) with the rise of false preachers and imm’ahat.
My opinion on the Jaafri school – and for the most part, Shaykhi, Zayidi, Ibaadi and Twelver Shiism, is based on reading their texts AND the opinion of the Ulema. Im wary of Takfir, but I will listen to what the scholars say. Or do you propose to self-sufficiancy in knowledge?
Istagferallah, do not take my writing to be in an angry tone, but brother, you need to recognize there is an orthodoxy that is open to relative interpretation, but it is an orthodoxy nonetheless.
July 17th, 2011 at 9:19 am
Quick note: So that my words are not misconstrued when I mentioned “Takfir” – all forms of Jaafarism is orthodox as far as Im concerned.
July 17th, 2011 at 10:36 am
At the end of the day, Al Arabi, you are using Sunni Islam to decide what is or what is not Islam. Do I consider Bahais to be Muslims? No. Even they don’t consider themselves as Muslims. Do I consider Ahmedi’s as Muslims? If I were to go solely by the following hadith, then yes:
Whoever prays our prayer and faces our qibla and eats what we slaughter, he is a Muslim and is under the protection of Allah and the protection of His Messenger. Do not act treacherously against Allah with respect to those under His protection.”
Ahmedi’s embody all the aforementioned qualities and as such I don’t consider them as apostates. If you are wondering, no, I am not an Ahmedi. No matter how intensely you dislike it, the idea of Islam as a monolith is simply not tenable.
July 17th, 2011 at 10:50 am
“Imagine if an Islamophobe came to the comments section here. He will be pleased.”
Yes, he (or she) certainly would be pleased.
This thread reminds me of something I heard at a lecture held by a local Muslim group. The speaker was a woman – a convert who had been raised a conservative Christian, become an atheist and then a Muslim. She was extremely intelligent and knowledgeable. The one bit of advice she gave to the audience when researching Islam and encountering different perspectives was to avoid material with heavy takfirist undertones – her reasoning being that those who frequently labeled others as takfir almost always prevented real dialogue from happening and instead ended up dividing people.
It’s not a Muslim-only problem, by any means: in the US, there’s far more intolerance rooted in Christian exclusionism than there likely ever will be from Muslims. One need only look at the suicide rate among gay and lesbian teenagers to see the evidence of that. Yet I wonder if we don’t have people on this site who’d happily label self-identified gay Muslims as takfir as well? It all ties back to the mentality that it’s OK to cast others out from the community based on their views, using nebulous concepts of “consensus” as the metric. It’s dangerous thinking that shouldn’t be necessary for intelligent dialogue, and does real damage to individuals and the community. So yes, that’s why Islamophobes reading this thread must be doing backflips, and why I’m just shaking my head.
July 17th, 2011 at 12:19 pm
JN: islamispeace, if you don’t want people putting words in your mouth, why did you use the sort of sweeping rhetoric that was in your original comment?
What “sweepeing rhetoric” are you referring to? I was criticizing Nomani and her so-called “reforms”. You insinuated, without any reason, that I was criticizing any attempt at reform. Like I said, don’t put words in my mouth.
JN: You said that Islam is finalized by God, and that people who think they can change it are kafirs. Do you not see how that’s problematic and scary to reform-minded Muslims and those who support them? You’re adding on addenda to it now that make it more approachable, but it’s still vague and open-ended. Who is going to decide what’s within the “limits” of Islam? What if you and another Muslim have a disagreement on the definition? Do you think that labeling them a kafir is a good idea? Putting aside how bad it looks to non-Muslims, do you honestly think that this attitude is healthy for Muslim communities?
Again, you are insinuating that I am anti-reform. Like I said, reform must be in accordance with the guidelines of the Quran and Sunnah. If people don’t like it, they can leave Islam. No one is asking them to stay. Are there disagreements among Muslims in terms of interpretation? Of course! That is not a bad thing. Why else do you think there are 4 schools of thought in Islamic Jurisprudence?
I think before we continue further, it would be a good idea if you would provide a definition of what you mean by “reform”. It is obvious that there are differing views. What Nomani calls “reform”, I call “apostasy”. If government interference in religious affairs is her idea of “reform’, then I say NO THANKS! Someone mentioned Tariq Ramadan. I would consider him a reformist and not an apostate. I could work with someone like that.
JN: The problem with Nomani is not her alleged concern over the gender issue, it’s the fact that she’s exploiting it and exaggerating it for her own personal gain.
Exactly. So, she is an enemy within. In other words, a hypocrite!
JN: However,a Muslim who, unlike Nomani, has a sincere and genuine concern about the issue, isn’t “teetering on flat-out apostasy.” Even if they want reforms that you don’t agree with at all, or that you think are contradicted by the Quran and the Sunnah, you are not helping matters by labeling other Muslims as kafirs. It’s destructive for any religious community, and yes, it plays directly into the kinds of stereotypes and propaganda that Islamophobes have poisoned mainstream society with.
And I never said that. It was you and IbnAbuTalib who insinuated based on assumptions. This doesn’t help either.
You never answered my question. Did you ever consider that the Islamophobes want us to change our religion to conform to their views? Who do you serve? Allah or those Islamophobes?
July 17th, 2011 at 12:24 pm
@ibnabutalib I give up. I am going to take brother JN’s advice and just take a chill pill.
I will say this: that as Muslims we have more things in common that should unite us than differences that divide us.
Remember that!
July 17th, 2011 at 12:39 pm
IbnAbuTalib: Do I consider Ahmedi’s as Muslims? If I were to go solely by the following hadith, then yes:
Whoever prays our prayer and faces our qibla and eats what we slaughter, he is a Muslim and is under the protection of Allah and the protection of His Messenger. Do not act treacherously against Allah with respect to those under His protection.”
Ahmedi’s embody all the aforementioned qualities and as such I don’t consider them as apostates. If you are wondering, no, I am not an Ahmedi. No matter how intensely you dislike it, the idea of Islam as a monolith is simply not tenable.
IbnAbuTalib, the hadiths also state that there will be no prophets after Muhammad (pbuh):
“Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, “The Israelis used to be ruled and guided by prophets: Whenever a prophet died, another would take over his place. There will be no prophet after me, but there will be Caliphs who will increase in number.” The people asked, “O Allah’s Apostle! What do you order us (to do)?” He said, “Obey the one who will be given the pledge of allegiance first. Fulfil their (i.e. the Caliphs) rights, for Allah will ask them about (any shortcoming) in ruling those Allah has put under their guardianship.” (Bukhari, 4:56:661)
Also, in his last sermon, the Prophet said:
“People, no prophet or apostle will come after me and no new faith will be born. Reason well, therefore, O People, and understand words which I convey to you. I leave behind me two things, the Quran and my example, the Sunnah (Hadith), and if you follow these you will never go astray.” [Source: http://irshad.org/finality/sermon.php
July 17th, 2011 at 12:49 pm
“Again, you are insinuating that I am anti-reform.”
I didn’t make that insinuation, your comment did. Again, you keep failing to explain how your original assertion – which is that Islam is finalized by God, and that attempts to change it are essentially heresy – doesn’t send all kinds of red flags up to reform-minded Muslims.
Instead, you’re just qualifying the claim by stating that reform is acceptable within the limits of Islam – and again, you also failed to explain what that actually means. Pointing to the different schools of jurisprudence only reinforces my point – that opinions on what is within the limits of Islam can vary widely. So again: what is going to happen when Muslims inevitably start calling for reforms that others consider outside the “limits” of Islam? Will they be branded apostates and subsequently cast out of the Muslim community for their views? Do you realize how dangerous that kind of thinking has been throughout history? Do I need to cite examples for you?
“Exactly. So, she is an enemy within. In other words, a hypocrite!”
That’s three times you’ve missed the point. The legitimate objection to Nomani is that she is not sincere in her claim to want to improve the situation of Muslims, but is instead only out for publicity – and that has nothing to do with your claims about reform and apostasy.
“Who do you serve? Allah or those Islamophobes?”
I don’t serve anybody. I’m an agnostic who has a lot of Muslim friends – some of them very liberal, including a few who have questioned their sexuality. Some of them are treated very dismissively and even disrespectfully by some of the more supposedly “halal” Muslims, to the point of effectively being forced out of the community except superficially. It’s no worse than what goes on in a lot of Christian communities, and the stupidity of Islamophobes is far more troublesome, but it still does upset me nonetheless.
July 17th, 2011 at 1:06 pm
JN: I didn’t make that insinuation, your comment did. Again, you keep failing to explain how your original assertion – which is that Islam is finalized by God, and that attempts to change it are essentially heresy – doesn’t send all kinds of red flags up to reform-minded Muslims.
In the words of Moe, I’ll explain it so even you can understand. People who try to change Islam by making halal things haram and haram things halal are not “reformists”. Based on Asra Nomani’s track record, this is exactly what she wants to do. My “initial comment” was in respect to her. It was you who blew it out of proportion. I am not responsible for your blind assumptions. As I said before, if people don’t like what the Quran and Sunnah say, they are free to leave Islam. It is between them and God. But, they should not pretend they are Muslims and then say things like “the government should force Muslims to do such and such…” Is that more clear?
JN: That’s three times you’ve missed the point. The legitimate objection to Nomani is that she is not sincere in her claim to want to improve the situation of Muslims, but is instead only out for publicity – and that has nothing to do with your claims about reform and apostasy.
It does because she claims she is a “reformist”. And when I and others criticized this approach, we were pounced on by people like you.
JN: I don’t serve anybody. I’m an agnostic who has a lot of Muslim friends – some of them very liberal, including a few who have questioned their sexuality. Some of them are treated very dismissively and even disrespectfully by some of the more supposedly “halal” Muslims, to the point of effectively being forced out of the community except superficially. It’s no worse than what goes on in a lot of Christian communities, and the stupidity of Islamophobes is far more troublesome, but it still does upset me nonetheless.
Thank you for finally making that clear. Unfortunately, this makes our conversation ultimately pointless. The debate about reform within Islam needs to be between Muslims. Your opinions are noted and respected, but there is nothing more I can say to you with regard to this issue.
July 17th, 2011 at 1:10 pm
islamispeace: IbnAbuTalib, the hadiths also state that there will be no prophets after Muhammad (pbuh)
Yes. I myself concede that Muhammad(saw) is the final Messenger of God and there will be no Messengers after him. Nevertheless, the earlier hadith does not permit one to say that Ahmedis are outside of Islam. There is another hadith in which during a battle a companion of the Prophet(saw) was about to kill a person when the latter suddenly declared the Shahada. Nevertheless, the companion killed him and when the Prophet(saw) came to know about this, he was extremely upset. The companion explained that the one he killed said the Shahada only because he was at the point of death. The Prophet(saw) still rebuked him, nevertheless. In light of this two very clear hadith, I simply will not condemn the Ahmedis as apostates or what have you, given that these people sincerely believe in Islam, even though they are mistaken with respect to position of Mirza Ghulam Ahmed.
As I said, the bickering between mainstream Muslims and the Ahmedis is no different from the bickering between Jews and Christians as described in Surah 2 verse 113. One group accuses the other of being wrong even though they both believe in the same Scripture!
As for me, I will leave judgment to Allah as He is the Best of Judges.
July 17th, 2011 at 1:34 pm
“People who try to change Islam by making halal things haram and haram things halal are not “reformists”
Really? So what about Muslims who think that music is haraam? Should they be labeling Muslims who listen to music as apostates? What about Muslims like many in the younger generations who occasionally drink? Or eat non-halal food? Maybe they eat meat that wasn’t prepared in a halal manner? Or maybe they simply choose not to fast during Ramadan? By your logic, islamispeace, they’re all ignoring the Qur’an and the Sunnah, so I guess their choice is to change their behavior or get out, isn’t it? Do I even need to raise the example I gave a minute ago of Muslims who openly question their sexuality?
It’s clearly not just between them and God, but also other Muslims. Anyway you try to rationalize it or repackage it, your position on apostasy goes well beyond simply objecting to Nomani’s call for state intervention and leads to something far more dangerous.
It’s thus pretty clear why you’re citing my status as a non-Muslim as an excuse to back out of the discussion.
July 17th, 2011 at 1:44 pm
JN, it seems you are getting a little over-stimulated. Perhaps you should calm down first. I don’t know how why you continue to make accusations against me. If you don’t agree with Islam, that is your problem, not mine. As for those Muslims who drink or don’t fast, they are not necessarily apostates. They are just sinners, as we all are at some points in our lives. But there is a difference in neglecting one’s religious duties and openly saying that those duties are “backward” or need to be “reformed” or “changed”. Most Muslims know that alcohol is forbidden, even those who do occasionally drink. They don’t try to justify their behavior by reinterpreting the religious texts. That is the big difference. If they do, then and only then are they “teetering on apostasy”.
Also, I did not say that I wanted “to back out of the discussion”. You seem to pat yourself on the back way too much. All I was saying was that in light of your Agnosticism, a discussion about reform in Islam is irrelevant as you are not even a Muslim! This would be like asking Muslims to participate in a discussion on how Christians should view the trinity. Obviously, it would not make much sense. Contrary to your assumption that I was somehow trying to run away from further discussion, I am still here and willing to discuss. Sorry to disappoint you.
July 17th, 2011 at 1:48 pm
IbnAbiTalib, there is very little to say, since you wont budge from your position of labelling fellow Muslims (Twice now, first with Salafi, and then by assuming I had thought you were Ahmadi,) and beating around the bush. The Ahyl Al-Sunnah An-Jamaah do not expel anyone who adheres to La illaha illa Allah, and an apostate is only he who takes on the mantle of apostasy publically and proclaims outright Zandaqah. Otherwise, we take people on the Zahir of their intentions, and leave it at that (hence, the hadith you just mentioned.)
In any case, this is futile. Everytime an issue is brought up with supplements to support it, the tangents are taken up, and accusations and assumptions are made.
There is nothing more to say it seems except that God is the Almighty Judge, and He knows who is on His Path, and who isnt. I wish you will. Wa Assalam.
July 17th, 2011 at 1:50 pm
@JN
“Really? So what about Muslims who think that music is haraam? Should they be labeling Muslims who listen to music as apostates? What about Muslims like many in the younger generations who occasionally drink? Or eat non-halal food? Maybe they eat meat that wasn’t prepared in a halal manner? Or maybe they simply choose not to fast during Ramadan? By your logic, islamispeace, they’re all ignoring the Qur’an and the Sunnah, so I guess their choice is to change their behavior or get out, isn’t it? Do I even need to raise the example I gave a minute ago of Muslims who openly question their sexuality?”
None of these kick out any man or woman from the millah, and any credible scholar will tell you that. Stop setting up strawmen.
July 17th, 2011 at 1:50 pm
Salams
I really don’t see what people are talking about here. When did it become Loonwatch’s perspective and job to care more for it’s image with Islamophobes than for the Truth? Islamophobes will never be satisfied with Muslims until
1) We apostasize from Islam(preferably to Christianity it seems),
2) Become anti-Muslim Crusaders acting as “experts” on Islam.
In that exact order too. In addition, non-Muslims will always be seen as “dhimmi” appeasers until they convert to the phobic point of worldview.
Instead of bickering in the comments section I see nothing more than a respectful dialogue between Muslims with differing points of view.
This article is great! I don’t see any way to criticize it.
Also, people seem to be confusing takfir with takfiri. It’s kind of like jihad and jihadi. Both jihad and takfir are legitimate parts of Islam. However when someone goes beyond Islam and engages in takfirism and jihadism it becomes an issue.
When people talk about “diversity” of opinions in Islam they need to realize that it usually looks, to a Muslim, as if there is belief that Islam encompasses all human behavior, thought, and belief. There are things that are unIslamic and we need to understand ‘ijma and jama’a better before we start talking about how Muslims disagree with certain things, giving the appearance that Muslims have a right to disagree with everything or even anything in Islam. There is a such thing as orthodoxy and heresy in Islam and most of the arguments against it are extremely circular and reduce Islam into a man-made religion worthy of the label Ahl ul Bid’ah wal Ahwaa. Islam is a tradition not some book religion that people can learn by reading books. This where the so-called different interpretations arise, people approaching Islam by stepping outside the tradition and, without ‘ilm, saying that their own personal understanding is a valid interpretation of Islam.
People have also oversimplified nifaq as well and have not dealt with Islamic tradition completely. Just because someone says “I am Muslim”, and is being seen in public praying, and participating in hajj or umrah(only Allah knows if you have fasted), doesn’t not mean that they are not a munafiq. Since we cannot judge someone’s iman and heart nifaq is judged by actions. If someone says I am a Muslim but denies the Divine Words of the Qur’an(as Asra Nomani does..link me if you want video of her denying Qur’an)then that person is a munafiq. People seem to be confusing takfir with tafseeq and tabdee’ and tawagheet here as well.
There also seems to be a disturbing trend of entrenchment in the framework and of the Islamophobes. We continue to let them control the terms of debate. People talk about how Islamophobes say that Islam is incapable of reform. Hate to break it to people but if Allah said in the Qur’an that He finalized and perfected the Deen then reform of Islam is heresy. However, there is difference between reforming Muslims and reforming Islam. Who cares what the Islamophobes think? They want to make reform of Islam seem acceptable to Muslims so that, once accepted, Muslims themselves will scramble to change Islam using western paradigms as the standard frame of reference and reform it into an irrelevant religion incapable of challenging Western Civilization. Get wise! So what if Islam cannot be reformed?! If you believe Allah swt sent down a perfect revelation and perfect Deen, you will proudly say it cannot be reformed. Inability to reform is not an inherent flaw. Think deeper. A religion that is Divine needs no reform. A man-made religion comes with built-in flaws, albeit unforseen most times. The call for “reform” is a form of psychological warfare that aims to make Muslims see reform of Islam as a valid goal. Call it slippery slope if you want, but I minored in philosophy as an undergrad. There are cases where an argument deemed “slippery-slope” is actually sound. Eventually these “reforms” will result in an unrecognizable Islam.
As for the other worrying trend. There seems to be some sort of bias against conservative, traditional, orthodox, so-called “ultra-orthodox” and “ultraconservative” Islam here, in favor of “liberalism”. People keep throwing out the term “salafi” as if this is some kind of insult. Muslims need to not only control the terms of debate on Islamophobia, but take back our own Islamic terminology. Salafiyya is not a sect, but a methodology. Those who try to turn it into a sect are properly called “neo-salafiyya”. How else do you understand Islam except from the Salaf, the Prophet(as) being the first of the the Salaf us Saliheen? In addition people need to know that it is haram to use a Name of Allah(al-Wahhab) to insult someone. Let’s stop pandering to people who will hate us as long as we are Muslim.
Allahu A’lam
July 17th, 2011 at 3:06 pm
“As for those Muslims who drink or don’t fast, they are not necessarily apostates. They are just sinners, as we all are at some points in our lives.”
Oh, so now we’ve moved away from labeling them apostates to simply “sinners.” I’m sure that won’t serve to invalidate or demean them or their opinions, will it?
“Most Muslims know that alcohol is forbidden, even those who do occasionally drink. They don’t try to justify their behavior by reinterpreting the religious texts.”
How do you know? Have you spoken to all of them and asked them how they rationalize it? Maybe they interpret the text in such a way that they don’t need to follow it down to the letter. Maybe their interpretation is that drinking, eating non-halal food, being gay or having extramarital sex doesn’t make them less of a Muslim – that treating other people with kindness and respect is what matters. This is how many people who identify as Christians approach their religion all the time. More and more Muslims are beginning to do the same. I know several Muslims who adopt this approach to their religion.
That is nothing other than “making haraam into halal,” which is exactly what you described as unacceptable. So yes, far beyond simply objecting to the idea of government intervention, you did indeed accuse many of the people I described of being outside the “limits.”
There are no two ways around it, unfortunately.
July 17th, 2011 at 3:37 pm
JN: Oh, so now we’ve moved away from labeling them apostates to simply “sinners.” I’m sure that won’t serve to invalidate or demean them or their opinions, will it?
From a theological perspective, they ARE sinners (but not apostates). The Quran is quite explicit in ts prohibition of alcohol consumption. While I am all for reform, specifically with respect to the medieval understanding of Shariah, I won’t shy away from calling a spade a spade.
July 17th, 2011 at 3:43 pm
JN: Oh, so now we’ve moved away from labeling them apostates to simply “sinners.” I’m sure that won’t serve to invalidate or demean them or their opinions, will it?
Yes, because we are now dealing with a different situation. You talk about “opinions”. Well, am I not able to have my own opinions? What gives you the right to “invalidate” or “demean” my opinions? While we are at it, what gives you the right to lecture Muslims on how they should view their religion?
JN: How do you know? Have you spoken to all of them and asked them how they rationalize it? Maybe they interpret the text in such a way that they don’t need to follow it down to the letter. Maybe their interpretation is that drinking, eating non-halal food, being gay or having extramarital sex doesn’t make them less of a Muslim – that treating other people with kindness and respect is what matters. This is how many people who identify as Christians approach their religion all the time. More and more Muslims are beginning to do the same. I know several Muslims who adopt this approach to their religion.
How do I know? From experience. How do you know that “more and more Muslims are beginning to do the same”? To those people whom you describe, I would point out the following verse from the Quran:
“After this it is ye, the same people, who slay among yourselves, and banish a party of you from their homes; assist (Their enemies) against them, in guilt and rancour; and if they come to you as captives, ye ransom them, though it was not lawful for you to banish them. Then is it only a part of the Book that ye believe in, and do ye reject the rest? but what is the reward for those among you who behave like this but disgrace in this life?- and on the Day of Judgment they shall be consigned to the most grievous penalty. For Allah is not unmindful of what ye do.” (2:85)
There is no partial faith. Either you believe in the whole text or you don’t. There is no picking and choosing.
JN: That is nothing other than “making haraam into halal,” which is exactly what you described as unacceptable. So yes, far beyond simply objecting to the idea of government intervention, you did indeed accuse many of the people I described of being outside the “limits.”
Those people who want to openly and willingly contradict the Quran and Sunnah are indeed outside the limits. Changing the laws to suit one’s own whims is indeed outside the limits. However, I will not simply take your word for it that “more and more Muslims are doing the same”. It is well established that alcohol, fornication/adultery and homosexuality are forbidden. Those who do these things out of ignorance or indifference are not apostates. I don’t judge them for their mistakes. Those who justify them by trying to change the text are at the very least on the brink. Of course, both groups are always able to repent. The latter group are simply fulfilling the warning of the Prophet that a time would come when people would make things like alcohol and adultery halal. Faithful Muslims should shun such attempts at changing the religion.
July 17th, 2011 at 4:17 pm
“Yes, because we are now dealing with a different situation. You talk about “opinions”. Well, am I not able to have my own opinions? What gives you the right to “invalidate” or “demean” my opinions? While we are at it, what gives you the right to lecture Muslims on how they should view their religion? ”
You ought to look up the term “projection.” You’re the one who came here making proclamations about the dangers of reform and those teetering on the brink of “apostasy.” Not me. Hold whatever opinions you want; if you broadcast them here then be prepared to back them up.
“There is no partial faith. Either you believe in the whole text or you don’t. There is no picking and choosing. ”
Now, you ought to look up the term “bollocks.” Everyone picks and chooses what parts of the text they choose to follow. Even putting aside the fact that few Muslims have even read the whole text, the idea that any substantial number would adhere to it 100% is laughable.
Which is all well and good, except when people are doing what you’re doing now, which is trying to classify the behavior of some believers as acceptable and others as unacceptable. Hardly consistent with your claim that it’s only between them and God.
If that’s really the case, you shouldn’t feel the need to judgmentally wag your finger at others.
“Those people who want to openly and willingly contradict the Quran and Sunnah are indeed outside the limits. Changing the laws to suit one’s own whims is indeed outside the limits. However, I will not simply take your word for it that “more and more Muslims are doing the same”. It is well established that alcohol, fornication/adultery and homosexuality are forbidden. Those who do these things out of ignorance or indifference are not apostates. I don’t judge them for their mistakes. Those who justify them by trying to change the text are at the very least on the brink. Of course, both groups are always able to repent. The latter group are simply fulfilling the warning of the Prophet that a time would come when people would make things like alcohol and adultery halal. Faithful Muslims should shun such attempts at changing the religion.”
Let’s translate this:
Your position is that Muslims who do what the overwhelming majority of religious Americans do (and in reality, what everyone does) – which is pick and choose what parts of their faith to accept – are not really Muslims.
What you’re saying is in essence no different than the fire and brimstone arguments of Christian fundamentalists who point the finger at those they deem to be not “Christian” enough, trying to frighten them with stories of impending doom. There’s no point trying to sanitize it by setting up an out for those who are simply “indifferent.” You’ve paved the way for people to push aside and marginalize anyone who makes the conscious choice not to adhere to any part of the text – which is in reality pretty much everyone, certainly in Western societies.
That means that you’ve now completely negated your claim to only take issue with the Nomani types or those calling for drastic measures like government intervention. You’ve cast the net of exclusion so wide that anyone that contradicts the Qur’an or Sunnah in any way is now eligible to be categorized as “outside the limits.” That you don’t see how dangerous this thinking is, or how many problems it’s going to lead to with subsequent generations of American Muslims, only indicates to me that you’re not nearly as perceptive or open-minded as you try to come across.
July 17th, 2011 at 4:25 pm
i get the feel that this is not a muslim women should also pray in the mosque with equal rights argument, but a more malevolent position re the muslim community vs the feminist (muslim feminist )agenda, with an ill informed muslim feminist pin up girl stoking the fires of discontent.
like somebody else said earlier,when was the last time she prayed in a mosque, or even prayed at all, but hey who cares…it is another hook to snare the Muslim community with.
Pamela Geller, Asra Nomani..Pamela Nomani, Asra Geller…do you see what im getting at!
July 17th, 2011 at 4:39 pm
Seriously guys, this is all getting way off track.
Not only are there Muslims who listen to music, but there are also Muslim musicians! And some pretty famous ones at that, like Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan, Yusuf Islam, Salman Ahmad, Youssou N’Dour and A.R. Rahman!
Yes, there are Muslims who drink too. Some Muslims claim prohibition of alcohol does not extend to raki, some Muslim Thais simply pour out a little of their beer before drinking it, and members of the Baay Faal brotherhood in Senegal drink and smoke pot but make up for it in other ways.
And yes, not everyone can eat halal, for one reason or another. I’ve lived in areas where it wasn’t practical to eat halal all the time.
The thing is, even these extreme differences in doctrine are not enough for us to be arguing over supposed ‘apostasy’. We are all Muslims. We all more or less believe in the same general things. For those of us who are ‘wrong,’ well I suppose that is between them and God. Bickering amongst ourselves is downright insulting to other members of the Ummah. The Ahmadis are Muslim, and I should feel free to point out not all of them believe Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was a Prophet. However, their beliefs can be discussed elsewhere.
The difference between Asra Nomani’s beliefs and those of certain more exotic Muslim sects (for lack of a better term) is that none of them are trying to impose their beliefs on the rest of us. The Ahmadis are present in America, but they don’t go around telling non-Ahmadis how to run our mosques. Nor do the Isma’ilis, or the Deobandis, or the Barelvis, or the Qadris, or even the so-called ‘Nation of Islam.’ They all have their own particular little communities, sure, but I haven’t seen ANY of them cuddling up to Spencer and Geller.
Asra Nomani rants on and on about how bad we Muslims are. She gives me nothing more than the impression that she is not a Muslim, and that she only keeps claiming it to give her ‘expert status’ in the media. Sorry to suspect it, but she doesn’t seem like an earnest ‘reformer’ to me. And I’m fairly liberal in these things. She WANTS to be ‘Muslim’ so that she can speak for us. When we Muslims say something that she disagrees with, well obviously we aren’t ‘real’ Muslims…
And she doesn’t want – or feel that she should – suffer the same hardships as the rest of the Ummah. Oh sure, you and I should be screened at the airport, because WE might be ‘terrorists’ (ha!) but you can bet that Ms. Nomani would be claiming racism the minute someone tries to pat her down! We can’t even be trusted to know or be aware of our own cultural heritage, because as she said, white people know more about Indian culture than Asian Muslims (including Asian Muslims who have been born and raised in India, or Pakistan, Bangladesh, etc).
I’m sorry if this makes me seem a hypocrite, but then I’ve never claimed to be a perfect Muslim either. Sorry. Only Muhammad (PBUH) and the Ahl-ul-Bayt could make such claims. My suspicion is at least based on my experiences and knowledge of human nature, and I would be willing to apologize if proven wrong… but… until then my statements stand.
July 17th, 2011 at 7:02 pm
I think the discussion is veering off topic. The comment section itself is proof that there is no one interpretation or legitimate opinion. That there is a diversity of thought amongst Muslims is a given.
THE POINT OF THIS ARTICLE IS: “NO GOVERNMENT INTRUSION IN WORSHIP”…Something we can all agree upon!?
This comment section will be closed soon if commenters don’t stick to the topic and refrain from insults, etc.
–Garibaldi
July 17th, 2011 at 7:24 pm
“THE POINT OF THIS ARTICLE IS: “NO GOVERNMENT INTRUSION IN WORSHIP”…Something we can all agree upon!?”
Yes, I can most certainly agree to that. I also agree that we’ve gone far off-topic. islamispeace and I do seem to differ on some important issues, but in retrospect I don’t think his original comment warranted all of this, so I apologize for putting him on the defensive like that.
July 17th, 2011 at 7:39 pm
I agree that the discussion has gone off topic.
@JN. You’re sorry. I’m sorry. We definitely do disagree on a lot of issues but that does not mean we cannot have a cordial discussion. This thread seems to have stirred a lot of passion in everyone but if everyone can discuss in a mature manner, then there is no reason to be offended or to get angry. I was caught off-guard when my initial statement got me ostracized, but there are no hard feelings on my part.
And yes I do agree with Garibaldi that what we can all agree on is that the government should not be allowed to intrude in religion.
July 17th, 2011 at 10:51 pm
Salams,
What do people here believe is the real cause for Asra Nomani’s call for government intervention in Islamic worship?
July 18th, 2011 at 12:04 am
Remember on what unites us. The most successful approach on one group subjugating the other is “Divide and Conquer”. Only Allah knows the degree of one’s commitment to Him, and He is the Supreme Judge; it is not in our position to cast the blame on others.
Remember that even Christianity said “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” Surely we can do better than pecking at each other? Even Allah would judge favorably someone who have never heard of Islam but does righteous deeds in the world?
Stay united, brothers and sisters.
July 18th, 2011 at 12:23 am
Well the above debate was… interesting… how much is this woman paid and how do I sign up? I is a moslime I wants my cash plz.
July 18th, 2011 at 12:25 am
Well the above debate was… interesting… how much is this woman paid and how do I sign up? I is a moslime I wants my cash plz.
July 18th, 2011 at 3:37 am
@muhammad abd al haqq
The Salaf lived 1,400 years ago, the first accounts of their lives and ways were written over a hundred years after their deaths so all we knew about them is what those men wrote and seeing how the Hadith is full of contradictions, fabrications and other problems and different sects disagree over which Hadith is authentic there is no concrete way to know exactly what the salf were like and nowadays the Salafis tend to promote women’s rights abuse, “offensive jihad” and general barbarity and backwardness. In IbnAbuTalib’s words I’ll call a spade a spade.
@JN
Alcohol is prohibited very clearly in the Quran, nobody can argue with that hence a Muslim who drinks is without a doubt sinning, if they go one step further and claim that drinking is halal as per their “reformist” views then they are committing kufr, period. Now if you were a Muslim I doubt that you’d argue with the prohibition of alcohol as you would no there’s no way you could do that successfully. Fasting is another commandment found in the Quran which you can’t reject without tearing out bits of the Quran. Christianity is largely man-made so men are perfectly within their liberty to change it as they see fit. Hate to break it to ya but cherry-picking and ignoring bits of the Quran is not Islam it’s kufr and that’s definitely not a legitimate way to approach Islam.
Hijab, sex segregation, music, etc are things that the Quran is less clear on and you’ll find diversity of opinion amongst Muslims when it comes to such things. Alcohol, gambling, extra-marital sex, etc are explicitly prohibited in the Quran and they are sins whether Muslims who engage in those activities like it or not.
We all sin and I don’t think anyone is trying to say that we should marginalize non-practicing Muslims, all that’s being said is THEY ARE SINNING and that fact remains whether they accept it or not; if they try to reform Islam by making what is haram halal then they are committing a grave sin. God is their judge but what’s obvious is obvious.
I recall a sermon at Friday prayers many years ago where the sheikh spoke of three kinds of believers: the first is like pure water and as such is pure and purifies whatever is around it, the second is like dirty water and as such is dirty and dirties everything around it and the third is like tea in that it is pure (not najas) within itself but it does not purify other things. The first kind is the best. A good Muslim can be one of the two, someone who spreads good or one who is good but keeps to themselves. The second group is the Muslims like Nomani who are sinful and aim to spread that and unlike sinners who are ignorant, oblivious or just flat out don’t care this category wishes to pollute other Muslims. I agree completely with Zakariya Ali Sher, as long as one’s beliefs are not harmful to anyone it’s their business.
July 18th, 2011 at 3:41 am
@IbnAbuTalib
I agree that the line has to be drawn somewhere and we cannot just accept every “reformist” as legitimate. Nomani is very open about her extra-marital sexual activity (as someone pointed out she bore a child out of wedlock) and she believes we should tear out parts of the Quran among other things; and though I genuinely believe that she probably really does mean well and sees things in her community (she’s a Muslim whether we like it or not) that she thinks should change, she is quite out of touch and doesn’t appear to be sufficiently educated enough in this regard to be trying to change things. I’m not saying I’m a perfect Muslim but Nomani is openly and shamelessly sinful and then claims to be “reforming” Islam; there are certain things that can’t be changed or even successfully argued with.
LoonWatch was not wrong in pointing out Nomani’s disregard for the Establishment Clause with regard to Muslims and how they worship, however justifying/explaining sex segregation and it’s place in Islamic tradition isn’t something that this site should be doing; there are Muslims who don’t accept sex segregation as a part of Islam and siding with one sect/belief/interpretation is not what LW should be about.
The whole issue of segregation in mosques is one of very little importance to most Muslim women but is brought up constantly by those outside of the community who exaggerate this.
Rejecting stoning of adulterers and killing of apostates is not reformist, neither of these excesses are found in the Quran and there’s a stronger argument against stoning/death for apostasy than there is for it, despite what the “ijma” is and what the scholars think.
I don’t like using the words reform/reformist to describe non-literalist Muslims; Islam is strictly against bid’a or innovations in faith and that’s exactly what the word “reform” implies.
Anj is an apologist for Pakistan and medieval scholarship, I wouldn’t bother too much with him/her. The verse he/she quoted doesn’t support his/her argument and can in fact be used to argue *against* it, seeing as Islam as a religion was completed during the Prophet Muhammad’s (pbuh) lifetime wouldn’t that make Hadith collecting a bid’a? Ijma, itjihad, etc all those concepts that originate from scholars hundreds of years after the Quran was completed would also be considered bid’a.
The only Muslims deserving of takfir being declared upon them are those who go around takfiring on other Muslims. Ahmadis are definitely heretical but then again so are Shi’as (Shiites) yet they are all still Muslim. As the Ahmadis believe in a prophet who came after Muhammad (pbuh) and believe in a concocted story about Jesus (pbuh) being buried in India which is in clear conflict with the story of Jesus (pbuh) as told in the Quran it is safe to say that they are practicing very blatant and major shirk. There is no mention of 12 imams or worshipping the ahl-al-bayt in the Quran and Shi’ism started out as a political movement then morphed into a religious one; the self-flagellation and other un-Islamic practices that the Shi’a endorse are bid’a and shirk as Islam was completed in the Quran, the massacre at Karbala happened after the gates of revelation were closed and though it is important in a historical context, there is no way that anything from the time after the Prophet’s (pbuh) death can be added to the religion.
July 18th, 2011 at 6:19 am
“Thus, separate prayer halls in themselves are not an indication that women are being mistreated or denied access to the mosque.”
Except for the fact that:
1) The main hall is reserved for men, and women are directed to a room on the side, or the balcony
2) The prayer service is led by a man, not by a woman while the men listen through loudspeaker (equality, hmmm?)
3) When there are separate entrances, usually a side door is built for women, while the men enter through the main doors.
“Some of these mosques do not have the funding to give women a bigger space”
Yeah, right! Because, you know, it would have been so hard when constructing the mosque, to build to prayer halls side by side. No! This is a conscious decision from drawing on: you have a main prayer hall for the men (the men who do all the decision making in the mosque by the way) and then a small side room somewhere on top of it.
As for getting the court to rule against the tax exempt status of mosques because they segregate men and women, well but isn’t that part of the freedom of religion? Mormon churches used to rule that blacks couldn’t become part of the priesthood until 1978. Some Mormon branches continue this exclusion. That’s freedom of religion folks. If you don’t like it, then don’t join that particular club, start your own club, or whatever.
What’s next? Is Asra Nomani going to ask the courts to rule that Churches that don’t allow practicing homosexuals or women to become ministers of the faith lose their tax exempt status?
I think Nomani definitively has a point where sexism in Churches, synagogues and mosques is concerned, and she has a right to address that. But going to court to force a congregation to change their ways? I mean, what if I start a gentlemen’s club?
July 18th, 2011 at 7:44 am
You are confusing ‘equality’ with the fact that men and women have different needs, wants and desires Jack; heck we are even programed differently in our brains! This whole ‘equality’ thing is a lie, ‘equality’ is simply not possible as some people try to say it is.
Now, for your list, fair points and I must say that none of the Mosques do this (other than prayers being led by men), we are in the same hall with women at the back men at the front (practical that way), use entrances beside each other (or even the same one), have women on the boards or even running the place and so on. I believe this is culture more than anything.
There is nothing ‘sexist’ about any of the rules anyway, it is all practical…
July 18th, 2011 at 10:19 am
Jack, have you actually visited a mosque?
July 18th, 2011 at 10:38 am
I can pretty much confidently say if women were praying side by side with men or in front, my thoughts would wander and I don’t think my prayer would be valid.
Muslim women are happy that there is segragation between the sexes as I am sure they wouldn’t want men staring at them. As I have said before, the only people agreeing with her would be non-muslims. What’s next from Asra, telling us that extra-marital sex is progressive?
July 18th, 2011 at 10:42 am
I really am tired of these “reformers” and their ilk trying to make a issue o how Muslims pray in the mosque. This is not a “civil rights” issue, that’s just a smoke screen for the islamophobia behind it. People like Asra just want to dress in revealing clothing and fit in with western society. And that’s fine, but it becomes a problem when she wants to use the government to force people to behave the way she wants. And there’s a term we use for people like that. Fascism.
July 18th, 2011 at 11:05 am
Yes, I have visited one or two Mosques, and seen several documentaries on the goings on there, which usually entails the women being put in a room somewhere else in the complex. How ever which way it is justified, it still communicates that women are less of value than men.
If you’re afraid of staring at women’s bottoms, then a series of room divider screens in the middle will suffice. You’d probably want to buy them wholesale though.
July 18th, 2011 at 11:12 am
Anticipated Serendipity: she’s a Muslim whether we like it or not
That’s the point. She is a Muslim. However, the criticism leveled by some of the brothers here against her misses this point. Despite all her stupidity and sins, she is a Muslim at the end of the day. Reminds me of the following hadith:
Narrated Sa’d: Allah’s Apostle distributed (Zakat) amongst (a group of) people while I was sitting there but Allah’s Apostle left a man whom I thought the best of the lot. I asked, “O Allah’s Apostle! Why have you left that person? By Allah I regard him as a faithful believer.” The Prophet commented: “Or merely a Muslim.” I remained quiet for a while, but could not help repeating my question because of what I knew about him. And then asked Allah’s Apostle, “Why have you left so and so? By Allah! He is a faithful believer.” The Prophet again said, “Or merely a Muslim.” And I could not help repeating my question because of what I knew about him. Then the Prophet said, “O Sa’d! I give to a person while another is dearer to me, for fear that he might be thrown on his face in the Fire by Allah.”
July 18th, 2011 at 11:55 am
As a member of the Islamic Society of Central Virginia in Charlottesville, I would like to provide a description of the women’s area in the existing mosque and the new mosque (that is currently under construction).
http://www.charlottesvillemasjid.org/
In the old mosque which is actually an old home, the women have two prayer areas; half the area in the main prayer room and one room upstairs. So basically the women have two areas and the men have one. In the event, the main area overflows, men step out in the verandah and the parking lot. Women never face the issue of overflow since they always have more area than there are women. Men and women enter through two separate doors.
In the new under construction mosque, women will have two prayer areas (and possibly three); half the room in the main prayer area (no wall dividing them) and two more areas for women and children.
So basically in both the mosques, the women have the luxury to be in the main room with the men or have their own area if they have younger children or if they want more privacy for themselves or if they have to feed their young.
It’s the men that need to step out in the hot or cold if the mosque overflows, that have fewer rooms and that have lesser square foot area per person. So if it’s any gender that faces discrimination regarding less space or how the areas are allocated, it’s MEN.
July 18th, 2011 at 12:34 pm
Anticipated Serendipi,
I would love to respond to you but my reply would definitely be O/T. I will say this though, in the interest of refraining from mischaracterizing our fellow brothers and sisters,”the Salafis tend to promote women’s rights abuse, “offensive jihad” and general barbarity and backwardness.” is in no ways “calling a spade a spade”. Also, even if we confine Islam to the Qur’an then we agree that those are the revealed Words of Allah which Muhammad(saws)himself spoke. Since he is the first Salaf, there is no other way to be Muslim except to be “Salafi”. Let’s reclaim our own terminology and their meanings. Maybe we can discuss it further somewhere else or we wait until an article where it would be relevant and on-topic?
Barak Allahu Feek
July 18th, 2011 at 12:42 pm
@anticipated serendipity
Seriously, dont give up your day job!
July 18th, 2011 at 9:48 pm
^Don’t worry dear and unlike some I actually have a day job to begin with.
@AJ
It’s been documented by Muslim groups in North America that for the most part, women are the ones who have inadequate prayer space in most American mosques.
@Sam Saeed
I’m not sure about mixed congregations but it’s silly that you can’t focus on prayer while you’re praying, especially considering how covered up Muslim women are expected to be. That’s a pretty lame excuse for segregation.
Again, I think this is a non-issue. Nomani and like-minded Muslims can open up mixed congregation mosques if that’s what they like but they have no right to force their ways on other Muslims. Most women actually prefer not praying side by side with men and the rest just couldn’t care less. However women being treated like second-class Muslims in mosques when it comes to how some of the mosques I’ve been to are arranged (men in the large prayer hall, women in a sometimes un-air-conditioned tiny room) is a legitimate issue. I’ve kept in mind that it’s not obligatory for women to pray at mosques and it’s considered better to pray at home so this could have an impact on the arrangement of mosques.
July 19th, 2011 at 1:15 am
Jack, You will find that in some mosques they do have divider screens just so that women can feel at ease. I don’t see how anyone can see that women are treated as of a lesser value in the mosque.
July 19th, 2011 at 1:21 am
IbnAbuTalib, How can a true believer say something grotesque as ‘tear out parts of the Quran’. Would Christians consider someone who suggests the same for the Bible as a true believer?
July 19th, 2011 at 3:41 am
Sam Seed: IbnAbuTalib, How can a true believer say something grotesque as ‘tear out parts of the Quran’.
I think we need to make a distinction between a Muslim and a Mumin. Nomani is a Muslim. But that’s it.
July 19th, 2011 at 5:28 pm
When is Asra going to call for gender equality in the wider non-Muslim society e.g. anti-female male toilets & discriminatory boxing?
July 20th, 2011 at 1:53 pm
@Sam Seed; that’s fine and all, but Nomani isn’t addressing mosques with separator screens. Nor mosques that allow women in the main hall and also in a separate room if they feel more comfortable praying there or have kids or what not. She’s addressing mosques that relegate women to a small room upstairs and don’t allow them in the main prayer hall. Because in her eyes, that’s pretty sexist and demeaning.
Even if you don’t like her methods, you’ve got to admit she’s got a point there: it is pretty sexist and demeaning. And it seems to be more common than you’d like to let on.
http://www.islamfortoday.com/womeninmosques.htm
July 20th, 2011 at 4:25 pm
“… and she believes we should tear out parts of the Quran among other things”
Okay, so do you think it’s a good idea on principle to flog somebody with a hundred lashes for having intercourse outside marriage?
“The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication,- flog each of them with a hundred stripes: Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day: and let a party of the Believers witness their punishment.”
Because as soon as you say “No” or “Not anymore”, you’re effectively striking a passage from the Holy Book.
And if you say: “Yes, that seems like a good idea”, you’re bonkers, aren’t you? You might as well say it’s a good idea to have criminals be executed on the rack or hung, drawn and quartered.
July 20th, 2011 at 6:07 pm
@Jack
“Even if you don’t like her methods, you’ve got to admit she’s got a point there: it is pretty sexist and demeaning. And it seems to be more common than you’d like to let on.”
Her methods are unIslamic so she could never actually have a point. Only non-Muslim Westerners might think she has a point. I hear this all the time from non-Muslims and can never get a convincing answer that is non-culturalist. Maybe you can help. How, exactly, is it sexist and demeaning? If it being sexist and demeaning has to do mostly with understanding that the separation is the Sunnah of the Prophet(as) can’t you see how Nomani’s attempt to circumvent that makes Muslims suspicious? I understand your skepticism as it comes from an atheistic frame of reference, but, what about hers? She is the poster-girl for nifaq.
“Okay, so do you think it’s a good idea on principle to flog somebody with a hundred lashes for having intercourse outside marriage?”
Yes, because I am Muslim. Non-Muslims seem to always harp on and misrepresent subsidiary matters. There is much more to it than the Quranic verse you quoted. Part of it has to with culturalism and the hypocrisy of legislated morality vis a vis the “West” and Islam, and “Islamic culture”.Part of it has to do with the capital punishment for any crime, not just those deemed “moral crimes” by a society. The rest has to do with a complete Islamic explanation of hudud, zina, the concept of sin, hukm, etc..etc.. Explain your issue with it.
“Because as soon as you say “No” or “Not anymore”, you’re effectively striking a passage from the Holy Book.”
Which is what makes her a munafiq. Can’t speak about her Muslimness, but she is definitely not a Mu’min.
“And if you say: “Yes, that seems like a good idea”, you’re bonkers, aren’t you?”
But why, really? Because the modern Western world says so?
“You might as well say it’s a good idea to have criminals be executed on the rack or hung, drawn and quartered.”
Except that isn’t part of Islam. Not only is that a logical fallacy, but it’s a non-starter/non-sequtur/red herring all in one. Please explain. Insha’Allah I hope you do not take my responses as hostile or antagonistic. I genuinely want to know because in my 34 years of life and 13 years as a Muslim, not a single non-Muslim has been able to answer my “why?” satisfactorily.
Allahu A’lam
July 20th, 2011 at 6:13 pm
Jack: Okay, so do you think it’s a good idea on principle to flog somebody with a hundred lashes for having intercourse outside marriage?
Yes.
Jack: And if you say: “Yes, that seems like a good idea”, you’re bonkers, aren’t you?
Guess I am bonkers.
Jack: You might as well say it’s a good idea to have criminals be executed on the rack or hung, drawn and quartered.
Not in the Quran.
July 20th, 2011 at 6:22 pm
Outstanding question jack!
Let’s hear all the “reformers” spin this!
July 20th, 2011 at 7:58 pm
Muslims still have more rights in America and Europe than they do in the Muslim world. For starters, Muslim women in America and Europe aren’t stoned to death for bogus adultery charges.
July 20th, 2011 at 9:15 pm
Ibn Abu Talib: “Guess I am bonkers.”
I’d say so. No-one in his right mind today would come up with the idea that it’s okay to flog people because of them having sexual relations before marriage or outside marriage or whatever. The only people who do propose it do so because they adhere to a book written in the Middle Ages, containing a Medieval morality. You’re consciously shutting down all critical thinking because of an authority argument: Allah knows best, and He has communicated His eternal thoughts in a Medieval book containing snippets of sermons from a certain warrior-prophet in Arabia.
The book might as well have commanded putting people to death on the rack or by some other kind of torture (like chopping a hand and a foot off and crucifying a brigand) and you’d still say: Oh, it’s in the book or in the hadith and so it must be a good idea, because otherwise it wouldn’t be in there.
So there we go: you’ve crossed the point where you could justify any kind of torture, just as long as it’s in the book or part of a strong tradition. Flogging, stoning, crucifixion, you name it. Anything goes, just as long as it’s in there.
So, yeah, that is bonkers. And it’s a very scary mode of thinking, because it’s impervious to any rational argument about basic human rights or cruelty or the simple fact that horrible punishments don’t deter people from committing crimes, since everyone in the situation of committing a crime thinks they aren’t going to get caught.
July 20th, 2011 at 10:49 pm
Jack,
Would you please point the names (and cities) of a few mosques in USA that, you feel according to your experience, treat their women second class?
Also Quran (24:4) says,
“And those who launch a charge against chaste women, and produce not four witnesses (to support their allegations),- flog them with eighty stripes; and reject their evidence ever after: for such men are wicked transgressors;-”
So basically the 100 flogs for sexual intercourse outside marriage can’t happen unless there are four people who witnessed the “act”. In this day and age, if someone is so promiscuous that they wouldn’t mind having four witnesses around while having sex, they should perhaps just be flogged for public indecent behavior.
But the point I was getting to was that the 100 lashes, more than anything, signifies how detested sex without marriage is in the eyes of Islam. By placing the four witnesses requirement, Allah has placed a big loop hole in having that punishment awarded.
July 20th, 2011 at 11:25 pm
Again, Jack? Seriously, why do you always go off on tangents about our supposedly Medieval morality, in our supposedly Medieval book? And why always on an article related to Asra Nomani?
“I’d say so. No-one in his right mind today would come up with the idea that it’s okay to flog people because of them having sexual relations before marriage or outside marriage or whatever. The only people who do propose it do so because they adhere to a book written in the Middle Ages, containing a Medieval morality.”
Sure they do, Jack. As recently as 2010, New Hamphsire had a law on the books that punished adulterers with one year in jail or 39 lashes. Like its counterpart in a certain Medieval book, however, it is not the default punishment. Since 1992, adulterers could instead be fined $1200.
I doubt that whoever created that law were followers of the Medieval book you have in mind.
“You’re consciously shutting down all critical thinking because of an authority argument: Allah knows best, and He has communicated His eternal thoughts in a Medieval book containing snippets of sermons from a certain warrior-prophet in Arabia.”
Not really. Why would he, or any other Muslim, reject an appeal to authority (which are not always fallacious, by the way), only to accept your appeal to the people fallacy? You argument seems to be: no sane 21st century person punishes adulterers with lashes, you insane 7th century Muslims need to get with the program! Is that your idea of critical thinking?
I still contend that Chris Hedges was right when he called moral progress a myth. 21st century men and women are no more morally advanced than their 7th century counterparts (despite their delusions to the contrary).
July 21st, 2011 at 10:48 am
AJ:
Also Quran (24:4) says,
“And those who launch a charge against chaste women, and produce not four witnesses (to support their allegations),- flog them with eighty stripes; and reject their evidence ever after: for such men are wicked transgressors;-”
So basically the 100 flogs for sexual intercourse outside marriage can’t happen unless there are four people who witnessed the “act”. In this day and age, if someone is so promiscuous that they wouldn’t mind having four witnesses around while having sex, they should perhaps just be flogged for public indecent behavior.
—————————————————————
AJ took the words right out of my mouth there, the point of the severe punishment is to acknowledge what a heinous sin sex outisde of marriage is and having sex in view of four people is pretty fucked up and would constitute spreading vice. So Jack unless you know anyone who has sex in public (no doubt that such people exist) somewhere where it is possible for four people to see no less than penetration then this punishment isn’t as terrifying as it sounds and most Muslims don’t live in jurisdictions where these laws are even enforced so what’s the point in bringing it up?
I wouldn’t be able to believe that a religion that plainly stated that people are to be “hung, drawn and quartered” for anything came from God.
July 21st, 2011 at 7:50 pm
Rocky Loon, most countries in the “Muslim world,” as you say, don’t punish adulterers via stoning. And there are certainly countries in Europe where Muslims have it worse off than in many majority Muslim countries. I would honestly rather live in Malaysia, the U.A.E. or Turkey rather than certain eastern European countries (or some western European countries for that matter, especially if the anti-Muslim sentiment there is particularly bad). You seem to like using essentialist arguments, painting dozens of countries and billions of people as homogenous.
July 22nd, 2011 at 12:32 am
Get your ass over to Malaysia Nassir, it’s lovely
July 22nd, 2011 at 6:54 am
“So Jack unless you know anyone who has sex in public (no doubt that such people exist) somewhere where it is possible for four people to see no less than penetration then this punishment isn’t as terrifying as it sounds and most Muslims don’t live in jurisdictions where these laws are even enforced so what’s the point in bringing it up?”
With the hundreds of thousands of porn video’s out there, it’s going to be an orgy of humiliating punishment.
Point two: The Quran itself says nothing about having too see “no less than penetration”.
Point three: having sex outside of marriage isn’t a heinous sin. Neither is drinking a beer. Imagine two teenagers in love, having sex with a condom. Where’s the harm in that. Maybe there would have been potential harm 1400 years ago, when she could be left with a baby, or her reputation tarnished and that of her family. I don’t know. But there’s no intrinsic harm in recreating yourself with someone. Consenting adults, anyone?
July 22nd, 2011 at 10:40 am
muhammad abdl haqq: Also, even if we confine Islam to the Qur’an then we agree that those are the revealed Words of Allah which Muhammad(saws)himself spoke. Since he is the first Salaf, there is no other way to be Muslim except to be “Salafi”.
Muhammad Abduh, Rashid Rida and Jamal al-Din Afghani were Mutazilites who claimed they were following the way of the Salaf. What makes their version of Salafism any less authoritative as the Salafism of the Saudi clerics or Anjem Choudhury?
July 22nd, 2011 at 11:42 am
Jack: Point two: The Quran itself says nothing about having too see “no less than penetration”.
Given that Zina literally means sexual intercourse outside of marriage, and since sexual intercourse cannot take place without penetration, it logically follows that the 4 witnesses are required to witness the actual act of penetration taking place for their testimony to be valid.
July 22nd, 2011 at 6:56 pm
@IbnAbuTalib: Sure… because when a husband walks in on his wife getting it on in bed with the neighbour, he doesn’t know for certain what’s going on unless he actually sees penetration.
And then, if the guy flees in his bare butt with his clothes in his arms, and people see him run through the street – surely this in no way confirms the husbands story that he stumbled upon the guy in bed with his wife, right?.
Lo! How religious thinking takes away from the most obvious of perceptions and reasoning.
July 22nd, 2011 at 8:43 pm
“Sure they do, Jack. As recently as 2010, New Hamphsire had a law on the books that punished adulterers with one year in jail or 39 lashes. Like its counterpart in a certain Medieval book, however, it is not the default punishment. Since 1992, adulterers could instead be fined $1200.”
Bible-thumpers or Quran-crazies, it makes no difference to me. Anyway, that law is 200 years old. I’m surprised they didn’t dispense with it altogether (influence of the Christian Right, no doubt). And the 39 lashes is clearly derived from the Bible.
“He may be given up to 40 lashes, but not more, lest being flogged further, to excess, your brother be degraded before your eyes” (Deuteronomy 25:3).
The rabbi’s, always keen on being one step ahead of crossing the commandment, ordered 40 lashes minus one as the limit. (see 2 Corinthians 11:24 where st. Paul says five times he incurred a flogging for preaching, each time forty-minus-one lashes).
By the way: how did God decide that more than 40 lashes actually wasn’t so degrading after all when he commanded a 100 lashes in his 2nd revised edition of the Revelation? Oh, wait – I guess the Jews changed that too! (how convenient for you).
“You argument seems to be: no sane 21st century person punishes adulterers with lashes, you insane 7th century Muslims need to get with the program! Is that your idea of critical thinking?”
No. My argument is rather: Search your feelings – you know it to be true! I am addressing you and him as that 21st century person, who knows better. I am convinced that in your heart you don’t really believe two teens having sex are doing something that merits a hundred lashes. But then you read your Medieval booklet you’ve invested so much in emotionally, having made it the pivot of your existential certainties; and whoa! Out go your own convictions about morality and in come the Medieval mindset, the drone mentality and the flawed rationalizations.
July 22nd, 2011 at 9:49 pm
May I add here that the Hadith pertaining to Zina and the 4 witnesses states something along the lines that the witnesses must see the penetration ‘like a needle into a bottle’ (or some similar description). It is, as has been said before, a logical fallacy; the witnesses must be ‘good Muslims’ and a ‘good Muslim’ wouldn’t be hanging around two people having sex to confirm a) that they were committing Zina and b) that they were ‘like a needle in a bottle’. Even in your situation above a court using the Literal Rule of interpretation (rather than say the Golden or Mischief rules) would not be able to prosecute for Zina, and since that the Zina Hadith pretty much demands use of the Literal Rule (since it is so explicit in it’s terms), use of a Golden or Mischief approach to ‘confirm’ the husband’s story would not be viable.
Oh yeah, and as for crap about there being ‘no harm’ with sex outside of marriage, may I point to all the ‘unwanted’ babies out there, especially where I was in the UK, who thus have a crap start at life since they come from a home that does not love them lest care for them! So sure, two ‘teenagers in, having sex with a condom’ sounds all hunky dory until the guy get’s the girl pregnant. Not only are they unlikely to be using a condom (especially if they have been ‘harmlessly’ drinking) but condoms are not 100% perfect even when used correctly; plus when they find out how much better it feels not using a condom then that is out of the window.
July 22nd, 2011 at 10:31 pm
Jack,
Since this article is about the treatment of women in mosques and you have accused the mosques of treating their women in a “sexist and demeaning manner”, could you please provide a few examples of such mosques?
Have you visited any of these mosques yourself and have personally seen women facing the attitude you mentioned?
July 22nd, 2011 at 10:58 pm
There are two issues here. First, is adultery wrong? Second, is the punishment prescibed by the Quran reasonable? My answer to both questions is yes. Jack’s answer to both questions is no. Jack said:
“having sex outside of marriage isn’t a heinous sin. Neither is drinking a beer. Imagine two teenagers in love, having sex with a condom. Where’s the harm in that. Maybe there would have been potential harm 1400 years ago, when she could be left with a baby, or her reputation tarnished and that of her family. I don’t know. But there’s no intrinsic harm in recreating yourself with someone. Consenting adults, anyone?”
There are two types of “having sex outside marriage”. One is premarital (“fornication”), the other is extra-marital (“adultery”). There is no word in Quranic Arabic word for the former, and no punishment mentioned. The Arabic word for the latter is zina, and the punishment prescribed in the Quran (provided four witnesses can be produced) is a hundred lashes. It’s worth noting that traditionalists have widened zina to include fornication, and even rape. They have dropped the four witnesses requirement (merely an accusation, or pregnancy will suffice). And they claim, following Biblical practice, that stoning to death is the punishment.
Islamic law and ethics takes oaths and contracts seriously. . . including marital ones. The Quran says regarding oaths in general:
5:89 God will not hold you for your unintentional oaths, but He will hold you for what oaths you have made binding with consideration. Its cancellation shall be the feeding of ten poor people from the average of what you feed your family, or that you clothe them, or that you free a slave; whoever cannot find shall fast for three days; as an atonement when you swear. You shall fulfill your oaths. It is such that God clarifies for you His signs that you may be thankful.
The Quran 5:1 says regarding contracts in general, “O you who acknowledge, honor your contracts.”
Not surprisingly, this seriousness extends to marital oaths and contracts in particular. This is why Islamic law and ethics sees adultery as wrong, and why it could in some circumstances be punished.
Western law and ethics takes oaths and contracts seriously too. . . except it seems for marital ones. There’s a punishment for violating every kind of contract. . . except for the marital kind. Odd, isn’t it?
Equally odd is the objection to lashing as a punishment. Adults who consent to subject themselves to this punishment in an Islamic arbitration court is objectionable, but “consenting adults” who subject themselves to it in a BDSM club isn’t?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3SExF8w_zI
How secular thinking takes away from the most obvious of perceptions and reasoning!
“I am convinced that in your heart you don’t really believe two teens having sex are doing something that merits a hundred lashes. But then you read your Medieval booklet you’ve invested so much in emotionally, having made it the pivot of your existential certainties; and whoa! Out go your own convictions about morality and in come the Medieval mindset, the drone mentality and the flawed rationalizations.”
You’re right. I don’t believe two teens having sex are doing something that merits a hundreds lashes. We’re not talking about premarital teen sex (see the beginning of this post). However, for reasons Jack mentioned, I don’t believe premarital teen sex should be encouraged.
Regarding my supposedly Medieval book and mindset, I’ve already pointed out in the previous post that I find this line of reasoning fallacious. Look up the ad novitatem fallacy.
July 22nd, 2011 at 11:18 pm
What about ‘adultery’, by the victors, with women captured during wartime?
July 23rd, 2011 at 12:17 am
Point three: having sex outside of marriage isn’t a heinous sin. Neither is drinking a beer. Imagine two teenagers in love, having sex with a condom. Where’s the harm in that. Maybe there would have been potential harm 1400 years ago, when she could be left with a baby, or her reputation tarnished and that of her family. I don’t know. But there’s no intrinsic harm in recreating yourself with someone. Consenting adults, anyone?
Not too long ago in the West pre-marital sex was seen as immoral and you didn’t refute my claim that zina is a heinous sin, all you stated was that there was no harm in it. The scripture is very clear that zina is a sin and a heinous one at that; gay marriage is now considered okay in the West, pretty soon polygyny, polyandry, group marriages, incestuous marriages and God knows what else might become morally acceptable as the concept of “consenting adults” applies to all those groups.
I’ve never tried alcohol, ever and I’ve never felt an urge to. It causes more harm than good and if you’ve never tried something (the smell of beer is enough to make me sick TBH) and you believe it is sinful then you can’t really crave it, can you? I’ve never had to try to resist drinking, being teetotal has always felt natural. Maybe that’s just me b/c I don’t attend parties and my family has always been Muslim hence nobody used to drink around me growing up and it’s what seems normal to me.
God has given us timeless morals and at the end of the day most teenagers regret their first time (some of my closest friends in high school fall into this category), teenage pregnancy is high and God has made it clear in the Quran that pre-marital sex is a sin whether 21st century Western morality (which once used to consider sodomy a capital crime and might accept beastiality at some stage) likes it or not.
There isn’t a lot of hardcore porn produced in Muslim countries to begin with, not even the very liberal or progressive ones. In fact there are some European countries where porn is illegal and not produced locally at all.
July 23rd, 2011 at 12:52 am
@Farlowe
I’ve never quite been able to understand that and I would like someone more learned than I to explain it. It’s the one thing in the Quran that the feminist in me can’t quite accept (of course there is the “wife-beating” verse, though I know that some people look at it differently). Why can men have sex with so many women? I got in touch with a Muslim (now apostate)childhood friend of mine via facebook a few years ago, and when she told me she was no longer Muslim out of curiosity I asked why and she responded that she simply didn’t believe in God anymore and Islam was particularly nasty and confusing, I asked her how it was nasty and confusing and she said there was a lot of things she found she could create loopholes to get away from but there were two things she thought she couldn’t accept. One was that God would send billions of people to hell for not believing in Him without giving humanity concrete proof of his existence and after allowing so many different religions to be formed and the other was sex slvery. “Why can men have sex with so many women?” was what she asked me and she said (well actually typed) that that was too much for her. I realized that I couldn’t answer and that caused me to think and doubt for months and whenever sex slavery in Islam is brought up by anti-Islamics it evokes a lot of doubt and there’s no way I can refute them.
At the end of the day I believe Islam to be from God and that’s enough to keep me Muslim. *sigh* Allahu a’lam I suppose.
July 23rd, 2011 at 1:34 am
“Equally odd is the objection to lashing as a punishment. Adults who consent to subject themselves to this punishment in an Islamic arbitration court is objectionable, but “consenting adults” who subject themselves to it in a BDSM club isn’t?”
Sure, because getting flogged by the authorities to set an example is the same as play in a BDSM setting. Well then I guess that the Passion of the Christ was really a kinky porn movie and the crucifixion some kind of weard fetisj as well…
And I guess spanking your woman on the bottom during intercourse is the same as spanking your daughter on the bottom because she stole from a girl at school?
What clarity of thought religion brings!
“There’s a punishment for violating every kind of contract. . . except for the marital kind. Odd, isn’t it?”
Depends on the clauses in the contract. In some contracts the spouse is disowned and sent away empty handed for being unfaithful (or is that a movie-cliché with no bearing at all in reality?) Besides, we don’t flog contractors if they do a poor job on roofing your house either. Again: silly argument. Or mortgage lenders if they fail to meat their monthly deposits.
“There are two types of “having sex outside marriage”. One is premarital (“fornication”), the other is extra-marital (“adultery”). There is no word in Quranic Arabic word for the former, and no punishment mentioned. The Arabic word for the latter is zina…,”
Aha, I see. So.. having sexual intercourse with a prostitute is okay then, in this interpretation of the Quran, just as long as you’re not married. It doesn’t really make sense. What about sex with one’s sister – I guess, as long as neither of the participants is married – it would be okay with the Quran then. Not recommendable (where do you get that from?), but not wrong as in adultery.
What about sex slaves, by the way. I know the Torah allows men to have sex with their female slaves (not women with their male slaves strangely enought). So do the founding documents of Islam allow for men to have sex with their slaves? How many? Is there a limit? Can he send a slave away after having sex with her. Why is it ‘fornication’ to have sex with a girl you’re never going to see again, but halal to have sex with one’s slave girl? And does that apply to secretaries and house maids as well? Those poor Phillipino girls in Saudi-Arabia… (subhaan Allah, how He cares for the weaker gender! How fore-seeing He is!)
But I digress. The fact is almost all scholars of islam agree that zina denotes a variety of sexual relations outside of marriage, not just adultery. And that makes more sense in a society which put a huge amount of value on the chastity of women. Why rail against adultery, but not against pre-marital sex or prostitution.
July 23rd, 2011 at 3:49 am
@Michael ELwood
I would have to disagree with you on hudood punishments being carried out by courts in Western countries. There is one law that is to be followed by everybody and corporal punishment is banned so there is no way a court should be allowed to operate that way. What if one is coerced by family members to go through with flogging? What if people agree to be stoned to death or have their hand removed?
This is exactly what right-wingers have been accusing us of trying to do in Western countries. Oklahoma’s anti-sharia law doesn’t sound so paranoid when Muslims say stuff like that.
July 23rd, 2011 at 10:43 am
“Sure, because getting flogged by the authorities to set an example is the same as play in a BDSM setting. Well then I guess that the Passion of the Christ was really a kinky porn movie and the crucifixion some kind of weard fetisj as well…”
It’s not exactly the same, but sufficiently similar to strike a analogy. Those who object to lashings in the former, can’t give a convincing reason why they don’t object to it in the latter. Kinda like those object to torture, but not “enhanced interrogation”, as it’s euphemistically known. Or those who object to terrorism, but not “shock and awe”. Or those who object to abduction, but not “extraordinary rendition”.
“And I guess spanking your woman on the bottom during intercourse is the same as spanking your daughter on the bottom because she stole from a girl at school?”
It’s not exactly the same. But both involve spanking someone on the bottom.
“What clarity of thought religion brings!”
Indeed! Too bad secularism doesn’t bring similar clarity of thought.
“Depends on the clauses in the contract. In some contracts the spouse is disowned and sent away empty handed for being unfaithful (or is that a movie-cliché with no bearing at all in reality?)”
That’s a movie-cliche with no relation to a contract based on Islamic principles.
“Besides, we don’t flog contractors if they do a poor job on roofing your house either. Again: silly argument. Or mortgage lenders if they fail to meat their monthly deposits.”
No, we don’t. But they are penalized for breaking their contract. There is no penalty for breaking a marriage contract. It’s not taken as seriously as other contracts. That’s my point.
“Aha, I see. So.. having sexual intercourse with a prostitute is okay then, in this interpretation of the Quran, just as long as you’re not married.”
Uh, no. Prostitution is not okay. The Quran says:
24:33 Those who cannot afford to get married shall maintain morality until GOD provides for them from His grace. Those among your servants who wish to be freed in order to marry, you shall grant them their wish, once you realize that they are honest. And give them from GOD’s money that He has bestowed upon you. You shall not force your girls to commit prostitution, seeking the materials of this world, if they wish to be chaste. If anyone forces them, then GOD, seeing that they are forced, is Forgiver, Merciful.
“It doesn’t really make sense. What about sex with one’s sister – I guess, as long as neither of the participants is married – it would be okay with the Quran then.”
Uh, no. Incest is not okay (see 4:23).
“Not recommendable (where do you get that from?), but not wrong as in adultery.”
It’s called making an inference. . . you should try it sometime. God credits the readers of his Medieval book with some intelligence. He doesn’t always spell things out for us like we’re in kindergarten.
“What about sex slaves, by the way. I know the Torah allows men to have sex with their female slaves (not women with their male slaves strangely enought). So do the founding documents of Islam allow for men to have sex with their slaves? How many? Is there a limit? Can he send a slave away after having sex with her.”
Islam abolished slavery (see 2:177, 9:60, 4:92, 5:89, 58:3 and 90:13). And sex with slaves is prohibited (see 24:33 above). A slave can’t realistically reject the advances of a freeman (despite what Thomas Jefferson, and other enlightened secularists who reject Medieval books, believe), which is why 24:33 advocates their emancipation.
“Why is it ‘fornication’ to have sex with a girl you’re never going to see again, but halal to have sex with one’s slave girl?”
It’s fornication, rather than adultery, because it’s premarital sex and doesn’t involve a contract. There’s no penalty for the former. But there is one, in certain circumstances, for the latter. And as i pointed out earlier, sex with slave girls is prohibited.
“But I digress.”
Yes, you do. Quite a bit!
“The fact is almost all scholars of islam agree that zina denotes a variety of sexual relations outside of marriage, not just adultery.”
Well, at least you stopped calling my book and my mindset Medieval. You must have heeded my suggestion to look up the ad novitatem fallacy. Unfortunately, you went from the ad novitatem fallacy to the ad verecundiam fallacy when you said, “almost all scholars of Islam agree. . .”.
July 23rd, 2011 at 1:56 pm
@Serendipity
“I would have to disagree with you on hudood punishments being carried out by courts in Western countries. There is one law that is to be followed by everybody and corporal punishment is banned so there is no way a court should be allowed to operate that way. What if one is coerced by family members to go through with flogging? What if people agree to be stoned to death or have their hand removed?”
We’re actually in agreement in that regard. I wouldn’t trust “Islamic”, let alone Western countries, to enforce that law. As I pointed out in a previous post, the law is often abused by expanding the definition of zina, dropping the mitigating four witnesses requirement, and prescribing stoning as a punishment.
It’s largely a moot issue, anyway. First, because the four witnesses requirement means it rarely comes into play. Second, because the law then was the Constitution of Medina, and the law now is the US Constitution.
“This is exactly what right-wingers have been accusing us of trying to do in Western countries. Oklahoma’s anti-sharia law doesn’t sound so paranoid when Muslims say stuff like that.”
They need to chillax. Islam doesn’t require that we impose our particular laws and ways on others (see 5:48).
I was mostly objecting to the condescending view some secularists have of religion and religious people.
July 23rd, 2011 at 3:37 pm
Michael Elwood, what do you, as a Quranist, think of Muhammad Shahrur?
July 23rd, 2011 at 6:42 pm
“Michael Elwood, what do you, as a Quranist, think of Muhammad Shahrur?”
I’ve been aware of him for quite some time. But I haven’t read any of his works. So, I couldn’t give an assessment of his views.
July 24th, 2011 at 12:38 am
Anticipated Serendipity,
Insha’Allah maybe I can answer your questions/concerns.
“gay marriage is now considered okay in the West, pretty soon polygyny, polyandry, group marriages, incestuous marriages and God knows what else might become morally acceptable as the concept of “consenting adults” applies to all those groups.”
I don’t think polygyny belongs in that group. Allah allowed it and the Prophet(as) practiced it. It does however highlight the hypocrisy behind the modern concepts of legislated morality, moral relativism, and “consenting adults”. If consenting adults is the standard for a sexual practice’s acceptability then the fact that polygyny is illegal in most of the West highlights the hypocrisy of it and shows that morality is in fact legislated in the West. based on this there should be no objection to the laws against what Islam views as sexuality immorality.
“I’ve never quite been able to understand that and I would like someone more learned than I to explain it. It’s the one thing in the Quran that the feminist in me can’t quite accept (of course there is the “wife-beating” verse, though I know that some people look at it differently). Why can men have sex with so many women?”
What does that question really mean?How many women are we really talking about? It seems that the qur’an is talking about marriage and others are talking about concubinage and a supposed loophole that allows men to have unlimited sex outside of marriage with captive girls/female prisoners of war. It is very interesting that when muslims debate non-Muslims about the Qur’an they say that the non-Muslims take verses out of context, yet when they are in doubt about something themselves they take verses out of context themselves. I ask them “which verses say that men can have unlimited sex partners outside of marriage? Which verse condones taking concubines?”. Inevitably they will point to verses like 4:24-25. I say what happened to the Qur’an explains Qur’an? In other places does it not say that sex is only for marriage? What about the verses about “those whom your right hand possess? Aren’t those verses about marriage? The Qur’an says that “slave-girls” must be taken in marriage in order for sex to be lawful. Why are Muslims then confused about this issue?
“she said there was a lot of things she found she could create loopholes to get away from”
Why was she doing this in the first place? It seems that this is where the problem begins, judging the hukm of Allah by our own human standards.
“but there were two things she thought she couldn’t accept. One was that God would send billions of people to hell for not believing in Him”
How does one purport to know better than the All-Knowing who is deserving of Hellfire?
“without giving humanity concrete proof of his existence and after allowing so many different religions to be formed and the other was sex slvery.”
What constitutes “concrete proof”? Isn’t this after all a subjective criterion on her part. All of His signs are there and only the diseased heart ask for “concrete proof” in the same way that the disbeliever asked the Prophet(as) for a miracle. Islam yield spiritual proofs and any empirical evidence is merely incidental in that it is a limited expression of a sublime Truth. A “concrete” proof is limited in that acceptance of it is based on subjective experience. This is why iman is so important in Islam. besides that there is the concept of fitrah, by which every human being is created with knowledge of the Existence of Allah. If your friend stopped believing this, it most likely means revelation was subordinated to reason in the pathway that she utilizes to acquire knowledge of her world. Indeed her arguments sound emotional.
As far as feminism is concerned we should know that feminism is a redundancy as far as Islam is concerned, and there is no need for Muslims to be “feminist”; just adhere to Qur’an and Sunnah. Western feminism presupposes that equality=identity. This supposition is fundamentally flawed as men and women are not identical and cannot be “equal” in this sense.
=========================================================================
Michael Elwood,
I will have to respectfully disagree with you on your description of zina. I understand that as a Quranist you won’t accept the hadith that give different punishment for married and unmarried fornicators, one being classed as adultery, the other as fornication. But there is a reason that the scholars say that zina is not limited to adultery. They did not invent this idea, as you suggest. For that we use the Qur’an only, since you will accept this source.
The Qur’an does not allow extramarital sex.
“And go not nigh to fornication; surely it is an indecency and an evil way.” [Qur'an 17:32]
And they who do not call upon another god with Allah and do not slay the soul, which Allah has forbidden except in the requirements of justice, and (who) do not commit fornication and he who does this shall find a requital of sin. The punishment shall be doubled to him on the day of resurrection, and he shall abide therein in abasement.” [Qur'an 25:68]
“The woman and the man guilty of fornication – flog each of them with a hundred stripes: Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day: and let a party of the Believers witness their punishment.”[Qur'an 24:2]
Meaning of zina in Arabic: fornication. When the fornication occurs between people who are married, whether it is both parties or not, it is considered adultery. So zina in fact is one word that encompasses both categories so it is up to the translator to use the context to decide if the meaning is “fornication”, “adultery”, some other illegal sexual activity, or to simply leave it untranslated as zina.
Allahu A’lam
July 24th, 2011 at 7:47 am
Anticipated Serendipity: “Why can men have sex with so many women?”
Implicit in the question is the idea that women are mere sex objects which in turn implies that marriage is just a way for men to vent their sexual cravings. This would explain why your friend asked “Why can men have sex with so many women?” instead of “Why can men marry so many women?”. She assumes marriage is just about sex in Islam. This is not so.
In the Quran, men are told to “desire chastity, not lust” (see Surah 4:24 and 5:5); additionally, it says that a husband and his wife are garments of each other (see 2:187); moreover, men cannot “inherit women against their will” (4:19) such that, among other things, a slave owner cannot use his slave girl as a prostitute “if she desires chastity” (see 24:33; it is important to note that the word used for chastity in this verse also appears in 4:24).
Here’s my argument. Slave girls have the right to practice chastity. If she desires chastity, she cannot be forced to work as a prostitute. Moreover, in light of the fact that “men cannot inherit women against their will”, a slave owner cannot forcibly engage in sex with his slave if she wants to be chaste.
In the light of these verses and the concomitant argument, how plausible is your friends claim that “…men can have sex with so many women” as if to imply that women are mere sex objects?
July 24th, 2011 at 8:01 am
muhammad abdl haqq, I admire your response to Seredipity. However, among the ultra-orthodox, your views (and mine) would be deemed heretical. Try telling the people at ummah forum or islamic awakening that the punishment of stoning is dubious or that concubinage is not allowed in the Quran.
July 24th, 2011 at 8:08 am
@muhammad abd-al-haqq
All I am pointing out is that polygyny is considered unacceptable in contemporary Western culture and like everything else it may not be in a few decades.
I don’t know about you but the culture I was born and bred in values critical thinking and I’ve never allowed myself to have “blind faith”, there are Christians who become Muslim and Muslims who become Christian, converts convert because they think and don’t just blindly accept their parents’ religion; her emails got me thinking a lot, even more than I already was and I started asking questions.
I’ve read some hadith about Maria the Copt, who was given as a “gift” to the prophet (pbuh) and a Jewish woman whose husband was killed by the Muslims and later became the prophet’s (pbuh) captive and there was something along the lines of “if she wears a veil it means she is Muslim and his wife, if not it means she is his captive” and she chose to remain his captive (concubine). The hadith literature definitely supports concubinage and alleges that the prophet (pbuh) himself had concubines and I’ve definitely read hadith about Ali having sex with a slave girl. Then there’s the “those whom your right hand possesses” in the Quran which is clear that slave girls are similar to wives as it is always “guard your privates from everyone except your wives and those whom your right hand possesses” Where does it say that sex is only for marriage?
I am very sorry if my questions and assertions sound anti-Islamic but I need answers.
“As far as feminism is concerned we should know that feminism is a redundancy as far as Islam is concerned, and there is no need for Muslims to be “feminist”; just adhere to Qur’an and Sunnah. Western feminism presupposes that equality=identity. This supposition is fundamentally flawed as men and women are not identical and cannot be “equal” in this sense.”
I do believe that women and men are equal and this is a concept found in the Quran, irrespective of what the hadith allege the prophet (pbuh) said about our deficiency in intelligence and religion, and of how a man will never be asked about beating his wife. Also there are some things that are independent of religion; you don’t have to look in the Quran or Sunnah to decide what type of soft drink to drink and I don’t believe Islam is all-encompassing. Religion is a fundamental part of who I am and what I believe but there are other things that define me too. I don’t believe equality equals identity, men don’t menstruate, they don’t bare children, the sexes are different physiologically, that is not to say that they do not have equal spiritual and legal value. Western feminism is diverse and not all feminists are man-hating lesbian atheists.
July 24th, 2011 at 8:23 am
@IbnAbuTalib
She was not in any way implying that women are sex objects. What she was asking was why men could have not only four wives, but an unlimited number of concubines (female POWs), who they can lawfully have sex with while women are only allowed the one husband, i.e.; there appears to be limits placed on women’s sexuality but not too much on men’s. I agree that marriage is definitely not only about sex but concubinage is IMO. So a man cannot have sex with a slave girl against her will, but if she is willing it’s okay? What if this man is married? Must his wife share him with his slave(s)?
July 24th, 2011 at 10:11 am
“I will have to respectfully disagree with you on your description of zina. I understand that as a Quranist you won’t accept the hadith that give different punishment for married and unmarried fornicators, one being classed as adultery, the other as fornication. But there is a reason that the scholars say that zina is not limited to adultery. They did not invent this idea, as you suggest. For that we use the Qur’an only, since you will accept this source.”
I’m not suggesting that they invented the idea. I’m suggesting that they appropriated it from the Bible. I find their interpretation inconsistent and forced. It’s inconsistent because they define zina as extramarital sex, but make an exception for sex with concubines. It’s forced because, not finding any basis for it in the Quran, they manufactured stories about a goat eating the verse and monkeys stoning each other as the precedent for their interpretation.
They also claim that 24:2 isn’t “clear” enough, and has to be explained by them. But the verse that precedes it says that it is “clear”.
“The Qur’an does not allow extramarital sex.”
I agree. The Quran does not allow extramarital sex (adultery). And it prescribes, in some rare cases, a hundred lashes. The Quran does not encourage premarital sex (fornication). But there is no penalty prescribed for it.
I disagree that the context of the verses you cited necessitate that we translate zina as fornication. Yuksel, Khalifa, Asad, and Pickthall translate zina in 17:32, 25:68, and 24:2, as adultery. Yusuf Ali translates 17:32 as adultery, and 25:68 and 24:2 as adultery and fornication. I’m not sure if this is Yusuf Ali’s original translation because I have the edition that was “revised” by scholars in Saudi Arabia.
July 24th, 2011 at 12:29 pm
Anticipated Serendipity,
Let’s consider this statement of yours first: “She was not in any way implying that women are sex objects.” If women are not sex objects, then it logically follows that female slaves are also not sex objects. This conclusion is strengthened by the observation that the Quran recognizes the right of a female slave to practice chastity.
Then you write, “I agree that marriage is definitely not only about sex but concubinage is IMO”. This is a contradiction because if you confirm that women are not viewed as sexual objects in the Quran, and the Quran recognizes the right of slave girls to practice chastity, and if you also take into account the verses which encourage men to desire “chastity, not lust”, then in the light of all these verses concubinage cannot be just about sex.
But to talk about the validity of concubinage (I’m playing devil’s advocate here by taking the orthodox/traditional position) is to presume the validity of slavery in the Quran. To what extent does Islam promote slavery? Given that there are innumerable instances in the Quran and Sunnah which extol the freeing of slaves, you will at least agree that Islam’s aim was to eradicate slavery, something which even the traditionalists agree with? As Shehzad Saleem of Al Mawrid Institute writes,
“In these circumstances, in which slavery had become an essential constituent of the Arab society, Islam adopted a gradual way to eliminate it. An immediate order of prohibition would have created immense social and economic problems. It would have become impossible for the society to cater for the needs of a large army of slaves, who were, otherwise, dependent on various families. Also, the national treasury was in no position to provide them all on a permanent basis. A large number among them were old and incapable of supporting themselves. The only alternative left for them, if they were instantly freed, would have been to turn to beggary and become an economic burden for the society. The question of slave girls and women was even more critical, keeping in view their own low moral standards. Freeing them, all of a sudden, would have only resulted in a tremendous increase in brothels. ”
If you agree with the sentiment expressed above, then you will realize that since concubinage derives from slavery, the removal of slavery logically implies the removal of concubinage. As such, it should not be a point of contention in modern times.
Would you like to hear the non-traditional view of “those that your right hands possess”? Let me know.
July 25th, 2011 at 12:23 am
Anticipated Serendipity,
(With due respect to those who would disagree:)
After a lot of research reading the Quran and taking all the verses related to the “right hand possess” term into account, I have come to the conclusion that Muslim men could have up to 4 free women as wives but unlimited number of slaves as wives but they had to be married to each of the women. I also figured (and I forgot where I read this) that if the slave (the guy was married to) bore a child, she had to be set free (and would then count as the free wife). So basically increasing the number of slave-wives increased the chances of them bearing a child which in turn would increase the chances of the slaves being free and keep in mind, at any given time there could be only 4 free women the guy could be married to. So there was a catch22 situation here and it was not easy to keep on getting married to and having sex with slaves.
Quran mentions that Allah has explained some things clearly and left some in doubt and the people who exploit the vague issues would suffer great punishment. So my assumption is that God is fair, lust is bad, marriage is necessary for sex and thus concubines were never allowed in Islam.
As far as Hadiths are concerned, I have doubts about any of them that contradict the Quran.
July 25th, 2011 at 1:54 pm
@AJ
“After a lot of research reading the Quran and taking all the verses related to the “right hand possess” term into account, I have come to the conclusion that Muslim men could have up to 4 free women as wives but unlimited number of slaves as wives but they had to be married to each of the women.”
I don’t think that’s an accurate take on the Quran’s position on slavery and polygamy, sis. I think Yuksel gave a more accurate take in his footnote for 4:3. He writes:
“Polygamy is allowed only to provide psychological, social and economic support for widows with orphans (See 4:127). Muhammad’s practice of polygamy must have been in accordance with the condition to serve an important social service. Sure, physical attraction of widows might be one of the factors for marriage and there is nothing wrong with that. Those who could afford practicing polygamy, mentally and financially, should try hard to treat them equally, though 4:129 expresses the practical impossibly of attaining that ideal. Additionally, the consent of the first wife is necessary; otherwise, she can always seek divorce. It is clear that polygamy is not an ideal form of marriage and an unusual practice allowed for difficult times, such as a dramatic reduction in the male population during wartime. The age gap between marrying men and women creates a surplus of women who will never be able to find a monogamous partner. By a strict prohibition on polygamy, millions of young women are deprived from having a legitimate relationship with men. The only hope for millions of young girls is to get married with already divorced men, perhaps with kids, or to have a relationship born out of promiscuous sexual practices. The Western world does not prohibit polygamy since many males have sexual relationships with more than one woman at the same time. The only thing that modern societies do is deprive those women from the protection of law; they are there to be used, disposed of and recycled by men! The hypocrisy in the modern attitude becomes clear when homosexuality is defended on the pretext of “consenting adults,” but the same standards are not afforded to the polygamists. The conditional permission for polygamy is for the psychological and financial protection of children and their widow mothers, in cases of war or natural disaster. Polygamy, according to the Old Testament, started with the seventh generation after Cain and continued as a common practice in the patriarchal age together with having concubines (Genesis 4:19; 6:2; 16:1-4; 22:21-24; 28:8-9; 29:23-30, etc.). However, the Old Testament also disapproves of polygamy (Deuteronomy 17:17). The Old Testament contains numerous exaggerated stories. One is about the number of Solomon’s wives. The roundness of the numbers of wives and concubines and their total, the three numbers being perfectly round, indicate an intentional exaggeration. “And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart†(1 Kings 11:3). It is highly plausible that the word “hundred” was inserted in the text by later scribes to damage the reputation of Solomon for some political agenda. The following verses depict Solomon as an evil person and idolater. The Quran neither accuses Solomon of indulging in a hedonistic sexual life nor of associating partners with God. Ironically, modern Christians are now bashing Solomon for not sticking to monogamy. To be politically correct, modern Christians do not hesitate to condemn the common practice of polygamy among Jews and their prophets. Contrary to the Quran, which exhorts muslims to help widows, the misogynistic Rabbinical teachings inserted into the Old Testament put them in the category of harlots, and finds them unworthy of marriage by the privileged class: priests (Leviticus 21:14). The expression Ma malakat aymanukum has been translated by most translations as “whom your right hands posses” or “captives” or “concubines.” We translated this and similar expressions found in 4:3,24,25,36; 16:71; 23:6; 24:31,33,58; 30:28; 33:50,52,55; and 70:30, as “those with whom you have contractual rights.” These were the wives of the enemy combatants who were persecuted because they acknowledged the message of Islam and sought asylum at the Muslim community (60:10). Since they did not get through a normal divorce process, an exceptional contract allows them to marry muslims as free women. Marrying them could create some social, economic and personal complications for the husband. They have nothing to do with IBaD (slaves), as sectarian translations and commentaries state. As we will learn, the Quran categorically rejects slavery and considers it to be the greatest sin (See 3:79; 4:25,92; 5:89; 8:67; 24:32-33; 58:3; 90:13; 2:286; 12:39-42; 79:24). The practice of slavery was justified and resurrected to a certain extent via the influence of Jewish and Christian scholars, as well as fabricated hadith and sharia laws, decades after Muhammad’s departure. It is ironic that Jews who suffered the most from slavery and were saved by God through the leadership of Moses (Exodus 1:13-14), later justified enslaving other people, including selling one’s own daughter, and inserted that practice into their holy books (Exodus 21:7-8; 21:21-22; 26-27; Leviticus 25:44-46; Joshua 9:6-27). Though Jesus never condoned slavery, St. Paul, the founder of modern Christianity, once asked the masters to treat their slaves nicely (Colossians 3:22), and asked the slaves to be “submissive to your masters with all fear” (1 Peter 2:18; Ephesians 6:5; 1 Timothy 6:2; Colossians 3:22; Titus 2:9) justifying the Marxist maxim, “Religion is the opium of masses.” The use of religion by the privileged class to enslave or exploit people is vividly depicted by the South African archbishop Desmond Tutu: “When the missionaries came to Africa, they had the Bible and we had the land. They said ‘let us close our eyes and pray’. When we opened them, we had the Bible, and they had the land.” The word YaMYN means “right hand” or metaphorically “right,” “power” or “control.” However, its plural form aYMaN is consistently mentioned in the Quran to mean not “right hands” but to mean “oaths” or “promises,” implying the mutual nature of the relationship (See 4:33 5:89; 9:12; 16:91- 94; 2:224-225; 30:28; 66:2; 5:53; 6:109). This unique Quranic usage is similar to the semantic difference between the singular and plural forms of the word Ayat (signs) (see 2:106). The expression in question, thus could be translated as “those whom your oaths/contracts have rights over” or “those whom you hold rights through your contracts,” or by reading aYMaN (oaths/contracts) as an object rather than a subject, “those who hold/possess your contracts.” The marriage declaration is a mutual partnership between two sexes and is formed by participation of family members. A married woman cannot marry another man without getting divorced from her husband. However, if a woman escapes and joins muslims while her husband stayed behind participating in a war against muslims, she may marry a Muslim man without actually getting divorced from her combatant husband; she will legally be considered a divorcee (60:10). Since this contract is different from the normal marriage contract, this special relationship is described in different words. The same is valid for a man whose wife allies with the hostile enemy. See 24:31 and 33:55. Those who work for another person according to employment contracts are also referred to with the same expression. See 16:71; 30:28. Also, see 4:25,36; 23:6; 24:58; 33:50; 33:52; 70:30. The Quran does not demand those who lived together based on a mutual promise (AYMaN) during the days of ignorance, without a marriage contract, to get divorced. Similarly, it does not want those who married two sisters before accepting islam to be a way of life (4:23). This tolerance does not encourage living together without marriage. It only does not want to incur further damage to the family structure and does not want to create hurdles for those who wish to live according to the principles of islam.”
July 25th, 2011 at 4:30 pm
@ Michael Elwood,
Salam.
What you have just posted is very beneficial. I could never understood why those who claim to be ashaab ul hadith could advocate slavery and concubinage, yet even in ahadith we read that the Prophet(saws) never had a slave, strongly recommended freeing slaves, and the Qur’an itself ties manumission of slaves to zakat and taqwa.
Even so, if one reads the CONTEXT in the Qur’an itself, in the verses where we usually find translations of “Ma malakat aymanukum” such as “concubines” and “those whom your right hand posses”, the context is marriage, so how, in light of the context, could someone even contemplate the translation “concubine” and “slaves” or “captives” is beyond me. The verses are about those whom you can marry, so why would people assume it is about an exceptional allowance for fornication in the case of POW’s or slaves?
Allahu A’lam
July 25th, 2011 at 5:45 pm
Anticipated Serendipity, here is a good explanation regarding Hell Fire
July 25th, 2011 at 9:54 pm
@IbnAbuTalib
I would definitely like to hear the modern take on concubinage.
@AJ
That doesn’t make a lot of sense, now does it? Men can have four “free” wives but hundreds of “slave” wives; sounds like an orgy.
I know that slavery and concubinage are moot now, however there are scholars and lay Muslims out there who support this and I think someone here mentioned the Fillipino maids in KSA who are often raped by their Saudi employers. Anyone heard of the Kuwaiti female politican who was encouraging horny Kuwaitit men to buy sex slaves from Chechnya and other war zones as these women would starve any way and this was allowed by Islam (according to her she spoke to some senior clerics in Saudi who verified the permissibility of this) and this way the men would still be chaste? Of couse JW was all over it and this bags the question: How is it moral to “buy” a sex slave? How is that moral? How is that a “halal ” and good alternative to prostitution or fornication? I also read on islamqa I think that a slave has to submit to her master (just as a wife must to her husband, angles cursing all night, anyone?) and the verse IbnAbuTalib quoted was about prostitution, it doesn’t mention sex with the master.
I’m in a rush at the moment I have an appointment I’ve got to get to so sorry for any grammatical errors and poorly explained points.
July 26th, 2011 at 2:53 pm
@Muhammad
Unfortunately, If enough people believe something long enough, it’s assumed to be true. After all, how could so many people be wrong for so long?
@Serendipity
“Anyone heard of the Kuwaiti female politican who was encouraging horny Kuwaitit men to buy sex slaves from Chechnya and other war zones as these women would starve any way and this was allowed by Islam (according to her she spoke to some senior clerics in Saudi who verified the permissibility of this) and this way the men would still be chaste?”
Yeah, I’ve heard of her. Her name is Salwa al Mutairi, and apparently she’s the Kuwaiti version of Michele Bachmann (who signed a “family values” document that said African Americans had more stable families during slavery than they do now. . . even though they couldn’t legally get married and were routinely broken up by slave traders). I don’t know what they call people like that in your neck of the woods, but us French Creoles call them couillions (or dingbats).
“Of couse JW was all over it and this bags the question: How is it moral to “buy” a sex slave? How is that moral? How is that a “halal ” and good alternative to prostitution or fornication? I also read on islamqa I think that a slave has to submit to her master (just as a wife must to her husband, angles cursing all night, anyone?) and the verse IbnAbuTalib quoted was about prostitution, it doesn’t mention sex with the master.”
Consider the source. Jihad Watch and Islamqa are two sides of the same coin. There is surprisingly little difference in the way “Islamophobes” and “Islamists” conceive Islam.
July 26th, 2011 at 3:14 pm
Anticipated Serendipity, before I give you links to “modernist” accounts of things, let me address this point of yours first:”the verse IbnAbuTalib quoted was about prostitution, it doesn’t mention sex with the master”
True, the verse is about prostitution, but it does say that slave girls have the right to practice chastity. Do we agree or not?
Regarding the alternative perspectives, I suggest you look at Muhammad Asad’s commentary on the relevant verses. Also, you might want to read this comprehensive article by a “classical modernist”
http://www.monthly-renaissance.com/issue/content.aspx?id=154
As for the Quran only view, perhaps Michael Elwood would like to say something?
July 26th, 2011 at 4:51 pm
IbnAbuTalib,
Salams,
That is an interesting link you posted. I think “classical modernist” is an appropriate label since Javed Ghamidi seems to be one of the only Modernists who actually is rooted in the Islamic tradition.I usuakky disagree with most Modernists but I recommend his online Islamic University.
http://studying-islam.org
Allahu A’lam
July 26th, 2011 at 6:31 pm
@IbnAbuTalib
“As for the Quran only view, perhaps Michael Elwood would like to say something?”
I can’t give *the* Quran-only view, but I can give *a* Quran-only view. My view is similar to the one given by Yuksel in my previous post. I don’t believe slavery or concubinage can be justified from the Quran.
Moses told Pharaoh, “let my people go”! He didn’t say, “could you find some Egyptian men to marry all these Israelite slave women”?
Joseph told the horny Egyptian cougar, “may God protect me”. He didn’t say, “ya know, there’s a loophole that allows horny chicks like you to sleep with slave men like me.”
July 29th, 2011 at 11:29 am
muhammad abdl haq: That is an interesting link you posted. I think “classical modernist” is an appropriate label since Javed Ghamidi seems to be one of the only Modernists who actually is rooted in the Islamic tradition.
Unfortunately, classical modernists such as Ghamdi are considered deviants by Salafis. Don’t believe me? Just look at some of the threads on Sunniforum about him.
July 29th, 2011 at 11:36 am
Unfortunately, classical modernists such as Ghamdi are considered deviants by Salafis. Don’t believe me? Just look at some of the threads on Sunniforum about him.
You must be talking about the radical Salafis who only consider themselves upright. Most Salafi Muslims I know are moderate and open-minded.
July 29th, 2011 at 1:44 pm
Abdullah Saeed, Islamic studies professor at the University of Melbourne, has an article on the “classical modernists” as well as other trends characterizing contemporary Islamic thought:
http://www.abdullahsaeed.org/sites/abdullahsaeed.org/files/Trends_in_Contemporary_Islam.pdf