I put up the following post on the NYtimes discussion board on Stanley Fish's column on the relationship between Shariah law and American Law:
It's amazing that so much discussion takes place over Sharia Law by people who have no idea what it is, whether or not the term refers to a single consistent point of view, or whether there are any significant number of U.S. Muslims who want Sharia law. I include myself in this category, but I'd like to clear up my ignorance on this topic. I do know that Saudi Arabia, Iran, and the Taliban had significantly different ideas of what it consisted of. (although they are all pretty vile in their respective ways.) Isn't it possible that there are other interpretations of Sharia Law which are not that different from American Law? And how many Muslims in America actually want Sharia? Has anyone taken a poll? I have never seen a single demonstration in America demanding it. My guess is most US Muslims came here to get away from it.
Later I discovered another poster had given me something like an answer to my question:
"Must a devout Muslim choose between his or her faith and the letter of the law of the land?"
NO - and that's from Islamic doctrinal perspective.
When Muslims migrate to countries not governed by Islamic sharia or tradition (yes, there are Muslim countries that do not embrace sharia law), they are commanded to obey the laws of the country they reside in as long as those laws do not prevent them from carrying out their basic duties as Muslims.
To use some simplistic examples, under sharia it is permissible but not required for a man to have up to four wives. A man can have one wife and still be able to fulfill all his duties as a Muslim in any country. Therefore, according to Islam, he needs to follow US law and marry only one wife and duly punished under US law if he chooses to flout it.
On the other hand, if a law were passed that every person has to eat bacon with every meal then the law is in direct conflict with some of the basic tenents of Islam and Muslims are exhorted to move away from areas where laws conflict with religious practice.
France is a more nuanced case because of the burqa ban. The Quran directs women to "dress modestly" but does not explicitly advocate a burqa - that's a tradition passed on from the Saudis. The burqa vs niqab debate is still ongoing in the Muslim world, so technically the jury is still out on whether one can live as a devout Muslim there. Of greater concern is that a country felt it had to single out a minority religion for discrimination.
As a Muslim I find it ridiculous Prof Fish has decided to make an issue of a problem that does not exist. If he had simply looked into actual Islamic law, he might not have had to write this column as yet more fodder for the Tea Partiers. And for the record, no, I do not have references for my assertions. This was all taught to me long ago in my Islamic studies class in a muslim country (Pakistan).
It looks like I'm going to have to start reading about Sharia law these days, given that so many apparently unfounded statements are being made about it.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Saturday, September 25, 2010
Muslims and Free Speech
Aziz Poonawalla has co-authored a petition for muslims endorsing the principle of Free speech, specifically naming those who have been drawing caricatures of Muhammad. Here it is, in full.
I am proud to co-publish and add my name as a signatory to this statement upholding the principle of free speech and denouncing those who would threaten violence in the name of Islam. If you would like to add your signature, please send an email with your name, title, and organizational affiliation (if any) to Sheila Musaji, tameditor@aol.com.
A DEFENSE OF FREE SPEECH BY AMERICAN AND CANADIAN MUSLIMS
We, the undersigned, unconditionally condemn any intimidation or threats of violence directed against any individual or group exercising the rights of freedom of religion and speech; even when that speech may be perceived as hurtful or reprehensible.
We are concerned and saddened by the recent wave of vitriolic anti-Muslim and anti-Islamic sentiment that is being expressed across our nation.
We are even more concerned and saddened by threats that have been made against individual writers, cartoonists, and others by a minority of Muslims. We see these as a greater offense against Islam than any cartoon, Qur'an burning, or other speech could ever be deemed.
We affirm the right of free speech for Molly Norris, Matt Stone, Trey Parker, and all others including ourselves.
As Muslims, we must set an example of justice, patience, tolerance, respect, and forgiveness.
The Qur'an enjoins Muslims to:
* bear witness to Islam through our good example (2:143);
* restrain anger and pardon people (3:133-134 and 24:22);
* remain patient in adversity (3186);
* stand firmly for justice (4:135);
* not let the hatred of others swerve us from justice (5:8);
* respect the sanctity of life (5:32);
* turn away from those who mock Islam (6:68 and 28:55);
* hold to forgiveness, command what is right, and turn away from the ignorant (7:199);
* restrain ourselves from rash responses (16:125-128);
* pass by worthless talk with dignity (25:72); and
* repel evil with what is better (41:34).
Islam calls for vigorous condemnation of both hateful speech and hateful acts, but always within the boundaries of the law. It is of the utmost importance that we react, not out of reflexive emotion, but with dignity and intelligence, in accordance with both our religious precepts and the laws of our country.
We uphold the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Both protect freedom of religion and speech, because both protections are fundamental to defending minorities from the whims of the majority.
We therefore call on all Muslims in the United States, Canada and abroad to refrain from violence. We should see the challenges we face today as an opportunity to sideline the voices of hate--not reward them with further attention--by engaging our communities in constructive dialogue about the true principles of Islam, and the true principles of democracy, both of which stress the importance of freedom of religion and tolerance.
A master copy with the complete list of signatories to this statement is available at The American Muslim website. If you would like to add your signature, please send an email with your name, title, and organizational affiliation (if any) to the Editor at The American Muslim, Sheila Musaji (tameditor@aol.com).
Amongst the responses were the usual urban legands that pass for Islamophobic scholarship, and demands for even more statements from Muslims about Hamas. etc. The expression "Moving the Goalposts" seems appropriate here. Whatever moderate Muslims do, there's no acknowledgment of the progress, only demands for more.
There's also a link in one of the posts to a site called Loonwatch Which is a Muslim response to sites like Jihad watch. The tone of the site is somewhat angry and abusive,(but no where near as bad as the average Islamophobe site, but there are some good facts on it, written by Muslims who are clearly sensible and honest.
I am proud to co-publish and add my name as a signatory to this statement upholding the principle of free speech and denouncing those who would threaten violence in the name of Islam. If you would like to add your signature, please send an email with your name, title, and organizational affiliation (if any) to Sheila Musaji, tameditor@aol.com.
A DEFENSE OF FREE SPEECH BY AMERICAN AND CANADIAN MUSLIMS
We, the undersigned, unconditionally condemn any intimidation or threats of violence directed against any individual or group exercising the rights of freedom of religion and speech; even when that speech may be perceived as hurtful or reprehensible.
We are concerned and saddened by the recent wave of vitriolic anti-Muslim and anti-Islamic sentiment that is being expressed across our nation.
We are even more concerned and saddened by threats that have been made against individual writers, cartoonists, and others by a minority of Muslims. We see these as a greater offense against Islam than any cartoon, Qur'an burning, or other speech could ever be deemed.
We affirm the right of free speech for Molly Norris, Matt Stone, Trey Parker, and all others including ourselves.
As Muslims, we must set an example of justice, patience, tolerance, respect, and forgiveness.
The Qur'an enjoins Muslims to:
* bear witness to Islam through our good example (2:143);
* restrain anger and pardon people (3:133-134 and 24:22);
* remain patient in adversity (3186);
* stand firmly for justice (4:135);
* not let the hatred of others swerve us from justice (5:8);
* respect the sanctity of life (5:32);
* turn away from those who mock Islam (6:68 and 28:55);
* hold to forgiveness, command what is right, and turn away from the ignorant (7:199);
* restrain ourselves from rash responses (16:125-128);
* pass by worthless talk with dignity (25:72); and
* repel evil with what is better (41:34).
Islam calls for vigorous condemnation of both hateful speech and hateful acts, but always within the boundaries of the law. It is of the utmost importance that we react, not out of reflexive emotion, but with dignity and intelligence, in accordance with both our religious precepts and the laws of our country.
We uphold the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Both protect freedom of religion and speech, because both protections are fundamental to defending minorities from the whims of the majority.
We therefore call on all Muslims in the United States, Canada and abroad to refrain from violence. We should see the challenges we face today as an opportunity to sideline the voices of hate--not reward them with further attention--by engaging our communities in constructive dialogue about the true principles of Islam, and the true principles of democracy, both of which stress the importance of freedom of religion and tolerance.
A master copy with the complete list of signatories to this statement is available at The American Muslim website. If you would like to add your signature, please send an email with your name, title, and organizational affiliation (if any) to the Editor at The American Muslim, Sheila Musaji (tameditor@aol.com).
Amongst the responses were the usual urban legands that pass for Islamophobic scholarship, and demands for even more statements from Muslims about Hamas. etc. The expression "Moving the Goalposts" seems appropriate here. Whatever moderate Muslims do, there's no acknowledgment of the progress, only demands for more.
There's also a link in one of the posts to a site called Loonwatch Which is a Muslim response to sites like Jihad watch. The tone of the site is somewhat angry and abusive,(but no where near as bad as the average Islamophobe site, but there are some good facts on it, written by Muslims who are clearly sensible and honest.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
The Smearing of Feisal Rauf
Once people acknowledge that there is no possible reason to deny one of the two Mosques near ground zero the right to build a community center with a prayer room, the next step is to try to find something wrong with Faisal Rauf, the sufi teacher who is organizing the project. Ross Douhat claims that he endorsed the Iranian regime, and won't denounce Hamas.
I checked Douhat's link to Rauf's supposed endorsement of the Iranian Regime, and both Douhat and blogger Michael Weiss misinterpreted Rauf's statement. Here's the conclusion of the section Weiss Quoted:
Now, on the streets of Teheran and undoubtedly in high political circles behind the scenes, Iranians are asking themselves, has this election confirmed the legitimacy of the ruler? President Obama has rightly said that his administration will not interfere with the internal affairs of Iran, unlike what happened in 1953. Now he has an opportunity to have a greater positive impact on Iranian-American relations.
He should say his administration respects many of the guiding principles of the 1979 revolution -- to establish a government that expresses the will of the people; a just government, based on the idea of Vilayet-i-faqih, that establishes the rule of law.
Anyone who was not reading this with a pathologically prejudiced eye would see that this is a criticism of the Iranian government, not an endorsement. What Rauf is advising is that Obama express his criticism of the Iranian Government by saying this: the poll fraud of the last Iranian election does not live up to the ideals that the Iranian Government claims to stand for. Rauf is surely correct in saying that this would be a more effective strategy than demanding that Iran adopt the American Bill of Rights. Rauf is arguing that the principles of just government and rule of law are an essential part of Islam's value sytem. This is certainly true. It is the reason that the U.S. Supreme Court building has a carving of Muhammad along with Moses and Hammurabi in a frieze honoring the great lawmakers of history. This is also by far the most persuasive way of persuading Muslims who are sitting on the fence between moderation and extremism.
As for Rauf's refusal to condemn Hamas: I feel that both Israel and Hamas are treating each other abominably. I disagree with both the softpedaling of Israel's atrocities by many Americans and the soft pedaling of Hamas' atrocities by many Muslims. But none of us has to agree on these issues to be recognized as legitimate members of the American Community. Catholics don't have to denounce papal infallibility, or accept Dawkins' demand that the pope be arrested as an accessory to pedophilia, in order to build their Churches anywhere they want, and that's exactly the way it should be. Violent destruction of property, whether by Bin Laden or McVeigh, is a crime and anyone who commits such crimes or irresponsibly advocates them should pay the appropriate penalty. But it would be a dark day for America if mere differences of opinion about foreign policy could be used to deny anyone's right to build a community center on their own land, in an area that already has several other houses of worship (including two Mosques).
I checked Douhat's link to Rauf's supposed endorsement of the Iranian Regime, and both Douhat and blogger Michael Weiss misinterpreted Rauf's statement. Here's the conclusion of the section Weiss Quoted:
Now, on the streets of Teheran and undoubtedly in high political circles behind the scenes, Iranians are asking themselves, has this election confirmed the legitimacy of the ruler? President Obama has rightly said that his administration will not interfere with the internal affairs of Iran, unlike what happened in 1953. Now he has an opportunity to have a greater positive impact on Iranian-American relations.
He should say his administration respects many of the guiding principles of the 1979 revolution -- to establish a government that expresses the will of the people; a just government, based on the idea of Vilayet-i-faqih, that establishes the rule of law.
Anyone who was not reading this with a pathologically prejudiced eye would see that this is a criticism of the Iranian government, not an endorsement. What Rauf is advising is that Obama express his criticism of the Iranian Government by saying this: the poll fraud of the last Iranian election does not live up to the ideals that the Iranian Government claims to stand for. Rauf is surely correct in saying that this would be a more effective strategy than demanding that Iran adopt the American Bill of Rights. Rauf is arguing that the principles of just government and rule of law are an essential part of Islam's value sytem. This is certainly true. It is the reason that the U.S. Supreme Court building has a carving of Muhammad along with Moses and Hammurabi in a frieze honoring the great lawmakers of history. This is also by far the most persuasive way of persuading Muslims who are sitting on the fence between moderation and extremism.
As for Rauf's refusal to condemn Hamas: I feel that both Israel and Hamas are treating each other abominably. I disagree with both the softpedaling of Israel's atrocities by many Americans and the soft pedaling of Hamas' atrocities by many Muslims. But none of us has to agree on these issues to be recognized as legitimate members of the American Community. Catholics don't have to denounce papal infallibility, or accept Dawkins' demand that the pope be arrested as an accessory to pedophilia, in order to build their Churches anywhere they want, and that's exactly the way it should be. Violent destruction of property, whether by Bin Laden or McVeigh, is a crime and anyone who commits such crimes or irresponsibly advocates them should pay the appropriate penalty. But it would be a dark day for America if mere differences of opinion about foreign policy could be used to deny anyone's right to build a community center on their own land, in an area that already has several other houses of worship (including two Mosques).
Thursday, July 29, 2010
The Burqua again
I think the "Ban the Burqua" controversy is basically a conflict between two principles of ethics-the deontological (based on issues of justice) and the utilitarian (based on issues of happiness.) Deontological arguments of this sort are often used by people on the libertarian right--"No matter how unbalanced the distribution of wealth, the Government must never interfere with property rights". Nussbaum's NYTimes argument against Burqua bans has a similar form-- "No matter how many women are made miserable by the burqua, we must never interfere with religious freedom." Some of us use the utilitarian argument that banning the burqua could help to bring some Muslim women in greater contact with people outside their orthodox families, and thus give them more freedom of choice in the long run. This seems to be a more important fact than the abstract principle defended by Ms. Nussbaum. This issue is confused by the fact that the primary motivation for most burqua banners is Islamophobia. ( like the banning of Minarets.) Nevertheless, some people do the right thing for the wrong reason.
Utilitarian arguments do require more empirical input than justice arguments. Will the ban really give women more freedom, or just prompt their husbands and fathers to keep them permanently at home? Can this problem by more effectively dealt with by having the burqua wearers be persuaded by their hijabi and bare-headed sisters? Can the law really be written so that it doesn't ban ski masks? I'm still uncertain about the answers to these questions, but I do think these kinds of issues need to be considered, rather than only thinking about justice in the abstract. Abstract principles of justice often produce concrete examples of injustice.
http://theiscollection.com/category/the-ethicist/
Utilitarian arguments do require more empirical input than justice arguments. Will the ban really give women more freedom, or just prompt their husbands and fathers to keep them permanently at home? Can this problem by more effectively dealt with by having the burqua wearers be persuaded by their hijabi and bare-headed sisters? Can the law really be written so that it doesn't ban ski masks? I'm still uncertain about the answers to these questions, but I do think these kinds of issues need to be considered, rather than only thinking about justice in the abstract. Abstract principles of justice often produce concrete examples of injustice.
http://theiscollection.com/category/the-ethicist/
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
This religion is easy
This religion is easy. Do not make it a rigor, or you shall be overcome. Be steadfast, seek the closeness of Allah, grow in virtue, and implore His appeasement day and night.
- Hadith The Prophet Muhammad (SAW), as reported by Abu Hurairah
Nothing in here about not playing music, or keeping your beard long, or stopping women from driving cars. As a political leader, sometimes Muhammad had to make a lot of ad hoc decisions about what his particular Ummah had to do at that particular time. I see no reason to believe he wanted a troop of scholars to comb through everything everyone remembered about what he said and construct a set of prohibitions that are not mentioned anywhere in the Koran
- Hadith The Prophet Muhammad (SAW), as reported by Abu Hurairah
Nothing in here about not playing music, or keeping your beard long, or stopping women from driving cars. As a political leader, sometimes Muhammad had to make a lot of ad hoc decisions about what his particular Ummah had to do at that particular time. I see no reason to believe he wanted a troop of scholars to comb through everything everyone remembered about what he said and construct a set of prohibitions that are not mentioned anywhere in the Koran
Sunday, July 25, 2010
Interview
Terrific Interview with the Builder of the so-called 9/11 Mosque. Lots of unjustified accusations against somebody (apparently him) in the comments. Read it, it needs no comment from me. Among other things, he invites Sarah Palin to visit his current mosque.
I've now decided that it is important to see this thing through. Muslims need to be patient, and take a lot of abuse,like black children attending white schools for the first time. Or like Muhammad who let a woman dump garbage on him until she finally realized he was a saint and converted to Islam. Let people see that once this center is up, it is not dangerous, and they will regret their hysteria years later.
I've now decided that it is important to see this thing through. Muslims need to be patient, and take a lot of abuse,like black children attending white schools for the first time. Or like Muhammad who let a woman dump garbage on him until she finally realized he was a saint and converted to Islam. Let people see that once this center is up, it is not dangerous, and they will regret their hysteria years later.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Quotes from NYtimes comment page
Here is an excerpt of a statement by H.E. Shaikh Salih bin Muhammad Al-Luheidan, Chairman of the Muslim Supreme Judicial Council on Friday, September 14, 2001, following the terrorist attacks in the United States:
". . . God Almighty says: 'And let not the enmity and hatred of others make you avoid justice. Be just, that is nearer to piety.' Inflicting a collective punishment is considered by Islam as despicable aggression and perversion. Killing innocent people is by itself a grave crime, quite apart from terrorizing and committing crimes against infants and women. Such acts do no honor to he who commits them, even if he claims to be a Muslim . . . " Sounds pretty dead- set against terrorism to me.
***
Visit the Cordoba house initiative and see just how scary these people are.
They believe in changing the muslim world through modern education. They believe in empowering women, women's equality.
Isn't that the key to ending the fundamentalism in Islam that is fueling the problem?
". . . God Almighty says: 'And let not the enmity and hatred of others make you avoid justice. Be just, that is nearer to piety.' Inflicting a collective punishment is considered by Islam as despicable aggression and perversion. Killing innocent people is by itself a grave crime, quite apart from terrorizing and committing crimes against infants and women. Such acts do no honor to he who commits them, even if he claims to be a Muslim . . . " Sounds pretty dead- set against terrorism to me.
***
Visit the Cordoba house initiative and see just how scary these people are.
They believe in changing the muslim world through modern education. They believe in empowering women, women's equality.
Isn't that the key to ending the fundamentalism in Islam that is fueling the problem?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)