The following is a paper presented to the AMJA Conference on The Halal and Haram in Food and Medicine (Los Angeles, California, March 2-4, 2012). Note that this paper does not represent AMJA in any way, and only represents the opinions of the author.
Terminology Equivalents Chart
Hebrew
Arabic
kosher
?al?l
shechita
dhab??a
shochet
dh?bi?
halakha
shar??a
treif
?ar?m
Introduction
Observant Muslims and Jews only eat ?al?l and kosher products, and face many of the same problems in finding appropriate meat products in the modern, secularized world. Due to the dearth of kosher meat products available, and even higher scarcity of ?al?l meat, many Muslims feel comfortable purchasing kosher meat, believing that all kosher meats (and by extension kosher products) are necessarily ?al?l. Other Muslims, due to either political or theological reasons, believe that it is impermissible to purchase or consume anykosher meat products.
This paper seeks to discuss the question of the Islamic legal ruling on consuming kosher meat products. Therefore, political questions and personal values, which do not dictate the general ruling (a?l) with respect to such products, will not be discussed.
Generally speaking (and as per Q. 4:160 and 3:50), halakhic laws are stricter than Islamic ones. This is shown not only in the foods that are permissible or impermissible, but also in the laws pertaining to slaughtering, cooking and consuming foods. Since the normative applications of Jewish law are stricter than those for Islamic law, in most cases these laws will not affect Muslims who wish to consume kosher, but would affect Jews who might be interested in ?al?l meat. The most pertinent examples will be discussed in this paper.
Prohibitions Regarding Types of Animals and Foods
Both Jewish and Islamic laws prohibit the consumption of carrion, swine, insects, rodents and blood. Additionally, any food that is poisonous or immediately harmful to the human body would be prohibited. All solid food items prohibited by the Shar??a are also prohibited in Jewish law.
There are a number of significant items prohibited in the halakha but allowed by the Shar??a. The Qur??n itself mentions the most common example, viz., certain types of animal fat (see Q. 6:146). Halakhic law specifies which types of fats and nerves are prohibited.[1] The majority of madhhabs allowed the Muslim to consume these parts that are typically not considered kosher after a Jewish slaughter. The only exception to this is the M?lik? school, which deems the consumption of these parts impermissible.
Other examples of items that are prohibited for Jews but allowed for Muslims include:
- Sharks, shellfish and crustaceans (lobster, crabs, etc.) [Note: for the ?anaf?s these animals are also not permitted].
- Some types of birds (e.g., ostrich, emu).
- Camels (because it does not have a proper ‘split hoof’).[2]
Interestingly enough, the locust is an animal that is explicitly mentioned and allowed by both halakhic and Shar?? texts.
Also note that Jewish law forbids mixing meat and dairy products together. Different Jewish authorities have different interpretations and rules for implementation – some even require two sets of kitchen utensils and separate areas of refrigerators for these two products. There is, of course, no equivalent in Islamic law.
Jewish law also has stringent rules regarding the religious washing and usage of utensils. For example, if a ceramic or porcelain utensil is used to cook a non-kosher food, that utensil can never be purified and used for kosher cooking. However, if a metallic utensil has been used, it must be cleaned with soap and water, then left for a period of time, then immersed in boiling water under the supervision of an expert, before it may be used to cook with.[3] Islamic law, on the other hand, would only require the regular washing of any such utensil and would permit its subsequent usage to cook or consume ?al?l products in.
The permissibility of gelatin and rennet are ongoing discussions in both faiths. The exact same spectrum of opinions exists in both Muslim and Jewish circles. It appears that most mainstream Jewish and Muslim authorities would not permit regularly available gelatin, since it is derived from either pork or non-ritually slaughtered animals (with minority dissenting opinions on both sides). Proper kosher gelatin is therefore typically derived from kosher fish (and, in even rarer cases, from kosher slaughtered animals, or from certain cows that have died natural deaths,[4] or from vegetable products). However, it should be noted that a product that is marked as kosher does not necessarily mean that all Jewish authorities believe it to be so. In fact, most yoghurt and candy products that are marked with circle-K are not approved by most Conservative and Orthodox Rabbis. Hence, Muslims need to know the different types of symbols used by the Jewish food industry, and their corresponding opinions, before they make a choice on whether a product that is marked as kosher is in fact ?al?l or not.
Cheese, on the other hand, appears to be an issue where the spectrum of opinions are the same, but the majorities of each are different. Most Jewish authorities would only allow cheese if produced from kosher rennet; most Muslim authorities would allow cheese from non-?al?l rennet because of the issue of istihl?k.[5] In both groups, there are dissenting minority opinions, but the minorities are on opposite sides.
There are some halakhic restrictions on vegetables and plants (for example, the orlah, or fruit that grows during first three years after planting), and Jewish law is also stricter than Islamic law regarding insects found in fruits and vegetables, but these laws are not relevant to this discussion. Additionally, there are specific halakhic commandments for preparing Passover breads and prohibiting other foods that would also not concern Muslims.
For Muslims, the most common product that is allowed in Jewish law but prohibited in Islamic law are alcoholic beverages. Jewish law permits the consumption of ‘kosher‘ beer and wine.
Similarities in Slaughtering an Animal
Once we understand the halakhic procedure for slaughtering animals, it will be possible to arrive at an Islamic verdict regarding its status.
First, the similarities. Jewish law and Islamic law both require that:
1) The animal must be alive when it is slaughtered (hence stunning or other procedures to render the animal unconscious should be avoided).
2) The animal must be killed with a sharp knife (hence, a blow to the head would render the animal treif and ?ar?m).
3) The knife must cut the neck arteries of the animal: in particular, the trachea, esophagus, cartiod arteries and jugular veins should be cut, while leaving the spinal cord intact.
4) The blood must be drained out.
5) There must be minimal harm to the animal – a painless and quick slaughter is required.
All of these are points of agreement between Jewish and Islamic law.
Minor Differences
There are some minor differences between the requirements of the two faiths. These difference would generally be negligible and irrelevant to Muslims, but not to observant Jews.
1) Jewish law requires a specific type of person (called a shochet) to slaughter. Typically, the shochet is an observant male Jew trained in the practice of slaughter. Islamic law allows any male or female Christian, Muslim or Jew to sacrifice as long as that person follows the proper procedure of slaughtering. Therefore, it is primarily for this reason that a dhab??a animal can never be kosher for observant Jews because the slaughter would be performed by a Muslim.
2) The perfection of the knife blade – Jewish law requires visual and physical inspection; Islamic law only requires a sharp knife even if there are some imperfections (e.g., minor abrasions and nicks would be permissible in Islam).
3) Jewish law requires one continuous stroke for a slaughter (moving the knife back and forth would be allowed), whereas Islamic law would prefer one stroke, but the slaughter would not be invalidated if the slaughterer quickly followed a first improper stroke with another one.
4) In Jewish law, the knife must be at least two times the size of the animal’s neck, and perfectly straight, whereas there is no such requirement in Islam.
5) Jewish law completely forbids stunning, and a stunned animal would be treif; Islamic law is not unified on this point, as most authorities would consider stunning makr?h, but as long as the animal is alive and has a pulse, the slaughter would still be considered ?al?l.
6) Depending on which Islamic madhab one followed, the number of passages in the neck of the animal cut might be less for some opinions of Islamic law (however, a perfect cut in both religious would require the esophagus, trachea, arteries and jugular).
7) While the disconnecting of the spine is prohibited in both laws, in Jewish law this would render the animal treif, whereas according to the majority opinion in Islamic law, this is makr?h but does not render the animal ?ar?m (note that some authorities would view such an act as making the animal ?ar?m).
8) Jewish law requires a visual inspection of the lungs and some other internal organs of the animal after slaughter. Specific defects associated with these organs makes the animal treif, whereas the total absence of any imperfection (i.e., adhesion-free lungs) renders the animal a higher level of kosher, called glatt kosher. If such a level of perfection was not achieved, but the procedure was followed, the meat would merely be kosher. And some type of defects would in fact render the animal treif even after proper slaughter. There is no equivalent to such a post-slaughter examination in Islamic law.
9) The animal’s blood must be allowed to flow into the earth (or on the ground) in Jewish law (for example, it should not be gathered in a bowl), whereas there is no such prohibition in Islamic law. In practice, most Muslims slaughter and spill the blood on the ground as well.
10) Islamic law encourages, but does not require, that the animal faces the qiblah. Since this is not a requirement according to any madhhab, it is irrelevant to the question of whether kosher is ?al?l.[6]
11) While the Jewish invocation (i.e., blessing) is not a necessary requirement for the meat to be considered kosher, it is in practice never left. This issue will be discussed in a separate section.
From all of these points, it is clear that these factors will not render kosher meat ?ar?m; most are in fact rulings that make the halakhic laws stricter than their Shar?? equivalents, and even the Islamic ones on this list are recommendations and not requirements. Hence, from the perspective of the Shar??a, these factors are not relevant.
Of course, because of some or most of these factors (especially the first one), ?al?l meat cannot be considered kosher by Jewish authorities.
Major Difference – the Tasmiya Issue
There is one major differences between the two laws that cannot be overlooked and could potentially result in a verdict of ta?r?m,[7] and that is the issue of the tasmiya.
The Islamic opinions on mentioning Allah’s name at the time of sacrifice are well-known. It is clear that the majority of scholars (and the explicit texts of the Qur??n and Sunnah) require the utterance of tasmiya before an animal is slaughtered. It is with this opinion in mind that we proceed. (It goes without saying that, for the minority who do not require tasmiya, obviously if they do not require a Muslim to mention the name of Allah then a priori they would not require a non-Muslim to do so).[8]
Halakhic law states that the shochet should verbally bless the act of slaughter with a specific blessing.[9] While this blessing is not considered an essential requirement, in practice it is always done, and it is realistically inconceivable that a shochet intentionally abandons this blessing.[10]
The formulation of this blessing translates as:
“Blessed are you , Adonai [G-d], our G-d, Lord of the World, Who Sanctified us through His Commandments and instructed us concerning proper animal slaughter”
The wording clearly praises God, and therefore would be acceptable to the vast majority of madhhabs, since it is not a necessary requirement that the blessing be said in Arabic. However, the issue comes with respect to a unique blessing for each animal.
Since the Jewish faith insists that the name of the Lord only be invoked with good cause, the shochet does not repeat this blessing for each and every animal. Instead, the shochet considers one blessing to suffice for a series of animals with the condition that each animal is slaughtered without any significant pause or break from the previous one. [11]
Therefore, in theory, a shochet could sacrifice a few cows, and maybe even up to a hundred chicken, with one blessing.
All of this, of course, has relevance to the Shar?? ruling on an animal.
For the minority that does not require tasmiya (in particular, the Sh?f?? school), this issue would not be relevant, and therefore kosher would be ?al?l.
For those who subscribe to the position that allows one tasmiya for multiple slaughters, kosher meat would also be ?al?l.
For those who require a specific tasmiya for each individual animal (in particular, the ?anaf? school), kosher meat would not be ?al?l unless it was known for sure that a blessing was given for that animal.
As a side point, there are reference to some Christian groups who required a slaughterer to sacrifice in the name of God.[12]
Conclusion
In light of all that has preceded, and in this author’s opinion:
- While the Qur??n explicitly allows us to offer (and therefore sell) ?al?l meat to Jews, most observant Jews would not consider ?al?l to be kosher because the animal would be slaughtered by a non-Jew (and there would be other factors as well).
- All kosher foods are permissible as long as 1) no significant amount of alcohol is present, and 2) any gelatin is from kosher slaughtered cattle or non-animal sources. If alcohol is used either for taste or in intoxicating amounts, the food prepared would be ?ar?m; and any gelatin derived from animals not slaughtered with tasmiya is also ?ar?m.
- Kosher meat being ?al?l would depend on which madhhab one follows for the tasmiya: if one follows the opinion that one tasmiya suffices for multiple animals, kosher slaughtered animals would be ?al?l. However, if one requires one tasmiya per animal, then in general such animals would be ?ar?m unless one can verify that the blessing was said for that particular animal.
In this author’s opinion, since the halakhic blessing is done over a specific group of animals and the slaughter is continuous, this blessing can suffice to fulfill the requirements of the tasmiya for that group of animals, and Allah knows best.
Lastly, it is important that stronger ties be developed between observant Muslims and Jews so that we benefit from each other’s experiences, unite against Islamophobic and anti-Semitic efforts to ban ritual animal slaughter, and perhaps also manage to influence some kosher plants to say a tasmiya for every animal.
[1] This is based on Leviticus 7:3. Generally, Jewish law does not allow fat surrounding the kidneys, the abdominal fats, the fats surrounding the stomach and intestines, and the tail fat. The nerve that is forbidden is one that is in the hind-quarters. Since it is labor-intensive to remove this nerve, generally the hind-quarters of an animal are sold to non-Jews.
[2] Many Qur??nic exegetes consider this to be an example of Q. 3:93; others also add the ruling of animal fats, but this latter opinion clearly contradicts Q. 6:146.
[3] This discussion is necessarily simplistic and brief.
[4] These are so-called ‘Indian cows’; since Hindus are not allowed to kill cows, any cow that dies is left untouched. Jewish law allows the bones of such an animal, if left untouched for a long period of time, to be used for the manufacture of gelatin.
[6] Since this law is irrelevant to the halakha, some modern Jewish authorities have allowed taking this condition into account when performing kosher slaughters.
[7] Of course, we are not talking about the issue of adding alcohol to the meat while it is being cooked. Jewish law permits the consumption of certain types of alcohol and the mixing of wine with meat products. Any such production of meat would obviously be ?ar?m for Muslims.
[8] It is relevant to point out that Ibn ?anbal’s position regarding the tasmiya for Ahl Kit?b sacrifices is explicit – and as far as I know, everything narrated to the contrary is mujmal. ?anbal reports that Ab? Abdill?h said, “There is no problem with the sacrifice of the Kit?b? as long as he sacrifices for Allah and in the name of Allah (idh? ahall? lill?hi wa samm? ?alayh?).” [A?k?m Ahl al-Dhimmah, 1/189]. This was also the explicit position of Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn al-Qayyim. It should also be noted that most authorities who allowed the sacrifice of the Kit?b? without mentioned Allah’s name also allowed it if they mentioned other than Allah’s name [ibid., 1/191-3].
Also, the reader is encouraged to see Ibn Taymiyya’s ris?la on this issue, in J?mi? al-Mas??il of Dr. Bakr Abu Zayd (Riyad: D?r al-??lim, 1429), vol. 6, p. 377-89. In it, he states that the obligation of saying the tasmiya before hunting or slaughtering an animal is even more clear than the obligation to recite F?ti?a in the prayer.
It is the intention of the author to write a brief treatise on this issue as well, insha Allah.
[9] It is important to note that the blessing is for the act of sacrifice, and not for an animal or for the instrument.
[10] Therefore, from an Islamic standpoint, the shochet who does not mention the blessings will be f? ?ukm al-n?s? (i.e., the one who accidentally forgets), and the majority of scholars would deem such a slaughter as permissible, in contrast to the one who intentionally does not mention Allah’s name.
[11] Most modern Rabbis allow the shochet to utter the phrase ‘bismill?h Allahu akbar‘ in Arabic before each slaughter, since that does not interfere with the rules of halakha. This practice should be encouraged and Muslims should inform local Jewish slaughterhouses that they would become potential customers if the shochet could do this.
[12] In the Syriac-language Nomocanon of Barhebraeus (d. 1286), a Christian butcher is instructed to recite the phrase ba-shma d’elaha haya, “In the name of the living God.” Gregorius Barhebraeus, Nomocanon, ed. Paul Bedjan (Paris: Harrassowitz, 1898); taken from Freidenreich (cit.)
Far-right extremists testify in Breivik trial By JULIA GRONNEVET – 1 day ago OSLO, Norway (AP) — A handful of Norwegian right-wing extremists testified Tuesday in self-confessed killer Anders Behring Breivik’s defense, backing his claims that Norway is “at war” with Islam. The 33-year-old self-styled anti-Muslim crusader has placed great importance on this line of argument, fearing his ideology could be undermined if he is declared insane. Breivik, on trial for killing 77 people in a bomb-and-shooting rampage in Oslo last July, has confessed to the attacks but denies criminal guilt. He claims he acted in self-defense because his victims had betrayed their country by embracing immigration. Defense lawyers attempted to show that while there are people who share Breivik’s worldviews, they are not declared mentally ill for doing so. “Norway is at war,” Tore Tvedt, a far-right extremist who has been convicted for his published anti-Semitic statements, told the court. He noted also how victimized he has felt by Norwegian police and public authorities for his political opinions. Although many of the witnesses echoed Breivik’s political views during the hearing, all of them took care to distance themselves from his violence. “We are a non-violent organization,” said Arne Tumyr, a long-time Islam critic and leader of the organization “Stop the Islamization of Norway.” But he declared that “Islam is an evil political ideology disguised as a religion.” Another witness, Ronny Alte, said that although he knows of no one in his immediate surroundings who supported Breivik’s actions, “there could easily be around a hundred that I know about” on the Internet who do. Breivik’s sanity is key to the case and is still an unresolved issue. Two psychological examinations carried out before the 10-week trial started in mid-April reached opposite conclusions on whether he is psychotic or not. If found guilty and sane, he would face 21 years in prison although he can be held longer if deemed a danger to society. If declared insane, he would be committed to compulsory psychiatric care. Although the trial is scheduled to end on June 22, the Oslo District Court on Tuesday announced that a verdict isn’t expected until July 20, or possibly even on Aug. 24, due to administrative and technological reasons as well as security issues. It declined to elaborate further.
Jabir Hazziez Jr. subdued an unruly passenger on a Nov. 30 AirTran flight to Kansas City. A Kansas City firefighter, reserve Jackson County deputy and member of the U.S. Naval Reserve, Hazziez has been praised for his quick action and level head.
A man foaming at the mouth lunged for the airliner’s cabin door, attempting to open it as flight attendants struggled to hold him at bay.
Most of the post-Thanksgiving travelers cruising at some 30,000 feet toward Kansas City that day were unaware of the potential disaster looming at the front of the plane.
But when a crew member came on the intercom asking if anyone had medical training, passenger Jabir Hazziez Jr. heard the sense of concern in her voice.
What happened next came as no surprise to those who know and work with Hazziez, a Kansas City firefighter, reserve Jackson County deputy and member of the U.S. Naval Reserve.
As Hazziez walked toward the front of the plane, he saw a man pacing and holding his head in his hands. The man appeared to be in an “altered mental state” and clearly appeared agitated.
“He was trying to get to the door of the plane,” Hazziez recalled recently. “I grabbed ahold of him and tried to calm him down.”
But the man only became more combative and knocked Hazziez into the cockpit door.
Using his law enforcement training, Hazziez put the man in a neck restraint and took him to the floor. The man continued kicking and trying to reach the door with his feet. Another passenger grabbed the man’s legs.
Together they held him for about 15 or 20 minutes until the plane, which had taken off in Atlanta, made an emergency landing in Memphis and authorities came on board to deal with the man. Later, Hazziez learned the man had been suffering from an adverse reaction to a vaccine.
“I’m glad it was a medical situation and not a criminal incident,” Hazziez said. “It could have been a lot worse.”
When the flight resumed, Hazziez was showered with thanks from his fellow passengers and received a standing ovation before leaving the plane after that Nov. 30 flight.
Although Hazziez’s religious faith didn’t matter to those grateful passengers, it has become an important aspect of his story.
He is a Muslim.
And like others of his faith, he is sensitive to the negative perceptions and prejudices of some in the post-Sept. 11 world. But he says what he did that day was in keeping with the teachings of Islam.
“We are supposed to help those in need and protect and help those who can’t help themselves,” he said.
The Midland Islamic Council issued a statement praising Hazziez for enhancing the image of American Muslims and helping to “affirm the many valuable and useful contributions they make to our nation.”
The accolades have continued, including a resolution from the Kansas City Council and Mayor Sly James honoring Hazziez for his “heroic actions.”
Hazziez said he has been humbled by the attention and praise.
“I have a hard time calling myself a hero,” he said. “I just reacted to the situation.”
Aasim Baheyadeen, who has known Hazziez for 35 years, smiled when he heard what he had done.
“Yeah, that sounded like him,” Baheyadeen said. “He’s a person who is held in great esteem.”
Kansas City Fire Chief Smokey Dyer, too, said he was not surprised.
A 10-year department veteran, Hazziez is a hazardous-materials specialist trained to handle some of the most dangerous and technically challenging incidents. It is the kind of job that requires quick thinking and keeping a level head, Dyer said.
“He is an outstanding firefighter,” Dyer said. “It was very characteristic of the performance we see on a weekly and monthly basis.”
Jackson County Sheriff Mike Sharp described Hazziez as a good deputy and a good guy.
“He stepped up to the plate and took control of the situation,” Sharp said.
A spokesman for AirTran Airways said Hazziez’s actions were much appreciated.
“His background unquestionably translated into resolving the situation safely,” said spokesman Brad Hawkins.
Of course, no one is more proud of Hazziez than members of his family.
“We have joked for years calling Jabir ‘Mr. Safety,’ ” said his youngest sister, Rabiyyah Hazziez. “I suppose now he needs a new name: Captain America.”
To reach Tony Rizzo, call 816-234-4435 or send email to trizzo@kcstar.com.
The man behind a lawsuit seeking to overturn a controversial ballot measure has a passion for the law and his Islamic faith.
Muneer Awad, executive director of the Oklahoma chapter on the Council
for American-Islamic Relations, filed suit last week in federal court to
overturn State Question 755. The measure bans state courts from the use
of Sharia and international law in deciding cases. It passed Nov. 2
with slightly more than 70 percent of the vote.
http://iqsoft.co.in
Sharia law is not used in state courts, but supporters said SQ 755 was needed as a preventive measure.
U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange granted a temporary restraining
order putting implementation on hold. A hearing for an injunction is
set for Nov. 22.
Awad, who has been on the job with the council’s Oklahoma chapter since
Oct. 14, said Sharia law could never replace federal or state laws.
Adoption of a constitutional amendment referencing Sharia law voices the
state’s official disapproval and condemnation of Islam, he said.
And that raises constitutional issues on its own with respect to the
government being able to approve or disapprove of religion, Awad said.
It involves my standing as a Muslim in the political community.
When news of the lawsuit spread, his organization got a lot of hate mail, but it has also received encouragement, Awad said.
Our organization has gotten more donations from non-Muslims in the past
week than we have from Muslims, he said. This has really been a sign
of Oklahomans, I think, realizing that no matter what disagreement we
have here, there is still a need to remain rational and let the courts
consider what is being presented.
Daily guidance
Sharia law is guidance for Muslims on how to practice and interpret their faith in daily interactions and in society, Awad said.
It touches on things that are even beyond law, he said. Simply me
refraining from eating pork is part of following Sharia. Me not drinking
alcohol is part of following Sharia. Me marrying is part of Sharia. So,
Sharia encompasses so many things beyond the law.
He said Sharia changes and is not applied the same in all countries.
One of the main aspects of Sharia is abiding by the law of the land,
Awad said. As a Muslim, I am mandated to abide by the law of the land I
live in.
He said it is disingenuous for critics to point to how Sharia is
followed in other countries. While polygamy is permissible in his faith,
it is not legal in the United States, he said.
Awad said politicians are profiting from the fear of Islam.
I know this element of hate is definitely a fringe element, he said.
So, I don’t actually live my life in fear of someone attacking me or
misunderstanding me.
I am opposed to the building of the “mosque” two blocks from Ground Zero.
I want it built on Ground Zero.
Why? Because I believe in an America that protects those who are the victims of hate and prejudice. I believe in an America that says you have the right to worship whatever God you have, wherever you want to worship. And I believe in an America that says to the world that we are a loving and generous people and if a bunch of murderers steal your religion from you and use it as their excuse to kill 3,000 souls, then I want to help you get your religion back. And I want to put it at the spot where it was stolen from you.
There’s been so much that’s been said about this manufactured controversy, I really don’t want to waste any time on this day of remembrance talking about it. But I hate bigotry and I hate liars, and so in case you missed any of the truth that’s been lost in this, let me point out a few facts:
1. I love the Burlington Coat Factory. I’ve gotten some great winter coats there at a very reasonable price. Muslims have been holding their daily prayers there since 2009. No one ever complained about that. This is not going to be a “mosque,” it’s going to be a community center. It will have the same prayer room in it that’s already there. But to even have to assure people that “it’s not going to be mosque” is so offensive, I now wish they would just build a 111-story mosque there. That would be better than the lame and disgusting way the developer has left Ground Zero an empty hole until recently. The remains of over 1,100 people still haven’t been found. That site is a sacred graveyard, and to be building another monument to commerce on it is a sacrilege. Why wasn’t the entire site turned into a memorial peace park? People died there, and many of their remains are still strewn about, all these years later.
2. Guess who has helped the Muslims organize their plans for this community center? The JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER of Manhattan! Their rabbi has been advising them since the beginning. It’s been a picture-perfect example of the kind of world we all want to live in. Peter Stuyvessant, New York’s “founder,” tried to expel the first Jews who arrived in Manhattan. Then the Dutch said, no, that’s a bit much. So then Stuyvessant said ok, you can stay, but you cannot build a synagogue anywhere in Manhattan. Do your stupid Friday night thing at home. The first Jewish temple was not allowed to be built until 1730. Then there was a revolution, and the founding fathers said this country has to be secular — no religious nuts or state religions. George Washington (inaugurated around the corner from Ground Zero) wanted to make a statement about this his very first year in office, and wrote this to American Jews:
“The citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy — a policy worthy of imitation. …
“It is now no more that toleration is spoken of as if it were the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights, for, happily, the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens …
“May the children of the stock of Abraham who dwell in this land continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other inhabitants — while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree and there shall be none to make him afraid.”
3. The Imam in charge of this project is the nicest guy you’d ever want to meet. Read about his past here.
4. Around five dozen Muslims died at the World Trade Center on 9/11. Hundreds of members of their families still grieve and suffer. The 19 killers did not care what religion anyone belonged to when they took those lives.
5. I’ve never read a sadder headline in the New York Times than the one on the front page this past Monday: “American Muslims Ask, Will We Ever Belong?” That should make all of us so ashamed that even a single one of our fellow citizens should ever have to worry about if they “belong” here.
6. There is a McDonald’s two blocks from Ground Zero. Trust me, McDonald’s has killed far more people than the terrorists.
7. During an economic depression or a time of war, fascists are extremely skilled at whipping up fear and hate and getting the working class to blame “the other” for their troubles. Lincoln’s enemies told poor Southern whites that he was “a Catholic.” FDR’s opponents said he was Jewish and called him “Jewsevelt.” One in five Americans now believe Obama is a Muslim and 41% of Republicans don’t believe he was born here.
8. Blaming a whole group for the actions of just one of that group is anti-American. Timothy McVeigh was Catholic. Should Oklahoma City prohibit the building of a Catholic Church near the site of the former federal building that McVeigh blew up?
9. Let’s face it, all religions have their whackos. Catholics have O’Reilly, Gingrich, Hannity and Clarence Thomas (in fact all five conservatives who dominate the Supreme Court are Catholic). Protestants have Pat Robertson and too many to list here. The Mormons have Glenn Beck. Jews have Crazy Eddie. But we don’t judge whole religions on just the actions of their whackos. Unless they’re Methodists.
10. If I should ever, God forbid, perish in a terrorist incident, and you or some nutty group uses my death as your justification to attack or discriminate against anyone in my name, I will come back and haunt you worse than Linda Blair marrying Freddy Krueger and moving into your bedroom to spawn Chucky. John Lennon was right when he asked us to imagine a world with “nothing to kill or die for and no religion, too.” I heard Deepak Chopra this week say that “God gave humans the truth, and the devil came and he said, ‘Let’s give it a name and call it religion.’ ” But John Adams said it best when he wrote a sort of letter to the future (which he called “Posterity”): “Posterity! You will never know how much it cost the present Generation to preserve your Freedom! I hope you will make a good use of it. If you do not, I shall repent in Heaven that I ever took half the Pains to preserve it.” I’m guessing ol’ John Adams is up there repenting nonstop right now.
Friends, we all have a responsibility NOW to make sure that Muslim community center gets built. Once again, 70% of the country (the same number that initially supported the Iraq War) is on the wrong side and want the “mosque” moved. Enormous pressure has been put on the Imam to stop his project. We have to turn this thing around. Are we going to let the bullies and thugs win another one? Aren’t you fed up by now? When would be a good time to take our country back from the haters?
I say right now. Let’s each of us make a statement by donating to the building of this community center! It’s a nonprofit, tax-exempt organization and you can donate a dollar or ten dollars (or more) right now through a secure pay pal account by clicking here. I will personally match the first $10,000 raised (forward your PayPal receipt towebguy@michaelmoore.com). If each one of you reading this blog/email donated just a couple of dollars, that would give the center over $6 million, more than what Donald Trump has offered to buy the Imam out. C’mon everyone, let’s pitch in and help those who are being debased for simply wanting to do something good. We could all make a huge statement of love on this solemn day.
I lost a co-worker on 9/11. I write this today in his memory. “The man who speaks of the enemy / Is the enemy himself.”
– Bertolt Brecht
Kashgar, in China’s remote far-west Xinjiang province, lies on a fertile crescent at the convergence of ancient caravan routes linking India, Central Asia and China. For over a millenium, this fabled city was a crucial link in the Silk Route economy, and its culture thrived.
I have long wanted to visit Kashgar. In May 2009, traveling there took on some urgency when it became apparent that the Chinese local government had begun implementing plans to demolish 85% of the remaining old town. The New York Times sounded the alarm; the news raised hackles from preservationists around the world, because Kashgar’s old town was until then regarded as “the best-preserved example of a traditional Islamic city to be found anywhere in central Asia.”
I finally managed to visit Kashgar in late July 2010, and stayed for over a week, walking through practically every alley I could find, documenting the the old town’s transformation and photographing its people.
Click on Kashgar photos to enlarge
The photos I took are up on Flickr, but a project like this is made to be published on Google Earth, so I georeferenced the photos using GPS. I also mapped the demolished areas as I walked through them. The resulting files — georeferenced photos, GPS tracks and a superimposed map — can be downloaded as a KMZ file for Google Earth. This is a documentary snapshot of Kashgar circa August 1, 2010.
What did I find? I can report that almost half of the remaining old town has been razed, and much of the rest is set to go. Most of the buildings facing the old town’s main streets have been preserved, but the areas behind them are being hollowed out. Many alleys now end in wide-open spaces, empty save for the occasional denuded hold-out home whose exterior walls show the interior decorations of vanished neighbors. Here and there, a lone tree marks the spot of a demolished courtyard. Children have colonized these open spaces as a massive romping ground, for now.
In other parts of the old town, where the bulldozers were only just beginning to venture, I found families busily gutting their own homes, dragging out metal staircases, recovering bricks, salvaging what is salvageable for use in their new home. They looked resigned but not despondent, and were always happy to have me around taking photos. (Kashgaris are extraordinarily friendly and engaging, young and old alike.)
I have learned from living in Shanghai and now Beijing that Chinese authorities — and to a certain extent mainstream Chinese culture — do not attach much importance to protecting traditional vernacular architecture. Imperial palaces and grand religious temples are worthy of preservation or even reconstruction, but not on the whole the hutong of Beijing or the lane houses of Shanghai, which are deemed too ordinary, especially when there is money to made building high-rises in their stead.
In Europe, by contrast, entire towns can remain unmolested, from Óbidos to San Gimignano to Visby. The West’s record is not unblemished, of course: In New York City, Robert Moses was able to do some damage before he found his match in Jane Jacobs, whose 1961 book The Death and Life of Great American Cities redefined how we view and value lower-income urban communities. In Europe, wars did far more damage than Moses ever could, but even there the destruction set in place a process of valuing what was lost, with towns like Ypres and Dresden choosing to meticulously reconstruct their destroyed cores.
Moses might also have had a go at Kashgar, so we Westerners shouldn’t feel too smug; as recently as 1961, when Jane Jacobs’s book was educating us, the Chinese had far more pressing concerns, namely avoiding being among the 35 million who perished through famine in Mao’s Great Leap Forward.
As anyone who has been to Kashgar can attest, the alleys do not divulge much by way of opulence. The public-facing walls of the old town’s homes are bare — made of mud- or baked yellow brick rising 2-3 stories. A wooden door, if open, reveals a curtain preserving the privacy of a shady courtyard inside. The exteriors are not beautiful in an aesthetic sense, though that is not where the effort lies; it’s on the inside that these homes reveal their real wealth, through the ornate woodwork on covered verandas and the intricate stucco interiors.
As old Kashgar is dismantled, the remaining homes are losing their shared exterior walls, affording just for a brief moment a view into their covered courtyards. It’s a swan song, however; soon enough these homes too will disappear, once compensation is agreed to.
(Or if their owners hold out indefinitely they’ll be denied electricity and water until their cause is made irrelevant by “facts on the ground”:)
How are these empty spaces being refilled? It is already possible to discern a two-pronged strategy. Encroaching on the perimeter of the old town, contiguous to main roads or previously built modern construction, 4-6 story medium-rise residential buildings are sprouting. Meanwhile, in the interior of the old town, work crews are constructing 2-3 story reinforced concrete frameworks, at roughly the same scale as the structures they replace. In at least a few cases, I saw new owners filling in the walls themselves with bricks recovered from their old homes. The new construction I’ve seen differs from the old in three ways: It does not in the main conform to the traditional layout of a central covered courtyard; the new alleys are wider, allowing vehicle access; and because they are wider, there is little opportunity to expand homes by building across alleys, as was often done with the old homes.
Work is progressing rapidly. The most recent imagery in Google Earth right now, dated October 26, 2009, shows just the beginning phases of the demolition. When a section has been demolished, crews start prepping the ground for new construction while the next section is cleared. The razing and rebuilding of Kashgar is thus happening concurrently. At this pace, it looks to me like they can get all of it done by mid-2012.
But why does this need to happen at all, let alone so quickly? Some reports (such as the one in Time Magazine) espouse theories portraying the demolition of old Kashgar as an attempt by the majority Han to better subjugate the Uyghurs. The problem with this theory is that demolition on such a scale is not just foisted on China’s ethnic minorities. In Beijing I cycle daily past newly demolished hutong districts. Here too, the process is not transparent, residents are not consulted, and in general are told only at the last possible moment when to vacate homes up for demolition. (Michael Meyer’s The Last Days of Old Beijing is a great read if you want to know more.)
One reason given to journalists for the demolition is that the whole region is earthquake-prone, and thus the only way to preëmptively save Kashgari lives is to destroy their unsafe homes. I mooted that explanation to a local Uyghur guide, who scoffed at it, pointing out that these buildings have survived for centuries. More likely, I think, is that Chinese bureaucrats surveying old Kashgar saw only embarrassing poverty, and unilaterally decided to drag it into the 21st century. These officials may never have been inside a meticulously decorated Uyghur courtyard home, or perhaps they visited a few but did not care much for them. The prospect of handing out building contracts could also have helped the decision to demolish.
But even if I were convinced of the need for a Kashgar makeover, why does it need to happen so quickly? Why not gradually renovate over a 10-15 year period, one neighborhood at a time, replacing just the most precarious structures and bringing modern amenities to the rest? To make a forestry analogy, why clearcut when you could fell selectively, removing just the dead wood, preserving the special character of an old-growth forest?
I can think of a few reasons. First, blunt instruments are cheaper. Second, just as in Beijing, speedy implementations of opaquely arrived-at demolition orders thwart opportunities for organized local resistance. Third, 10-15 year-long projects take too long to be compatible with the hoped-for career trajectories of the local Communist Party bosses, eager to take credit for their initiatives now. (Separately, I fear to think what happens to all the archaeological material that must become visible when an entire city strata is churned over. At this pace, there cannot possibly be time for proper excavations.)
Why hasn’t tourism been a better incentive for preservation? You do see the occasional westerner exploring the town, but the overwhelming majority of tourists in Kashgar are affluent visitors from within China, and they uniformly travel in bussed tour groups, deposited at various locales where they are led to photogenic spots by guides bearing portable loudspeakers. Among these destinations are the two officially protected parts of the old town, the 15% where bulldozers won’t tread. These neighborhoods have been turned into open-air museums, with an entrance fee (RMB 30, USD 4.40) that entitles access to various courtyard homes and souvenir shops. I suspect that the Chinese authorities think these two areas should suffice for the majority of tourists. Depressingly, they may be right.
But tourism alone shouldn’t motivate preservation. Traditional urban geography anchors local culture through the unique social interactions it facilitates; Kashgar’s alleys, with their many small mosques and nearby teahouses, foster micro-neighborhoods safe enough for bare-bottomed toddlers to play unsupervised. Preserving a token part of the old town for touristic purposes is of no value to the ex-residents who have lost their particular neighborhood.
Will old Kashgar’s urban culture survive the wholesale uprooting of its building stock? A number of residents are opting to spend their compensation on apartments in new high-rises at the edge of the city, which promise decent plumbing and insulation — as did one guide I talked to. (I too like my amenities, so I cannot blame them). Perhaps the new 2-3 story buildings at the center of the old town will be similar enough in scale and function that they can simulate the old urban geography. I hope so, though I fear that the character of old Kashgar will soon change irrevocably, not through necessity or war or natural disaster, but through fiat. And that would be a great pity.
When President Barrack Obama was declared the winner of the Nobel Prize for Peace 2009, there were mixed responses from the International and US communities. The blacks were ecstatic, the whites sighed, and the browns like me only hoped that the Nobel laureate Obama would usher in change in a world where his country is seen more of a tormentor than anything else.
Unfortunately nothing changed. More American soldiers were commissioned in Afghanistan; more drones killed innocent civilians than Al Qaida members in the tribal areas of Pakistan; more “development” work was sanctioned to American companies in Iraq and even more hysteria was generated against the weapons of mass destruction with Iran. It appeared that the Noble Prize for Peace to Barrack Obama was as much a waste as it was a hoax in those six years when the real champion of peace, Mahatma Gandhi was denied its bestowment (We were told that Gandhi was nominated six times for the prize).
The Israeli attack on the Turkish boats carrying humanitarian aid to the caged people of Gaza is an opportunity thrown by history towards President Barrack Obama to earn his Noble Peace Prize. The merciless killing of nineteen innocent humanitarian aid victims by Israeli forces aboard the Freedom Flotilla is not new. Israel is known for similar brutalities in the past. Who can forget the killing of innocent Muhhamad Al Durrah, the little boy who hid behind his father to avoid the Israeli bullets at a sleepy Gaza junction? Or for that matter can we ever forget the thousands murdered at the Sabra-Shatila camps in Beirut? So what is so big if Israel has committed murder again? To an ordinary citizen of the world like me, it is the audacity with which Israeli authorities perpetrated these crimes, right in front of world attention, knowing the consequences! It was murder planned and executed in broad daylight, right in our drawing rooms. The iron cold savagery of Israeli authorities has even taken its allies by surprise. Never have we seen such a global outcry over an Israeli atrocity.
In the opening remarks of his Nobel lecture, President Obama had said, “It is an award that speaks to our highest aspirations – that for all the cruelty and hardship of our world, we are not mere prisoners of fate. Our actions matter, and can bend history in the direction of justice”. Undoubtedly strong, soul stirring words. But actions to bend history in the direction of justice never come easy. We know President Barrack Obama is an excellent orator. He weaves his words to make the listener believe in him. His popular Cairo University speech to Muslims is an epitome of rhetoric manufactured to the tune of popular Muslim sentiments. But for how long? Words sound good only if they are followed by firm actions. Actions are fortunately impervious to rhetoric. They have the accuracy to hit where it hurts. We know what Martin Luther King meant in his I Have a Dream speech because his actions and subsequently his sacrifice were proof enough to nurture the meaning of each and every word- truthful and heavy with purpose.
It’s interesting that President Obama’s second book Audacity of Hope derives its inspiration from the famous painting “Hope” by G.F. Watts. Obama had attended a sermon by his mentor, Jeremiah White who had then described the painting – “with her clothes in rags, her body scarred and bruised and bleeding, her harp all but destroyed and with only one string left, she had the audacity to make music and praise God … To take the one string you have left and to have the audacity to hope … that’s the real word God will have us hear from this passage and from Watt’s painting.” How much more will President Barrack Obama wait? Palestine as a geopolitical entity is in rags. Its landmass divided by unjustified borders and fences. Its body scarred, bruised and bleeding. Every day brings new wounds and fresh death. The harp of hope for millions of Palestinians is long broken. The identity of Palestine has been untimely aborted by cruel hands of the Israeli establishment.
There are moments in history which demand change in our perceptions and attitudes to what looks routine. We have become immune to the siege and violence of Gaza. We have become deaf to the cries of mothers and lamenting of daughters. The complex power equations of the Middle East have muddled the cost of human suffering which is an inevitable part of the package. With each day the darkness around Gaza deepens. Peace talks, war crimes and peace talks again. The cycle goes on with a status quo which suites the perpetrators more than the victims. The attack on Freedom Flotilla is one such moment which has thrown a chance not towards Barak Obama, the President of the most powerful country in the world, but towards Barak Obama, the Noble Laureate for Peace 2009. There is no paucity of options on Barak Obama’s platter. Israeli economic blockage, redefining biased territorial divisions, UN sanctions, maybe use of force or even freedom for the people of Palestine in general and Gaza in particular. President Obama was criticized by many for being given the Noble Prize prematurely. This is the opportunity to justify the award and to reaffirm the faith of people in hope and humanity.
We know the cost of standing up against Israel and the Zionist agenda can be exorbitant and pure dangerous, but then the cost to maintain status quo is already deadly. We hope Barack Obama, the first Black President of the United States of America stands up to what he writes and thinks. We hope that his actions, not rhetoric, will manufacture global consent against any further Israeli oppression. We hope that he frees the prisoners of Gaza not only from their brutal masters but from their fates as well. President Barak Obama, we will wait to see if you are just one of them or are you a rare breed.
the Israeli Navy massacres 20 unarmed international humanitarian activists in international waters and injures dozens. The Freedom Flotilla had European MPs, priests, people from many nationalities, including Israeli, and 10,000 tons of aid to the 3-year besieged Gaza.
Critics claim that Islam conduces to, or explicitly preaches, extremism and mindless violence. Some radical Islamist movements, that are a product of local circumstances as well as certain international political developments, are undoubtedly engaged in extremism in the name of Islam. This is particularly unfortunate in that it gives Islam a bad image as well as provides ample ammunition to Islam’s critics. Lamentably, Muslim leaders, especially the ulema and other religious figures, are so enraged and offended by this unjustified criticism of Islam that they are simply not ready to admit that radical Islamists are indeed misusing the fair name of Islam to engage in extremism, which is readily apparent across the Muslim world and even elsewhere.
It is imperative, however, that serious and committed Muslim scholars and activists critique and condemn the politics of extremism in the name of Islam. What is the best way for them to do so, especially since these radical groups claim to base their ideology, politics, and practice on the Islamic scriptures?
No ideology or movement based on it can survive long if it is founded on extremism, because extremism is an un-natural method of seeking to achieve one’s goals. If extremism is the very basis of a movement, the movement is bound to fail in the long run as extremism inevitably leads to chaos, disruption and strife. In other words, extremism is its own negation and nemesis.
Islam places great stress on morality. In a hadith report recorded in the Muwatta of Imam Malik, the Prophet Muhammad is said to have declared: ‘I have been sent to the world to establish the pinnacle of morality.’ Accordingly, the Quran places great stress on social ethics, which includes perseverance, mercy, forgiveness, avoidance of conflict, justice, and benevolence. The Quran exhorts Muslims to be patient and steadfast and not to unnecessarily enter into conflict with others. It repeatedly calls upon Muslims to tolerate difficulties and things that they may dislike, and speaks of heaven as reward for those who remain steadfast.
The bases of non-violence are patience, steadfastness, and tolerance. If steadfastness and patience are abandoned, violence takes over. That is why, according to a hadith report, the Prophet is said to have commented that when faced with oppression and injustice, to wait for succor is the best form of worship. The Prophet was ordered by God to seek to avoid conflict, as far as possible, with his enemies. The Quran and the Hadith are replete with exhortations addressed to the Muslims to abide by justice and goodness in relations with others. Thus, for instance, the Quran says:
‘Nor can goodness and evil be equal. Repel [evil] with what is better: then will he between whom and you was hatred become as it were your friend and intimate. And no one will be granted such goodness except those who exercise patience and self-restraint—none but persons of the greatest good fortune’ (41:34-35).
The Quran instructs the Prophet to be soft and kind towards others thus:
‘It is part of the mercy of God that you deal gently with them. Were you severe or harsh-hearted, they would have broken away from about you: so pass over [their faults], and ask for [God’s] forgiveness for them’ (3:159).
The Prophet always chose gentleness over harshness, as is apparent from numerous references in the books of Hadith and history. For instance, instead of wishing him ‘peace be unto you’ (asalam aleikum) many Jews would say to him ‘death be unto you’ (as-samu aleikum). Once, angered by this, the Prophet’s wife Ayesha said to them, ‘The curse and anger of God be upon you.’ At once the Prophet corrected his wife and said, ‘O Ayesha! God is gentle and loves gentleness, and He gives to gentleness what He does not to harshness’.
The Prophet always sought to avoid confrontation, if that were at all possible, no matter how crucial the issue, even if it concerned the basic foundations of Islam. Thus, for instance, in his time the Ka‘aba was not structured on the same pattern as Abraham had originally set it, but, in order to avoid confrontation, the Prophet did not rectify it. Likewise, the Prophet had to suffer immense persecution in Mecca in the first thirteen years of his prophethood, but yet he never raised a finger against his opponents. Then, after he migrated to Mecca, he entered into a peace treaty with the Jews and pagans of that town.
Compared to medieval Europe, relations between different communities were far less strained in several parts of the medieval Muslim world. The influence of Islamic teachings was undoubtedly a major factor for this. Thus, in Muslim Spain the Jews prospered, economically as well as intellectually. When the Muslims lost control of Spain in the late fifteenth century, both the Spanish Muslims and Jews were subjected to horrendous persecution by the Church and the Christians. At this time it was the Muslim Ottoman Empire that came to the rescue of the Spanish Jews, who sought refuge in different parts of that empire. Even such a brazen advocate of American imperialism as the Jewish scholar Bernard Lewis has acknowledged this fact.
However, and despite this tradition of which Muslims can justly be proud, the fact of extremist thinking in some influential Muslim circles today cannot be denied. Certain local factors as well as international political developments have given this tendency a great fillip, but this should not be used as an excuse to deny the existence of this tendency or to deny the role of Muslims themselves in fomenting strife and conflict or to place the blame for this lamentable state of affairs entirely on others.
Today, certain radical groups who call themselves ‘Islamic’ are playing havoc with the lives of innocent people, non-Muslims as well as Muslims. They are engaged in thoroughly uncalled-for violent acts in the name of Islam while considering themselves ‘lovers of Islam’. They seek justification for their actions in Islam itself. It is thus very natural that many non-Muslims, and even some Muslims as well, are bound to develop negative feelings, even revulsion, for Islam based on the wrong claims and heinous acts of these radical self-styled ‘Islamic’ groups.
Among the various factors for the emergence of violence in the name of Islam is what I consider the very serious carelessness of the Muslims themselves. Here I wish to deal with two aspects of this question, the first of which relates to the matters internal to the Muslims, and the second which relates to relations between Muslims and others.
Muslims have always been divided on the basis of sectarian affiliation. This is not a new phenomenon. These various sects, which number in their dozens, are divided on the basis of some minor issues, but mostly their differences relate to different claims about the past. These latter have become a major source of heated contestation and strife among Muslims today. Sometimes, this even leads to killings on a massive scale, as happens occasionally in countries like Pakistan. We must admit that many Muslims simply have no tolerance for Muslims of other sects, leave alone for people of other religions. Lamentably, Muslim religious leaders have made no serious efforts to unite Muslims, who are miserably divided against each other on the basis of sect and jama‘at. They have done precious little to end sectarian hatred and strife, which are causing such damage to Muslims in general.
The generally pathetic status of Muslims at the global level has led to pervasive and widespread despondency and the perception of being oppressed by others. In turn, this has led to emotionally surcharged feelings of revenge, which underlies the appeal of what is called ‘Islamic awakening’ among large sections of the Muslim youth. In fact, it would not be wrong to say that much of what passes of as such ‘Islamic awakening’ is simply a expression of this desire for revenge for the oppression that Muslims in different parts of the world have suffered or perceive themselves as having suffered. In a very simplistic manner, its advocates have sought to convince other Muslims that this ‘Islamic awakening’ is tantamount to, or synonymous with, reviving the ‘Golden Age’ of Islam and the revolutionary traditions of the pious predecessors. Muslim scholars and others who dare to critique their claims are branded as ignorant about Islam and even as agents of the West.
Consuming even a little alcohol is prohibited in Islam because this might well lead to addiction. Likewise, Islam forbids even the slightest form of extremism because it can lead to people becoming addicted to it. The Prophet Muhammad is said to have declared that if even a bit of something is addictive it is forbidden or haram in Islam. This is a very meaningful statement. Relating it to the present-day phenomenon of extremism and violence, one can confidently assert that all forms of extremism and uncalled-for violence, no matter how slight, are sternly forbidden in Islam. This issue can be further understood in the light of another instance. Some ulema have issued fatwas and statements allowing for Muslims to engage in suicide bombings in the particular context of occupied Palestine, although suicide is considered wholly forbidden or haram in Islam. However, allowing for suicide bombings in the case of Palestine rapidly led to some Muslim groups taking to, and considering, suicide bombings to be the most effective means of taking on their opponents. Some radical so-called Islamists now boast that while the West has atom bombs, they have an even more deadly weapon in their arsenal—human bombs. And so this phenomenon of suicide bombings has rapidly spread from the narrow confines of Palestine, where they were deployed to target the Zionist oppressors, to various other parts of the world, including Muslim countries, where, such as in Pakistan, they have now become an almost daily occurrence, causing the death of thousands of innocent Muslims themselves and enormous destruction, including of schools and even of Islamic institutions.
Extremism is a bottled-up genie, which, once allowed out of the bottle, refuses to go back again. It has now become imperative for Muslim religious and political leaders and activists to seek to push back this genie into its bottle. They must openly and explicitly condemn the chaos and strife that is being caused in various parts of the world in the name of jihad. It is not enough, as is today generally the case, for our leaders to simply claim that Islam is a religion of peace and that it is opposed to terrorism. These sort of abstract and general statements are clearly insufficient to make any dent whatsoever in the prevailing situation. For this to happen, our leaders must readily denounce, in very clear and explicit terms and by specifically mentioning their names, the organizations, movements and individuals that are promoting what the Quran condemns as ‘strife in the world’ (fasad fil- arz) in the name of jihad. They must clearly declare that such elements are not themujahids they claim to be, but that, in fact, they are rebels. In this way, one hopes, the popular support that such elements who spread chaos in the name of jihad will decline and they can be socially ostracized.
(Maulana Waris Mazhari is the editor of the New Delhi-based monthly Tarjuman Dar ul-Uloom, the official organ of the Graduates’ Association of the Deoband madrasa. He can be contacted on w.mazhari@gmail.com
Yoginder Sikand works with the Centre for the Study of Social Exclusion at the National Law School, Bangalore.)
Islam, Muslims and ExtremismSubmitted by admin4 on 10 May 2010 – 6:12pm.Articles Indian MuslimBy Maulana Waris Mazhari,
(Translated from Urdu by Yoginder Sikand)
Critics claim that Islam conduces to, or explicitly preaches, extremism and mindless violence. Some radical Islamist movements, that are a product of local circumstances as well as certain international political developments, are undoubtedly engaged in extremism in the name of Islam. This is particularly unfortunate in that it gives Islam a bad image as well as provides ample ammunition to Islam’s critics. Lamentably, Muslim leaders, especially the ulema and other religious figures, are so enraged and offended by this unjustified criticism of Islam that they are simply not ready to admit that radical Islamists are indeed misusing the fair name of Islam to engage in extremism, which is readily apparent across the Muslim world and even elsewhere.
It is imperative, however, that serious and committed Muslim scholars and activists critique and condemn the politics of extremism in the name of Islam. What is the best way for them to do so, especially since these radical groups claim to base their ideology, politics, and practice on the Islamic scriptures?
No ideology or movement based on it can survive long if it is founded on extremism, because extremism is an un-natural method of seeking to achieve one’s goals. If extremism is the very basis of a movement, the movement is bound to fail in the long run as extremism inevitably leads to chaos, disruption and strife. In other words, extremism is its own negation and nemesis.
Islam places great stress on morality. In a hadith report recorded in the Muwatta of Imam Malik, the Prophet Muhammad is said to have declared: ‘I have been sent to the world to establish the pinnacle of morality.’ Accordingly, the Quran places great stress on social ethics, which includes perseverance, mercy, forgiveness, avoidance of conflict, justice, and benevolence. The Quran exhorts Muslims to be patient and steadfast and not to unnecessarily enter into conflict with others. It repeatedly calls upon Muslims to tolerate difficulties and things that they may dislike, and speaks of heaven as reward for those who remain steadfast.
The bases of non-violence are patience, steadfastness, and tolerance. If steadfastness and patience are abandoned, violence takes over. That is why, according to a hadith report, the Prophet is said to have commented that when faced with oppression and injustice, to wait for succor is the best form of worship. The Prophet was ordered by God to seek to avoid conflict, as far as possible, with his enemies. The Quran and the Hadith are replete with exhortations addressed to the Muslims to abide by justice and goodness in relations with others. Thus, for instance, the Quran says:
‘Nor can goodness and evil be equal. Repel [evil] with what is better: then will he between whom and you was hatred become as it were your friend and intimate. And no one will be granted such goodness except those who exercise patience and self-restraint—none but persons of the greatest good fortune’ (41:34-35).
The Quran instructs the Prophet to be soft and kind towards others thus:
‘It is part of the mercy of God that you deal gently with them. Were you severe or harsh-hearted, they would have broken away from about you: so pass over [their faults], and ask for [God’s] forgiveness for them’ (3:159).
The Prophet always chose gentleness over harshness, as is apparent from numerous references in the books of Hadith and history. For instance, instead of wishing him ‘peace be unto you’ (asalam aleikum) many Jews would say to him ‘death be unto you’ (as-samu aleikum). Once, angered by this, the Prophet’s wife Ayesha said to them, ‘The curse and anger of God be upon you.’ At once the Prophet corrected his wife and said, ‘O Ayesha! God is gentle and loves gentleness, and He gives to gentleness what He does not to harshness’.
The Prophet always sought to avoid confrontation, if that were at all possible, no matter how crucial the issue, even if it concerned the basic foundations of Islam. Thus, for instance, in his time the Ka‘aba was not structured on the same pattern as Abraham had originally set it, but, in order to avoid confrontation, the Prophet did not rectify it. Likewise, the Prophet had to suffer immense persecution in Mecca in the first thirteen years of his prophethood, but yet he never raised a finger against his opponents. Then, after he migrated to Mecca, he entered into a peace treaty with the Jews and pagans of that town.
Compared to medieval Europe, relations between different communities were far less strained in several parts of the medieval Muslim world. The influence of Islamic teachings was undoubtedly a major factor for this. Thus, in Muslim Spain the Jews prospered, economically as well as intellectually. When the Muslims lost control of Spain in the late fifteenth century, both the Spanish Muslims and Jews were subjected to horrendous persecution by the Church and the Christians. At this time it was the Muslim Ottoman Empire that came to the rescue of the Spanish Jews, who sought refuge in different parts of that empire. Even such a brazen advocate of American imperialism as the Jewish scholar Bernard Lewis has acknowledged this fact.
However, and despite this tradition of which Muslims can justly be proud, the fact of extremist thinking in some influential Muslim circles today cannot be denied. Certain local factors as well as international political developments have given this tendency a great fillip, but this should not be used as an excuse to deny the existence of this tendency or to deny the role of Muslims themselves in fomenting strife and conflict or to place the blame for this lamentable state of affairs entirely on others.
Today, certain radical groups who call themselves ‘Islamic’ are playing havoc with the lives of innocent people, non-Muslims as well as Muslims. They are engaged in thoroughly uncalled-for violent acts in the name of Islam while considering themselves ‘lovers of Islam’. They seek justification for their actions in Islam itself. It is thus very natural that many non-Muslims, and even some Muslims as well, are bound to develop negative feelings, even revulsion, for Islam based on the wrong claims and heinous acts of these radical self-styled ‘Islamic’ groups.
Among the various factors for the emergence of violence in the name of Islam is what I consider the very serious carelessness of the Muslims themselves. Here I wish to deal with two aspects of this question, the first of which relates to the matters internal to the Muslims, and the second which relates to relations between Muslims and others.
Muslims have always been divided on the basis of sectarian affiliation. This is not a new phenomenon. These various sects, which number in their dozens, are divided on the basis of some minor issues, but mostly their differences relate to different claims about the past. These latter have become a major source of heated contestation and strife among Muslims today. Sometimes, this even leads to killings on a massive scale, as happens occasionally in countries like Pakistan. We must admit that many Muslims simply have no tolerance for Muslims of other sects, leave alone for people of other religions. Lamentably, Muslim religious leaders have made no serious efforts to unite Muslims, who are miserably divided against each other on the basis of sect and jama‘at. They have done precious little to end sectarian hatred and strife, which are causing such damage to Muslims in general.
The generally pathetic status of Muslims at the global level has led to pervasive and widespread despondency and the perception of being oppressed by others. In turn, this has led to emotionally surcharged feelings of revenge, which underlies the appeal of what is called ‘Islamic awakening’ among large sections of the Muslim youth. In fact, it would not be wrong to say that much of what passes of as such ‘Islamic awakening’ is simply a expression of this desire for revenge for the oppression that Muslims in different parts of the world have suffered or perceive themselves as having suffered. In a very simplistic manner, its advocates have sought to convince other Muslims that this ‘Islamic awakening’ is tantamount to, or synonymous with, reviving the ‘Golden Age’ of Islam and the revolutionary traditions of the pious predecessors. Muslim scholars and others who dare to critique their claims are branded as ignorant about Islam and even as agents of the West.
Consuming even a little alcohol is prohibited in Islam because this might well lead to addiction. Likewise, Islam forbids even the slightest form of extremism because it can lead to people becoming addicted to it. The Prophet Muhammad is said to have declared that if even a bit of something is addictive it is forbidden or haram in Islam. This is a very meaningful statement. Relating it to the present-day phenomenon of extremism and violence, one can confidently assert that all forms of extremism and uncalled-for violence, no matter how slight, are sternly forbidden in Islam. This issue can be further understood in the light of another instance. Some ulema have issued fatwas and statements allowing for Muslims to engage in suicide bombings in the particular context of occupied Palestine, although suicide is considered wholly forbidden or haram in Islam. However, allowing for suicide bombings in the case of Palestine rapidly led to some Muslim groups taking to, and considering, suicide bombings to be the most effective means of taking on their opponents. Some radical so-called Islamists now boast that while the West has atom bombs, they have an even more deadly weapon in their arsenal—human bombs. And so this phenomenon of suicide bombings has rapidly spread from the narrow confines of Palestine, where they were deployed to target the Zionist oppressors, to various other parts of the world, including Muslim countries, where, such as in Pakistan, they have now become an almost daily occurrence, causing the death of thousands of innocent Muslims themselves and enormous destruction, including of schools and even of Islamic institutions.
Extremism is a bottled-up genie, which, once allowed out of the bottle, refuses to go back again. It has now become imperative for Muslim religious and political leaders and activists to seek to push back this genie into its bottle. They must openly and explicitly condemn the chaos and strife that is being caused in various parts of the world in the name of jihad. It is not enough, as is today generally the case, for our leaders to simply claim that Islam is a religion of peace and that it is opposed to terrorism. These sort of abstract and general statements are clearly insufficient to make any dent whatsoever in the prevailing situation. For this to happen, our leaders must readily denounce, in very clear and explicit terms and by specifically mentioning their names, the organizations, movements and individuals that are promoting what the Quran condemns as ‘strife in the world’ (fasad fil- arz) in the name of jihad. They must clearly declare that such elements are not themujahids they claim to be, but that, in fact, they are rebels. In this way, one hopes, the popular support that such elements who spread chaos in the name of jihad will decline and they can be socially ostracized.
(Maulana Waris Mazhari is the editor of the New Delhi-based monthly Tarjuman Dar ul-Uloom, the official organ of the Graduates’ Association of the Deoband madrasa. He can be contacted on w.mazhari@gmail.com
Yoginder Sikand works with the Centre for the Study of Social Exclusion at the National Law School, Bangalore.)
The following is a paper presented to the AMJA Conference on The Halal and Haram in Food and Medicine (Los Angeles, California, March 2-4, 2012). Note that this paper does not represent AMJA in any way, and only represents the opinions of the author.
