Down in the The Hollow: Support for the Back Porch Discussions

Resources for "What is Islam" Discussion

2008-01-12T19:10:00.001-08:00

This first Hollow resource post is for the

WHAT IS ISLAM? discussion on the BACK Porch.

There will be three essays:

I. Islam as a religious-political-military system (inside what Islam teaches)

II. Islam & the West (A Brief History)

III. Judaism, Christianity and Islam (distinctive beliefs thereof)

Historical Timeline Here

Qur'an online:
http://www.oneummah.net/quran/quran.html
(English and Arabic)

The Qur'an (Koran) is believed by Muslims to be the preeminent holy book. For Muslims the text is uncreated, that is, it is of Allah purely and unchanged by men. They accept it as the literal word of Allah dictated in Arabic. Many Muslims hold that any translation into other languages constitutes blasphemy. Despite this understanding, the text has been translated into numerous other languages.

Note: The Qur'an internally describes itself as an Arabic text. (Sura 43:3). For this reason some insist that this means no other language can accurately portray the text. Contrast any "difficulty" understanding the original Arabic to the similar challenge of the Old Testament written in the Hebrew alphabet and the translations of Aramaic and Hebrew texts into other languages. Objective research recognizes that attempts to dispel troubling verses as misinterpretations of the Arabic meaning of the Qur'an are simply means to deflect criticism on the most contentions of the verses.

Furthermore the practical reality is that the majority of Muslims are not Arabs and do NOT speak Arabic, much less the so-called Classical Arabic of the 8th-9th century when the oral tradition was standardized in written form.

There are 133 million Pakistani, 200 million Indonesian, 65 million Turks, 92 million Indiana, and 60 million Iranians who profess Islam yet do not speak Arabic. Only 150 million adherents are native Arabic speakers. Thus, most who follow the Qur'an do not read it or "know" it in Arabic.

The Qur'an is not chronological, nor thematic. Mohamed informed his followers that an angel dictated the Qur'an to him. Mohamed then recited what he had heard and directed his followers to memorize the recitations as well. The term "Qur'an" means "the recitation." Over the period of some years, as the dictations occurred, Mohamed's recitations grew into what is now 114 sections called "suras." It is approximately the length of the New Testament. After the death of Mohamed his followers repeated the recitations as they prayed and taught others of the Qur'an.

Within a century following Mohamed's death a number of commentaries on the meaning of the Qur'an's various verses and commands were circulating throughout the Arabian Peninsula. Some of the commentaries have a clear political purpose--indeed there were factions engaged in violent struggle to control and direct the new religion. (see Sunni and Shiia in the GLOSSARY) When the recitations were collected and written down to standardize the texts, the longest recitations were given first--again, note that to read the Qur'an is not to follow a chronological or thematic order.

There is no one authority for the definitive interpretation of the Qur'an. Unsurprisingly, various sects within Islam interpret texts with different emphasis or even diverse meanings. Thus, religious leaders can (and do) cite various Qur'anic texts to prohibit or justify their version of a holy practice.

Islamic Glossary

Note: There are many online glossaries for Islamic terms. Most are offered by Islamic groups and are defensive in tone due to 9-11-01. Impartiality is difficult where a glossary is provided by Islamic sites because the Sunni version differs from the Shia version somewhat.

Some are offered by universities with Islamic studies. Some are the work of Christian groups, Jewish groups and some are posted by individuals.

For the purposes of impartiality, the careful researcher would select a glossary that is pre 9-11-01. It is difficult to separate a political agenda from the definitions given after the World Trade Towers were attacked.

This GLOSSARY is a composite taken from both Islamic and secular sources PRE-9-11.

Because Arabic uses a different alphabet, all spellings are an English version of the phonetic pronunciation. This is why you will see several spellings for the Qur'an/ Koran. For our purposes, the spelling of each term is confined to one version after the initial listing where several versions may appear.

(B/T) Biographical material and Traditions are taken from various sources:

Muhammed ibn Ismaiel Al-Bukhari, The Translations of the Meanings, translated by Darussalam, et al., 1997.

Ibn Kathir, Commentary on the Qur'an, 1997.

Maxime Rodinson, Muhammad,1971.

Ibn Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah, (tr.Guillame) Oxford University Press, 1955.

MAPS

Stanford University maps of Islamic study

MSNBC Interactive Map of Islam in Europe:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12757599/

Bibliography (in progress)

(not in Alphabetical order )

Books:
The Qur'an
What the Koran Really Says (Ibn Warraq)
What Went Wrong (Bernard Lewis)
Jihad (Paul Fergosi)
The Middle East (Bernard Lewis)
Islam (Karen Armstrong)
The Bookseller of Kabul (Asne Seierstad)
The Legacy of Jihad (Andrew G. Bostom, MD)
Nine Parts of Desire: The hidden world of Islamic Women (Geraldine Brooks)
Reading Lolita in Tehran (Azar Nafisi)
The Force of Reason (Oriana Fallaci)
Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis (Bat Ye'or)
Why I am Not A Muslim (Ibn Warraq)
Islam Unveiled (Robert Spencer)
Veiled and Silenced (Alvin Schmidt)
Infidel (Ayan Hirsi Ali)
Future Jihad (Walid Phares)
Religion of Peace? (Robert Spencer)
Menace in Europe (Claire Berlinski)
The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam (Bat Ye'or)
The West and the Rest ( Roger Scruton)
Islamic Imperialism: A History (Efraim Karsh)
Londonistan (Melanie Phillips)

Return to Back Porch Discussion

As websites are quoted, they will be listed and linked.

Articles:

"Muslims Attack Buddha"

from UK Telegraph

(Point of story: demonstrates Islamic contempt for other faiths,
but demanding respect for their own)

Islamist radicals in Pakistan have attempted to destroy an ancient carving of Buddha by drilling holes in the rock and filling them with dynamite.


	The Buddha is thought to date from the seventh century AD

The 23ft high image was damaged during the attack, which brought back memories of the Taliban's destruction six years ago of the giant Buddhas at Bamiyan, in neighbouring Afghanistan.

The Buddha, in the Swat district of north-west Pakistan, is thought to date from the seventh century AD and was considered the largest in Asia, after the two Bamiyan Buddhas.

The explosion on Monday night damaged the upper part of the rock.

Pakistani troops have stepped up recent operations against militants in the fertile Swat valley, where thousands of locals are in thrall to Mullah Fazlullah, a rabble-rousing cleric who has called for suicide attacks and holy war. Fazlullah's men have continued to wage an offensive against what they deem 'un-Islamic' activity, last week blowing up dozens of music, video and cosmetics stalls at a market.

US intelligence officials claim that al-Qa'eda has also been able to extend its influence to the region from beyond lawless tribal areas of Pakistan.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/11/wpak111.xml

* * * * * *

"Islamic Violence in Indonesia"

(UK Telegraph)

(point of story is to demonstrate that Islamic violence is not a response to America's presence in Iraq, but a constant feature wherever a large population of Muslims live)

FRESH violence erupted in the Poso area of Sulawesi on Nov 27, reigniting a three-year-old conflict between Muslims and Christians in the area and forcing thousands to flee.

The unrest was stoked in part by the arrival of Muslim militants, especially the Java-based Laskar Jihad (Jihad Force), whose leader claims to have fought against the former Soviet Union in Afghanistan and whose men have battled Christians in the Maluku islands. It is unclear whether his group is part of the al-Qa'eda network, or whether it merely admires Osama bin Laden, whose image adorns walls in the town.

Foreigners can get through to Poso now but a few days ago it was not so easy. Armed men at "jihad" roadblocks checked the identity papers of those coming through. There were reports of abduction or on-the-spot killing if an identity card showed the owner to be a Christian. All along the coast are burnt-out homes and largely untended cocoa plantations.

The Indonesian government rushed in hundreds of police reinforcements, but the barricades could soon be back - Indonesia 's security forces have been outgunned several times in this conflict." www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/12/10/windo10.xml

* * * * *
"Dhimmitude: Oppression of non-Muslim residents."

"Dhimmitude is the status that Islamic law, the Sharia, mandates for non-Muslims, primarily Jews and Christians. Dhimmis, "protected people," are free to practice their religion in a Sharia regime, but are made subject to a number of humiliating regulations designed to enforce the Qur'an's command that they "feel themselves subdued" (Sura 9:29). This denial of equality of rights and dignity remains part of the Sharia, and, as such, is part of the law that global jihadists are laboring to impose everywhere, ultimately on the entire human race.

The dhimmi attitude of chastened subservience has entered into Western academic study of Islam, and from there into journalism, textbooks, and the popular discourse. One must not point out the depredations of jihad and dhimmitude; to do so would offend the multiculturalist ethos that prevails everywhere today."

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/

Return to Back Porch Discussion

###############################################

Below is a comment submitted in the combox Dec 14th 2007 to the Back Porch discussion of Islam. This comment was created by combining published articles from the Mid East Online and Media Monitors. It contains a large amount of an essay by Louay Safi , the editor of Journal of Islamic Social Sciences. (In Aunty's view Safi is a militant Islamic apologist whose writings are filled anti-Semitic rhetoric. )

The material was submitted by an anonymous reader.

* * *

President Bush reacting to the unearthing of the alleged bombing plot over the Atlantic August 10 remarked: "This nation is at war with Islamic fascists who will use any means to destroy those of us who love freedom, to hurt our nation."

On Aug. 7, during a press conference from his ranch in Texas, he said terrorists "try to spread their jihadist message - a message I call ... Islamic radicalism, Islamic fascism". A moment later, he said "Islamo-fascism" was an "ideology that is real and profound". White House spokesman Tony Snow told the “Atlanta Journal-Constitution” Aug. 11 that the president will continue to use the phrase.

This is not the first time that Bush and members of his Administration have used this deliberate coupling of Islam with evil ideologies or actions, such as fascism or terrorism. Bush referred to “Islamo-fascism” in his address to the National Endowment for Democracy, Oct. 6, 2005. Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) addressing Christians United for Israel (CUFI) held their first Washington-Israel Summit in Washington D.C., July 2006, declaring “Islamic fascism is a mosaic…”

Media baron Rupert Murdoch pontificated in Sydney, Australia June 26, 2006: "You have to be careful about Muslims who have a very strong, in many ways a fine, but very strong religion which supercedes any sense of nationalism wherever they go."
The term is coined, and was initially used, by radical Zionist pundits and their allies in the Far Right, and is intended to drive a wedge between Western and Muslim communities. The fact that it is already being used by President Bush and his top lieutenant underscore the extent to which Islamophobia is gradually creeping into public discourse.

Blaming Islam and Muslims for the rise of terrorism that threatens the U.S. and the West is at the heart of the strategy developed by individuals and groups whose systemic attacks on Islam and Muslims, borne out of either ignorance or hatred, constitute the recent and painful reality : Islamophobia.

Islamophobia reflects an attitude and a posture normally associated with the Far Right, but that has been creeping slowly to the center of political debate. Islam and Muslims are separated out from the citizenry and increasingly presented as a problem to be addressed and a question to be tackled. The last time a world religion was considered a problem and a question was in late-nineteenth-century Europe. Then, the “Jewish Question” was widely debated by both the enlightened and bigots among European thinkers.

Islamophobia is a strategic weapon in the campaign to marginalize Muslim Americans by ideological extremists and paranoid bigots. On one level, Islamophobia stems from ignorance, deception, and misrepresentation. On a deeper level, however, it stems from a very basic human instinct to dominate, exploit, and abuse, combined with a unscrupulous attitude that refuse to recognize moral principles and boundaries. While Islamophobia has existed for centuries, perhaps the term became public in Europe in the 1990s. Today, some are recognizing this creeping disease may even be prompted to confront it. In 2001, some concerned Britons formed The Forum Against Islamophobia and Racism (FAIR); and in Dec. 2004, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan hosted a seminar on “Confronting Islamophobia: Education for Tolerance and Understanding”.

The Council of Europe defines Islamophobia as "the fear of or prejudiced viewpoint towards Islam, Muslims and matters pertaining to them". Matti Bunzl, Associate Professor Department of Anthropology University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign, in his paper “Between anti-Semitism and Islamophobia: Some thoughts on the new Europe” (“American Ethnologist” 32(4): 499-508) argues: “Whereas traditional anti-Semitism has run its historical course with the supersession of the nation-state, Islamophobia threatens to become the defining condition of the new Europe.”

In Britain, the term “Islamophobia” was not used in government policy until 1997, when the race relations think tank Runnymede Trust published the report “Islamophobia: A Challenge For Us All”. In a section entitled The Nature of Islamophobia, the report itemizes eight features that Runnymede attributed to Islamophobia:

• Islam is seen as a monolithic bloc, static and unresponsive to change.
• Islam is seen as separate and “other”. It does not have values in common with other cultures, is not affected by them and does not influence them.
• Islam is seen as inferior to the West. It is seen as barbaric, irrational, primitive, and sexist.
• Islam is seen as violent, aggressive, threatening, supportive of terrorism, and engaged in a Clash of Civilizations [an idea enunciated by and latter elaborated by Samuel P. Huntington, with the publication of his book, “The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order” Simon & Schuster; 1998].
• Islam is seen as a political ideology, used for political or military advantage.
• Criticisms made of 'the West' by Islam are rejected out of hand.
• Hostility towards Islam is used to justify discriminatory practices towards Muslims and exclusion of Muslims from mainstream society.
• Anti-Muslim hostility is seen as natural and normal.

The twentieth century witnessed great struggles all over the world to overcome bigotry and racism, and to create more open and inclusive societies in which different races, ethnicities, and religions live side-by-side and cooperate for the betterment of society. After many devastating tragedies and wars, including two world wars that wiped out more than 80 million people, a holocaust, and a long civil rights struggle, chauvinism, racism, and bigotry were finally condemned, though not totally rejected. By the mid-twentieth century, the concept that individuals must be treated on the basis of their individual characters and actions, and that no individual or group should be targeted on the basis of religious, ethnic, racial, or national affiliations became widely accepted.

Therefore, the recent efforts that aim at presenting Islam as a challenge and Muslims who practice their faith as a problem are both disheartening and disquieting. They represent a dangerous move to reverse human progress and return to the age of outright racism and intolerance. This renewed focus on Islam as a problem has been justified by invoking security concerns. Many voices, particularly within the U.S. policymaking community, either out of ignorance or prejudice, decided to place the blame for terrorism squarely at the door of Islam.

The decision to ignore complex and painful realities that give rise to discord and tension between Western and Muslim countries, and to blame it all on a major world religion and its practitioners, will only exacerbate an already dire situation. This exercise in self-delusion can only distract us from confronting the real sources of the concerns on both sides and delay the efforts to bring forth a permanent and lasting solution. Meanwhile, tremendous resources are wasted, and the credibility and prestige of the United States are being undermined.

The failure to understand the profound changes taking place in the Muslim world is not simply a matter of ignorance and lack of insight into Muslim cultures, but a reflection of the bewildering stubbornness of neoconservative analysts in the U.S. and Europe, and their comfort in employing the archaic Orientalist attitudes and tools to analyze relationships between the West and the Muslim world. Muslims are not awarded the dignity of equal human beings with intrinsic values and legitimate concerns, but are often presented as thoughtless and violent masses incapable of articulating their conditions and solving their problems. Consequently, no effort is made to initiate dialogue and exchange, and all energy is focused on devising strategies for the manipulation and control of the Muslim world.

Many self-proclaimed experts on Islam continue to behave as if Islam and Muslims are a distant part of reality and an external problem to address, rather than partners for dealing with common problems and challenges. An increasing number of Muslims are proud Americans, serving American society as professors, businessmen, medical doctors, engineers, lawyers, sport stars, firefighters, police officers, and teachers. Many experts in Middle East and Islamic Studies departments have their ancestral roots in Middle Eastern and Muslim cultures. Many Muslim Americans are active in the debate on how best to bridge the divide, or at least change the perceptions of a divide, between the Muslim world and the West.

The Far Right

In Islamophobia, the Extreme Right has finally found a clever way to arrest America’s march toward asserting its foundational principles of equality, religious freedom, and the rule of law. Their strategy is to transform the war on terror into a war against Islam and use security needs to subvert constitutional protections. The Extreme Right draws its ranks from the fringes of the Christian Right and the neoconservatives, particularly those who see in the indigenization of Islam and the presence of authentic Muslim voices in the U.S. a direct threat to their ability to manipulate the public and promote their narrow religious and foreign policy agendas.

The 9/11/2001 tragedy has given a new impetus to the campaign against Islam and Muslims, as the Far Right discovered that the climate of heightened fear and uncertainty provides an exceptional opportunity to advance their bigoted and racist agenda under the guise of patriotism. They have focused in the last four years on turning Islam into an enemy. In their efforts to demonize Islam and Muslims, they have persistently advanced two themes: (1) that Islam is intolerant, violent, and anti-western, and must not, therefore, be allowed a legitimate place in American society, and (2) that Muslim Americans who assert their Islamic identity, and express positive views of Islam cannot be trusted, and must be chastised and marginalized.

Although their fanatical views were initially rejected by mainstream America, the post-9/11 environment of confusion and fear provided them with a unique opportunity to advance their racist agenda. Their views and arguments have steadily gained more receptive ears among key agencies and leaders in the Bush administration. Not only have they succeeded in creating doubts in the White House and the Congress about mainstream Muslim American organizations and leaders, but they, evidently, have succeeded in injecting their language into the political discourse of public institutions and government agencies. Senior administration figures have moved from calling the current war against groups involved in indiscriminate killing of civilians a war on “terrorism” to a war on “Islamic terrorism,” “Islamist terrorism,” and “radical Islam.” Most recently, top leaders in the Bush administration, including George Bush, Condoleezza Rice, and Donald Rumsfeld have accepted the argument, popular among the Extreme Right that the war on terror aims at preventing Muslim extremists from establishing an “Islamic Caliphate” and an “Islamic Empire.”

Have the Extreme Right succeeded in pushing their extremist views on Islam and Muslim into mainstream political discourse? Are those who want to turn the war on terror into a war on Islam getting the ears of government agencies and political leaders? And what can we do to expose the Extreme Right’s deceptions and bring peace to a world that continues to drift toward turmoil and upheaval?

Demonizing Islam

Ever since George Bush, rushing to defuse the post 9/11 tension, described Islam as “a religion of peace,” the Far Right sprung to action to challenge the Administration’s position and to generate ill-will toward Islam and Muslims in the U.S. and Europe. The anti-Islam fanatics have been working hard to demonize Islam and marginalize Muslim Americans. Using their propaganda machinery, and occasionally likeminded individuals in key governmental agencies, the Extreme Right have been able to confuse the public about Islam and Muslims, by using half-truths, innuendos, and sheer fabrications and lies.

Their tactics of confusing the public, painting all Muslims as potential terrorists, and presenting Islam as the source of hate and violence have brought them limited successes, including profiling of Muslims in airports, smearing the good name of mainstream Muslim American organizations, and intimidating Muslim leaders and activists through repeated interviews by security agencies.

The anti-Islam fanatics have made it known that they are not happy with their limited success, and continue to drive at a complete crackdown by law enforcement agencies on all forms of Muslim organizations. They seem to have made a breakthrough if a recent report by Paul Perry, an anti-Islam writer, turns to be correct. Perry, the author of “Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives have Penetrated Washington” (Nelson Current; 2005), reported that a Pentagon’s intelligence agency, the Counterintelligence Field Activity (CIFA), has embarked on a project to understand Islam by studying the Qur’an and the life of Prophet Muhammad. Citing an internal document allegedly obtained from CIFA, Perry contends that the CIFA document “notes that unlike Judaism and Christianity, Islam advocates expansion by force. The final command of jihad, as revealed to Muhammad in the Qur’an, is to conquer the world in the name of Islam. The defense briefing adds that Islam is also unique in classifying unbelievers as "standing enemies against whom it is legitimate to wage war.

"Muhammad's behaviors today would be defined as radical," Perry quotes the document, “and Muslims today are commanded by their ‘militant’ holy book to follow his example. It adds: Western leaders can no longer afford to overlook the ‘cult characteristics of Islam.’"

Perry further contends that the CIFA document “ties Muslim charity to war. Zakat, the alms-giving pillar of Islam, is described in the briefing as ‘an asymmetrical war-fighting funding mechanism,’ which in English translates to: combat support under the guise of tithing.”

It is shocking to learn that a public agency can sink to this level unless it is fed by the anti-Islam campaign. While Perry’s words cannot be trusted, Americans worried about abuse of public agencies for turning the war on terror into a war on Islam cannot afford to take chances. The Extreme Right has already succeeded in persuading the Bush administration to appoint a war monger to the United State Institute of Peace (USIP), and it took a great effort to make the divisive agenda of Daniel Pipes clear to the USIP board, leading to his demise as a USIP director.

Cloaked Racism

The events that shook the U.S. on 9/11/2001 represent a watershed for the anti-Islam campaign. The brutality of these attacks, and the indiscriminate terror unleashed by the fanatics, has raised many questions in the mind of Americans about the connection between Islam and terrorism. American interest in understanding Islam and deciphering the connection between the act of terrorism and the Islamic faith led to a sharp increase in the number of books published on Islam. While few of the books published since 9/11 provide a balanced views of Islam’s teachings and history, most aim at demonizing Islam and Muslims. Of the 30 bestsellers by Amazon.com, by far the largest online distributor, 19 promote views that range between the negative and abusive, while 8 advance more favorable views of Islam. Three books offer neutral views on Islam. The eight positive books include two translations of the Qur’an and two on the renowned Muslim mystic Al Rumi. The anti-Islam books that dominate the Amazon bestsellers include books by well-known hate mongers and Muslim bashers who made careers out of demonizing Islam and attacking Muslims, including Robert Spencer, David Horowitz, Tony Blankley, and Steven Emerson. At the heart of the writings of these four, and other collaborators, is a racist strategy whose aim is to persuade American leaders, and the public at large, that Islam is the enemy and that Muslims cannot be trusted.

The authors of anti-Islam books are not scholars who are objectively interested in understanding Islam and Muslims, but a group of activists who deeply committed to promoting an expansionist foreign policy. They perceive world politics as a zero-sum game that requires the U.S. to use its military power against present and future competitors. They have consistently presented Muslim countries as incapable of democratic rule, and Islamic values as antithetical to world peace and religious diversity.

To ensure that their views are not challenged by the academic community, the Extreme Right has been working hard to undermine academic freedom and intimidate scholars with balanced views of the Middle East. Martin Kramer’s “Ivory Towers on Sand: The Failure of Middle Eastern Studies in America”, published by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP -- October 2001) is a diatribe against Middle East Studies in U.S. universities, and Daniel Pipes’ Campus Watch, an organization devoted to smearing professors critical of U.S. foreign policy and Tel Aviv’s treatment of Palestinians, have initiated a new campaign that aims at intimidating free thinking on the Middle East and silencing any views that challenge the Extreme Right’s propaganda. Stanford professor Joel Beinin (“Le Monde diplomatique”, Spring 2006) described WINEP as pro-Tel Aviv think tank.

Concerted Efforts to misrepresent Islam

The anti-Islam campaign is carried by self-appointed experts who have little understanding of Islam and Muslims, yet are bent on depicting the faith of 1/5th of humanity as intolerant, violent, and anti-western. Having little insight into Muslim societies and Islamic faith, and history, they often rely on the crude and faulty logic of generalization about Muslims from the experiences of fringe Muslim groups, and of reading Islamic texts out of context, both the socio-political and the discursive.

Robert Spencer, a prolific anti-Islam writer and a leading Islamophobe who is bent on distorting Islam and demonizing Muslims, has persistently argued that violence and terrorism employed by Muslim extremists is rooted in the Qur’an and its message. Spencer calls the Qur’an, “the jihadists’ Mein Kampf,” in reference to Hitler’s memoir. He blames the Qur’an for giving impetus to the terrorist open war against the West. He declares: “So is the Qur'an the Mein Kampf of the totalitarian, supremacist movement that is the global Islamic jihad? If we take seriously the words of the book itself and how they are used by jihadists, then it clearly is their inspiration and justification” (FrontPageMagazine.com December 8, 2005). Spencer contends: “Nor are these jihadists misrepresenting, twisting, or hijacking what the Qur’an says. There are over a hundred verses in the Qur’an that exhort believers to wage jihad against unbelievers. ‘O Prophet! Strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell, an evil refuge indeed’ (Sura 9:73). ‘Strive hard’ in Arabic is jahidi, a verbal form of the noun jihad. This striving was to be on the battlefield: “When you meet the unbelievers in the battlefield, strike off their heads and, when you have laid them low, bind your captives firmly” (Qur’an 47:4). This is emphasized repeatedly: ‘O ye who believe! Fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you: and know that Allah is with those who fear Him.’ (Qur’an 9:123).”

Spencer picks few out of the hundreds verses that deal with issues of peace and war, and misrepresents Islam by arguing that the Qur’an directs Muslims to fight non-Muslims on the account of having different faith. He does that by obscuring both the textual and historical contexts of the verses he cites. The Qur’an is unequivocal that fighting is a last resort and is permitted to repulse aggression and stop oppression and abuse: “A declaration of disavowal from God and His Messenger to those of the polytheists (Arab pagans) with whom you contracted a Mutual alliance.” (9:1)

The reason for this war against the pagans was their continuous fight and conspiracy against the Muslims to turn them out of Medina as they had been turned out of Makkah, and their infidelity to and disregard for the covenant they had made with the Muslims: “Why you not fight people who violated their oaths, plotted to expel the Messenger, and attacked you first” (9:13). Out of the hundreds of the Qur’anic verses left out of Spencer’s discussion are those that direct Muslims to initiate fighting only to repel aggression while urging them to seek peace when the other party seeks peace: “Fight in the way of God those who fight you, but do not commit aggression, for God loves not aggressors. And fight them wherever you meet them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for persecution is worse than slaughter. But if they cease, God is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. And fight them on until there is no oppression and the religion is only for God, but if they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression.” (2:190-193)

The Specter of Islamic Empire

In an effort to link extremism to the larger Muslim communities and organizations, the Extreme Right has repeatedly exaggerated the size of extremists among Muslims, and obscured their identity and the political conditions leading to their emergence. In order to instill fear of Islam in the heart of Americans and Europeans, the Far Right contends that mainstream Muslim communities and organizations in the West are part of a global movement with wild aspirations and grandiose design to control the world and impose institutions and laws borrowed from 7th century Muslim society. It is true that fringe groups within Muslim societies espouse literalist views of Islamic sources and history. Yet the Far Right not only fails in identifying these groups as the exception to the rule, but they have erroneously presented them as the only voice in Muslim communities.

Similarly, mainstream Muslim organizations are depicted as supportive of global terrorism and Muslim American leaders and activists as fifth column. These organizations have been the target of a smear campaigns in which innuendo, half-truth, and guilt by association have been employed to undermine and disrupt their efforts to integrate the Muslim American community into mainstream American society.

In the last three years, mainstream Muslim organizations have been the subject of rough treatment by law enforcement agencies under the urging of the Far Right. In 2002 the offices of the Fiqh Council of North America (FCNA), the highest Muslim religious authority in the North America, and the Graduate School of Islamic and Social Sciences (GSISS), a major Muslim institution of higher learning for training Muslim chaplains, were raided by federal agents, led by an agent of the customs service who apparently relied heavily on information provided by the Steven Emerson’s Investigative Project and his former assistant Rita Katz’s SITE Institute. Although the raids were publicized as an important operation in the war on terrorism, three years after the offices of these, and other Muslim institutions were searched and hundreds of documents confiscated, no criminal charges were returned, and the Justice and Homeland Security Departments made no apology.

In June 2003, the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism and Government Information held a series of hearings on radicalization of Muslim inmates. Several Extreme Right spokesmen accused Muslim chaplains of promoting radical views. Indeed, the anti-Islam pressure groups succeeded in persuading Sen. Schumer (D-NY) that GSISS and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) have been promoting “Wahhabi Islam” and demanded that the Justice Department conduct an investigation to uncover “radical” Islamic activities in federal prisons. A year later, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the Justice Department issued a report that showed that, contrary to these claims, Muslim chaplains made a positive impact and brought balanced and moderate teachings to Muslim inmates, and that radicalization was more likely in prisons where inmates did not have Muslim chaplains. Federal correction facilities officials further testified that, contrary to the claims of the self-proclaimed experts who provided Sen. Schumer with erroneous information, “ISNA is a moderate, mainstream, non-Wahhabist, Islamic organization that encompasses Muslims from several Islamic sects.”

In Dec. 2003, the Senate Finance Committee listed Muslim organizations and charities on a suspect list, and asked the IRS to provide financial records to uncover alleged support for global terrorism. Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) stated in an interview with the “Indianapolis Star” that his committee “did not find anything alarming enough that required additional follow-up beyond what law enforcement is already doing.” A week later, the Committee, apparently under pressure from the Extreme Right, issued a press release, reversing Grassley’s statement, and contending that the fact that Committee’s conclusion of reviewing the information it received from the IRS “does not mean that these groups have been cleared by the committee."

Creeping Islamophobia

Islamophobia is no more the attitude of the marginal extremists, as it has colored the writings and analyses of mainstream research organization such as the RAND Corporation and Freedom House. The RAND report on Islam (Cheryl Benard: “Civil Democratic Islam: Partners, Resources, and Strategies”; 2004; and the 567-page study “The Muslim World After 9/11”; 2004) makes no efforts to seriously engage authentic Arab and Muslim voices for more accurate information on Islam and Muslim Americans. The same attitude permeates other think tanks and policy formation groups.

In an 89-page study, published in 2005 under the title, “Saudi Publications on Hate Ideology Fill American Mosques,” the Freedom House made sweeping and largely inaccurate generalizations about Muslim Americans. After collecting a few copies of some Saudi publications that their researchers alleged were found on the library shelves of fifteen mosques, they accused mosques across the nation of promoting hate. The Freedom House found it quite permissible to smear every mosque in the U.S. without conducting a single interview, or inquiring about the reasons and circumstances of carrying questionable Saudi publications. There are more than two thousand mosques in the U.S., and fifteen out of two thousand mosques constitute less than 1 percent of all mosques in the country.

Evidently, the authors never stopped for a second to ask: How has the presence of the Saudi literature impacted the attitudes of the mosque-goers? They have also failed to consider asking the leaders of the Islamic centers about their views and activities, or how the Saudi material was used. One would think that this is the most reasonable and sensible thing to do in a study that aims at ascertaining the truth and enhancing understanding.

Islamophobia has contaminated public discourse on Islam and Muslims, and has affected the best judgment of religious and political leaders, and, hence, has made the efforts to deal with terrorism more complicated and less effective and led to a long series of missteps. Let us recall the most serious ones:

In 2001 and 2002, bigotry and intolerance were elevated to a tolerable national discourse by leading Evangelical leaders who insulted Islam and its Prophet, and did it with impunity. Franklin Graham, Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson described Islam as "wicked, violent and not of the same god," and called the Prophet of Islam a “terrorist” and “pedophile,” and were allowed to get away with it. Little has been done so far to rein in Christian and Jewish extremists.

In November 2002, John Ashcroft, then the U.S. attorney general, got away with similar bigoted remarks when he asserted that “Islam is a religion in which God requires you to send your son to die for him,” while “Christianity is a faith in which God sends his son to die for you.” Ashcroft never denied that he made the statement, nor did he apologize despite demands by several Muslim American organizations to retract his statement. In the same year Ashcroft made his remarks, the Department of Justice embarked on a massive detention and deportation of thousands of innocent Muslim immigrants in the name of fighting terrorism. Many of those who were detained were denied visitation by family members and representation by lawyers. Deprived from the due process enshrined in the US constitution, they were eventually deported on minor violations.

In October 2003, Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin, the deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence, was allowed to keep his job after telling church gatherings that the Christian God is “real” and the Muslim is “idol." Secretary Rumsfeld defended Baykin’s bigoted remarks by citing the latter's freedom of speech.

In December 2003, the military accused Capt. James Lee, a dedicated Muslim Chaplain and West Point graduate, of spying, and ordered his incarceration in a maximum security facility, but failed to provide any evidence to back up these serious charges. Chaplain Yee was eventually found innocent of all charges laid against him, including charges of adultery and pornography concocted when the spying charges were withdrawn. The army refused to issue an apology and Lee resigned.

In May 2004, Brandon Mayfield, a Muslim lawyer and former Army officer, was arrested by FBI agents in connection with the Madrid terrorist bombing. The FBI maintained its certainty that Mayfield’s fingerprints matched those found on bags left behind by the terrorists even after Spanish authorities said that the original image of the fingerprint did not match Mayfield’s. He was eventually released after spending two weeks in prison.

In December 2004, the open season on Islam and Muslims by extreme Religious Right pundits reached a new low, when the Washington Times, a leading American newspaper, published an article by Sam Harris, entitled "Mired in a Religious War." The article declared Islam the enemy, and openly advocates an all-out war on Islam and Muslims.

In December 2004, 46 American Muslims were fingerprinted, searched and held for 6 hours by U.S. border security agents upon returning from a religious conference in Canada. The incident is the latest in a series of overzealous ethnic and religious profiling, and of the targeting of law-abiding American Muslims in the name of national security.

The above list, though far from being complete, reveals disturbing patterns of Muslim bashing and abuse, and underscores the troubling fact that some public officials in various departments and at highest levels espouse prejudices toward Islam and Muslims. While the number of bigots and zealots is still limited, the damage they have done to both American Muslims and the reputation of the United States is enormous.

This attitude toward Islam and Muslims, and the policy recommendations that stem from it, have so far led to continuous radicalization of Muslim societies and have strengthened the very divisive forces that desire to marginalize and eliminate Islam and Muslims in the West. Many of the complex challenges the United States faces are the outcome of a faulty or unbalanced foreign policy, formulated from information supplied by ill-informed, Islamophobic experts. These policies are the result of defining adversaries on the ground of ethnic and religious identities, rather than universal ethical principles and actions, which include respect for the religious sensibilities of others

While both truth and vanity play a role in shaping Islamophobia, I am less concerned with the vain sources of these sentiments that take the form of deception, jealousy, and arrogance. I am more concerned, however, with the true sources of Islamophobia, namely anti-Muslim attitude and exclusivist political ideologies that fuel extremism. U.S. foreign policy, as articulated by the neo-conservatives, is bent on dominating and manipulating Muslim societies for achieving narrow economic and geopolitical interests; similarly, exclusivist ideologies continue to inflame the vicious terror campaigns that justify the killing of civilians for achieving political ends.

Rethinking US Foreign Policy

The war on terror has not contributed so far to isolating the terrorists, but seems to have led to increasing anti-American sentiments. The Bush administration has been ill-advised by individuals and groups driven by anti-Islam agenda that made an already difficult war even more complicated. By listening to prejudiced and bigoted voices who have shown little respect to the followers of the Islamic faith, and who have urged the administration to exceed established moral and legal limitations, the Bush administration has made several blunders that undermined the credibility of the United States.

From Guantanamo, Abu Ghuraib, and other abuses, to massive detention and deportation of Muslim immigrants, to profiling the predominantly law abiding Muslim Americans, to letting off the hook high ranking officials caught making derogatory and bigoted remarks about Islam and its followers, to denying visas and turning back from U.S. airports Muslim leaders who have been working hard to build bridges between Islam and the West, to supporting authoritarian regimes implicated in human rights violations, the Bush administration has adopted the wrong approach and gave the wrong impression that the war on terror is gradually shifting from targeting individuals implicated in terrorism and indiscriminate violence to targeting mainstream Muslim communities and organizations.

The Bush administration should reject the racist strategy of the Far Right and become more discreet in executing the war and terrorism, making a clear distinction between fringe groups driven by hatred and fanaticism, and the overwhelming majority of law abiding Muslims who aspire for just peace. The administration should also enlist the help and the crucial resources that the American Muslim community, and mainstream Muslim organizations and leaders, can bring to bear on the war on terrorism and extremism. It is not difficult for any person aware of the patterns of U.S. foreign policy toward the Muslim world, and of the terror campaign conducted by militant Muslims, to see that the two are interrelated and feed one another. The U.S. has for decades supported dictatorships and corrupt military regimes in the name of maintaining stability, and those regimes have bred extremism and gave rise to terrorist groups.

Yet the fact that U.S. foreign policy feeds into, and is fed by, the rise of extremism and terrorism in Muslim countries does not mean that we are moving in a vicious circle. The U.S. is in a position to end the cycle of violence and counter-violence, and American Muslims are well situated to help in redirecting U.S. foreign policy and in bridging the deepening divide between Muslim and Western societies. There are reasons to believe that after 9/11, the Bush Administration has become increasingly aware of the pitfalls of supporting autocratic regimes in the Muslim world, and has made several readjustments in its foreign policy approach toward Muslim countries. Not only is the Administration increasingly reluctant to openly support military and authoritarian regimes, but is increasingly coming to terms with the fact that no democratic government is possible without the involvement of Islamically-oriented political groups, as developments in Turkey and Iraq have demonstrated.

This does not mean that the Bush Administration has undergone a profound change of attitude; nor does it mean that the Administration has distanced itself from unilateralism and military preeminence that led to the war in Iraq. John Bolton, a neo-conservative unilateralist, was appointed US ambassador to the UN. This is the same Bolton who, more than two years ago, expressed an utter contempt toward international law and the UN. “It is a big mistake for us,” he wrote, “to grant any validity to international law even when it may seem in our short-term interest to do so—because, over the long term, the goal of those who think that international law really means anything are those who want to constrict the United States.”

We must reject the neoconservatives’ obsession with domination and empire building. Their drive to ensure the political and military dominance of the U.S. might appear at first glance patriotic, but in actuality it is undermining the political and moral standing of the U.S by undermining democracy and freedom at home and rolling back the most important American achievements on the world stage: international law and the UN.

Muslims Must Stand Up

Muslim Americans are well positioned to expose the deceptions of power hungry unilateralists, and bridge the divide between Muslim and Western countries. They should equally reject the bigoted spirit of exclusivist ideologies that use religion in all its forms as a weapon for achieving political supremacy, and demonize and dehumanize political opponents. Muslim Americans should take a firm and resolute stance against individuals and groups that use violence and terror against civilians in the name of religion, and condemn all campaigns of terrorism by groups like al-Qaeda, as they do condemn those who justify violence and aggression against Muslims in the name of biblical prophecies and religious supremacy.

The time has come for the world to undertake a profound shift in political thinking and practice, similar to the one achieved in Europe in modern times. A democratic and free Europe came to life when the feudal system that privileged a small class of European elites was rejected and replaced with a system based on political equality and the rule of law. A democratic and free world will be achieved when the current political structure that perpetuates political and economic disparity is replaced with one in which all are equally treated under international law, and have fairly equal access to international organizations.

For two centuries, America has shown that it is capable of transcending its limitations and marching behind those who struggle to realize the ideals of freedom, justice, and equality. And throughout its history, America stood behind those who fought for equal rights and equal dignity against self-centered groups that wanted to preserve their privileges. American Muslims must take a firm stand against the militant Religious Right that is bent on denying them the equal dignity they deserve. As long as they uphold the values of freedom, justice, and equal dignity for all, and reach out to other fellow Americans who share with them deep commitment to these values, they are destined, with the grace of God, to defeat the unscrupulous and mean-spirited attacks led by hate mongers and religious bigots.

Return to Back Porch Discussion

Domestic Violence in the Qur'an

2008-01-12T19:06:00.000-08:00

On Domestic Violence in The Koran and the Hadiths:

Translations of Sura 4:34

The first stage gives three Muslim translations of Sura 4:34, which should be read carefully in order to understand the Muslims’ interpretation at the fourth stage.

Egyptian-born M.A.S. Abdel Haleem, educated at Al-Azhar University, Cairo, and Cambridge University and now professor of Islamic Studies at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, translates for Oxford University Press (2004), as follows:

4:34 Husbands should take full care of their wives, with [the bounties] God has given to some more than others and with what they spend out of their own money. Righteous wives are devout and guard what God would have them guard in the husbands’ absence. If you fear high-handedness from your wives, remind them [of the teaching of God], then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them. If they obey you, you have no right to act against them. God is most high and great.

Abdullah Yusuf Ali, a scholar working out of Lahore, Punjab, E. Pakistan, began his translation in 1934 and revised it a third time by 1938. He notes in parenthesis, not original to the Arabic, the sequence of steps and the implied soft meaning of “beat them (lightly)”:

4:34 ... As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly) ...

This sequence in Yusuf Ali’s translation is important for the Muslims’ interpretation, below, so readers should zero in on them now.

Ahmed Ali was an author of fiction, and he translates the relevant line for Princeton University Press (1984, rev. 1986), adding parenthetic glosses not originally found in Arabic:

4:34 As for women you feel are averse, talk to them suasively; then leave them alone in bed (without molesting them) and go to bed with them (when they are willing).

This translation flatly contradicts the two others cited here and many others: “beat” (Fakhry); “scourge” (Pickthall); “beat” (Dawood); “beat (lightly)” (Hilali and Khan); “chastise” (Maulana); “chastise” (Khan); “beat” (Maududi); “beat” (Salahi and Shamis, Muslim translators of Sayyid Qutb); “beat” (Committee of Muslim translators of Ibn Kathir); “beat” (Shakir); “chastise” (Khalifa); “beat” (Sher Ali); and “beat” (Asad, whom Hathout quotes in her article).*

In contrast, Ali’s wording, which the activist and attorney Hathout latches on to despite the numerous translators who disagree with Ali and her, reverses the plain meaning of the words by a clever linguistic sleight-of-hand. We allow reputable Muslim scholars to challenge this misinterpretation in the fourth stage, below. But for now it shows how far some (not all) Muslim apologists (defenders of Islam) will go to iron out the harsh words in the Quran.

Historical and literary contexts of Sura 4:34

The second stage in our exegetical method is to establish the historical and literary contexts of Sura 4:34.

Sayyid A’La Abul Maududi (d. 1979) was an Indo-Pakistani who worked hard at establishing a theocracy in Pakistan through the Jamaat-i-Islami. He is highly respected traditional commentator who says that this sura, itself titled “Women,” was revealed at different times, but still in the timeframe of AD 625 to 626. Muhammad is establishing his Muslim community in Medina in the face of opposition and adverse circumstances, though Islam manages to overcome them. Verse 34 fits into the framework of vv. 1-35, which sees the specific establishment of rules for the family. For instance, in the aftermath of the Battle of Uhud in 625, in which the Muslims lost a lot of men, Muhammad says that orphans should be given their property and not to replace their good things with bad, which means to deal fairly and wisely with their assets (vv. 1-6). Also, he discusses the rules for inheriting property, such as one son having the share equal to two daughters or that a husband should inherent half of his wife’s property, unless they have children, in which case he inherits one-fourth (vv. 11-14). Then, if women or men in a segment of Muslim society commit lewd acts, they should be punished, unless they repent (vv. 15-18). Next, a large section deals with marriage rules, like not marrying mothers, daughters, sisters and so on (vv. 19-28). Finally, he lays down rules against greed and murder, and again returns to a law of inheritance (vv. 29-33).

Thus, it is in this family environment that the targeted v. 34 is located, and Muhammad lays out yet one more rule in v. 34 – how to deal with an unruly or rebellious wife (The Meaning of the Qur’an, vol. 1, pp. 297-303).

Interpretations of Sura 4:34

The third stage is to interpret Sura 4:34, but we should let Muslims speak for themselves about the troublesome verse, beginning with the earliest traditions and ending with the modern era.

Early traditions

The early traditions confirm that hitting wives actually happened and was sanctioned in Muhammad’s day and in his community. Domestic violence runs deeply and early in Islam, contrary to Hathout’s apologetics (defense).

Ibn Ishaq (c. 704-768), a biographer of Muhammad, who is considered mostly reliable by modern historians (except for the miracles and some chronology), summarizes this part of Muhammad’s sermon, which was delivered during his last pilgrimage to Mecca and heard by thousands:

You have rights over your wives and they have rights over you. You have the right that they should not defile your bed and that they should not behave with open unseemliness. If they do, God allows you to put them in separate rooms and to beat them but not with severity. If they refrain from these things, they have the right to their food and clothing with kindness. Lay injunctions on women kindly, for they are prisoners with you having no control of their own persons. (Guillaume’s translation, p. 651)

This passage reveals that Muhammad sees the hitting of wives only in egregious circumstances, like “open unseemliness.” It also repeats the counsel that husbands should at first separate from such wives and only afterwards apply physical force. Thus, the sequence in Ibn Ishaq’s account and in Sura 4:34 overlap somewhat.

Bukhari (810-870) and Muslim (817-875) are two collectors and editors of hadith (saying and deeds of Muhammad outside of the Quran) and are considered completely reliable. They record this troubling pronouncement:

Narrated Abdallah b. Zama: “None of you must flog his wife as as he flogs a slave, and then have sexual intercourse with her in the last part of the day.” A version has, “One of you has recourse to whipping his wife as a slave and perhaps he lies with her at the end of the day.” (Mishkat, trans. James Robson, vol. 1, p. 688 or Marriage, chapter XI)

Does this hadith give permission or not? Is the husband allowed to whip her, except not as severely as a slave is whipped because a man’s wife lives and has sex with him? Or does it prohibit whipping altogether? In any case, it does not disconfirm, that hitting – if not whipping – is permitted.

Bukhari reports this incident about the wives in the early Muslim community in the context of marital confusion and an odd remarriage law:

Rifa'a divorced his wife whereupon 'AbdurRahman bin Az-Zubair Al-Qurazi married her. 'Aisha said that the lady (came), wearing a green veil (and complained to her (Aisha) of her husband and showed her a green spot on her skin caused by beating). It was the habit of ladies to support each other, so when Allah's Apostle came, 'Aisha said, "I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women. Look! Her skin is greener than her clothes!"

No one should doubt that this reflects the lives of many women in this foundational religious community. How could it be otherwise when Allah permits husbands to beat their wives? Would the true God allow such a thing even when the Old Testament does not?

Another collector and editor of hadith, Tirmidhi (821-894), a student of Bukhari, though not having as high a status as his teacher, records this tradition:

You have a right in the matter of your wives that they do not allow anyone whom you do not like to come into your houses; if they do this, chastise them in such a manner that it should not leave an impression.

The following report is narrated by Aisha, Muhammad’s favorite young wife, whom he married when he was in his fifties and she was around nine or ten years old (they were betrothed when she was six, see this article for details). The context of the line shows Muhammad sneaking out of the house, to visit a graveyard and pray over the dead. Aisha followed him. She returned just before he did, but he noticed she was out of breath and he asked her why. She told him, and apparently fearing for his life as he saw her in the shadows, he punished her. Says Aisha: “He struck me on the chest which caused me pain” (Muslim, vol. 2, no. 2127). So Muhammad committed domestic violence on his young wife.

The hadith collection Sunan Abu Dawud is also considered reliable. This passage records Muhammad first saying that husbands should not beat their wives (vol. 2, nos. 2139 and 2141), but Umar, one of his chief companions, informed him that the wives were becoming “emboldened towards their husbands.” So now Muhammad changed his mind: ... “[H]e (the Prophet) gave permission to beat them.” However, the women complained to Muhammad’s family, but he retorted: “Many women have gone round Muhammad’s family complaining against their husbands. They are not the best among you” (vol. 2, no. 2141).

This passage is very revealing. First, it shows that Muhammad chose a bad path at the behest of one of his companions. To be blunt, what kind of leader is this? Second, the women complained, and this can only mean that they were getting hit. But rather than changing his policy back to the more merciful one, he merely said that these whiners are not “the best among you.” Third, even if his remark was directed at the women for pestering his family, he still should have reconsidered his new ruling. But no matter, for Allah revealed Sura 4:34 to him. This trumps everything. However, would the true God send down such a practice?

Before leaving Sunan Abu Dawud, we should look at a short hadith, which says: “Umar b. al-Kattab reported the Prophet ... as saying: A man will not be asked as to why he beat his wife” (vol. 2, no. 2142). Whether this asking is done at Judgment Day or here on earth, it is still troubling. This is the kind of passage that shocks many Westerners. If Muslims would assert that wife-beating was relevant for the seventh century alone, then that may be fine, though one would have the right to wonder whether the true God would say such a thing in the first place. But Muslims believe that this policy expresses the divine will of Allah for all times and places; it is needed to correct human nature—though no command was sent down for wives to beat their husbands to correct their human nature.

Finally, Ibn Kathir, a highly respected Medieval commentator, references another passage from the hadith editor Muslim. Muhammad says this at his farewell pilgrimage:

Fear Allah regarding women, for they are your assistants. You have the right on them that they do not allow any person whom you dislike to step on your mat. However, if they do that, you are allowed to discipline them lightly ... (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, vol. 3, p. 446, ed. Safiur-Rahman al Mubarakpuri, Riyadh: Darussalam)

Ibn Kathir informs us that “discipline” entails the physical. Also, not allowing anyone that a husband may dislike to step onto his mat is similar to the earlier hadith that says no man is allowed into the husband’s house without his permission (see Tirmidhi, above). Arab culture differs from ours, so in today’s world this invitation to a man whom the husband dislikes may amount to inappropriate sexual contact, even if the act is not committed.

All in all, the earliest traditions, representing others, allow husbands to hit their wives, so the difficulties in Sura 4:34 have an additional historical context and cannot be explained away from that standpoint. Domestic violence sits at the heart of Islam, not at its periphery, contrary to Hathout’s apologetics.

Four modern interpretations

We may now turn to four modern commentators, who seem uncomfortable with Sura 4:34, so they react variously to explain it. They cannot bring themselves to deny that it came down from God. Sometimes this section can get a little technical, but the reader should bear with this because the last three of the four interpreters reveal a larger agenda for unsuspecting Westerners who do not know the details of Islam.

After outlining the first two steps in the verse itself (admonition and no sex) and reminding husbands to administer the steps in proportion to the offence and to do so only reluctantly, Maududi comes to the third step, beating:

As to a beating, the Holy Prophet [Muhammad] allowed it very reluctantly and even then did not like it. But the fact is that there are certain women who do not mend their ways without a beating. In such a case, the Holy Prophet has instructed that she would not be beaten on the face, or cruelly, or with anything which might leave a mark on the body. (vol. 1, p. 333, note 59)

Thus, Maududi’s hesitations and qualifications around the sentence in bold print make him seem embarrassed to apply this Quranic teaching. Nevertheless, he sizes up the facts as he sees them: “certain women do not mend their ways without a beating.” So he is not entirely reluctant, after all. Surely it is this archaic idea about women that permeates the Muslim world. However, even if devout Muslims today do not go as far as Maududi, how can they deny this verse as written, especially since they believe that God through Gabriel brought down the Quran?

What do two Muslim women interpreters think about this verse? Amina Wadud, Islamic Studies Professor in the Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies at Virginia Commonwealth University, in her book Qur’an and Woman: Reading the Sacred Text from a Woman’s Perspective (Oxford UP, 1999), offers her viewpoint.

Unwilling to deny the validity of such a dubious revelation as Sura 4:34, she stretches credulity to get around the difficulties. She simply looks up in an Arabic lexicon the word Daraba* used in the verse, which means “to strike,” and finds a context that suits her. So “to strike” does not always signify a physical hit, but may also mean “to strike out” on a journey (p. 76). However, this is a misuse of language, for the context and the intent, when they are as straightforward as those in Sura 4:34, must determine the meaning of a word. Thus, when the context clearly says that husbands may “strike” wives, it does not mean husbands may “strike out on a journey.” Ockham’s razor, which says that the simplest and plainest explanation is better than a convoluted one, applies to Sura 4:34, and that is why numerous translators cited above disagree with Wadud.

Hence, Wadud’s doubtful interpretation indicates that she too, more so than Maududi, fluctuates between holding on to Sura 4:34 and dispensing with it. Her agenda guides her, rather than staying with the clear and plain meaning when the context and intent are straightforward.

Hathout is the second female commentator, but first we must challenge Ahmed Ali’s odd translation, since it serves as the background to her misinterpretation. He bases his clause “and go to bed with them (if they are willing)” instead of the more accurate “hit them” on the same shaky reasoning that Wadud uses. He too goes to a dictionary and picks out a context that suits him, noting that Daraba metaphorically (key word) means to have intercourse, as in his example “the stud camel covered [darab] the she-camel.” To back up this interpretation, he cites the ambiguous hadith by Bukhari and Muslim (see above) that questions whether a husband should hit his wife, but he fails to cite other clear hadiths, such as the ones by Muslim and by Abu Dawud (see above). Thus, reliable hadiths in fact support hitting wives, contrary to Ali’s assertion in his notes.

Moreover, Ali’s translation does not fit the clear meaning of the rest of the verse, and this is why he must supply a false addition in parenthesis: “(if they are willing).” But this confuses the sequence in 4:34 itself: admonition, no sex, hitting. In Ali’s sequence, in contrast, a husband goes from ignoring his wife in bed one moment, to having sex without her repentance (admonition, no sex, sex). Rather, sexual relations happen only after the successful three-step process of dealing with a rebellious wife and her repentance: admonition, no sex, hitting, repentance, sex. No reputable scholar denies this sequence and the remedial purpose behind it; hence the many translators cited above disagree with Ali, whose translation mixes up the order. Thus, like Wadud, he stretches credulity, for the clear and non-metaphorical meaning of Daraba in this verse – not in other verses in the Quran nor in written records about the sexual habits of camels in seventh-century Arabia – is “to hit” or “to strike” wives. His agenda guides him.

With Ali’s mistranslation as the background, Hathout latches on to his apologetics because it suits her ideology, even though many translators disagree with Ali and her. Revealingly, she quotes him without the parenthesis around the added words “if they are willing.” Her omission misleads the unsuspecting reader that the clause is original, whereas it is actually supplied by Ali in order to smooth over his jarring mistranslation. As noted, according to the clear and straightforward three-step process in Sura 4:34, Daraba does not mean metaphorically “to have sex,” but literally “to strike” or “to hit.” Ockham’s razor should again cut away convoluted misinterpretations.

Hathout presents Islam only in the best possible light to Americans, even though this entails breaking down the natural interpretation of Sura 4:34, and even though numerous other translations by Muslim scholars, hadiths, and commentators contradict Ali’s and her misinterpretation. Her agenda guides her. Contrary to her thesis that domestic violence emerged outside of Islam as a struggle of the power elites to control things, seeds of violence have been planted in the very heart and core of the Quran and Muhammad himself. These seeds have grown up within Islam; they have not been transplanted to it.

Haleem, whose translation we used above in our first stage, is the last of our modern Muslim scholars to interpret Sura 4:34 in his Understanding the Quran (2001), pp. 46-55. Unlike Wadud, Ali, and Hathout, he analyzes the verse head on without forcing the natural meaning into an artificial or convoluted one. After elaborating on the three-step process found in Sura 4:34 itself (admonition, no sex, hitting), he concludes that husbands should not hit their wives for any ad hoc reason, according to the husbands’ whim or angry outburst, but only for the wives’ outright unseemly, lewd behavior (the first part of v. 34). And hitting should be used only after the first two remedial steps have been tried and only once, lightly.

Despite Haleem’s excellent exegetical method that reaches an honest but troubling conclusion (unlike Hathout’s weak exegesis and whitewashed conclusion), we may ask the same question that many Muslim scholars ask rhetorically, according to his quotation of them: “if the Quranic teaching in this matter is not fair and sensible, then what are the alternatives?” (p. 55). This is indeed the right question, but Haleem’s answer falls short of the mark:

Surely it is better to remind the wife of her duty, or sulk for a while, or even strike her lightly, and then bring in arbiters who could, if all attempts at reconciliation fail, rule in favor of divorce [in Sura 4:35]. (p. 55)

However, a more acceptable alternative runs as follows: the first step (admonition) is a sound one; the second step (no sex) may be sound, if the wives are indeed committing sexual acts outside of the marriage; yet the third step (hitting) is completely wrong and immoral in all cases, no matter how lightly administered, so it can be omitted; and the fourth and fifth steps in v. 35 (arbitration and maybe divorce as a last resort) are sound, though the divorce would be sad. This is the alternative that Haleem and the Muslim scholars are looking for: husbands should never hit their wives for any reason; they should take out the third step.

Omitting the third step of hitting is doubly important when Sura 4:34 says that husbands may hit their wives if they fear “open unseemliness” and “high-handedness,” quite apart from whether these two character flaws are actually in their wives. This places the interpretation of the wives’ character flaws in the hands of their husbands, even if an objective observer may clarify that he or she sees no flaw in the wives. Sura 4:34, then, opens the door to abuse of the worst kind.

More Here.

Resources for "What is Islam? "

2007-10-24T10:41:00.000-07:00

This first Hollow resource post is for the WHAT IS ISLAM? discussion on the BACK Porch.

There will be three essays:

I. Islam as a religious-political-military system (inside what Islam teaches)

II. Islam & the West (A Brief History)

III. Judaism, Christianity and Islam (distinctive beliefs thereof)

Qur'an online:
http://www.oneummah.net/quran/quran.html
(English and Arabic)

(B/T) Biographical material and Traditions are taken from various sources:

Muhammed ibn Ismaiel Al-Bukhari, The Translations of the Meanings, translated by Darussalam, et al., 1997.

Ibn Kathir, Commentary on the Qur'an, 1997.

Maxime Rodinson, Muhammad,1971.

Ibn Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah, (tr.Guillame) Oxford University Press, 1955.

MAPS

Return to Back Porch Discussion

As websites are quoted, they will be listed and linked.

Articles:

"Muslims Attack Buddha"


	The Buddha is thought to date from the seventh century AD

The 23ft high image was damaged during the attack, which brought back memories of the Taliban's destruction six years ago of the giant Buddhas at Bamiyan, in neighbouring Afghanistan.

The Buddha, in the Swat district of north-west Pakistan, is thought to date from the seventh century AD and was considered the largest in Asia, after the two Bamiyan Buddhas.

The explosion on Monday night damaged the upper part of the rock.

US intelligence officials claim that al-Qa'eda has also been able to extend its influence to the region from beyond lawless tribal areas of Pakistan.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/11/wpak111.xml

* * * * * *

"Islamic Violence in Indonesia"

(UK Telegraph)

(point of story is to demonstrate that Islamic violence is not a response to America's presence in Iraq, but a constant feature wherever a large population of Muslims live)

FRESH violence erupted in the Poso area of Sulawesi on Nov 27, reigniting a three-year-old conflict between Muslims and Christians in the area and forcing thousands to flee.

* * * * *
"Dhimmitude: Oppression of non-Muslim residents."

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/

Return to Back Porch Discussion

Glossary of Islamic Terms

2007-10-24T10:25:00.000-07:00

Glossary

Note: There are many online glossaries for Islamic terms. Most are offered by Islamic groups and are defensive in tone due to 9-11-01. Impartiality is difficult where a glossary is provided by Islamic sites because the Sunni version differs from the Shia version somewhat.

Some are offered by universities with Islamic studies. Some are the work of Christian groups, Jewish groups and some are posted by individuals.

For the purposes of impartiality, the careful researcher might want to choose a glossary that is pre 9-11-01. It is difficult to separate a political agenda from the definitions given after the World Trade Towers were attacked.

The glossary below is a composite taken from both Islamic and secular sources PRE-9-11.

Because Arabic uses a different alphabet, all spellings are an English version of the phonetic pronunciation. This is why you will see several spellings for the Qur'an/ Koran. For our purposes, the spelling of each term is confined to one version after the initial listing where several versions may appear.

Abbasids-descendants of Mohamed's uncle Abbas; part Arabic, part Persian. They are a Sunni dynasty that took over the Caliphate in 750 and held it until 1258. The Abbasids designated Bagdad as their capital. In their reign, the arts flourished; best known to Westerners is their 1001 Nights.

Abu-Bakr- friend, early convert to Mohamed's "recitation" (Qur'an) and father-in-law of Mohamed. His daughter Aisha was married to Mohamed as a child. Abu Bakr became the first Caliph in 632, the successor to Mohamed, after the latter's death. Abu Bakr ruled two years until his in 634.

Adhan - The call for the daily prayers.

A.H. - "After the Hijrah" 622 AD. Reference to the Islamic calendar/ dating system. Thus for th West the date is expressed as " A.D." , but the Islamic dates is expreses "A.H."

Aisha or Ayesha - Mohamed's third and favored wife. Hadiths record that at 53 Mohamed married Aisha who was 6 and consummated the marriage when she was 9 years old.

Al Andalus - Arabic / Islamic term for Spain. Spain was part of the Islamic empire from 750s until Isabel of Spain finished the 800 year reconquest of Spain in the 1400s. Today radical elements of jihad claim that Spain belongs to Islam and must be reconquered.

Ali (Ibn Abi Talib)- cousin of Mohamed and son-in-law when he married Mohamed's daughter Fatima. Ali's followers thought he was the logical successor to Mohamed. (At Mohamed's death the governing of Islam went to Abu Bakar who was not realted by blood to Mohamed. ) Ali's followers are known as Shia ( the shiite party). Murdered in 660, his followers broke from the main branch that had developed (with numerous disputes) sicne the death of Mohamed. The Shiites contend that Ali is in Paradise in the honored position beside Mohamed-r of the differences between the Shiites and the Sunnis. For Shiites, Ali is the first Imam.

Allah - Islamic term for God, Allah means "The One". "'Allah" was a term that predates Islam. "Allah" was used by the pagan tribes of the Arabian Peninsula to indicate a sort of "god higher than all other gods."

Al-Qaeda ( Al-Qaiada or Al-Qaeada) "the base camp" A radical Islamic terror ring founded by Osama Bin Laden.

Arafat (Arafa ) - desert plain north of Mecca. Muslims believe that at this site all peoples will endure judgement. Muslim pilgrims gather at Arafat during month of Zhu-l-Hijjah.

Ayatollah- A Shiite religious leader schooled the Qur'an, hadiths (teachings) and sharia (law) i Shias beleive that an Ayatollah is the most pious leader for a given era and that he is given the authority to determine correct interpretations if Islamic teaching and practice for that era.

Arkan-al-Islam - FIVE Pillars of Islamic practice ( Sunni) : submission to Allah, prayer, giving alms, fasting, pilgrimage to Mecca (Hajj). A sixth pillar, Jihad, is often added.

Asee - one who rebels against Islamic laws.

Burqa - (also Jilbab) an adult (10 and up) woman's tunic like garment and veil meant to obscure the female form (and face) and promote modesty. More modest than the hijab. Donned by the most devout Muslim women.

Caliphate (Caliph/Khalifah) term for the leadership of the Umma (Muslim believers) after Mohamed's death. The term conveys worldly but not spiritual power. It is essentially the Grand Administrator of the Muslim people. Sunni Muslims do not teach that there is one spritual leader for the whole of Islam. The institution has died out, but some radical leaders would like to see it reestablished, so that the Umma (community of Muslim believers worldwide) could be governed by a single vision/ purpose.

Dar-al-Harb - "The house of war" all those regions of the world where Islam is not practiced--considered to be "at war" with Islam.

Dar-al-Islam -"The house of Islam" regions where the people are subjects of Islam, thus are "at peace."

Dar-al-Kufr "The house of Unbelief" similar to Dar-al-Harb, it is said to be Satan's domain filled with blasphemy. Muslims believe that Dar-al-kufr will eventually submit to Islam and join dar-al-Islam.

Da'wa -The call (invitation) to follow Islam. The main connotation today is "mission" (political or religious.)

Dhimmi - People, (Christian, Jew, Hindu) residing in a Muslim controlled region. Dhimmi forced to wear distinctive dress and required to pay the jizyah tax. Not permitted to hold office. Such people are not considered citizens, but a subjected class of residents.

Dome of the Rock - the Islamic shrine built on the rocky space where the Jewish Temple once stood in the center of Jerusalem--and is the site of the Jewish "Holy of Holies" --an inner sanctum of the Temple. Muslims believe that it was from that rock that Mohamed was taken to paradise during his "night Journey" (A mystical -like experience). For Muslims, Jerusalem is the third holy city after Mecca and Medina.

Fatima- daughter of Mohamed and his first wife, Khadija. Mohamed married Fatima to his cousin, Ali, who after the dispute (split) over succession became the leader of the Shia Muslims.

Fatwa-a legal judgment based on the Qur'an and the traditions, typicalaly in response to a question on the law. A juridical edict issued by a Muslim religious leader (Quadi). A legal opinion on a matter of Islamic law issued by a trained Islamic jurist.

Ghazi - Muslim soldier, warrior.

Ghurabaa (al)-Radical group in the UK who reject all participation in the Western political process. The spokesman a Jamaican convert to Islam, Abu Izzadeen.

· Hadith-( hadeeth) "reports" --thousands of recollections about Mohamed. Also called "The Traditions" they were assembled about 100 years after Mohamed's, and completed about two hundred years after his death. Many scholars find them highly suspect. Hadiths include Mohamed's teachings and practices. Hadiths are the source of some Muslim practices not outlined in the Qur'an. However, hadtihs are revered as important teachings to be followed and studied.

· · Hejaz- A mountainous section of the Arabian Peninsula where competing tribes lived. Both Mecca and Median are located here.

· Hajj -- one of the five pillars of Islam, it is a pilgrimage to Mecca at least once in a believer's lifetime. When at Mecca, Muslims worship at the Kabba.

Hanif- A pre-Mohamed name for the people living in the Hejaz area of the Arabian Peninsula --here men came to pay homage to particular tribal gods. Before his personal vision, Mohamed a hanif of the local god called Allah.Hijab-- Veil the Muslim woman wears for modesty--less extreme than the burqa.

Hijra--The holy year of 622 when Mohamed took his followers from Mecca (his home) to Medina to avoid bloodshed. Mohamed's teachings were reviled by the people of Mecca, especiially the influential Quraish tribe . The Meccans in effect expelled Muslims.

Imam (Imaam)- a spiritual leader. For Shiites that authority comes down in an unbroken (bit not all seen) line from Mohammed himself through his son-in-law Ali. For the Sunni branch of Islam the Imam is the leader of the worship in his mosque. (no physical connection to Ali or to Mohamed is required).

Ishmael-The first son of Abraham by an Egyptian servant girl. (see Genesis 16) . Muslims revere him as a prophet who they believe built the Kaba. Muslims claim that he is more important than Isaac, Abraham's son by his wife, Sarah. It is through Isaac that Jews descended. Thus, Arabs and Jews are at root, half brothers.

Islam - literally "Submission" ( to Allah) A secondary meaning is "peace" the peace that comes from submitting. Islam is one of the three monotheistic faiths. Its central message is " There is no God except Allah and Mohamed is his prophet." Islam teaches that Allah is the god of the Jews and the Christians and that Jesus was a prophet, but not the "son of God:" as the Christians believe. It teaches that Islam is God's final revelation. Islam is the world's second largest religion after Christianity. It is divided into two main branches, Sunni and Shiite.

Islamist - a new version of the word Islam, used by policy experts and academics to distinguish radical political/religious movements.

Jihad- two meanings: Muslims must defend Islam from attack. Also, an the inner struggle to submit to Allah. In current context theterm is understood as the Islamic struggle against resistant unbeleivers. Others teach that "Jihad is not a war to force the faith on others," because the Qur'an that says: "There is no compulsion in religion." Others invoke the obligation of jihad against any and all regimes that refuse Islam or are unjust in the eyes of Islam.

Additionally, jihad can be waged in several socio-political ways: financial support for wars, trianing and armaments; written jihad--books, novels, essays, blogs; political efforts to advance Islam, including emigration to non-Muslim nations and seeking positions of influence in education and politics.

Jihad is obligatory for Muslims. Some refer to it as the "sixth pillar" of Islam.

Jinn- (Genie) an invisible being created from fire. They observe humans , they can be good or evil, are punished (or rewarded) for their actions on the day of Judgment.

Kabba (Ka'aba) A '2o'X30' X50' cubic structure in Mecca. It contains a black stone that is the locus of Muslim veneration. Hypothetically built by Adam and reestablished after Noah's flood by Abraham and Ishmael. No archaeological or scriptural support for this hypothesis. Muslims teach that all Moslems are to face Mecca and the Kaba to pray.

Kafir-one who is invited but rejects Islam. Derogatory term for infidels--literally "ungrateful for the truth."

Khadijah- Mohammed's first wife and follower. She was a wealthy widow 15 years older than Mohamed. She hired Mohammed to oversee a caravan business her first husband bequeathed to her. They married after five years, when Mohammed was 25. (Their daughter was Fatima.) She died in 619.

Madrassah - Islamic school that teaches Islamic religion and law.

Mahdi- The messiah that the Sunni Muslims await. (Shiites wait for a twelfth Imam)

Mawali - a non Arabic convert to Islam

Medina or Madina - A city on the Arabian peninsula. This where Mohamed took his followers when the people of Mecca expelled them (The Hijra), thus first city to come under Islamic rule. Mohamed's mosque and grave are located in Medina. This is the site of the ancient cit of Yathrib.

Mohamed (Mohammed, Mohamet, Muhammad) born in 570 A.D. in Mecca where his ancestral tribe was powerful. Orphaned as a child he worked for his uncle Abba. At twenty Mohamed was hired by a wealthy widow, Khadija to manage her caravan business. The two were married, one child, Fatima lived to adulthood. In 610, Mohamed had his first visitation from Allah. Allaha sent an angel to recite the teachings that Mohamed was to teach the people. THese teachings comprise the Qur'an (holy book of Islam). The teachings were not accepted in Mecca, MOhamed fled to Medina, and in 630 Mohamed and his warriors defeated the Meccans. He died in 632, in Medina. Islam believes that Mohamed the last of the prophets that Allah will send to man.

Mosque-- house of prayer for Muslim worship.

Mufti--a scholar or professional interpreter of Sharia law.

Mujahid - A person engaged in in jihad; fights for Islam.

Mujahideen ( mujahedeen) Muslim guerrilla warriors committed to battle the "infidels."

Mullah- a scholar (sunni) who is learned in the Sharia (Islamic law).

Precepts-- required tenets (beliefs)

Qadi- Judge of the Muslim law--issues fatwas against those deemed in violation of the law or who have insulted Mohamed.

Qur'an (Koran) Islam's holy book. Mohamed reported that Allah composed the Qur'an, and sent the angel Gabriel to recite it to Mohamed beginning in 610 A.D. These locutions were heard by Mohamed for 22 years, until his death in 632. Mohamed memorized the verses to teach his adherents who were instructed to memorize them also. Mohamed taught that the "recitations" were God's final revelation. The recitations were not collected and codified until years after Mohamed's death, in the reign of the third Caliph, Uthman.

Ramadan - the holy lunar month of fasting during the ninth month of the Islamic calendar. Ramadan begins and ends at the time of the crescent moon in Mecca.

Sheik- several meanings: a venerated elder; a title given to a tribal leader; a scholar with formal training in a spiritual institution.

· Shiite- Approximately 15 percent of all Muslims belong to the Shiite branch of Islam. Shiites teach that Mohamed named his only surviving male relative, his cousin and son-in-law, Ali, to succeed him. Shiites hold that all power-worldly and spiritual descend from Mohamed to his successor. Their leaders are called Imams, and are not a Caliph. Shia teach that a twelfth Imam is to come--a messianic figure-- whose coming signals the Judgment. Most Shiites reside in Iran, though large numbers live in Syria and parts of Iraq.

· Sufi- a mystical sect of Muslims, perhaps 5 % of the Islamic believers. A subset of Sunni Islam. Emphasis on the spiritual, rather than worldly pursuits of Islam. They have been the target of Islamic persecution for their supposed heresies . Their spiritual ascetic is similar to the Buddhist's monks attempts go "beyond" the seen world and rest in a higher vision. To achieve this higher state they practice intense ecstatic mysticism" that consists of kinetic movements (dances). There is a strong gnostic element (belief in a secret or hidden knowledge)

· Sunna -- behavior of the perfect Muslim following the example set by Mohamed

Sunni -the Sunni branch of Islam constitutes the 80% Muslims worldwide. Sunnis deny that Mohamed named a successor, thus it was "just cause" to choose a new leader for the infant religion. By this appointment the caliphate was established as the heir to Mohamed's military and political power, though not his spiritual power. Sunni tradition permits the believer to have his own relationship with Allah, without the mediation of any cleric.

Sura- A chapter in the Qur'an.

Umma-The entirety of the world-wide Muslim community. (See Caliphate)

Wahabism-- A sub-sect of Sunni Islam that is ultraconservative and interprets the Quran and Hadith (the sayings attributed to the Muslim prophet Mohamed) literally. Most of the inhabitants of Saudi Arabia are members of this sect of Islam.

Return to Aunty's Back Porch

Return to Resources

Resources for WHAT IS ISLAM?

2007-10-24T09:48:00.000-07:00

This first Hollow resource post is for the WHAT IS ISLAM? discussion on the BACK Porch.

There will be three essays:

I. Islam as a religious-political-military system (inside what Islam teaches)

II. Islam & the West (a brief history)

III. Judaism, Christianity and Islam (distinctive beliefs thereof)

RESOURCES for Essay I "What is Islam"

Qur'an online:

http://www.oneummah.net/quran/quran.html
(English and Arabic)

The Qur'an is not chronological, as early Arabic scholars simply put the longest verses first. Since then some organization has been attempted. Mohamed told his followers that an angel dictated the Qur'an to him. Mohamed then recited what he said he had been told. The term Qur'an means "the recitation." It is divided into chapters called "suras."

Note: The Qur'an describes itself as an Arabic text. (Sura 43:3). Some insist that this means no other language can accurately portray the text. Contrast that "difficulty" understanding the original Arabic to the similar challenge of the Old Testament written in the Hebrew alphabet and the translations of Aramaic and Hebrew texts into other languages. A fair minded researcher recognizes that any such "difficulty" is analogous for the Qur'an in Arabic and the Bible in Hebrew. Thus attempts to tell Westerners that they are "misinterpreting" the Qur'an-- because only Arabic texts serve--is a fatuous claim. It is meant to deflect criticism on the most contentions of the verses.

Islamic Glossary
click here

Note: There are many online glossaries for Islamic terms. Most are offered by Islamic groups and are defensive in tone due to 9-11-01. Impartiality is difficult where a glossary is provided by Islamic sites because the Sunni version differs from the Shia version somewhat.

Some are offered by universities with Islamic studies. Some are the work of Christian groups, Jewish groups and some are posted by individuals.

For the purposes of impartiality, the careful researcher would select a glossary that is pre 9-11-01. It is difficult to separate a political agenda from the definitions given after the World Trade Towers were attacked.

This glossary is a composite taken from both Islamic and secular sources PRE-9-11.

Because Arabic uses a different alphabet, all spellings are an English version of the phonetic pronunciation. This is why you will see several spellings for the Qur'an/ Koran. For our purposes, the spelling of each term is confined to one version after the initial listing where several versions may appear.

Some laws of what is religiously forbidden to Muslims

Includes this directive:

Kafir

107. * An infidel i.e. a person who does not believe in Allah and His Oneness, is najis (unclean). Similarly, Ghulat who believe in any of the holy twelve Imams as God, or that they are incarnations of God, and Khawarij and Nawasib who express enmity towards th e holy Imams, are also najis. And similar is the case of those who deny Prophethood, or any of the necessary laws of Islam, like, namaz and fasting, which are believed by the Muslims as a part of Islam, and which they also know as such.

As regards the people of the Book (i.e. the Jews and the Christians) who do not accept the Prophethood of Prophet Muhammad bin Abdullah (Peace be upon him and his progeny), they are commonly considered najis, but it is not improbable that they are Pak. Ho wever, it is better to avoid them.

108. The entire body of a Kafir, including his hair and nails, and all liquid substances of his body, are najis.

Maps

The Spread of Islam in the first hundred years

MSNBC Interactive Map of Islam in Europe

Stanford University Maps of Islam

Bibliography (in progress)

(not in Alphabetical order )

Books:
The Qur'an
What the Koran Really Says (Ibn Warraq)
What Went Wrong (Bernard Lewis)
Jihad (Paul Fergosi)
The Middle East (Bernard Lewis)
Islam (Karen Armstrong)
The Bookseller of Kabul (Asne Seierstad)
The Legacy of Jihad (Andrew G. Bostom, MD)
Nine Parts of Desire: The hidden world of Islamic Women (Geraldine Brooks)
Reading Lolita in Tehran (Azar Nafisi)
The Force of Reason (Oriana Fallaci)
Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis (Bat Ye'or)
Why I am Not A Muslim (Ibn Warraq)
Islam Unveiled (Robert Spencer)
Veiled and Silenced (Alvin Schmidt)
Infidel (Ayan Hirsi Ali)
Future Jihad (Walid Phares)
Religion of Peace? (Robert Spencer)
Menace in Europe (Claire Berlinski)
The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam (Bat Ye'or)
The West and the Rest ( Roger Scruton)
Islamic Imperialism: A History (Efraim Karsh)
Londonistan (Melanie Phillips)

On domestic Violence in The Koran and the Hadiths:

Translations of Sura 4:34

The first stage gives three Muslim translations of Sura 4:34, which should be read carefully in order to understand the Muslims’ interpretation at the fourth stage.

4:34 ... As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly) ...

This sequence in Yusuf Ali’s translation is important for the Muslims’ interpretation, below, so readers should zero in on them now.

Ahmed Ali was an author of fiction, and he translates the relevant line for Princeton University Press (1984, rev. 1986), adding parenthetic glosses not originally found in Arabic:

4:34 As for women you feel are averse, talk to them suasively; then leave them alone in bed (without molesting them) and go to bed with them (when they are willing).

Historical and literary contexts of Sura 4:34

The second stage in our exegetical method is to establish the historical and literary contexts of Sura 4:34.

Interpretations of Sura 4:34

The third stage is to interpret Sura 4:34, but we should let Muslims speak for themselves about the troublesome verse, beginning with the earliest traditions and ending with the modern era.

Early traditions

Bukhari reports this incident about the wives in the early Muslim community in the context of marital confusion and an odd remarriage law:

Another collector and editor of hadith, Tirmidhi (821-894), a student of Bukhari, though not having as high a status as his teacher, records this tradition:

Finally, Ibn Kathir, a highly respected Medieval commentator, references another passage from the hadith editor Muslim. Muhammad says this at his farewell pilgrimage:

Four modern interpretations

As websites are quoted, they will be listed and linked.

Articles:

Muslims attack Buddha from UK Telegraph

(Point of story: demonstrates Islamic contempt for other faiths,
but demanding respect for their own)

Islamist radicals in Pakistan have attempted to destroy an ancient carving of Buddha by drilling holes in the rock and filling them with dynamite.


	The Buddha is thought to date from the seventh century AD

The 23ft high image was damaged during the attack, which brought back memories of the Taliban's destruction six years ago of the giant Buddhas at Bamiyan, in neighbouring Afghanistan.

The Buddha, in the Swat district of north-west Pakistan, is thought to date from the seventh century AD and was considered the largest in Asia, after the two Bamiyan Buddhas.

The explosion on Monday night damaged the upper part of the rock.

US intelligence officials claim that al-Qa'eda has also been able to extend its influence to the region from beyond lawless tribal areas of Pakistan.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/11/wpak111.xml

* * * * * *

Islamic Violence in Indonesia (UK Telegraph)

(point of story is to demonstrate that Islamic violence is not a response to America's presence in Iraq, but a constant feature wherever a large population of Muslims live)

FRESH violence erupted in the Poso area of Sulawesi on Nov 27, reigniting a three-year-old conflict between Muslims and Christians in the area and forcing thousands to flee.

* * * * *
Dhimmitude: Oppression of non-Muslim residents.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/

Ask Aunt Latifa
Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Babalu
Baldilocks
Biased BBC
Boris Johnson
China Confidential
Clarity and Resolve
Cox & Forkum
Custos Fidei
Dry Bones Blog
Ephithesis Now
Fjordman (archived)
Gates of Vienna
God Help Britain
Illustrated Ideas
Instapundit
Islamic Evil
Islam in Europe
Joshuapundit
Little Green Footballs
Melanie Phillips
My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
No Pasaran!
Perilous Times
Phylax
Relapsed Catholic
Small Dead Animals
Scotus Blog
The Adventuress
The American Thinker
The Belmont Club
The Counterterrorism Blog
The Islamic Threat
The Outraged Spleen of Zion
The Templar Pundit
The Volokh Conspiracy
Up Pompeii
USS Neverdock

BLOG SEARCH