veiled4allah

some Islamic law links

For those interested in Islamic legal theory (and with the patience to read texts that are somewhat technical in nature), you may wish to check out the following articles by Mohammad Hashim Kamali: Freedom of Association: The Islamic Perspective - Argues that although the scholars of the past have not fully developed theories of freedom of association, there is a sound basis in the texts of the Shari'a for doing so. Also discusses the permissibility of political parties and refutes claims made against this. Freedom of Religion in Islamic Law - Sets out why freedom of religion is one of the most fundamental rights of the individual in Islamic law and provides evidence that neither the death penalty for apostasy nor the idea of "conversion by the sword" are part of Islam. The Citizen and the State in Islamic Law - Discusses limitations on state power in Islamic legal theory, and argues that Islamic law calls for a limited government. The Limits of Power in an Islamic State - Similar to the previous, but looks at some specific issues and areas of government authority. The Right to Personal Safety and the Principle of Legality in the Shari'a - Really looks at criminal procedure and the protection of the rights of the individual from suspicion and accusation of crime, through arrest and detention, to interrogation, as well as the right to counsel. There is a discussion of beating the accused during interrogation, which has generally been upheld by the scholars, but Kamali argues that the stronger position is that this is forbidden. Some previous entries I've made to this blog that link to other essays by Kamali include Dissent and disorder: American and Islamic approaches and Fundamental rights of the individual in Islamic thought.

news flash: fundamentalism and traditionalism aren't the same thing

An article in the Independent discusses the popularity among ordinary Afghans of shrines dedicated to the "Arab Afghans" and other fighters who made up the core of al-Qa'ida. The first thing that occurs to anybody reading this who is at all familiar with the various movements in Islam is that the Wahhabi form of Islam practiced by many of the Arab fighters and the Taliban's version of Islam are fervently opposed to the "folk Islam" that includes making pilgrimages to shrines and praying at them. In fact, the article itself mentions this, twice:

Ironically, the mainly Arab and Pakistani al-Qa'ida fighters who are so venerated in death by the people of Khowst were widely hated when they were alive and living in the town. They were Osama bin Laden's men, jihadis who had arrived from all over the Islamic world to prepare for a holy war in Khowst's terrorist training camps. The camps were handy for Pakistan, an hour's journey away with its connections to the outside world, but the foreign fighters never had much support in the area, which was always ambivalent about the Taliban, unlike some other Pushtun towns. Some of the fighters may have escaped death in the cruise missile strikes ordered by Bill Clinton in 1998 after the US embassy bombings in east Africa; many must have personally known Bin Laden, who had a base in the town. But local people remembered them mainly as strutting and arrogant, a superior clique who didn't disguise their contempt for Afghan culture, which they saw as a decayed form of Islam riddled with superstition... ...Ironically the strict Wahabi Arabs buried at Khowst and the other shrines were opposed to Afghan burial customs they considered idolatrous. One of the reasons they were so hated in Afghanistan was their habit of tearing down flags and decorations on Afghan graves in fits of iconoclasm. They would surely have hated to think that, in death, with an obsession for jihadis, they would be invested with magical powers and be prayed to by the superstitious tribesmen they looked down on in life.

When they talk about fearing a "resurgence of fundamentalism", they're referring to the kind of Islam practiced by Wahhabis and the Taliban, right? So how exactly does the popularity of a practice (veneration of shrines) that is absolutely abhorred by the fundamentalist groups indicate a "resurgence of fundamentalism"? It may indicate that there's a resurgence in traditionalist Islam in Afghanistan, or that there's a rapprochement between traditionalist and fundamentalist groups. But I'm not not quite seeing how it indicates a "resurgence in fundamentalism". Added: More of my thoughts about movements within Islam here.

William Shakespeare, Sufi?

On a lighter note, I found this:

The influence of William Shakespeare on western culture has made him arguably Britain's greatest export. Now it is being claimed that his work resembles the teachings of the Islamic Sufi sect. The argument will be put forward next month at Shakespeare's Globe Theatre in London. It comes as part of a week of events focusing on Islam to address concerns raised by the 'war on terror' and improve understanding of the links between Islam and British culture. While it has been suggested that Shakespeare dabbled with espionage and Catholic political activism, the new theory will attempt to persuade Shakespeare scholars that the playwright was a member of a religious or spiritual order which can best be compared to the philosophy of Sufism. The respected academic Dr Martin Lings will put forward this thesis in his lecture on 23 November. 'Shakespeare would have delighted in Sufism,' said Lings, who is 96 and an adherent of Sufism. 'We can see he obviously knew a lot about some kind of equivalent sect or order.' Lings argues that the guiding principles of Sufi thought are evident in Shakespeare's writing. The plays, he believes, depict a struggle between the dawning modernist world and the traditional, mystical value system. And, like the Sufis, the playwright is firmly on the side of tradition and spiritualism. 'It was the end of the Middle Ages and the birth of atheism,' he says. 'It was the beginning of the ideas of enlightenment and the beginning really of the modern era. Shakespeare is the last outpost of tradition.'

I have no idea whether Lings is on to something or is all wet. But it's an interesting read!

what about Uganda?

The humanitarian crisis in Darfur has been getting quite a lot of attention lately. But what about Uganda?

Northern Uganda, where around 20,000 children have been kidnapped and many forced to serve as combatants, is the world's biggest neglected humanitarian crisis, the head of UN humanitarian affairs said yesterday. Jan Egeland, the under-secretary general for humanitarian affairs and emergency relief, said he had rhetorically asked the UN security council where else in the world 80% of the fighters in a rebel movement were children, and where else 90% of the population had been displaced from their homes. "Northern Uganda to me remains the biggest neglected humanitarian emergency in the world," he told journalists after briefing the 15-member council on Uganda and Sudan. "For me, the situation is a moral outrage, but I'm heartened that the security council devoted so much time to northern Uganda." Britain's UN ambassador, Sir Emyr Jones Parry, speaking after the meeting, described Uganda as "one of the great crises out there which is not recognised enough". ... ...Since 1986, the Lord's Resistance Army has waged a brutal insurgency in northern Uganda, targeting civilians and abducting children for use as fighters, labourers or sex slaves. The rebels are believed to have bases in southern Sudan, and in recent months have launched attacks on Sudanese civilians, reportedly killing dozens.

the mind of the Muslim voter

ProjectMAPS recently completed a survey (PDF) of Muslim Americans on their political views. It backs up what anecdotal reports have been showing for many months about the sea change in American Muslim political views since 2001, and provides lots of details. I recommend reading the whole thing. This article focuses on the more narrow question of Bush's "war on terrorism" policies and what American Muslims think of them.

it's Kerry

Not to my surprise (though I admit to being relieved that they didn't do something stupid), the American Muslim Taskforce has endorsed Kerry for President. The wording of the announcement is interesting, though:

MUSLIM COALITION OFFERS QUALIFIED KERRY ENDORSEMENT AMT-PAC calls for 'protest vote' as guarantee of civil rights WASHINGTON, D.C., 10/21/04 - Following careful consideration of overall U.S. interests, interaction with presidential campaign officials and extensive input from the Islamic community, the American Muslim Taskforce on Civil Rights and Elections - Political Action Committee (AMT-PAC) is calling on Muslims nationwide to cast a protest vote for Sen. John Kerry. AMT-PAC is an affiliated political action committee of the American Muslim Taskforce on Civil Rights and Elections (AMT). AMT is an umbrella organization representing American Muslim Alliance (AMA), Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), Muslim Alliance in North America (MANA), Muslim American Society (MAS), Muslim Ummah of North America (MUNA), Muslim Student Association-National (MSA-N), Project Islamic Hope (PIH), and United Muslims of America (UMA). SEE: http://www.americanmuslimvoter.net/ Muslims are a potential swing-voting bloc in key battleground states such as Florida, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. There are an estimated seven million Muslims in the United States. In its statement, AMT-PAC said: "We believe that our vote is the best guarantee of our civil rights and the best expression of our citizenship. "Unfortunately, the Bush administration has been insensitive to the civil liberties and human rights of American Muslims, Arab-Americans and South Asians. Today, American Muslims are being treated like second-class citizens. "American Muslims are also disappointed with a number of domestic and foreign policies instituted by the Bush administration since the 9/11 terror attacks. "AMT-PAC appreciates the outstanding role of Ralph Nader in highlighting the denial of civil liberties to religious and ethnic minorities. "We acknowledge the considerable outreach to our community by Sen. Kerry's campaign, particularly by his campaign co-chair Sen. Edward Kennedy. We also appreciate the ongoing dialogue with Muslim leaders about problems posed by the USA PATRIOT Act. "While the Kerry campaign has critiqued a number of Bush administration polices, it has so far failed to explicitly affirm support for due process, equal justice and other constitutional norms. We are also disappointed that his campaign has shied away from expressing unambiguous support for principles enshrined in the U.S. Constitution that prohibit use of ex post facto laws, secret proceedings and secret evidence. "Because pluralism is based on partial agreements, support for Sen. Kerry is premised on our overall effort to help restore liberty and justice for all. "Mindful of disagreements with Sen. Kerry on some domestic and international issues, including the war in Iraq, we are willing to work with him to help restore due process and equal justice in accordance with the U.S. Constitution. "AMT-PAC therefore urges American Muslim voters and their allies in the struggle for civil rights to focus on the real issues: civil liberties, human rights, international peace and justice, jobs, education, health care, economic development of inner cities, and sound foreign policy. It is vital for the protection of our liberties to vote together, in high numbers, and for a common purpose."

So basically, they went with Kerry as the lesser of two evils. That's how I feel, and that's how a lot of Muslims I know feel (not to mention a lot of non-Muslim progressives). What it comes down to for me is that when I step into the voting booth, I'll take the course of action that I believe brings the most benefit or the least harm of all the options open to me. I believe that that course of action is to vote for Kerry, so that's what I'll be doing, inshallah. I have a feeling that the delay over the AMT endorsement was over whether to endorse at all, given the reservations that many Muslims have about some of Kerry's positions (especially civil rights and civil liberties, as mentioned in the press release - as far as Kerry is concerned, this issue doesn't seem to even be worth mentioning), and given that an endorsement implies approval. So I think that the AMT made the right choice and did it in the right way. Al-hamdulillah.

who will it be?

According to the news release sent out by CAIR, the American Muslim Taskforce (the umbrella political group) will be announcing its presidential endorsement tomorrow:

NATIONAL MUSLIM PAC TO ANNOUNCE PRESIDENTIAL ENDORSEMENT WHAT: On Thursday, October 21, the American Muslim Task Force Political Action Committee (AMT-PAC) will hold a news conference in Washington, D.C., to announce its decision about endorsement of a presidential candidate. AMT-PAC is an affiliated political action committee of the American Muslim Taskforce on Civil Rights and Elections (AMT). AMT is an umbrella organization representing American Muslim Alliance (AMA), Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), Muslim Alliance of North America (MANA), Muslim American Society (MAS), Muslim Ummah of North America (MUNA), Muslim Student Association (MSA), Project Islamic Hope (PIH), and United Muslims of America (UMA). SEE: http://www.americanmuslimvoter.net/ Muslims are a potential swing-voting bloc in key battleground states such as Ohio and Florida. WHEN: Thursday, October 21, 10 a.m. (Eastern) WHERE: National Press Club, Zenger Room, 529 14th Street, NW, Washington D.C.

Given that every poll of American Muslims shows overwhelming support for Kerry, and that even Nader gets more support than Bush does, not to mention the number of news articles in recent months about this phenomenon, there shouldn't be any suspense about this at all: the endorsement had better be for Kerry. Otherwise, the AMT doesn't represent the views of the Muslim community and its endorsement is meaningless. So I'm assuming that they're trying to make it suspenseful in order to make sure that people pay attention. We'll see tomorrow, inshallah.

there he goes again

Having been barred from the U.S., Tariq Ramadan decided to say the following at the European Social Forum:

Muslims must reach out and connect with other Britons as equal citizens, and resist the impulse to withdraw into isolated communities, one of the foremost thinkers on Islam in Europe will tell his audience this evening at the European Social Forum in London. Tariq Ramadan urges Muslims to embrace and get to know the culture and history of the countries they live in in Europe, and develop a "blossoming" confidence as the inheritors of Islam, one of Europe's great faiths. "The situation is bad throughout Europe, and now is the time for Muslims to reach out and create partnerships," he says. "Muslims must stop the perception of victimisation and their obsession with their minority status - that way we are nurturing the idea that we are not really at home here, and that is reinforced by governments. "There are millions of Muslims in Europe and always have been. It is a distorted history which omits the role of Islam in the construction of European consciousness."

So this is what the Bush Administration doesn't want Americans hearing from Muslims. Too bad.

Ramadan mubarak!

Welcome, Ramadan! Note: This page was from 2004. The start date of Ramadan in 2006 is September 23 or 24, inshallah.

Ramadan eve

The Ramadan fast may start tomorrow morning, or it may start on Saturday morning. The astronomic calculations suggest that it will be Saturday, but it could be Friday. It may start on different dates in different parts of the world, depending on the moonsighting and what rules people follow about it. I go by the Islamic Society of North America's decision on moonsighting. We'll see if the new crescent moon is sighted tonight in North America, inshallah.