Click here to LIKE this Blog on Face book.
---
OnIslam
By Farrukh I. Younus
7 March 2013
In a first of its kind, the Deen Institute organised a controversial debate asking, ‘Have Muslims misunderstood evolution?’ In two parts, scientific and theological, the programme involved five speakers, leaders in their respective fields, who paced back and forth with argument and counter argument.
Myriam Francois-Cerrah, the chair, opened the proceedings by observing that many in the field of science have tried to reconcile their gained technical knowledge on the subject of evolution with their faith. For some, this conflict shook their belief system while for others, as pointed out later in the day, it removed it entirely; hence the need for such a debate to take place.
Professor Ehab Abouheif of Biology Department, McGill University, began by defining evolution, simply, as change over time: descent with modification of organisms from common ancestors. The facts, he observed are not in dispute, rather, it is the question of theory, which processes took place and how.
Crucially, he addressed a common misunderstanding, that in evolution you don't transition from one species to another. That is to say the common belief that we originated from monkeys and apes, despite sharing extensive similarities, is an over simplification and inaccurate representation of evolution.
In contrast, Dr. Oktar Babuna opined that evolution is not a theory, rather a false religion. He observed that natural selection doesn't have evolutionary powers stating that mutations are harmful and do not generate new genetic information. By way of example he shared an illustration of how a starfish ‘evolves’ into a fish, asking for, and offering, a £5 million reward to anyone who can provide a transitional fossil to fit with that or any other evolutionary transition.
The applied biological anthropologist Fatimah Jackson, from the University of Maryland put her focus on how things change, not why. She observed our ability to trace back to the genetic Adam and the genetic Eve (in modern day Africa), raising the question whether they were the Adam and Eve spoken of in the religious scriptures. Fatimah also shared a brilliant diagram illustrating the shape of the forehead of the homo genus over time.
The first skull showed a flat, near horizontal, non-existent forehead, while the last showed our modern day foreheads. This increased area, she observed, is filled with our frontal lobe: ‘the emotional control centre and home to our personality’.
Fatimah then quotes a verse 16 from Surah Al-‘alaq: “A lying, sinning forelock”. In context from the preceding verses:
8: “Indeed, to your Lord is your return”
9: “Have you seen he who forbids?”
10: “A servant when he prays?”
11: “Have you seen if he is upon guidance?”
12: “Or enjoins righteousness?”
13: “Have you seen if he denies and turns away?”
14: “Does he know what God Almighty sees?”
15: “No, If he does not desist, We will surely drag him by the forelock”
16: “A lying, sinning forelock”
Conference: "Have Muslims misunderstood Evolution" (Youtube)
The implication of our specific make-up being that our frontal lobe, differing to all previous homo genus, is distinctive. We have greater cognitive ability. Thus, we as a creation, and those who abuse their authority in this life, won't be dragged by our arms, or legs, but by the very part of our body, the forelock, the forehead, where our cognitive abilities rest. What an interesting insight!
The polymath Dr. Usama Hasan asserted that evolution is in fact a Muslim theory. He quoted a number of classical scholars including Al-Jahiz, who wrote on the subject of common descent; Ibn Khaldun; then observing that even poets such as Rumi touched on the subject. In fact, he quoted John William Draper (d. 1882) “…the Mohammedan theory of evolution of mans from lower forms, or his gradual development to his present condition in the long lapse of time,” raising the question of why a scientist in the 19th century is referring to evolution as being a Muslim theory.
Usama further elaborated on a grave misunderstanding of the Quranic phrase, “Be, and it is” (36:82) giving the example of Prophet Jesus, who while we as Muslims believe did not have a father, he, like any child, grew in the womb of Prophet Mary. That is, he didn't simply appear out of thin air over night. Similarly, certain interpretations of evolution demonstrate the creation of humanity as we are today as a different understanding of ‘a miracle.'
He then shared that some scholars of the past opined that Adam and Eve, were in a Jannah (sometimes translated as paradise, but meaning a walled garden) on earth, citing Tabari and Ibn Kathir who collected such evidences.
Surprisingly, Sheikh Yasir Qadhi also agreed with evolution in every context except, he asserts, for humanity. Like Usama, he cited the Qur’an, the Hadith, and classical interpretation, stressing that humanity is the one exception to notion of evolution. He went further to observe, that if something is not included in the scriptures then there is nothing to prohibit it’s belief, including for example alien life forms.
Yasir went on to observe that many Muslims have misunderstood the subject area based on prejudice. He gave the example of how previous generations on the Indian sub-continent refused to learn English by way of protest, even though that knowledge would have been beneficial.
What does this mean?
As with any controversial subject, we need to look at the status quo, the accepted norm. For generations people have believed such and such and so our beliefs therefore cannot be questioned, for doing so would weaken them.
We can see this parallel when we look at attitudes towards women in society, on the one hand implying women shouldn’t leave the house, while knowing that women at the time of the Prophet did everything.
Another example is our attitude towards food, on the one hand insisting that only food slaughtered by Muslims (zabiha) is permissible for consumption, all the while the Quran asserts that halaal food includes the food of people of the book.
Elsewhere we see attitudes demonise pigs, even dogs, where while we do not eat the former in general, the Quran makes them lawful in certain circumstances.
The issue, sadly, is one of image, one which I’d venture to state is false, even delusionary. Consider a friend of mine who has set up a charity to fund schools and so educate children in Pakistan. She was scheduled to appear on a ‘Muslim’ tv channel but was told that she either covers her hair, or that she declares she is a non-Muslim. Her options are to either deceive the audience with an image that does not reflect who she is, or to reject Islam?
Similarly, when working in the non-profit sector in Bosnia many years ago, I remember orphan girls as young as five being told to cover their hair for a photograph which would be sent to a sponsor, all the while they would never actually wear a scarf otherwise. Someone, somewhere has decided that instead of reflecting life, we must reflect an interpretation of life, even if those who are being represented do not live by that interpretation. That is to say, we are lying to ourselves.
The worst part of this affair is the attitude of the Islamic Society at the University where this talk was initially scheduled for. Whether you agree or disagree with a subject, shunning it outright is not the correct ‘Islamic’ way – the Quran is full of verses which encourage us to seek knowledge, to question, to evaluate, to continually question.
Indeed one of Prophet Muhammad’s most profound hadiths reads, ‘Doubt is part of faith’ – that is to say that action by virtue of action does not amount to faith, but continually questioning the status quo to either strengthen or re-evaluate a position, does amount to faith. You would have thought that an Islamic Society at a higher institution of learning would understand this, instead - pity them - as it seems they prefer the world is flat theory to education.
By sustaining an ‘image’ of Islam we deliver the greatest injustice to humanity, indeed we neglect the very purpose of our being. Between an ideal (however that is defined) and an inquiry, there is a middle ground, it is called dialogue.
By refusing to support this conference, the University Islamic Society failed in its mission both as an organization at an institution of higher learning, and as for being ‘Islamic’ they substituted learning for absoluteness of arrogance.
Yet sadly, the vast majority of Muslims the world over have adopted the same position with regards to a number of subjects insisting on ‘Doing and believing as those before us did, blindly, without thought’ – the same thing that the Quran itself warns against.
Conclusion
Professor Ehab, Professor Fatimah and Dr. Usama all believe in an interpretation of evolution. Dr. Yasir believes in evolution for everything except for human beings. And Dr. Oktar does not believe in evolution. – Whichever one of these opinions you support, what matters is less the opinion but that you are open to discussion and discovery, without imposing your personal belief onto others. So while the subject of evolution continues to be debated, perhaps the greater learning from this conference is that it is Muslims themselves, metaphorically need to evolve. But even here, given the inquisitive nature of early Islam, you could argue that evolution is simply returning to the sunnah.
http://www.onislam.net/english/health-and-science/faith-and-the-sciences/461684-evolution-a-islam-another-interpretation.html
Tuesday, December 3, 2013
Saturday, November 16, 2013
Freedom of Expression vs. Respect for the Prophet
Click here to LIKE this Blog on Face book.
---
By Raya Shokatfard
Freelance Writer - USA
Deep inside every conscious Muslim’s heart is a feeling of serenity and peace even in midst of tyranny, dispute and injustice.
Why?
Because they believe justice will be granted, not always from humans, but surely from the one who created Humans.
Muslims believe that sometime justice is given in this world and sometimes in the next. Yet, no doubt total justice will prevail when it comes to final reckoning.
As for those who don’t believe as Muslims do, they could fall into three categories:
The first would be the ones who don’t believe in God and the Hereafter and live basically by the man-made laws of this world which they either follow or not, according to their desires. Since they don’t believe in God, insulting a Prophet has no meaning to them, since they do not respect the person or his message.
The second group would be believers in the Hereafter, like Christians and Jews, but who have not taken impartial investigation into the religion of Islam as well as the life and teachings of Prophet Muhammad and Muslims’ revealed Book, the Quran. They could act as above from sheer ignorance and animosity toward Islam which could even lead to insulting or belittling a Prophet of God whom they don’t really know.
The third group may fall somewhere in between and do as the above for various reasons.
All animosities against Islam come down to one point: “Ignorance”.
It was reported that after September 11 attack thousands, converted to Islam. They were so abhorred by the attack, which raised curiosity in them to read more about this religion which promotes violence. Through their investigation, they found Islam to be different than what was portrayed and found it the religion of peace, full of wisdom and guidance; a revelation sent by God to His messenger Muhammad.
It was reported that US bookstores and libraries were unable to supply the requests for the Quran and Islamic material as they were all sold out or borrowed.
Freedom of Speech vs. Respect
For the most part those who live in the West have had a culture of tolerance and honor for the beliefs, religions and cultures of others. So, one would ask, what is the reason of recent years’ wave of insults targeted at the Prophet of Islam, Muhammad (peace be upon him)?
Surely, as humans we are susceptible to influences outside our own realms. It is easily understandable that years of negative stereotyping of Muslims have had their effect on the minds and attitudes of the unaware public who soaked up years of misinformation, aimed to create an Islamophobia.
Such feelings, together with the “freedom of speech law” in the USA, have cultivated a fertile ground for demonization, insults and attacks on the religion of Islam, first by the media followed by embolden individuals. Talk of terrorism has been used to achieve a certain mindset.
Those who have taken upon themselves to insult the Prophet of Islam are well aware of the fury they will cause among the Muslims by their unsavory actions. Unfortunately they achieved their wish and very rarely show remorse for the ripple effect from their actions.
One may ask, had it been a law against insulting revered historical figures, would such actions occur? Most likely not! So, to what extent are we to use freedom of speech to spread evil, violence and chaos among humans? Perhaps it all depends on the desired outcome.
We have seen during the recent years such detestable publications and videos have cost the loss of innocent lives of even the non Muslims around the world.
Newton's third law of motion states that forces occur in pairs, and whether that force is the action or the reaction is scientifically irrelevant because at this point they are identical. Thus, we find ourselves in this vicious circle: We see actions and we see reactions. What is the result? You decide!
One also may ask, has the freedom of speech made United States of America a safer place to live, where people of various cultures live in harmony with each other?
Perhaps the second part has been true not because of freedom of speech but as a result of respect for others’ beliefs and cultures, which is ingrained in the minds of the people starting from the elementary schools and through the educational process.
Truly, freedom of speech has also brought many benefits to the inhabitants of land of freedom and liberty. But are there people who have abused this freedom in exchange for some meager satisfaction - but at the cost of loss of lives? Of course this is not limited to the U.S, but all western countries as well.
One may look at the Muslims’ reaction in recent years and especially the recent fury on the film publication in the light of the freedom of speech.
Is there a possibility of balance between freedom of expression and respect? Surely there are possibilities when there is willingness. It is normal for humans to act a certain way to achieve desired results. So, how can one desire to create hatred, chaos and disarray?
Many Muslim scholars around the world have expressed their strong opinion against any kind of violence while condemning evil plots of the ignorant few. But when it comes to general Muslim population around the world, it would be very difficult to control the sentiment of millions against any insults on their religion and especially their beloved Prophet. So, is there a solution?
As some Muslims around the world express their hatred by attacking embassies and its personnel, the Muslims in the US will become targets of more hate crimes and discriminations. This will be especially difficult for new Muslims.
Is it the freedom of speech that is fanning the already ignited fire? Surely, freedom of speech has two faces depending on who is using it or who is being targeted for it. Without getting into the issues of politics, one can clearly see there is a double standard even in this law that is supposedly written in stone in the US constitution, which should harbor freedom as well as justice.
So, What Have US Muslims to Do in Such Difficult Times?
The American theologian Reinhold Niebuhr said in the Serenity Prayer: “O God, help me change the things I can, and accept the things I cannot and grant me the wisdom to know the difference.”
Muslims must do their best, through legal means and connection with proper authorities, media, press conferences, lectures and multimedia to bring a better awareness of Islam and Muslims to the general public.
They should also provide a strong support system for the New Muslims. Through proper education and increasing of their faith they can gain certitude about their religion despite various skirmishes that may disturb their peace
While doing all they can do to paint a clear picture of Islam, American Muslims should also accept that history is repeating itself. Do you recall the Red Scare and the McCarthy Era where all the media made people terrified of Russians? This is a repeat, but with a different invented “enemy.”
For now, the best is to maintain calm, coexist peacefully with one’s fellow Americans and put strong trust in God, knowing that there is nothing even as small as a mustard seed that will go un-noticed by Him. The justice will be done.
{[…] Not even the smallest speck eludes your Lord, either on Earth or in Heaven. Nor is there anything smaller than that, or larger, which is not in a Clear Book.} (Yunus 10: 61)
While taking all the appropriate measures to promote a better understanding about Islam, Muslims also have to recall the reaction of their Prophet toward those who insulted him. He did not react with violence, or hatred, even when he had the power to do so. He stayed calm. He did not take vengeance on his own account.
He was assured by God that he was the Prophet of God and all Prophets suffered similar treatments from their own people. He was to be calm and speak to his adversaries in respect and good speech.
However when it would come to attacking Islam or God, he would not be quiet and would exert all effort to respond in any matter suitable to stop it. This, of course was only possible when he was well established in Madinah and had adequate support.
While in Makkah the first 13 years, however, he and his followers had to endure insults, persecution and deprivation of their basic needs. They had no choice but to endure till they migrated to Madinah and began to establish an Islamic State.
He knew that reacting to any harsh treatment would result in more harm than benefit. Because of his teachings, Muslims understood that preventing harm takes precedence over bringing benefits.
So, in today’s Islamic world, Muslims must also weigh the benefit versus harm that may be caused by violent reactions, to the point of losing their own lives as well as taking the lives of Americans.
A peaceful demonstration may actually do more good than one involving violence. What do you think?
Yes, all Muslims are readily willing to give their own lives to protect their Prophet’s dignity. But wisdom must be exerted.
The Egyptian President Muhammad Mursi is reported to have said, while standing in the podium in a meeting at Berlin that:”Respect for Muhammad is dearest to us than our lives”.
At the top of the educational Face Book page of the renowned Egyptian scholar, Dr. Muhammad Salah, one reads:
“My family, my possessions and my life are sacrificed for my most beloved Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings up on him) and his honor.”
So, when one compares the personality of Prophet Muhammad, for whom people are willing to give their lives, with the person who made this infamous movie causing disturbance in Muslim’s world, one clearly sees that over one fifth of the world population is following Muhammad, while the producer of the film is in jail for bank fraud, and bail violation, according to the Christian Monitor on September 15, 2012. He was pictured with head and face covered as not to be seen by public. Does such person and his hate-driven movie deserve such publicity?
Forbearance and Determination in Trusting God
Muslims are aware that our presence in this life is a test. So, when a Muslim encounters various incidents throughout his life, he is aware that he is being tested. It is through these incidents that a person displays his faith, submission and closeness to God who grants this life and countless blessings.
Thus a Muslim must not lower himself to the level of his ignorant adversaries and show reaction that causes harm. He must act in a way that benefits are heavier on the scale than harm. He knows God’s justice:
{We will set up the Just Balance on the Day of Rising and no self will be wronged in any way. Even if it is no more than the weight of a grain of mustard-seed, We will produce it. We are sufficient as a Reckoner.} (Al-Anbiya’ 21: 47)
God loves patience, but sometimes, people may dislike it even if it is better for them, and hasten to do the wrong action which they think is better, but God advised us to reflect in all circumstances:
{... It may be that you hate something when it is good for you and it may be that you love something when it is bad for you. Allah knows and you do not know.} (Al-Baqarah 2: 216)
People of pure mind would evaluate every single decision in their lives in the light of the Quran with its teachings of faith, wisdom and also the Prophet’s tradition. They know that in everything there is goodness, no matter how difficult circumstances may seem. They also know that God will certainly protect His religion no matter how much His enemies devised evil plot against it. At the end, Islam will be victorious with the help of the only one true God.
{If Allah helps you, no one can vanquish you. If He forsakes you, who can help you after that? So the believers should put their trust in Allah.} (Al 'Imran 3: 160)
http://www.onislam.net/english/reading-islam/about-muhammad/459060-freedom-of-expression-vs-respect-for-the-prophet.html
---
By Raya Shokatfard
Freelance Writer - USA
Deep inside every conscious Muslim’s heart is a feeling of serenity and peace even in midst of tyranny, dispute and injustice.
Why?
Because they believe justice will be granted, not always from humans, but surely from the one who created Humans.
Muslims believe that sometime justice is given in this world and sometimes in the next. Yet, no doubt total justice will prevail when it comes to final reckoning.
As for those who don’t believe as Muslims do, they could fall into three categories:
The first would be the ones who don’t believe in God and the Hereafter and live basically by the man-made laws of this world which they either follow or not, according to their desires. Since they don’t believe in God, insulting a Prophet has no meaning to them, since they do not respect the person or his message.
The second group would be believers in the Hereafter, like Christians and Jews, but who have not taken impartial investigation into the religion of Islam as well as the life and teachings of Prophet Muhammad and Muslims’ revealed Book, the Quran. They could act as above from sheer ignorance and animosity toward Islam which could even lead to insulting or belittling a Prophet of God whom they don’t really know.
The third group may fall somewhere in between and do as the above for various reasons.
All animosities against Islam come down to one point: “Ignorance”.
It was reported that after September 11 attack thousands, converted to Islam. They were so abhorred by the attack, which raised curiosity in them to read more about this religion which promotes violence. Through their investigation, they found Islam to be different than what was portrayed and found it the religion of peace, full of wisdom and guidance; a revelation sent by God to His messenger Muhammad.
It was reported that US bookstores and libraries were unable to supply the requests for the Quran and Islamic material as they were all sold out or borrowed.
Freedom of Speech vs. Respect
For the most part those who live in the West have had a culture of tolerance and honor for the beliefs, religions and cultures of others. So, one would ask, what is the reason of recent years’ wave of insults targeted at the Prophet of Islam, Muhammad (peace be upon him)?
Surely, as humans we are susceptible to influences outside our own realms. It is easily understandable that years of negative stereotyping of Muslims have had their effect on the minds and attitudes of the unaware public who soaked up years of misinformation, aimed to create an Islamophobia.
Such feelings, together with the “freedom of speech law” in the USA, have cultivated a fertile ground for demonization, insults and attacks on the religion of Islam, first by the media followed by embolden individuals. Talk of terrorism has been used to achieve a certain mindset.
Those who have taken upon themselves to insult the Prophet of Islam are well aware of the fury they will cause among the Muslims by their unsavory actions. Unfortunately they achieved their wish and very rarely show remorse for the ripple effect from their actions.
One may ask, had it been a law against insulting revered historical figures, would such actions occur? Most likely not! So, to what extent are we to use freedom of speech to spread evil, violence and chaos among humans? Perhaps it all depends on the desired outcome.
We have seen during the recent years such detestable publications and videos have cost the loss of innocent lives of even the non Muslims around the world.
Newton's third law of motion states that forces occur in pairs, and whether that force is the action or the reaction is scientifically irrelevant because at this point they are identical. Thus, we find ourselves in this vicious circle: We see actions and we see reactions. What is the result? You decide!
One also may ask, has the freedom of speech made United States of America a safer place to live, where people of various cultures live in harmony with each other?
Perhaps the second part has been true not because of freedom of speech but as a result of respect for others’ beliefs and cultures, which is ingrained in the minds of the people starting from the elementary schools and through the educational process.
Truly, freedom of speech has also brought many benefits to the inhabitants of land of freedom and liberty. But are there people who have abused this freedom in exchange for some meager satisfaction - but at the cost of loss of lives? Of course this is not limited to the U.S, but all western countries as well.
One may look at the Muslims’ reaction in recent years and especially the recent fury on the film publication in the light of the freedom of speech.
Is there a possibility of balance between freedom of expression and respect? Surely there are possibilities when there is willingness. It is normal for humans to act a certain way to achieve desired results. So, how can one desire to create hatred, chaos and disarray?
Many Muslim scholars around the world have expressed their strong opinion against any kind of violence while condemning evil plots of the ignorant few. But when it comes to general Muslim population around the world, it would be very difficult to control the sentiment of millions against any insults on their religion and especially their beloved Prophet. So, is there a solution?
As some Muslims around the world express their hatred by attacking embassies and its personnel, the Muslims in the US will become targets of more hate crimes and discriminations. This will be especially difficult for new Muslims.
Is it the freedom of speech that is fanning the already ignited fire? Surely, freedom of speech has two faces depending on who is using it or who is being targeted for it. Without getting into the issues of politics, one can clearly see there is a double standard even in this law that is supposedly written in stone in the US constitution, which should harbor freedom as well as justice.
So, What Have US Muslims to Do in Such Difficult Times?
The American theologian Reinhold Niebuhr said in the Serenity Prayer: “O God, help me change the things I can, and accept the things I cannot and grant me the wisdom to know the difference.”
Muslims must do their best, through legal means and connection with proper authorities, media, press conferences, lectures and multimedia to bring a better awareness of Islam and Muslims to the general public.
They should also provide a strong support system for the New Muslims. Through proper education and increasing of their faith they can gain certitude about their religion despite various skirmishes that may disturb their peace
While doing all they can do to paint a clear picture of Islam, American Muslims should also accept that history is repeating itself. Do you recall the Red Scare and the McCarthy Era where all the media made people terrified of Russians? This is a repeat, but with a different invented “enemy.”
For now, the best is to maintain calm, coexist peacefully with one’s fellow Americans and put strong trust in God, knowing that there is nothing even as small as a mustard seed that will go un-noticed by Him. The justice will be done.
{[…] Not even the smallest speck eludes your Lord, either on Earth or in Heaven. Nor is there anything smaller than that, or larger, which is not in a Clear Book.} (Yunus 10: 61)
While taking all the appropriate measures to promote a better understanding about Islam, Muslims also have to recall the reaction of their Prophet toward those who insulted him. He did not react with violence, or hatred, even when he had the power to do so. He stayed calm. He did not take vengeance on his own account.
He was assured by God that he was the Prophet of God and all Prophets suffered similar treatments from their own people. He was to be calm and speak to his adversaries in respect and good speech.
However when it would come to attacking Islam or God, he would not be quiet and would exert all effort to respond in any matter suitable to stop it. This, of course was only possible when he was well established in Madinah and had adequate support.
While in Makkah the first 13 years, however, he and his followers had to endure insults, persecution and deprivation of their basic needs. They had no choice but to endure till they migrated to Madinah and began to establish an Islamic State.
He knew that reacting to any harsh treatment would result in more harm than benefit. Because of his teachings, Muslims understood that preventing harm takes precedence over bringing benefits.
So, in today’s Islamic world, Muslims must also weigh the benefit versus harm that may be caused by violent reactions, to the point of losing their own lives as well as taking the lives of Americans.
A peaceful demonstration may actually do more good than one involving violence. What do you think?
Yes, all Muslims are readily willing to give their own lives to protect their Prophet’s dignity. But wisdom must be exerted.
The Egyptian President Muhammad Mursi is reported to have said, while standing in the podium in a meeting at Berlin that:”Respect for Muhammad is dearest to us than our lives”.
At the top of the educational Face Book page of the renowned Egyptian scholar, Dr. Muhammad Salah, one reads:
“My family, my possessions and my life are sacrificed for my most beloved Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings up on him) and his honor.”
So, when one compares the personality of Prophet Muhammad, for whom people are willing to give their lives, with the person who made this infamous movie causing disturbance in Muslim’s world, one clearly sees that over one fifth of the world population is following Muhammad, while the producer of the film is in jail for bank fraud, and bail violation, according to the Christian Monitor on September 15, 2012. He was pictured with head and face covered as not to be seen by public. Does such person and his hate-driven movie deserve such publicity?
Forbearance and Determination in Trusting God
Muslims are aware that our presence in this life is a test. So, when a Muslim encounters various incidents throughout his life, he is aware that he is being tested. It is through these incidents that a person displays his faith, submission and closeness to God who grants this life and countless blessings.
Thus a Muslim must not lower himself to the level of his ignorant adversaries and show reaction that causes harm. He must act in a way that benefits are heavier on the scale than harm. He knows God’s justice:
{We will set up the Just Balance on the Day of Rising and no self will be wronged in any way. Even if it is no more than the weight of a grain of mustard-seed, We will produce it. We are sufficient as a Reckoner.} (Al-Anbiya’ 21: 47)
God loves patience, but sometimes, people may dislike it even if it is better for them, and hasten to do the wrong action which they think is better, but God advised us to reflect in all circumstances:
{... It may be that you hate something when it is good for you and it may be that you love something when it is bad for you. Allah knows and you do not know.} (Al-Baqarah 2: 216)
People of pure mind would evaluate every single decision in their lives in the light of the Quran with its teachings of faith, wisdom and also the Prophet’s tradition. They know that in everything there is goodness, no matter how difficult circumstances may seem. They also know that God will certainly protect His religion no matter how much His enemies devised evil plot against it. At the end, Islam will be victorious with the help of the only one true God.
{If Allah helps you, no one can vanquish you. If He forsakes you, who can help you after that? So the believers should put their trust in Allah.} (Al 'Imran 3: 160)
http://www.onislam.net/english/reading-islam/about-muhammad/459060-freedom-of-expression-vs-respect-for-the-prophet.html
Sunday, October 6, 2013
Does Religion Legitimize Violence?
Click here to LIKE this Blog on Face book.
---
By Dalia Yusuf
Writer and Media Activist- Egypt
OnIslam
20 April 2013
Exploring the question of whether violence is an inherent aspect of religion or is caused by various complex reasons sounds inevitable in studying the relationship between religion and violence.
The so called historical "religious wars", current sectarian conflicts, and terrorism make a lot of international intellectuals and politicians blame religion for mankind's troubles. According to certain views, religions might cause military confrontations, hatred, poverty, backwardness, terrorism and the list goes on…
Re-examining these assumptions is important in defining the problems of misunderstandings across different political, religious, and cultural boundaries. John L. Esposito is a key expert who gives a lot of effort and attention to dig deeply into different political and religious causes. He is specialized in Islam, political Islam, and the impact of Islamic movements from North Africa to Southeast Asia. He is responsible for many research projects covering the world's Muslim population. After 9/11 and during time of crisis, Esposito was an important voice; calling for more understanding of the diversity of both Islam and the Muslim world.
Esposito is an Islamic studies professor at Georgetown University. He is the founder and the current director of Centre for Muslim-Christian Understanding.
In this interview, professor Esposito helps us examine our ideas and enrich the discussion
Back to Religion Editor: Many people around the world might see that violence is an inherent and structural characteristic of religion. To what extent do you agree with such a viewpoint?
Esposito: In most cases, political and economic grievances are primary causes or catalysts for violence and religion becomes a means to legitimize the cause and mobilize popular support.
Contexts (political and socioeconomic) and not texts are often the primary causes or drivers. Religious texts or doctrines provide the source for legitimacy and mass mobilization. Religiously motivated or legitimated violence and terror adds the dimensions of divine or ultimate authority, religious symbolism, moral justification, motivation and obligation, certitude, and heavenly reward that enhance recruitment and a willingness to fight and die for a sacred struggle.
While all World religions have a history and track record of religiously legitimated violence and terror, the monotheisms of the three Abrahamic traditions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam), with their sense of a special revelation and covenant with the one true God, sacred land or territory, and in the case of Christianity and Islam, universal mission, have been more prone to exclusivist theologies/worldviews which can be used by political and religious leaders to legitimate imperialist expansion, violence and terror.
Editor: “Most of the atrocities of the 20th Century have been committed by militant secularists, nationalists or atheists”. Do you think that this statement proves that religion in itself cannot justify or interpret the emergence of violence? Do you think that, unlike the 20th century, the atrocities of the 21st century will be motivated by religion?
Esposito:Though most of the wars and acts of terrorism in the 20th century were fought in the name of secular nationalist ideologies or states that does not mean that there have not been conflicts, wars and atrocities committed in the name of religion. Since the last decades of the 20th century, religion has also emerged as a motivating and legitimating force used by extremists and terrorists and will continue to do so in the 21st century.
Editor: If we look throughout history, do you think there has been what we can call "religious wars" or were there complex political and socio-economic reasons behind these wars?
Esposito: Complex political and socio-economic reasons have been among the major reasons for "religious wars." However, this should not distract us from the roles that religious differences, nor from the belief that one religion has an obligation not only to spread as a spiritual faith but as a political force or to simply eliminate or dominate other religions, have also played as a motivating force.
Editor: In any religious community, does the violent minority (e.g. extremists, Nazis) put a moral and actual responsibility upon the shoulders of the non-violent majority (e.g. Muslims, Germans) or does the majority not have to be accused of the minority's stance?
Esposito: The majority should not be equated with the acts of terror committed by the minority. However, the majority does have an obligation to marginalize, de-legitimate, and eliminate extremists within their faith or community.
Editor: Do you think that in different societies, politicians make use of religion as a means of getting to power and once their power is secured they may change their stance?
Esposito: Many politicians, Muslims (Zia ul-Haq, Anwar Sadat, Qaddafi, the Kings of Saudi Arabia and others), Jewish (Begin, Shamir, Sharon, Natanyahu) and Christian (Clinton, G.W.Bush, and Barack Obama) use religion (some more than others) to get into power.
Editor: To what extent do you find nationalism and religion to be overlapping in different conflicts (e.g. in Ireland between the Catholics and the Protestants)?
Esposito: Overlap can be seen in many conflicts: Chechnya, Kashmir, Iraq, Pakistan, Uzbekistan and elsewhere. What is distinctive is the weakness if not failure of Arab nationalism and secular nationalism and the resultant appeal to ideologies that are associated with Islam.
Editor: Can we simply describe any society as purely secular or purely religious?
Esposito: If we consider the reality and not the ideological rhetoric and slogans of some regimes and elites, there are few instances in which we can simply describe any society as purely secular or purely religious.
Editor: How do you see the dichotomy of secularism and religion, especially, in the Western societies? In light of this dichotomy, how do you see the experience of the ‘Christian Democratic parties’ and the right wings?
Esposito: Western secularism is quite diverse regarding the relationship of religion to the state. In the US we have separation of church and state but certainly no necessary separation of religion and politics.
In European secularism, there is a great diversity. Most people do not follow the US model for although secular, many have a state religion or the government provides funding to religious institutions.
http://www.onislam.net/english/back-to-religion/religion-and-violence/417901-does-religion-legitimize-violence.html
---
By Dalia Yusuf
Writer and Media Activist- Egypt
OnIslam
20 April 2013
Exploring the question of whether violence is an inherent aspect of religion or is caused by various complex reasons sounds inevitable in studying the relationship between religion and violence.
The so called historical "religious wars", current sectarian conflicts, and terrorism make a lot of international intellectuals and politicians blame religion for mankind's troubles. According to certain views, religions might cause military confrontations, hatred, poverty, backwardness, terrorism and the list goes on…
Re-examining these assumptions is important in defining the problems of misunderstandings across different political, religious, and cultural boundaries. John L. Esposito is a key expert who gives a lot of effort and attention to dig deeply into different political and religious causes. He is specialized in Islam, political Islam, and the impact of Islamic movements from North Africa to Southeast Asia. He is responsible for many research projects covering the world's Muslim population. After 9/11 and during time of crisis, Esposito was an important voice; calling for more understanding of the diversity of both Islam and the Muslim world.
Esposito is an Islamic studies professor at Georgetown University. He is the founder and the current director of Centre for Muslim-Christian Understanding.
In this interview, professor Esposito helps us examine our ideas and enrich the discussion
Back to Religion Editor: Many people around the world might see that violence is an inherent and structural characteristic of religion. To what extent do you agree with such a viewpoint?
Esposito: In most cases, political and economic grievances are primary causes or catalysts for violence and religion becomes a means to legitimize the cause and mobilize popular support.
Contexts (political and socioeconomic) and not texts are often the primary causes or drivers. Religious texts or doctrines provide the source for legitimacy and mass mobilization. Religiously motivated or legitimated violence and terror adds the dimensions of divine or ultimate authority, religious symbolism, moral justification, motivation and obligation, certitude, and heavenly reward that enhance recruitment and a willingness to fight and die for a sacred struggle.
While all World religions have a history and track record of religiously legitimated violence and terror, the monotheisms of the three Abrahamic traditions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam), with their sense of a special revelation and covenant with the one true God, sacred land or territory, and in the case of Christianity and Islam, universal mission, have been more prone to exclusivist theologies/worldviews which can be used by political and religious leaders to legitimate imperialist expansion, violence and terror.
Editor: “Most of the atrocities of the 20th Century have been committed by militant secularists, nationalists or atheists”. Do you think that this statement proves that religion in itself cannot justify or interpret the emergence of violence? Do you think that, unlike the 20th century, the atrocities of the 21st century will be motivated by religion?
Esposito:Though most of the wars and acts of terrorism in the 20th century were fought in the name of secular nationalist ideologies or states that does not mean that there have not been conflicts, wars and atrocities committed in the name of religion. Since the last decades of the 20th century, religion has also emerged as a motivating and legitimating force used by extremists and terrorists and will continue to do so in the 21st century.
Editor: If we look throughout history, do you think there has been what we can call "religious wars" or were there complex political and socio-economic reasons behind these wars?
Esposito: Complex political and socio-economic reasons have been among the major reasons for "religious wars." However, this should not distract us from the roles that religious differences, nor from the belief that one religion has an obligation not only to spread as a spiritual faith but as a political force or to simply eliminate or dominate other religions, have also played as a motivating force.
Editor: In any religious community, does the violent minority (e.g. extremists, Nazis) put a moral and actual responsibility upon the shoulders of the non-violent majority (e.g. Muslims, Germans) or does the majority not have to be accused of the minority's stance?
Esposito: The majority should not be equated with the acts of terror committed by the minority. However, the majority does have an obligation to marginalize, de-legitimate, and eliminate extremists within their faith or community.
Editor: Do you think that in different societies, politicians make use of religion as a means of getting to power and once their power is secured they may change their stance?
Esposito: Many politicians, Muslims (Zia ul-Haq, Anwar Sadat, Qaddafi, the Kings of Saudi Arabia and others), Jewish (Begin, Shamir, Sharon, Natanyahu) and Christian (Clinton, G.W.Bush, and Barack Obama) use religion (some more than others) to get into power.
Editor: To what extent do you find nationalism and religion to be overlapping in different conflicts (e.g. in Ireland between the Catholics and the Protestants)?
Esposito: Overlap can be seen in many conflicts: Chechnya, Kashmir, Iraq, Pakistan, Uzbekistan and elsewhere. What is distinctive is the weakness if not failure of Arab nationalism and secular nationalism and the resultant appeal to ideologies that are associated with Islam.
Editor: Can we simply describe any society as purely secular or purely religious?
Esposito: If we consider the reality and not the ideological rhetoric and slogans of some regimes and elites, there are few instances in which we can simply describe any society as purely secular or purely religious.
Editor: How do you see the dichotomy of secularism and religion, especially, in the Western societies? In light of this dichotomy, how do you see the experience of the ‘Christian Democratic parties’ and the right wings?
Esposito: Western secularism is quite diverse regarding the relationship of religion to the state. In the US we have separation of church and state but certainly no necessary separation of religion and politics.
In European secularism, there is a great diversity. Most people do not follow the US model for although secular, many have a state religion or the government provides funding to religious institutions.
http://www.onislam.net/english/back-to-religion/religion-and-violence/417901-does-religion-legitimize-violence.html
Sunday, September 8, 2013
Is Islamophobia a form of racism?
Click here to LIKE this Blog on Face book.
---
IHRC
22 AUGUST 2013
Is Islamophobia a form of racism: from the History of Al-Andalus to Fanon’s Zone of Being and Zone of Non Being.
Professor Ramon Grosfoguel, one of the leading de-colonial thinkers and academics of the contemporary world, is an associate professor in the Ethics Study Department of the University of California, Berkley. He has been instrumental in setting up de-colonial projects around the world.
In his lecture given on 12 December 2012 at the Islamic Human Rights Commission, Professor Grosfoguel discusses the historical development of racism and issues related to the concept of Islamophobia.
The rise of Islamic discourse and Islamophobia in Europe has become very prominent over the last ten years. This lecture is particularly relevant as Islamophobia is not widely accepted as a form of racism. For example, the French government opposes and actively blocks Islamophobia as racism on the grounds that racism is colour discrimination.
Grosfoguel provides a concise history of the emergence of racism in order to more clearly define the notion of racism, historically not semantically.
Questioning Eurocentric Abstract Universals: Necessity of Historicising Social Systems
‘I am highly critical of these trans-historical universal abstract statements that make sweeping arguments about everything as a way to diminish the responsibility of the West.’
Grosfoguel discusses the Western manipulation of historiography today, claiming that the ‘animalization of human beings is a modern phenomenon.’ He argues that in Eurocentric historiography there is a tendency to flatten down a homogenised history as a way of ideologically reducing the responsibility of the west in the formation of modern racial slavery and racism.
In Europe it is common to extrapolate into the past the institutionalization of slavery and racism, conveniently underplaying the atrocities of historical European actions. By blaming others, the pretence of innocent white history can be upheld.
This is particularly evident when considering Palestine. The Islamophobia and Eurocentric historiography instilled through Orientalism and Zionism presents the conflict in the Middle East as being between Jews and Muslims. This recently constructed mentality of inherent conflict between Muslims and Jews is a psychological manipulation that legitimises the lack of Western responsibility concerning these issues, making it a trans-historical and universal issue. Grosfoguel states that in reality the tensions between Palestine and Israel are a colonial racial problem, evidenced in the role of British interference through the Balfour Declaration.
The History of Al-Andalus: The Beginning of Racism
To identify the emergence of racism in the world Grosfoguel initially focuses on the conquest of Al-Andalus in the fifteenth century. Historicising the relationship between conquerors of Al- Andalus and conquerors of the Americas allows him to draw parallels and examine the interrelations between the two. When the Catholic Monarchy came to conquer Andalucía, not only did they take over the land and destroy the Islamic political authority, they imposed a new and entirely foreign concept; ‘one identity, one religion, one state.’ This immediately created a power dynamic, with the European ideology as superior.
The previous Islamic political authority encouraged a multiplicity of identities and respect for multiple spiritualities. Jews and Catholics in Islamic territories had rights and representation in political authorities. However, the Catholic Monarchy imposed a different logic through their colonisation. Grosfoguel describes the Catholic Monarchy’s proto-racist notion of purity of blood. This settler colonialism mentality was based upon the genealogy of ancestry whereby anyone with Jewish or Muslim parents did not have pure blood unless evangelised. However, Grosfoguel makes clear this was not yet a fully racist ideology.
By revisiting Spanish history, Grosfoguel identifies the development from proto-racism to racism. On October 12th 1492, with the permission of the recently unified Spanish Monarchy, Christopher Columbus arrived in Guanahani (The Bahamas). Upon meeting the indigenous people, he believed they were without religion. Christian imagination of this time upheld that without belief in God, one did not have a soul. Therefore, the indigenous people were believed to be an animal species. Grosfoguel is careful to highlight that this racism was not about the colour of their skin. The whole population was classified as subhuman, not because of their race, but because they have no soul. This ideology led to the legitimisation of slavery as it was not considered a sin in the eyes of God to enslave soulless creatures.
This opened a vast debate in Europe between 1492 and 1552. Despite the Popes decree in 1537 stating, ‘these people have a soul, but it is an animal soul,’ the ambiguity surrounding the souls of these people remained. In 1552 there was a major colonial racial debate in the school of Salamanca between Bartolome de Las Cases and Juan Gines de Sepulveda.
Bartolome de Las Cases argued that although they have a soul, they are like children. Therefore they are barbarians that need to be Christianized. This constitutes cultural racism. On the other hand, Juan Gines de Sepulveda argued these people have no souls because they have no notion of private property or trade and commerce, thus they must be animals. This constitutes biological racism.
Biological and cultural racism, as separate entities and as entangled discourses, became prominent ideologies of Western Imperialism for the next several hundred years throughout the Empires. The nineteenth century saw the secularization of these narratives when the authority of knowledge passed from Christian theology to the scientific system, but they did not die out.
The colonial and evangelical methods used in Andalucía acquired new meaning in the Americas, as the notion of purity of blood became associated with the soul. This notion redefined the medieval religious discrimination discourses, turning them into racial discourses. The fundamental question came to be about human constitution.
Therefore, it was no longer proto-racism concerning conversion in religious terms, but the paradigm shifted to humanity and dehumanisation. Humanity becomes a fundamental defining question of what we call racism.
Epistemic Revolution
Grosfoguel goes on to examine the importance of the theory and scope of knowledge in relation to the development of racism. He focuses on what he describes as the seventeenth century ‘epistemic revolution.’
The emergence of Rene Descarte’s metaphysical theory ‘I think therefore I exist’ inaugurates a new form of Universalism in the West by a God-like claim to be the most epistemically advanced perspective. No other religious or philosophical doctrine makes these idolatrous Universalist claims.
So who is the ‘I’ Descartes is referring to? Grosfoguel opines that there has to be an element of ambiguity within western epistemology in order to appear infallible, universal and objective, thus painting all other structures of knowledge as particular and therefore inferior. Modern Eurocentric sciences are founded on these epistemological assumptions.
Enrique Dussel
Enrique Dussel, a philosopher of liberation in Latin America, questions which geopolitical location, and which body this ‘I’ is speaking from. Grosfoguel interprets Descartes claim as arising from a mentality of 150 years of ‘I conquer therefore I exist.’ This omnipotent claim to knowledge is made possible as the Western system conquered the world and, in terms of epistemic privilege, put Western Imperial man at the centre. Thus, behind ‘I think therefore I exist’ lies ‘I exterminate therefore I exist.’
The evidence for this claim of extermination lies in five forms of genocides:
1. Indigenous people in America
2. African people
3. Muslims
4. Jews
5. Genocide of millions of women in 16thc accused of being witches within the Western European world.
By placing himself in an epistemic privileged position, claiming to have a knowledge superior to the knowledge of everybody else, Western man created Idolatric Universalism. This is evident through the centuries; from the 16th century obligation to Christianise through to the 21st century obligation to conform to the Western supremacy of democracy, or face persecution. This is the rhetoric of modernity and genocide, internally rooted in Western epistemology. Any other realm of knowledge is diminished as particularistic.
From Universalism to Pluriversalism
Grosfoguel proposes that the solution to this idolatric Universalism is to move from Universalism to Pluriversalism. Through a multiplicity of epistemology coming into epistemic dialogues, a new universal meaning can be produced. It cannot be forceful idolatric universalism that pretends to be God like. It cannot be imposition by persuasion. The solution is to move into an acceptance of a multiplicity of perspectives.
What is racism?
Grosfoguel identifies strongly with Franz Fanon’s definition of racism, which states:
‘Racism is an institutional power structure of superiority/inferiority along the line of the human.’
In the Fanonial sense, boundaries based on colour is only one form of racism. There are two categories that define ones humanity, the zone of being and the zone of non-being. Inside the zone of being, despite inevitable conflict, one is racially privileged. Conflict is managed through access to law, human rights and women’s rights, emancapatory discourses of equality, recognition of rights, autonomy and freedom, with exceptional moments of violence.
In the zone of non-being humanity is not recognized. Conflict management is recognized through perpetual violence, appropriation and oppression. The racism that brands people in the zone of non-being can be colour, ethnicity, religion and national identity. Grosfoguel argues that 80% of humanity falls into this categorisation. This is the fundamental structure of racism: not having access to course of law or emancipatory discourse because humanity is not recognized.
Grosfoguel concludes that Islamophobia is a form of racism in Europe. By constructing a hierarchy of superiority and inferiority along the line of the human, Muslims are dehumanised as savages and violent beings. This racism encompasses religion, culture, race and white supremacy of knowledge. We are reproducing the same structure evident in fifteenth century Adalucia of “divide and rule”. Grosfoguel astutely observes the historiography of Western self-appointed epistemic privilege to prove that the West continues to dictate who is in the zone of being, and who is not.
Resources:
Event report
Author Evening : Is Islamophobia a form of racism? with Professor Ramón Grosfoguel
VIDEO - 'Is Islamophobia a form of racism?' - Ramón Grosfoguel
http://www.ihrc.org.uk/publications/briefings/10681-is-islamophobia-a-form-of-racism
---
IHRC
22 AUGUST 2013
Is Islamophobia a form of racism: from the History of Al-Andalus to Fanon’s Zone of Being and Zone of Non Being.
Professor Ramon Grosfoguel, one of the leading de-colonial thinkers and academics of the contemporary world, is an associate professor in the Ethics Study Department of the University of California, Berkley. He has been instrumental in setting up de-colonial projects around the world.
In his lecture given on 12 December 2012 at the Islamic Human Rights Commission, Professor Grosfoguel discusses the historical development of racism and issues related to the concept of Islamophobia.
The rise of Islamic discourse and Islamophobia in Europe has become very prominent over the last ten years. This lecture is particularly relevant as Islamophobia is not widely accepted as a form of racism. For example, the French government opposes and actively blocks Islamophobia as racism on the grounds that racism is colour discrimination.
Grosfoguel provides a concise history of the emergence of racism in order to more clearly define the notion of racism, historically not semantically.
Questioning Eurocentric Abstract Universals: Necessity of Historicising Social Systems
‘I am highly critical of these trans-historical universal abstract statements that make sweeping arguments about everything as a way to diminish the responsibility of the West.’
Grosfoguel discusses the Western manipulation of historiography today, claiming that the ‘animalization of human beings is a modern phenomenon.’ He argues that in Eurocentric historiography there is a tendency to flatten down a homogenised history as a way of ideologically reducing the responsibility of the west in the formation of modern racial slavery and racism.
In Europe it is common to extrapolate into the past the institutionalization of slavery and racism, conveniently underplaying the atrocities of historical European actions. By blaming others, the pretence of innocent white history can be upheld.
This is particularly evident when considering Palestine. The Islamophobia and Eurocentric historiography instilled through Orientalism and Zionism presents the conflict in the Middle East as being between Jews and Muslims. This recently constructed mentality of inherent conflict between Muslims and Jews is a psychological manipulation that legitimises the lack of Western responsibility concerning these issues, making it a trans-historical and universal issue. Grosfoguel states that in reality the tensions between Palestine and Israel are a colonial racial problem, evidenced in the role of British interference through the Balfour Declaration.
The History of Al-Andalus: The Beginning of Racism
To identify the emergence of racism in the world Grosfoguel initially focuses on the conquest of Al-Andalus in the fifteenth century. Historicising the relationship between conquerors of Al- Andalus and conquerors of the Americas allows him to draw parallels and examine the interrelations between the two. When the Catholic Monarchy came to conquer Andalucía, not only did they take over the land and destroy the Islamic political authority, they imposed a new and entirely foreign concept; ‘one identity, one religion, one state.’ This immediately created a power dynamic, with the European ideology as superior.
The previous Islamic political authority encouraged a multiplicity of identities and respect for multiple spiritualities. Jews and Catholics in Islamic territories had rights and representation in political authorities. However, the Catholic Monarchy imposed a different logic through their colonisation. Grosfoguel describes the Catholic Monarchy’s proto-racist notion of purity of blood. This settler colonialism mentality was based upon the genealogy of ancestry whereby anyone with Jewish or Muslim parents did not have pure blood unless evangelised. However, Grosfoguel makes clear this was not yet a fully racist ideology.
By revisiting Spanish history, Grosfoguel identifies the development from proto-racism to racism. On October 12th 1492, with the permission of the recently unified Spanish Monarchy, Christopher Columbus arrived in Guanahani (The Bahamas). Upon meeting the indigenous people, he believed they were without religion. Christian imagination of this time upheld that without belief in God, one did not have a soul. Therefore, the indigenous people were believed to be an animal species. Grosfoguel is careful to highlight that this racism was not about the colour of their skin. The whole population was classified as subhuman, not because of their race, but because they have no soul. This ideology led to the legitimisation of slavery as it was not considered a sin in the eyes of God to enslave soulless creatures.
This opened a vast debate in Europe between 1492 and 1552. Despite the Popes decree in 1537 stating, ‘these people have a soul, but it is an animal soul,’ the ambiguity surrounding the souls of these people remained. In 1552 there was a major colonial racial debate in the school of Salamanca between Bartolome de Las Cases and Juan Gines de Sepulveda.
Bartolome de Las Cases argued that although they have a soul, they are like children. Therefore they are barbarians that need to be Christianized. This constitutes cultural racism. On the other hand, Juan Gines de Sepulveda argued these people have no souls because they have no notion of private property or trade and commerce, thus they must be animals. This constitutes biological racism.
Biological and cultural racism, as separate entities and as entangled discourses, became prominent ideologies of Western Imperialism for the next several hundred years throughout the Empires. The nineteenth century saw the secularization of these narratives when the authority of knowledge passed from Christian theology to the scientific system, but they did not die out.
The colonial and evangelical methods used in Andalucía acquired new meaning in the Americas, as the notion of purity of blood became associated with the soul. This notion redefined the medieval religious discrimination discourses, turning them into racial discourses. The fundamental question came to be about human constitution.
Therefore, it was no longer proto-racism concerning conversion in religious terms, but the paradigm shifted to humanity and dehumanisation. Humanity becomes a fundamental defining question of what we call racism.
Epistemic Revolution
Grosfoguel goes on to examine the importance of the theory and scope of knowledge in relation to the development of racism. He focuses on what he describes as the seventeenth century ‘epistemic revolution.’
The emergence of Rene Descarte’s metaphysical theory ‘I think therefore I exist’ inaugurates a new form of Universalism in the West by a God-like claim to be the most epistemically advanced perspective. No other religious or philosophical doctrine makes these idolatrous Universalist claims.
So who is the ‘I’ Descartes is referring to? Grosfoguel opines that there has to be an element of ambiguity within western epistemology in order to appear infallible, universal and objective, thus painting all other structures of knowledge as particular and therefore inferior. Modern Eurocentric sciences are founded on these epistemological assumptions.
Enrique Dussel
Enrique Dussel, a philosopher of liberation in Latin America, questions which geopolitical location, and which body this ‘I’ is speaking from. Grosfoguel interprets Descartes claim as arising from a mentality of 150 years of ‘I conquer therefore I exist.’ This omnipotent claim to knowledge is made possible as the Western system conquered the world and, in terms of epistemic privilege, put Western Imperial man at the centre. Thus, behind ‘I think therefore I exist’ lies ‘I exterminate therefore I exist.’
The evidence for this claim of extermination lies in five forms of genocides:
1. Indigenous people in America
2. African people
3. Muslims
4. Jews
5. Genocide of millions of women in 16thc accused of being witches within the Western European world.
By placing himself in an epistemic privileged position, claiming to have a knowledge superior to the knowledge of everybody else, Western man created Idolatric Universalism. This is evident through the centuries; from the 16th century obligation to Christianise through to the 21st century obligation to conform to the Western supremacy of democracy, or face persecution. This is the rhetoric of modernity and genocide, internally rooted in Western epistemology. Any other realm of knowledge is diminished as particularistic.
From Universalism to Pluriversalism
Grosfoguel proposes that the solution to this idolatric Universalism is to move from Universalism to Pluriversalism. Through a multiplicity of epistemology coming into epistemic dialogues, a new universal meaning can be produced. It cannot be forceful idolatric universalism that pretends to be God like. It cannot be imposition by persuasion. The solution is to move into an acceptance of a multiplicity of perspectives.
What is racism?
Grosfoguel identifies strongly with Franz Fanon’s definition of racism, which states:
‘Racism is an institutional power structure of superiority/inferiority along the line of the human.’
In the Fanonial sense, boundaries based on colour is only one form of racism. There are two categories that define ones humanity, the zone of being and the zone of non-being. Inside the zone of being, despite inevitable conflict, one is racially privileged. Conflict is managed through access to law, human rights and women’s rights, emancapatory discourses of equality, recognition of rights, autonomy and freedom, with exceptional moments of violence.
In the zone of non-being humanity is not recognized. Conflict management is recognized through perpetual violence, appropriation and oppression. The racism that brands people in the zone of non-being can be colour, ethnicity, religion and national identity. Grosfoguel argues that 80% of humanity falls into this categorisation. This is the fundamental structure of racism: not having access to course of law or emancipatory discourse because humanity is not recognized.
Grosfoguel concludes that Islamophobia is a form of racism in Europe. By constructing a hierarchy of superiority and inferiority along the line of the human, Muslims are dehumanised as savages and violent beings. This racism encompasses religion, culture, race and white supremacy of knowledge. We are reproducing the same structure evident in fifteenth century Adalucia of “divide and rule”. Grosfoguel astutely observes the historiography of Western self-appointed epistemic privilege to prove that the West continues to dictate who is in the zone of being, and who is not.
Resources:
Event report
Author Evening : Is Islamophobia a form of racism? with Professor Ramón Grosfoguel
VIDEO - 'Is Islamophobia a form of racism?' - Ramón Grosfoguel
http://www.ihrc.org.uk/publications/briefings/10681-is-islamophobia-a-form-of-racism
Monday, August 5, 2013
How Sharia-compliant is Islamic Banking?
Click here to LIKE this Blog on Face book.
---
By John Foster
Former editor, Islamic Business & Finance magazine
Friday, 11 December 2009
The Islamic finance industry has often battled with the question: How Islamic is Islamic banking?
The question's pertinence was raised in March last year, when Sheikh Muhammad Taqi Usmani, of the Accounting and Auditing Organization for Islamic Finance Institutions (AAOIFI), a Bahrain-based regulatory institution that sets standards for the global industry, said that 85% of Sukuk, or Islamic bonds, were un-Islamic.
Usmani is the granddaddy of modern-day Islamic finance, so having him make this statement is synonymous with Adam Smith saying that free-markets are inefficient.
Because Sukuk underpin the modern-day Islamic financial system, one of its pre-eminent proponents arguing that the epicentre of the system was flawed sent shockwaves through the industry.
It also gave ammunition to the many critics who see Islamic finance as an industry more driven by cultural identity than practical problem solving: as a hodgepodge of incoherent, incomplete, impractical and irrelevant ideas.
Recognisable products
The products that modern-day Islamic bankers have created are very similar to conventional products.
So similar, in fact, that to an outside observer they could be considered the same.
Islamic banks now offer Islamic mortgages, Islamic car loans, Islamic credit cards, Islamic time deposit and guaranteed return accounts, Islamic insurance and some even offer Islamic managed and hedge funds.
This point is conceded by Samir Alamad, Sharia, or Islamic law, compliance and product development manager of the Islamic Bank of Britain.
"The industry does not want to alienate its products," he says. "They have to be recognisable, produce the same outcome as conventional products, but remain within the guidelines of Sharia."
No interest
The core of Islamic economics is a prohibition on interest.
This immediately creates a problem for Islamic banks, as conventional banks charge borrowers an interest rate through which they can reward their depositors and make some profit for being the broker.
With interest ruled out it is harder to make money.
The modern Islamic banker has found a way around this prohibition, however. As in many Islamic products, the bank enters a partnership with its depositors and invests his money in a Sharia compliant business.
The profit from this investment is then shared between the depositor and the bank after a set time.
In many cases this "profit rate" is competitive with the conventional banking system's interest rate for savers.
Lease agreements
Alternatively, an Islamic banker might enter into a lease agreement for a car or a house with an individual.
The bank would buy a vehicle outright and then lease it back to the person who wanted it, over a time period that would ensure that the capital was repaid and the bank made a profit.
Alternatively the bank would enter into a partnership with a person wanting to buy a house. The bank would buy 70% of the house, the individual 30%.
The bank then rents its share of the house back to the individual until the house is fully paid for.
The bank makes a profit on the rent, which would be higher than equivalent rents in the area, but on an annualised percentage basis, would look very much like a conventional mortgage interest rate.
To the casual observer, a spade is a spade.
Whether the product is dressed up in Arabic terminology, such as Mudarabah, or Ijarah, if it looks and feels like a mortgage, it is a mortgage and to say anything else is semantics.
Sophisticated finance
The potential wealth locked up in oil-rich Gulf states encouraged the conventional banks to enter Islamic finance.
HSBC established the Amanah Islamic Finance brand in 1998 and Deutsche Bank, Citi, UBS and Barclays quickly joined the fray, all offering interest-free products for wealthy Arabs.
However, this new generation of Islamic bankers had cut their teeth in the City and Wall Street, and were used to creating sophisticated financial products.
They often bumped heads with the Sharia scholars who authorised their products as Sharia compliant.
However, these bankers had a way of dealing with this, as one investment banker based in Dubai, working for a major Western financial organisation explains:
"We create the same type of products that we do for the conventional markets. We then phone up a Sharia scholar for a Fatwa [seal of approval, confirming the product is Shari'ah compliant].
"If he doesn't give it to us, we phone up another scholar, offer him a sum of money for his services and ask him for a Fatwa. We do this until we get Sharia compliance. Then we are free to distribute the product as Islamic."
No consensus
This "Fatwa shopping", which was carried out by some institutions, brings us back to the Sharia scholars.
Even these scholars do not agree all the time, which means that in some cases a product is deemed Sharia compliant in one market and not in another.
This is especially the case with Malaysian products, which are often deemed not Sharia complaint in the more austere Gulf.
"Often no rulings exist for modern day problems, such as use of narcotics," Alamad explains.
"In Islam intoxication by wine is forbidden, but at the time of the Prophet Mohammed there was no crack cocaine."
Modern scholars had to interpret the rules on intoxication, and the consensus was that crack should also be forbidden to Muslims, as it is a dangerous intoxicant.
"This is how we make rulings, whether in finance or societal," Alamad says. "The consensus rules, which usually will become mandatory for all Muslims to follow, but there are some opinions and sometimes scholars are not in the consensus."
Banking is banking
This makes it more important to be in the consensus, and so getting a favourable ruling from a leading Sharia scholar is important for a product manager.
That is why the top scholars can earn so much money - often six-figure sums for each ruling.
The most creative scholars are the ones in the most demand, says Tarek El Diwany, analyst at London-based Islamic financial consultancy Zest Advisory.
"To date, most Islamic financiers have been looking at examples of financing in Islamic history and figuring out how to apply them to today's financial products."
But banking is banking.
It is the taking of a deposit and then using it to finance a purchase or business.
The lender pays the depositor compensation for the opportunity cost of his money, and the person borrowing the money "rents" it off the bank.
The same symbiotic relationship occurs whether it is conventional banking, ethical banking, Islamic banking or Presbyterian banking.
As Majid Dawood, chief executive of Yasaar, a UK-based Islamic finance consultancy says: "Everything that is not forbidden in the Holy Qur'an is OK.
"Yes, the industry has to evolve, but it is only 40 years old and its competing with a conventional finance system that is over 800 years old."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8401421.stm
---
By John Foster
Former editor, Islamic Business & Finance magazine
Friday, 11 December 2009
The Islamic finance industry has often battled with the question: How Islamic is Islamic banking?
The question's pertinence was raised in March last year, when Sheikh Muhammad Taqi Usmani, of the Accounting and Auditing Organization for Islamic Finance Institutions (AAOIFI), a Bahrain-based regulatory institution that sets standards for the global industry, said that 85% of Sukuk, or Islamic bonds, were un-Islamic.
Usmani is the granddaddy of modern-day Islamic finance, so having him make this statement is synonymous with Adam Smith saying that free-markets are inefficient.
Because Sukuk underpin the modern-day Islamic financial system, one of its pre-eminent proponents arguing that the epicentre of the system was flawed sent shockwaves through the industry.
It also gave ammunition to the many critics who see Islamic finance as an industry more driven by cultural identity than practical problem solving: as a hodgepodge of incoherent, incomplete, impractical and irrelevant ideas.
Recognisable products
The products that modern-day Islamic bankers have created are very similar to conventional products.
So similar, in fact, that to an outside observer they could be considered the same.
Islamic banks now offer Islamic mortgages, Islamic car loans, Islamic credit cards, Islamic time deposit and guaranteed return accounts, Islamic insurance and some even offer Islamic managed and hedge funds.
This point is conceded by Samir Alamad, Sharia, or Islamic law, compliance and product development manager of the Islamic Bank of Britain.
"The industry does not want to alienate its products," he says. "They have to be recognisable, produce the same outcome as conventional products, but remain within the guidelines of Sharia."
No interest
The core of Islamic economics is a prohibition on interest.
This immediately creates a problem for Islamic banks, as conventional banks charge borrowers an interest rate through which they can reward their depositors and make some profit for being the broker.
With interest ruled out it is harder to make money.
The modern Islamic banker has found a way around this prohibition, however. As in many Islamic products, the bank enters a partnership with its depositors and invests his money in a Sharia compliant business.
The profit from this investment is then shared between the depositor and the bank after a set time.
In many cases this "profit rate" is competitive with the conventional banking system's interest rate for savers.
Lease agreements
Alternatively, an Islamic banker might enter into a lease agreement for a car or a house with an individual.
The bank would buy a vehicle outright and then lease it back to the person who wanted it, over a time period that would ensure that the capital was repaid and the bank made a profit.
Alternatively the bank would enter into a partnership with a person wanting to buy a house. The bank would buy 70% of the house, the individual 30%.
The bank then rents its share of the house back to the individual until the house is fully paid for.
The bank makes a profit on the rent, which would be higher than equivalent rents in the area, but on an annualised percentage basis, would look very much like a conventional mortgage interest rate.
To the casual observer, a spade is a spade.
Whether the product is dressed up in Arabic terminology, such as Mudarabah, or Ijarah, if it looks and feels like a mortgage, it is a mortgage and to say anything else is semantics.
Sophisticated finance
The potential wealth locked up in oil-rich Gulf states encouraged the conventional banks to enter Islamic finance.
HSBC established the Amanah Islamic Finance brand in 1998 and Deutsche Bank, Citi, UBS and Barclays quickly joined the fray, all offering interest-free products for wealthy Arabs.
However, this new generation of Islamic bankers had cut their teeth in the City and Wall Street, and were used to creating sophisticated financial products.
They often bumped heads with the Sharia scholars who authorised their products as Sharia compliant.
However, these bankers had a way of dealing with this, as one investment banker based in Dubai, working for a major Western financial organisation explains:
"We create the same type of products that we do for the conventional markets. We then phone up a Sharia scholar for a Fatwa [seal of approval, confirming the product is Shari'ah compliant].
"If he doesn't give it to us, we phone up another scholar, offer him a sum of money for his services and ask him for a Fatwa. We do this until we get Sharia compliance. Then we are free to distribute the product as Islamic."
No consensus
This "Fatwa shopping", which was carried out by some institutions, brings us back to the Sharia scholars.
Even these scholars do not agree all the time, which means that in some cases a product is deemed Sharia compliant in one market and not in another.
This is especially the case with Malaysian products, which are often deemed not Sharia complaint in the more austere Gulf.
"Often no rulings exist for modern day problems, such as use of narcotics," Alamad explains.
"In Islam intoxication by wine is forbidden, but at the time of the Prophet Mohammed there was no crack cocaine."
Modern scholars had to interpret the rules on intoxication, and the consensus was that crack should also be forbidden to Muslims, as it is a dangerous intoxicant.
"This is how we make rulings, whether in finance or societal," Alamad says. "The consensus rules, which usually will become mandatory for all Muslims to follow, but there are some opinions and sometimes scholars are not in the consensus."
Banking is banking
This makes it more important to be in the consensus, and so getting a favourable ruling from a leading Sharia scholar is important for a product manager.
That is why the top scholars can earn so much money - often six-figure sums for each ruling.
The most creative scholars are the ones in the most demand, says Tarek El Diwany, analyst at London-based Islamic financial consultancy Zest Advisory.
"To date, most Islamic financiers have been looking at examples of financing in Islamic history and figuring out how to apply them to today's financial products."
But banking is banking.
It is the taking of a deposit and then using it to finance a purchase or business.
The lender pays the depositor compensation for the opportunity cost of his money, and the person borrowing the money "rents" it off the bank.
The same symbiotic relationship occurs whether it is conventional banking, ethical banking, Islamic banking or Presbyterian banking.
As Majid Dawood, chief executive of Yasaar, a UK-based Islamic finance consultancy says: "Everything that is not forbidden in the Holy Qur'an is OK.
"Yes, the industry has to evolve, but it is only 40 years old and its competing with a conventional finance system that is over 800 years old."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8401421.stm
Saturday, July 6, 2013
Contemporary Islam
Click here to LIKE this Blog on Face book.
---
Contemporary Islam: Reformation or Revolution?
John L. Esposito
From Oxford History of Islam
© 2000 Oxford University Press
Contemporary Muslim Societies: Old and New Realities
Islam in the twentieth century has been associated with reformation and revolution. Political and intellectual movements responded to the challenge of European colonialism, achieved independence, and established modern Muslim states and societies. In the last decades of the twentieth century, a second struggle emerged. This Islamic resurgence signals both the failures of Muslim societies and deep-seated, unresolved religio-cultural issues, as Muslims continue to struggle with the meaning and relevance of Islam in the world today. The issues have extended from textual criticism and interpretation of the Quran and Prophetic traditions to the role of religion in state and society. This resurgence has yielded a variety of questions, from the nature of the state and Islamic law to pluralism and the status and rights of women and minorities.
Although the Quran and Sunna of the Prophet Muhammad remain normative for most Muslims, questions of interpretation, authenticity, and application have become contentious items. Some Muslims see little need to substantially redefine past approaches and practices; others strike out into new territory. Some Muslim scholars distinguish the eternal, immutable principles and laws in the Quran from those prescriptions that are contingent responses to specific contexts. Other scholars distinguish between the Meccan and Medinan suras (chapters): the Meccan chapters are regarded as the earlier and more religiously binding texts; the Medinan are seen as primarily political, concerned with Muhammad's creation of the Medinan state and therefore not universally binding. Still other Muslim scholars have distinguished between the Quran's eternal principles and values, which are to be applied and reapplied to changing sociopolitical contexts, and past legislation that was primarily intended for specific historical periods.
Although the example of the Prophet Muhammad has always been normative in Islam, from earliest times Muslim scholars saw the need to critically examine and authenticate the enormous number of hadith (Prophetic traditions), to distinguish between authoritative texts and pious fabrications. In the twentieth century a sector of modern Western scholarship questioned the historicity and authenticity of the hadith, maintaining that the bulk of the Prophetic traditions were written much later. Most Muslim scholars and some Western (non-Muslim) scholars have taken exception with this sweeping position. Many ulama continue to unquestioningly accept the authoritative collections of the past; other Muslim scholars have in fact become more critical in their approaches and uses of hadith literature.
New approaches to the study and interpretation of Islam's sacred sources have been accompanied by similar debates over the nature of Islamic law, the shariah . As noted, many ulama continue to equate the shariah with its exposition in legal manuals developed by the early law schools. Other Muslims - from Islamic modernists such as Muhammad Abduh, Sayyid Ahmad Khan, and Muhammad Iqbal to Islamic revivalists and neomodernists - have distinguished between those laws based on clear texts of the Quran and hadith and those that are the product of human interpretation and application, the product of reason and custom. Some express this distinction as that between the eternal law of God ( shariah ) and its human interpretation and application ( fiqh ) by early jurists. The distinction is often articulated in terms of the classical division of law into a Muslim's duties or obligations to God ( ibadat, worship) and his or her duties to others (muamalat, social obligations). The former (for example, the performance of the Five Pillars of Islam, the essential beliefs and practices) are seen as unchanging; the latter are contingent upon historical and social circumstances.
Contemporary Muslim discussion and debate over the role of Islam in state and society reflect a broad array of questions: Is there one classical model or many possible models for the relationship of religion to political, social, and economic development? If a new Islamic synthesis is to be achieved that provides continuity with past tradition, how will this be accomplished, imposed from above by rulers and the ulama or legislated from below through a representative electoral process?
Legal reform remains a contested issue in many Muslim communities. Many emerging Muslim states followed a pattern of implementing Western-inspired legal codes. The process of legal change did not reflect widespread social change so much as the desires of a small secular-oriented sector of the population. Governments imposed reforms from above through legislation. The process, contradictions, and tensions inherent in modernization programs in most Muslim societies were starkly reflected in family law (marriage, divorce, and inheritance) reforms. Family law, which is regarded as the heart of the shariah and the basis for a strong, Islamically oriented family structure and society, was the last area of law to be touched by reformers. Even then, unlike most areas of law that implemented Western-inspired legal systems and codes, Muslim family law was not displaced or replaced but instead subjected to selective reform. Officials often employed an Islamic modernist rationale, in an ad hoc and haphazard manner, to provide an Islamic facade and legitimacy.
Family law ordinances were drawn up and implemented by the state, not by the ulama, pitting religious leaders against both secular and Islamic modernists. The ulama tended to object to any tampering with Islamic law, maintaining that (1) they and they alone were the qualified experts in Islamic doctrine and law; (2) the law was sacred and unchangeable; and (3) modernists were unduly infiuenced by the West and thus family law reforms were simply an illegitimate attempt to "westernize" God's law. However, the government imposed reforms that were ultimately accepted, albeit reluctantly. Modernizing elites accommodated the force of tradition in their unwillingness to directly challenge or invalidate classical Islamic law. Thus, violation of the law did not render an act invalid, only illegal. Moreover, punishments in the form of fines and imprisonment for men who ignored reforms that limited their right to polygamous marriages or to divorce were often minimal. The contemporary resurgence of Islam triggered the ulama 's reassertion of the authority of the past, as they called for a return to the shariah and sought to repeal family law reforms and reassert classical, medieval formulations of Muslim family law.
In more recent decades, the debate over whether the shariah should be part of or the basis of a country's legal system has become a sensitive, and at times contentious, issue. If it should be, to what degree? Does Islamization of law mean the wholesale reintroduction of classical law, the development of new laws derived from the Quran and Sunna of the Prophet, or simply the acceptance of any law that is not contrary to Islam? Who is to oversee this process: rulers, the ulama, parliaments? As Iran, Sudan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia demonstrate, the implementation of shariah has not followed a fixed pattern or set interpretation even among those dubbed conservative or fundamentalist. For example, women in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan under the Taliban cannot vote or hold public office. In Pakistan and Iran, despite other strictures and problems, women vote, hold political office in parliaments and cabinets, teach in universities and hold responsible professional positions. However, Islamization of law has underscored several areas that have proved particularly problematic: the hudud (punishments as prescribed by the Quran and hadith for certain crimes, such as alcohol consumption, theft, fornication, adultery, and false witness) and the status of non-Muslims ( dhimmi ), minorities, and women. All involve the question of change in Islamic law.
Although many traditionalists and neorevivalists or fundamentalists call for the reimplementation of the hudud punishments, other Muslims argue that they are no longer appropriate. Among those who advocate imposition of the hudud (for example, amputation for theft or stoning for adultery), some call for its immediate introduction and others argue that such punishments are contingent upon the creation of a just society in which people are not driven to steal in order to survive. Some critics charge that although appropriate relative to the time period in which they were introduced, hudud punishments are unnecessarily harsh in a modern context. Although many Muslim rulers and governments try to avoid directly addressing the issue of the hudud, Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad of Malaysia, advocate of a modernized Malaysia with a moderate, tolerant Islam, directly criticized the conservatism of his country's ulama, their legal opinions ( fatwas ), and religious courts. In addition, he refused to allow the Malaysian state of Kelantan, the only state controlled by PAS (the Islamic Party of Malaysia), an Islamic opposition political party, to implement the hudud .
The reintroduction of Islamic law has often had a particularly pronounced negative impact on the status and role of women and minorities, raising serious questions about whether it constitutes a setback in the gains made in many societies. During the postindependence period, significant changes occurred in many countries, broadening the educational and employment opportunities and enhancing the legal rights of Muslim women. Women became more visible in the professions (as teachers, lawyers, engineers, physicians) and in government. Admittedly, these changes affected only a small proportion of the population and varied from one country or region to another, influenced by religious and local traditions, economic and educational development, and government leadership. The contrasts could be seen from Egypt and Malaysia to Saudi Arabia and Iran.
One result of contemporary Islamic revivalism has been a reexamination of the role of women in Islam, and at times a bitter debate over their role in society. More conservative religious voices among the ulama and Islamists have advocated a return to veiling and sexual segregation as well as restricting women's education and employment. Muslim women are regarded as culture bearers, teachers of family faith and values, whose primary roles as wives and mothers limit or exclude participation in public life. The imposition of reputed Islamic laws by some governments and the policies of some Islamist movements reinforced fears of a retreat to the past: in Afghanistan, the Taliban enforcement of veiling, closure of women's schools, restriction of women in the workplace; in Pakistan, General Zia ul-Haq's reintroduction of the hudud punishments and a law that counted women's testimony as half that of men's; greater restrictions on women in the Islamic Republics of Iran and Sudan; the murderous brutality of Algeria's Armed Islamic Group toward unveiled or more westernized professional women. In fact, the picture is far more complex and diverse, revealing both old and new patterns.
Muslim women in the twentieth century had two clear choices or models before them: the modern westernized lifestyle common among an elite minority of women or the more restrictive traditional "Islamic" lifestyle of the majority of women, who lived much the same as previous generations. The social impact of the Islamic revival, however, produced a third alternative that is both modern and firmly rooted in Islamic faith, identity, and values. Muslim women, modernists, and Islamists have argued on Islamic grounds for an expanded role for women in Muslim societies. Distinguishing between Islam and patriarchy, between revelation and its interpretation by the (male) ulama in patriarchal settings, Muslim women have reasserted their right to be primary participants in redefining their identity and role in society. In many instances, this change has been symbolized by a return to the wearing of Islamic dress. This has not simply meant a wholesale return to traditional Islamic forms of dress, however. For some it is the donning of a head scarf ( hijab ); others from Cairo to Kuala Lumpur have adopted new forms of Islamic dress, modest but stylish, worn by students and professionals. Initially prominent primarily among urban middle-class women, this new mode of dress has become more common among a broader sector of society. For many it is an attempt to combine religious belief and values with contemporary levels of education and employment, to subordinate a much-desired process of social change to indigenous, Islamic values and ideals. The goal is a more authentic rather than simply westernized modernization.
Islamic dress has the practical advantage of enabling some women to assert their modesty and dignity while functioning in public life in societies in which Western dress often symbolizes a more permissive lifestyle. It creates a protected, private space of respectability in crowded urban environments. For some it is a sign of feminism that rejects what they regard as the tendency of women in many Muslim societies to go from being defined as sexual objects in a male-dominated tradition to being exploited as sexual objects Western-style. Western feminism is often seen as a liberation that has resulted in a new form of bondage to dress, youthfulness and physical beauty, sexual permissiveness and exploitation, a society in which women's bodies are used to sell every form of merchandise from clothing to automobiles and cellular phones. Covering the body, it is argued, defines a woman and gender relations in society in terms of personality and talents rather than physical appearance.
Contemporary Muslim societies reflect both the old and the new realities. Traditional patterns remain strong and are indeed reasserted and defended by those who call for a more widespread return to traditional forms of Islamic dress and sexual segregation or seclusion ( purdah ) in public life. At the same time, however, Muslim women have also become catalysts for change, empowering themselves by entering the professions, running for elective office and serving in parliament (in countries as diverse as Egypt and Iran), becoming students and scholars of Islam, conducting their own women's study groups, and establishing women's professional organizations, journals, and magazines. Women's organizations from Egypt and Iran to Pakistan and Indonesia - such as Women Living Under Muslim Laws, based in Pakistan but international in membership, and Malaysia's Sisters in Islam - are active internationally in protecting and promoting the rights of Muslim women.
The simultaneous call for greater political participation and for more Islamically oriented societies has not only had a negative impact on non-Muslim communities, but it has also sparked a lively discussion and debate among Muslim intellectuals and religious leaders over the status of non-Muslims in an Islamic state. The traditional doctrine of non-Muslims as "protected people," enabling many to practice their faith and hold positions in society, was advanced relative to its times and to the then far more exclusive approach of Western Christendom. By modern standards of pluralism and equality of citizenship, however, it amounts to second-class status. More conservative Muslim voices continue to celebrate and defend this doctrine, while other Muslims from Egypt to Indonesia have advocated a redefinition of the status of non-Muslims, in terms of their right to full and equal citizenship, which would enable an egalitarian and pluralist society of Muslims and non-Muslims. This is reflected in debates in Egypt over whether the Copts can serve in the army or should have to pay a special tax and similar discussions about issues of religious and political pluralism in countries such as Lebanon, Pakistan, Malaysia, and Indonesia.
Ironically, questions of citizenship and the exercise of political rights have become increasingly significant for Muslim minority communities in the second half of the twentieth century. At no time in history have Muslim minorities been as numerous and widespread. Both the swelling numbers of Muslim refugees and the migration of many Muslims to Europe, Canada, South America, and the United States, where Islam is now the second or third largest religion, make the issue of minority rights and duties within the majority community an ever-greater concern for Islamic jurisprudence. Can Muslim minority communities accept full citizenship and participate fully politically and socially within non-Muslim majority communities that are not governed by Islamic law? What is the relationship of Islamic law to civil law? What is the relationship of culture to religion? Are Muslims who live in the United States American Muslims or Muslims in America? How does one distinguish between culture and religion, that is, between the essentials of Islam and its cultural (Egyptian, Pakistani, Sudanese, Indonesian) expressions?
The history of Islam in the contemporary world, as throughout much of history, continues to be one of dynamic change. Muslim societies have experienced the effects of rapid change, and with it the challenges in religious, political, and economic development. Muslims continue to grapple with the relationship of the present and future to the past. Like believers in their sister traditions, Judaism and Christianity, the critical question is the relationship of faith and tradition to change in a rapidly changing and pluralistic world. As Fazlur Rahman, a distinguished Muslim scholar, observed in Islam and Modernity (1982), Muslims need "some first-class minds who can interpret the old in terms of the new as regards substance and turn the new into the service of the old as regards ideals."
http://acc.teachmideast.org/texts.php?module_id=2&reading_id=211&sequence=10
---
Contemporary Islam: Reformation or Revolution?
John L. Esposito
From Oxford History of Islam
© 2000 Oxford University Press
Contemporary Muslim Societies: Old and New Realities
Islam in the twentieth century has been associated with reformation and revolution. Political and intellectual movements responded to the challenge of European colonialism, achieved independence, and established modern Muslim states and societies. In the last decades of the twentieth century, a second struggle emerged. This Islamic resurgence signals both the failures of Muslim societies and deep-seated, unresolved religio-cultural issues, as Muslims continue to struggle with the meaning and relevance of Islam in the world today. The issues have extended from textual criticism and interpretation of the Quran and Prophetic traditions to the role of religion in state and society. This resurgence has yielded a variety of questions, from the nature of the state and Islamic law to pluralism and the status and rights of women and minorities.
Although the Quran and Sunna of the Prophet Muhammad remain normative for most Muslims, questions of interpretation, authenticity, and application have become contentious items. Some Muslims see little need to substantially redefine past approaches and practices; others strike out into new territory. Some Muslim scholars distinguish the eternal, immutable principles and laws in the Quran from those prescriptions that are contingent responses to specific contexts. Other scholars distinguish between the Meccan and Medinan suras (chapters): the Meccan chapters are regarded as the earlier and more religiously binding texts; the Medinan are seen as primarily political, concerned with Muhammad's creation of the Medinan state and therefore not universally binding. Still other Muslim scholars have distinguished between the Quran's eternal principles and values, which are to be applied and reapplied to changing sociopolitical contexts, and past legislation that was primarily intended for specific historical periods.
Although the example of the Prophet Muhammad has always been normative in Islam, from earliest times Muslim scholars saw the need to critically examine and authenticate the enormous number of hadith (Prophetic traditions), to distinguish between authoritative texts and pious fabrications. In the twentieth century a sector of modern Western scholarship questioned the historicity and authenticity of the hadith, maintaining that the bulk of the Prophetic traditions were written much later. Most Muslim scholars and some Western (non-Muslim) scholars have taken exception with this sweeping position. Many ulama continue to unquestioningly accept the authoritative collections of the past; other Muslim scholars have in fact become more critical in their approaches and uses of hadith literature.
New approaches to the study and interpretation of Islam's sacred sources have been accompanied by similar debates over the nature of Islamic law, the shariah . As noted, many ulama continue to equate the shariah with its exposition in legal manuals developed by the early law schools. Other Muslims - from Islamic modernists such as Muhammad Abduh, Sayyid Ahmad Khan, and Muhammad Iqbal to Islamic revivalists and neomodernists - have distinguished between those laws based on clear texts of the Quran and hadith and those that are the product of human interpretation and application, the product of reason and custom. Some express this distinction as that between the eternal law of God ( shariah ) and its human interpretation and application ( fiqh ) by early jurists. The distinction is often articulated in terms of the classical division of law into a Muslim's duties or obligations to God ( ibadat, worship) and his or her duties to others (muamalat, social obligations). The former (for example, the performance of the Five Pillars of Islam, the essential beliefs and practices) are seen as unchanging; the latter are contingent upon historical and social circumstances.
Contemporary Muslim discussion and debate over the role of Islam in state and society reflect a broad array of questions: Is there one classical model or many possible models for the relationship of religion to political, social, and economic development? If a new Islamic synthesis is to be achieved that provides continuity with past tradition, how will this be accomplished, imposed from above by rulers and the ulama or legislated from below through a representative electoral process?
Legal reform remains a contested issue in many Muslim communities. Many emerging Muslim states followed a pattern of implementing Western-inspired legal codes. The process of legal change did not reflect widespread social change so much as the desires of a small secular-oriented sector of the population. Governments imposed reforms from above through legislation. The process, contradictions, and tensions inherent in modernization programs in most Muslim societies were starkly reflected in family law (marriage, divorce, and inheritance) reforms. Family law, which is regarded as the heart of the shariah and the basis for a strong, Islamically oriented family structure and society, was the last area of law to be touched by reformers. Even then, unlike most areas of law that implemented Western-inspired legal systems and codes, Muslim family law was not displaced or replaced but instead subjected to selective reform. Officials often employed an Islamic modernist rationale, in an ad hoc and haphazard manner, to provide an Islamic facade and legitimacy.
Family law ordinances were drawn up and implemented by the state, not by the ulama, pitting religious leaders against both secular and Islamic modernists. The ulama tended to object to any tampering with Islamic law, maintaining that (1) they and they alone were the qualified experts in Islamic doctrine and law; (2) the law was sacred and unchangeable; and (3) modernists were unduly infiuenced by the West and thus family law reforms were simply an illegitimate attempt to "westernize" God's law. However, the government imposed reforms that were ultimately accepted, albeit reluctantly. Modernizing elites accommodated the force of tradition in their unwillingness to directly challenge or invalidate classical Islamic law. Thus, violation of the law did not render an act invalid, only illegal. Moreover, punishments in the form of fines and imprisonment for men who ignored reforms that limited their right to polygamous marriages or to divorce were often minimal. The contemporary resurgence of Islam triggered the ulama 's reassertion of the authority of the past, as they called for a return to the shariah and sought to repeal family law reforms and reassert classical, medieval formulations of Muslim family law.
In more recent decades, the debate over whether the shariah should be part of or the basis of a country's legal system has become a sensitive, and at times contentious, issue. If it should be, to what degree? Does Islamization of law mean the wholesale reintroduction of classical law, the development of new laws derived from the Quran and Sunna of the Prophet, or simply the acceptance of any law that is not contrary to Islam? Who is to oversee this process: rulers, the ulama, parliaments? As Iran, Sudan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia demonstrate, the implementation of shariah has not followed a fixed pattern or set interpretation even among those dubbed conservative or fundamentalist. For example, women in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan under the Taliban cannot vote or hold public office. In Pakistan and Iran, despite other strictures and problems, women vote, hold political office in parliaments and cabinets, teach in universities and hold responsible professional positions. However, Islamization of law has underscored several areas that have proved particularly problematic: the hudud (punishments as prescribed by the Quran and hadith for certain crimes, such as alcohol consumption, theft, fornication, adultery, and false witness) and the status of non-Muslims ( dhimmi ), minorities, and women. All involve the question of change in Islamic law.
Although many traditionalists and neorevivalists or fundamentalists call for the reimplementation of the hudud punishments, other Muslims argue that they are no longer appropriate. Among those who advocate imposition of the hudud (for example, amputation for theft or stoning for adultery), some call for its immediate introduction and others argue that such punishments are contingent upon the creation of a just society in which people are not driven to steal in order to survive. Some critics charge that although appropriate relative to the time period in which they were introduced, hudud punishments are unnecessarily harsh in a modern context. Although many Muslim rulers and governments try to avoid directly addressing the issue of the hudud, Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad of Malaysia, advocate of a modernized Malaysia with a moderate, tolerant Islam, directly criticized the conservatism of his country's ulama, their legal opinions ( fatwas ), and religious courts. In addition, he refused to allow the Malaysian state of Kelantan, the only state controlled by PAS (the Islamic Party of Malaysia), an Islamic opposition political party, to implement the hudud .
The reintroduction of Islamic law has often had a particularly pronounced negative impact on the status and role of women and minorities, raising serious questions about whether it constitutes a setback in the gains made in many societies. During the postindependence period, significant changes occurred in many countries, broadening the educational and employment opportunities and enhancing the legal rights of Muslim women. Women became more visible in the professions (as teachers, lawyers, engineers, physicians) and in government. Admittedly, these changes affected only a small proportion of the population and varied from one country or region to another, influenced by religious and local traditions, economic and educational development, and government leadership. The contrasts could be seen from Egypt and Malaysia to Saudi Arabia and Iran.
One result of contemporary Islamic revivalism has been a reexamination of the role of women in Islam, and at times a bitter debate over their role in society. More conservative religious voices among the ulama and Islamists have advocated a return to veiling and sexual segregation as well as restricting women's education and employment. Muslim women are regarded as culture bearers, teachers of family faith and values, whose primary roles as wives and mothers limit or exclude participation in public life. The imposition of reputed Islamic laws by some governments and the policies of some Islamist movements reinforced fears of a retreat to the past: in Afghanistan, the Taliban enforcement of veiling, closure of women's schools, restriction of women in the workplace; in Pakistan, General Zia ul-Haq's reintroduction of the hudud punishments and a law that counted women's testimony as half that of men's; greater restrictions on women in the Islamic Republics of Iran and Sudan; the murderous brutality of Algeria's Armed Islamic Group toward unveiled or more westernized professional women. In fact, the picture is far more complex and diverse, revealing both old and new patterns.
Muslim women in the twentieth century had two clear choices or models before them: the modern westernized lifestyle common among an elite minority of women or the more restrictive traditional "Islamic" lifestyle of the majority of women, who lived much the same as previous generations. The social impact of the Islamic revival, however, produced a third alternative that is both modern and firmly rooted in Islamic faith, identity, and values. Muslim women, modernists, and Islamists have argued on Islamic grounds for an expanded role for women in Muslim societies. Distinguishing between Islam and patriarchy, between revelation and its interpretation by the (male) ulama in patriarchal settings, Muslim women have reasserted their right to be primary participants in redefining their identity and role in society. In many instances, this change has been symbolized by a return to the wearing of Islamic dress. This has not simply meant a wholesale return to traditional Islamic forms of dress, however. For some it is the donning of a head scarf ( hijab ); others from Cairo to Kuala Lumpur have adopted new forms of Islamic dress, modest but stylish, worn by students and professionals. Initially prominent primarily among urban middle-class women, this new mode of dress has become more common among a broader sector of society. For many it is an attempt to combine religious belief and values with contemporary levels of education and employment, to subordinate a much-desired process of social change to indigenous, Islamic values and ideals. The goal is a more authentic rather than simply westernized modernization.
Islamic dress has the practical advantage of enabling some women to assert their modesty and dignity while functioning in public life in societies in which Western dress often symbolizes a more permissive lifestyle. It creates a protected, private space of respectability in crowded urban environments. For some it is a sign of feminism that rejects what they regard as the tendency of women in many Muslim societies to go from being defined as sexual objects in a male-dominated tradition to being exploited as sexual objects Western-style. Western feminism is often seen as a liberation that has resulted in a new form of bondage to dress, youthfulness and physical beauty, sexual permissiveness and exploitation, a society in which women's bodies are used to sell every form of merchandise from clothing to automobiles and cellular phones. Covering the body, it is argued, defines a woman and gender relations in society in terms of personality and talents rather than physical appearance.
Contemporary Muslim societies reflect both the old and the new realities. Traditional patterns remain strong and are indeed reasserted and defended by those who call for a more widespread return to traditional forms of Islamic dress and sexual segregation or seclusion ( purdah ) in public life. At the same time, however, Muslim women have also become catalysts for change, empowering themselves by entering the professions, running for elective office and serving in parliament (in countries as diverse as Egypt and Iran), becoming students and scholars of Islam, conducting their own women's study groups, and establishing women's professional organizations, journals, and magazines. Women's organizations from Egypt and Iran to Pakistan and Indonesia - such as Women Living Under Muslim Laws, based in Pakistan but international in membership, and Malaysia's Sisters in Islam - are active internationally in protecting and promoting the rights of Muslim women.
The simultaneous call for greater political participation and for more Islamically oriented societies has not only had a negative impact on non-Muslim communities, but it has also sparked a lively discussion and debate among Muslim intellectuals and religious leaders over the status of non-Muslims in an Islamic state. The traditional doctrine of non-Muslims as "protected people," enabling many to practice their faith and hold positions in society, was advanced relative to its times and to the then far more exclusive approach of Western Christendom. By modern standards of pluralism and equality of citizenship, however, it amounts to second-class status. More conservative Muslim voices continue to celebrate and defend this doctrine, while other Muslims from Egypt to Indonesia have advocated a redefinition of the status of non-Muslims, in terms of their right to full and equal citizenship, which would enable an egalitarian and pluralist society of Muslims and non-Muslims. This is reflected in debates in Egypt over whether the Copts can serve in the army or should have to pay a special tax and similar discussions about issues of religious and political pluralism in countries such as Lebanon, Pakistan, Malaysia, and Indonesia.
Ironically, questions of citizenship and the exercise of political rights have become increasingly significant for Muslim minority communities in the second half of the twentieth century. At no time in history have Muslim minorities been as numerous and widespread. Both the swelling numbers of Muslim refugees and the migration of many Muslims to Europe, Canada, South America, and the United States, where Islam is now the second or third largest religion, make the issue of minority rights and duties within the majority community an ever-greater concern for Islamic jurisprudence. Can Muslim minority communities accept full citizenship and participate fully politically and socially within non-Muslim majority communities that are not governed by Islamic law? What is the relationship of Islamic law to civil law? What is the relationship of culture to religion? Are Muslims who live in the United States American Muslims or Muslims in America? How does one distinguish between culture and religion, that is, between the essentials of Islam and its cultural (Egyptian, Pakistani, Sudanese, Indonesian) expressions?
The history of Islam in the contemporary world, as throughout much of history, continues to be one of dynamic change. Muslim societies have experienced the effects of rapid change, and with it the challenges in religious, political, and economic development. Muslims continue to grapple with the relationship of the present and future to the past. Like believers in their sister traditions, Judaism and Christianity, the critical question is the relationship of faith and tradition to change in a rapidly changing and pluralistic world. As Fazlur Rahman, a distinguished Muslim scholar, observed in Islam and Modernity (1982), Muslims need "some first-class minds who can interpret the old in terms of the new as regards substance and turn the new into the service of the old as regards ideals."
http://acc.teachmideast.org/texts.php?module_id=2&reading_id=211&sequence=10
Thursday, June 6, 2013
Muslim Texts from 622 - 691 CE / 1 - 72 AH
Dated Muslim Texts From 1-72 AH / 622-691 CE:
Documentary Evidence For Early Islam
M S M Saifullah & ʿAbdullah David
© Islamic Awareness, All Rights Reserved.
First Composed: 7th January 2007
Last Modified: 15th April 2013
Assalamu ʿalaykum wa rahamatullahi wa barakatuhu:
A host of recent publications have challenged the traditional view of the development of Islam. For example, Christoph Luxenberg has attempted to show that the Qur'an was drafted in a mixed Aramaic-Arabic tongue and based upon Christian Aramaic texts, contrary to the traditional view of its composition in Arabic or derived from Arabian religious traditions.[1] On the other hand, Yehuda Nevo argued that the religious beliefs of the early Arabs constituted paganism along with 'a very simple form of monotheism with Judaeo-Christian overtones'.[2] There is no doubt that the study of early Islamic history is contentious among the Western scholars,[3] where agreement about various issues is quite rare. In this kind of a situation, one might expect that the existing documents such as papyri, coins and inscriptions will be taken into account while formulating a hypothesis. Unfortunately, such has not been the case and the result of which is often the proposal of extravagant hypotheses on the origins of Islam.[4] What makes this situation particularly bizarre is that the Western scholars have access to what can be called a treasure-trove of documentary evidence when compared with other major world religions. Judaeo-Christian scholars studying the earliest Christian artefacts are presently unable to call forward even a single item of documentary evidence from the first one hundred years of Christianity and beyond.[5]
Our aim here is quite modest. It is to simply present the corpus of dated Muslim writings along with their contents from 1-72 AH / 622-691 CE. These writings include inscriptions, coins and papyri. By just going through their content, the reader would be able to establish certain landmarks and conclusions. Why the date 72 AH? This is because when we come to the Marwanid period, the dated Islamic texts become much more numerous and with varied content. After this period the citations from the Qur'an also begin to appear.
The list below is based on Robert Hoyland's collection[6] with some additions from our side.
List Of Dated Muslim Texts From 1-72 AH / 622-691 CE
Various demand notices and receipts on papyri (in Greek and Arabic or Greek only), Egypt, 22 AH / December 642 CE onwards.Opening formulae: bism Allāh / en onomati tou theou ("In the name of God"); bism Allāh al-raḥmān al-raḥīm. ("In the name of Allāh, the Compassionate, the Merciful"); syn theō ("With God").
Papyri ERF No. 552, containing an acknowledgement for receipt of six nomismata by ʿUbayd ibn ʿUmar, concludes kai eirēnē soi apo theou ("And the peace from God be upon you"). Papyri ERF Nos. 552-573 are dated between 22 AH and 57 AH (except for 572, which may be later). For Papyri ERF 558, click here.
Kataba salmah thalāthah wa-ʿishrīn.
Salmah wrote in twenty-three.
Bism Allāh anā Zuhayr katabt zaman tuwuffiya ʿUmar sanat arbaʿ wa-ʿishrīn
In the name of God, I Zuhayr wrote [this] at the time ʿUmar died in the year twenty-four.
Taraḥḥama Allāh ʿalam Yazīd ibn ʿAbdallāh al-Salūlī wa-kataba fi Jumādā [kadhā] min sanat saba‘ wa-‘ishrīn.
May God have mercy on Yazīd ibn ʿAbdallāh al-Salūlī and he wrote [this] in Jumādā of the year twenty-seven.
Bism Allāh al-raḥmān al-raḥīm. hadhā l-qabr li-ʿAbd al-Raḥmān Ibn Khair al-Ḥajrī. Allahumma ighfir lahu wadkhulhi fī raḥma minka wa ātinā ma‘ahu. istaghfir lahu idhā qara’a hādha l-kitāb wa-qul amīn. wa-kutiba hādha l-kitāb fī Jumādā al-ākhar min sanat iḥdā wa-thalāthin.
In the name of Allāh, the Compassionate, the Merciful; this tomb belongs to ʿAbd al-Raḥmān Ibn Khair al-Ḥajrī. O Allāh, forgive him and make him enter into Thy mercy and make us go with him. (passer by) When reading this inscription ask pardon for him (the deceased) and say Amen! This inscription was written in Jumādā II of the year thirty-one.
All bear the legend bism Allāh ("In the name of God"), sometimes with additional words in Arabic and Persians.
All bear the legend lillāh ("Unto God").
Raḥmat Allāh wa barakatuhu ʿalā ʿAbd al-Raḥmān bin Khālid bin al-ʿĀs wa kutiba li-sanat arba‘īn.
Allah's mercy and blessing be upon ʿAbd al-Raḥmān bin Khālid bin al-ʿĀs, and written in the year forty.
Arabic tax demand notice (entagion) on marble, Andarin, northern Syria, from the time of Muʿāwiya (40–60 AH / 661–80 CE).Bism Allāh al-raḥmān al-raḥīm min al-Layth bin al-Diyāl ʿāmil al-amīr Muʿāwiya... ʿalā ard Qinnasrīn wa-ahlihi. takfi mukūs min iqlīm...
In the name of God the Compassionate, the Merciful: from al-Layth ibn al-Diyāl agent of the amīr Muʿāwiya ... over Qinnasrin and its people. You should meet in full the taxes of the district of...
Bism Allāh al-raḥmān al-raḥīm hadhā l-sadd li-ʿabd Allāh Muʿāwiya [kadham] amīr al-mu’minīn Allāhumma baraka [kadhā] lahu fihi rabb alsamawat [kadhā] wa-l-ard banahu [kadhā] Abū Raddād mawlā ʿAbdallāh ibn ʿAbbās bi-ḥawl Allāh wa-quwwatihi wa-qāma ʿalayhi Kathīr ibn al-Ṣalt wa-Abū Mūsā.
In the name of God the Compassionate the Merciful, this dam is on behalf of the servant of God Muʿāwiya commander of the believers. O God, bless him for it, Lord of the heavens and the earth. Abū Raddād client of ʿAbdallāh ibn ʿAbbās built it by the power and strength of God, and Kathīr ibn al-Ṣalt and Abū Mūsā oversaw it.
Greek: abdella Mouaouia amilalmoumnin
Arabic: ʿabd Allāh Muʿāwiya amīr al-mu’minīn
On the obverse is written in Persian Maawia amir i-wruishnikan ("Muʿāwiya, commander of the faithful"), and in Arabic bism Allāh ("In the name of God").
The dating formula is sanat qadā’ al-mu’minīn ("the year of the dispensation of the believers").
In the days of the servant of God Muʿāwiya, the commander of the faithful (abdalla Maavia amēra almoumenēn), the hot baths of the people there were saved and rebuilt by ʿAbd Allāh son of Abū Hāshim, the governor (Abouasemou symboulou), on the fifth of the month of December, on the second day (of the week), in the 6th year of the indiction, in the year 726 of the colony, according to the arabs (kata Arabas) the 42nd year, for the healing of the sick, under the care of Ioannes, the official of Gadara.
I, Philotheos the ape (village headman, protokometes), son of the late Houri, the man from Tjinela, swear by God Almighty and the well-being of ʿAmr not to have left out any man in our whole village from fourteen years (up) but to have accounted for him to your lordship. I, Ioustos, the komogrammateus (village scribe), swear by God Almighty and the well-being of ‘Amr not to have left out any man in our whole village but to have accounted for him to your lordship.
I, Philotheos, together with Esaias, the apes, and together with Apater the priest, the men from the village of Tjinela, we write, swearing by the name of God and the well-being of ʿAmr not to have left out any man in our village from fourteen years on; if you produce any we have left behind we will put them in our house. Sign of Philotheos the protokometes, he agrees. Sign of Esaias, he agrees. Apater, the humble priest, I agree.
Among those things ordered by the Commander of the Faithful Muʿāwiya to dismiss the amīr ʿAbd Allāh bin Amīr from the rule of al-Baṣra.
All bear the legend bism Allāh al-malik ("In the name of God, the King").
All bear the legend bism Allāh rabbī ("In the name of God, my Lord"), sometimes with additional words in Arabic and Persian.
Allahumma ighfir li-ʿAbd Allāh ibn Dayrām kutiba li-ʿarbaʿa layāl khalūn min Muḥarram min sanat sitt wa-arba‘īn.
O Allah grant pardon to ʿAbdalllāh bin Dayrām written when four nights had passed of [the month of] Muḥarram of the year forty-six.
Seven bilingual entagia, Nessana, 54-57 AH / 674-77 CE. Click here to view one of them.All begin Bism Allāh al-raḥmān al-raḥīm ("In the name of Allāh, the Compassionate, the Merciful").
All bear the legend: Bism Allāh rabb al-ḥukm ("In the name of God, the Lord of judgement").
Allāhumma ighfir li-Hadya ibn Alī ibn Hinayda wa-kutiba li-sanat ithnān wa-khamsīn.
O God, forgive Hadya ibn Alī ibn Hinayda, written in the year fifty-two.
The dating formula is sanat qadā’ al-mu’minīn ("the year of the dispensation of the believers").
Hadhā l-sadd li-ʿabd Allāh Muʿāwiya amīr al-mu’minīn banahuʿAbd Allāh ibn Ṣakhr bidhn Allāh li-sanat thaman wa khamsīn. Allahumma ighfir li-ʿabd Allāh Muʿāwiya amīr al-mu’minīn wa-thabbithu w-unṣurhu wa mattiʿ l-mu’minīn bihi. katabaʿAmr ibn Ḥabbāb.
This dam [belongs] to servant of God Muʿāwiya, commander of the believers. ʿAbdullāh b. Ṣakhr built it with the permission of Allāh, in the year fifty-eight. O Allāh, pardon servant of God Muʿāwiya, commander of the believers, and strengthen him, and make him victorious, and grant the commander of the believers the enjoyment of it. ʿAmr b. Habbāb wrote [it].
Obverse has the standard profile of Khusrau II and bears his name; reversal has usual Sassanian iconography (fire altar, stars and crescents etc.), but in the margin is written in Persian "Year one of Yazīd".
Bism Allāh al-raḥmān al-raḥīm. Allāh wa-kabbir kabīran wa-l-ḥamd lillāh kathīran. wa subḥān Allāh bukratan wa-asīlan wa-laylan tawīlan Allahumma rabb Jibrīl wa-Mīkā’īl wa Isrāfīl ighfir li-? ibn Yazīd al-As‘adī mā taqaddama min dhanbihi wa-mā ta'akhkhara wa-li-man qāla amīn amīn rabb al-ʿālamīn. wa-ktbt hādha l-kitāb fī Shawwāl min sanat arbaʿwa-sittīn.
In the name of Allah, the Merciful, the Compassionate. Allah is the greatest Great. May Allah be abundantly thanked and May Allah be praised morning and evening. O Lord of Gabriel, Michael and Isrāfīl, forgive Layth (?) Ibn Yazid al-Asʿadi his early sins and the ones that followed and (forgive) whoever says Amīn. Amīn, O Lord of the worlds. I wrote this inscription in (the month of)Shawwāl in the year sixty-four.
[ʿAbd] Allāh Marwān amīr al-mu’[min]īn mimmā amr.... fī ṭirāz ifrīqīyya.
[The servant of] God, Marwān, Commander of the Faithful. Of what was ordered... in the ṭirāz of Ifrīqīyya.
The legend is bism Allāh al-ʿazīz ("In the name of God, the Great").
The legend is bism Allāh Muḥammad rasūl Allāh ("In the name of God, Muḥammad is the Messenger of God").
An Arab-Sassanian coin of Muṣʿab ibn al-Zubayr, Basra, 66 AH (?) / 685-86 CE.The legend is muṣʿab ḥasbuhu Allāh ("Muṣʿab, God is his sufficiency").
Bilingual Greek–Arabic papyrus, release from labour contact, from Nessana, southern Palestine, 67 AH / 687 CE.Payment of money to release person from employ of al-Aswad ibn ʿAdī, who then returned part of the payment as alms: ṣadaqa ʿalayhi bi echarisato.
All have the legend lillāh al-ḥamd ("Unto God be praise").
Hādhihi l-qantara amara bihā ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz ibn Marwān al-amīr. Allahumma bārik lahu fī amrihi kullihi wa-thabbit sultānahu ‘alā mā tardā wa-aqarra ‘aynahu fī nafsihi wa-ḥashamihi amīn. wa-qāma bi-binā'ihā Saʿd Abū ʿUthmān wa-kataba ‘Abd al-Raḥmān fī Ṣafar sanat tisʿ wa sittīn.
This bridge was commissioned by the governor ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz ibn Marwān. O God, bless him in his affairs, strengthen his rule as You see fit and cheer him himself and his entourage, amīn. Saʿd Abū ʿUthmān undertook the building of it, and ʿAbd al-Raḥmān wrote [this] in Ṣafar of the year sixty-nine.
mimmā ʿumila bi-l-Baṣra sanat tisaʿ wa sittīn barakah min sanʿah ibn Yazīd.
Made in Basra in year sixty-nine, "barakah", crafted by Ibn Yazīd.
An Arab-Sassanian coin of the Kharijite rebel Qatarī ibn al-Fujāʾa, Bīshāpūr, 69 AH / 688-89 CE. A coin of Qatarī ibn al-Fujāʾa from 75 AH / 694-695 CE is shown here.It bears the typically Kharijite slogan lā ḥukm illā lillāh ("Judgement belongs to God alone"), prefixed with bism Allāh. And written in Persian: "Servant of God, Ktri, commander of the faithful".
Obverse field: The legend in Middle Persian reads MHMT PGTAMI Y DAT ("Muḥammad is the Messenger of God"). Obverse margin: bism Allāh walī / al-Amr ("In the name of God, the Master / of affairs").
An Arab-Sassanian coin of the Umayyad governer of Basra Khālid ibn ‘Abd Allāh, Bīshāpūr, 71 AH / 690-91 CE.The legend is bism Allāh Muḥammad rasūl Allāh ("In the name of God, Muḥammad is the messenger of God").
In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate. The greatest calamity of the people of Islām (ahl al-Islām) is that which has fallen them on the death of Muḥammad the Prophet; may God grant him peace. This is the tomb of ʿAbāssa daughter of Juraij (?), son of (?). May clemency, forgiveness and satisfaction of God be on her. She died on Monday, fourteen days having elapsed from Dhul-Qaʿdah of the year seventy-one, confessing that there is no god but God alone without partner and that Muḥammad is His servant and His apostle, may God grant him peace.
References
[1] C. Luxenberg, Die syro-aramäische Lesart des Koran: Ein Beitrag zur Entschlüsselung der Koransprache, 2000, Das Arabische Book: Berlin.
[2] Y. Nevo & J. Koren, Crossroads To Islam: The Origins Of The Arab Religion And The Arab State, 2003, Prometheus Books: New York, pp. 10-11. Also see their earlier works Y. D. Nevo, "Towards A Prehistory Of Islam", Jerusalem Studies In Arabic And Islam, 1994, Volume 17, pp. 108-141; J. Koren & Y. Nevo, "Methodological Approaches To Islamic Studies", 1991, Der Islam, Volume 68, pp. 87-107.
[3] The most commonly quoted controversial Western scholars who attempted to reconstruct the early Islamic history are Patricia Crone and Michael Cook (Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World, 1977, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge) and John Wansbrough (Qur’anic Studies: Sources & Methods Of Scriptural Interpretation, 1977, Oxford University Press; idem., The Sectarian Milieu: Content & Composition Of Islamic Salvation History, 1978, Oxford University Press).
[4] Even those sober publications which do make extensive use of the early dated corpus of evidence can inadvertently ignore some vital pieces of evidence. For example, whilst commending Beatrice Gruendler’s thorough use of the early dated Arabic texts in her volume The Development Of The Arabic Scripts: From The Nabatean Era To The First Islamic Century According To Dated Texts[1993, Harvard Semitic Series No. 43, Scholars Press: Atlanta (GA)], Healey and Rex-Smith note that vital pieces of paleographic evidence are still absent. Specifically, with regard to coins, glass weights and stamps they lament, “for how much longer will these essential pieces of palaeographic evidence be forgotten?” See J. F. Healey and G. Rex-Smith, "Beatrice Gruendler, The Development Of The Arabic Scripts: From The Nabatean Era To The First Islamic Century According To Dated Texts", Journal Of Semitic Studies, 1995, Volume XL, No. 1, p. 177.
[5] L. W. Hurtado, The Earliest Christian Artifacts: Manuscripts And Christian Origins, 2006, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.: Grand Rapids (MI), pp. 2-4. The earliest extant Christian inscriptions are from the third century CE. The earliest extant example of a Christian Church is from the third century CE. Hurtado says [p. 3]:
… Among these pre-Constantinian manuscripts, a small but growing number are dated as early as the second century, and these second-century manuscripts now constitute the earliest extant artifacts of Christianity.
[6] R. Hoyland, Seeing Islam As Others Saw It: A Survey And Evaluation Of Christian, Jewish And Zoroastrian Writings On Early Islam, 1997, Studies in Late Antiquity and Early Islam - 13, The Darwin Press, Inc.: Princeton (NJ), pp. 688-695; More recently, he has added some more sources to this corpus, see R. Hoyland, "New Documentary Texts And The Early Islamic State", Bulletin Of The School Of Oriental And African Studies, 2006, Volume 69, No. 3, pp. 411-416.
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Inscriptions/earlyislam.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)