Imam Zaid Shakir at 'Dysfunctional Islam' Talk

I attended a fundraising talk on 'Dysfunctional Islam' organised by Glasgow Central Mosque last Friday, 26th August. The title is quite provoking for 'dysfunctional' according to Oxford English Dictionary means 'not operating normally or properly', which is not fit to say that to Islam. Imam Zaid Shakir, one of the prominent Muslim scholars of this time of Zaytuna Institute gave a very intresting talk that night. Among the most important points he mentioned which I would like to share here are the following:

(i) revert vs convert: he said it is wrong to use the word 'revert' to someone who converted to Islam, because revert for him means 'returning to the previous state unconsciously' while 'convert' is more of change or transform to a new state consciously. While he was aware of the hadith that 'every child is born in the state of fitrah...' but that same person was not conscious of his 'fitrah' (or Islam). But he was conscious is the religion that his parents brought him up. For that reason, if we used 'revert' it means, according to him, returning to the original religion of which one had previously consciously believed, in this case for a Christian, then Christianity and so on, not really the din al-fitrah.

(ii) ideology vs religion: he also questioned the usage of the word ideology for Islam because he said Islam is not an idelogy but rather a religion. Ideology, according to him is man-made, while religion is God-revealed. Another thing, he said that religion is more concerned with salvation in the hereafter while ideology is more interested in attaining the worldy pursuit. He proposed the audience to read a book by Daniel Bell on the End of Ideology

(iii) The third interesting point he raised is with regard to interest-bearing housing loan or mortgage in the West. He made a hypothetical situation where if one were in a situation when there was no food at all, except flesh of pork, would one without hesitation consume it, since in Islam there is a dispensation (rukhsah) if one encounters such extreme hardship (darurah), then one is allowed to do so for survival? He believed many people would rather prefer to wait and pray that ALlah would send some halal food, instead. This is how disgusting the pork is to the Muslims eyes even at time when it was permitted (darurah), many would still reluctant to grab the 'opportunity'. But sadly, when it comes to mortgage or housing loans, the Muslims would easily and hastily succumb to the worldly tempation of material gains, ignoring the curse and wrath from ALlah for dealing with interest (riba). He believed, while noting differences of opinions amongst scholars, that there is no dispensation given in Islam for taking riba no matter what, unlike in the case of food for survival, just mentioned. He reminded the severity of prohibition of riba is of the highest order and clearly manifested when ALlah Most High declares war against only to two types of people in this world: that those deal with usury (Al-Baqarah: 278-279)and those that attacks His Awliya'(al-Hadith). Wallahu 'alam.

Ziauddin Sardar and Liberal Islam

I have just attended a talk by Ziauddin Sardar in conjunction with Edinburgh International Book Festival 2005. He was talking about change in Islam; and what is being done to reform Islam from within. He was saying, among other things, is that the problem with Islam is its Shari'ah and its interpretation by scholars. He claimed that Shari'ah is not absolute and divine, hence it can be re-interpreted to suit the present age. He cited two problems with regard to Shari'ah: first is the criminal punishment or hudūd, he said and second is the family law such as marriage-divorce issue, inheritance between males and females and others. He seemed to be impressed with the Liberal Islam movements in Indonesia and other parts of the world, especially in Morroco. He drew much of his talk from his book Desperately Seeking Paradise: Journeys of a Sceptical Muslim. I don’t need to comment much on what he has said in the book since there is already a beautiful review of it which you may find in this blog. Suffice for me to conclude here that Sardar has confused himself between the “permenance”(al-thubut) characteristics of Islam and its “flexibility”(al-murunah), and between Shari'ah and Fiqh. This perplexity has further led him to having such a facile and shallow kind of reasoning and analysis on Islam. He is truly a skeptic, as he claimed.

Terrorism: Not in My (God's) Name!

It has been a while since I have last blogged. Perhaps, now in light of various events recently cropped up around us, I would better resume tapping again and sharing my views with others. One of the frequently asked questions is about the London bombings.

My religious standpoint on this matter is very simple: "there is NO Islamic justification whatsoever possible against such atrocities" and I am very much disgusted with such heinous crimes. My deepest sympathy and condolences to the victims and their families.

If those who committed such crimes against the humanity are Muslims then certainly they had not died as "martyrs" (shuhada') for their acts were not in conformity with the teachings of Islam, nor Christianity nor any other world religions for that matter. All religions advocate none other but peace and harmonious life as their raison d'être, more so with Islam where its very name means "Peace". Mas'ud Khan has beautifully said in this connection:

How is it that someone who considers his or herself Muslim will perpetrate such an act and initiate the invocation "In the Name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful", when what they are doing is the antithesis of graciousness and mercy? In fact, these people should use the invocation "In the Name of Al-Qa'ida (or any other such group), most disgraceful, most unmerciful".

Some people execrated the perpetrators of 7/7 bombings as "animals", which is to me not quite right for they are not "animals" but rather they are "worse than animals". This is the phrase usually used in the Qur'an. Perhaps the Qur'an tries to show that even animals have a certain degree of 'dignity', as it were, in spite of them not being given the intellectual capacity as that of human.

Immediately after the attacks, the non-Muslims brusquely clamour for condemnation from the Muslims in Britain and all over the world against the bombings. Some had gone one step further importunately demanding the Muslim scholars ('ulama) to come up with an edict (fatwa). Why? Why all of the sudden the Muslims are put in the dock for the crimes committed by their fellow people of the faith? Since when the crimes committed by a group of people of one faith then the whole community of the faith is to blame and put on trial? Criminals are criminals no matter which religion they belong to, and they would never represent their religion in the crimes they committed. Bear in mind that the massacres of the Bosnian Muslims by the Christian Serbs were nothing to do with the teachings of Christianity but rather because of the insanity and wickedness of people like Radovan Karadzic and Slobodan Milošević.

London Mayor, Ken Livingston, has surely spoken the truth when he said:

"We don't judge Christianity by the two or three mass murderers there were in Serbia. We shouldn't judge this great faith by a handful of fanatics. You don't judge one of the great world religions (Islam), which has been behind so much progress in human history, and is overwhelmingly dominated by people who look for peaceful co-operation, by a handful of fanatics."
[13 July 2005]

They then demanded us to issue a fatwa. But what could the fatwa make any difference for someone or some people who had already been 'possessed' and 'indoctrinated'? The scholars have for long given a fatwa that smoking is haram? How many people really stop smoking because of that fatwa? On the contrary, smokers and drug addicts are on the rise in any Muslim country. What about rulings that have been categorically prescribed in the Qur'an since more than one thousand years ago without needing any fatwa from any scholar, such as the prohibition of gambling, alcohol, and prostitution, to name but a few. Do all the Muslims abide by the rulings? Obviously not, sadly some Muslims even had gone abroad to gamble! If the words of God, the Creator the Sustainer, have little impact upon those obstinate, misguided and insane people, what do you expect from a fatwa of ordinary fellow men? There will always be the extremists and perverters in any religion.

Islam never condones such an act like that of 7/7 or 9/11, or in Iraq, Turkey, Egypt or any part of the globe. One may find abundant fatwas already issued condemning similars acts against innocent civilians anywhere in the world. Look at what some of the scholars have said about this: Imam Zaid Shakir, Shakyh Abdal Hakim Murad , Saudi 'ulama' fatwas, Fiqh Council of North America and British Muslim Forum.

Terrorism is not in God's name, please!