الترابي: يجوز للمسلمة الزواج من المسيحي أو اليهودي وشهادتها تعادل الرجل تماما

Friends,
Can you believe this new Fatwa? it came from the same person who has been all his life advocating the opposite of this!
I'm concerned that this 'progressive' Fatwa, which is coming from one of the most enemies of social justice and freedom of religion, is meant to distort the image of progressive and liberal Islam advocates.
Just imagine, this person, Dr./Sheikh Hassan Turabi is on the same side of Ms. Wadud, Ms. Isra Nomani, and Dr. Mahdi Ibn Ziyad (all have been advocating for Muslim women-led parayer)!!
Blog Maintainer

الخرطوم: الشرق الأوسط
في افتاءات جديدة مثيرة للجدل، جوز الزعيم الإسلامي السوداني الدكتور حسن الترابي، زواج المرأة المسلمة من الرجل الكتابي «مسيحيا كان أو يهوديا»، قبل أن يصف أن القول بحرمة ذلك، بأنه مجرد «أقاويل وتخرصات وأوهام وتضليل»، الهدف منها جر المرأة إلى الوراء. واعتبر الترابي «الحجاب» للنساء، يعني الستار وهو الخمار لتغطية الصدر وجزء من محاسن المرأة، «ولا يعني تكميم النساء»، بناء على الفهم الخاطئ لمقاصد الدين، والآيات التي نزلت بخصوص الحجاب والخمار.
وقال الترابي، 74 عاما، إن منع زواج المرأة المسلمة من غير المسلم، ليس من الشرع في شيء والإسلام لم يحرمه ولا توجد آية أو حديث يحرم زواج المسلمة من الكتابي مطلقا، إلا أن الترابي نوه الى أن الحرمة التي كانت موجودة، كانت مرتبطة بالحرب والقتال بين المسلمين وغيرهم تزول بزوال السبب.
وأضاف الترابي، انه يقدم الأسانيد لما أفتى به، وقال إن «التخرصات والأباطيل التي تمنع زواج المرأة المسلمة من الكتابي، لا أساس لها من الدين، ولا تقوم على ساق من الشرع الحنيف»، وأضاف «وما تلك الا مجرد أوهام وتضليل وتجهيل واغلاق وتحنيط وخدع للعقول، الإسلام منها براء».
وجدد الترابي، الذي كان يتحدث في ندوة بدار حزب الأمة المعارض، الذي يتزعمه مبارك الفاضل، أقواله السابقة التي جوزت امامة المرأة للرجل في الصلاة، وقال إن من حق المرأة المسلمة، أن تؤم الرجال وتتقدم الصفوف للصلاة، اذا كانت اكثر علما وفقها في الدين من الرجال، وأوضح «أنه من حقها في هذه الحالة».
واستشهد الترابي، في هذا الخصوص، بالرسول محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم، بأنه كان قد سمح لإحدى الصحابيات العالمات والمتبحرات في الدين، ان تؤم أهل بيتها في الصلاة بمن في ذلك الرجال، سواء كان زوجها او ابنها، وأضاف «ليس هناك ما يمنع ذلك فقط، يجب الا يلتصق الرجال بالنساء التصاقا قويا في الصفوف، حتى لا تحدث الشهوة والانصراف عن الصلاة».
وشدد الترابي في الندوة التي جاءت بعنوان «دور المرأة في تأسيس الحكم الراشد»، على أن الاسلام لم يحرم أو يمنع إمامة المرأة وتقدمها للرجال في الصفوف، وضرب مثلا بالسيدة عائشة زوجة الرسول، التي كانت اكثر فقها وعلما من الرجال، واجاز الترابي الصلاة المختلطة بين الرجال والنساء، شريطة التباعد وعدم الاحتكاك.
ورأى الترابي أن قوامة الرجال على النساء، لا تعني أنهم أفضل من النساء، ونبه الى أن القوامة ليست في كل الأمور، بل تتعلق بالأمور الخاصة التي ليست من اختصاص المرأة، وهي من اختصاص الرجال مثل التجارة، وأضاف «ولكن ليس معنى القوامة الأفضلية المطلقة للرجال على النساء»، وشدد على أن هناك نساء أفضل وأفقه وأعلم من الرجال.
وقال الترابي، في الندوة التي حضرها حشد من السياسيين وعلماء الدين، إن شهادة المرأة تساوي شهادة الرجل تماما وتوازيه بناء على هذا الأمر، بل أحيانا تكون أفضل منه وأعلم وأقوى منه، ونفى الترابي ما يقال إن امرأتين تساوي شهادة رجل واحد، وقال »ليس ذلك من الدين أو الإسلام، بل هي مجرد أوهام وأباطيل وتدليس أريد بها تغييب وسجن العقول في الأفكار الظلامية، التي لا تمت للإسلام في شيء. وتحدى الترابي في هذا الخصوص «من يثبت صحة كل تلك الأباطيل أو يأتي بما يؤكدها من الكتاب والسنة». واعتبر الترابي أن التعامل السائد الآن مع حجاب المرأة، لا يخلو من بعض الفهم الخاطئ لمقاصد الآيات القرآنية التي نزلت بخصوص حجاب والخمار للمرأة، لا يمكن تعميها، وقال إن آيات الحجاب تخص نساء النبي محمد، ونزلت بمعنى الستار الذي يفصل بين نساء الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم وضيوفه من الصحابة وغيرهم، وأضاف «أما الخمار، فإنه جاء لتغطية صدر المرأة وجزء من محاسنها، ولا يعني بأي حال من الأحوال «تكميم المرأة»، بناء على الفهم الخاطئ لمقاصد الآيات، التي نزلت بخصوص الحجاب والخمار. وقال الترابي إن الإسلام أعطى المرأة حقوقها كاملة، ولم ينقصها شيئا، «وتقدم على القوانين الغربية، التي هضمت حق المرأة وظلمتها كثيرا في الماضي». ودعا الترابي المرأة الى اقتحام مجالات العمل السياسي والإبداعي والفكري والرياضي، وأخذ حقوقها كاملة، والمساهمة في وضع الاستراتيجيات والتشريعات التي تكفل تلك الحقوق. ووجهه الترابي هجوما عنيفا على الحكومة السودانية، وقال إن نظام الحكم القائم الآن في السودان ليس راشدا، وقال الترابي إن البلاد تفتقر وتعاني من عدم وجود الحكم الرشيد، الذي يقوم على مبادئ الحرية والشفافية والمساءلة والعدالة والمشاركة الديمقراطية، وأضاف الترابي «نحن الآن في حكم غير رشيد، والفساد في كل البلاد، ولا بد من إصلاح الأسرة والمجتمع، واشراك المرأة»، وشدد على ضرورة أن يتضمن قانون الانتخابات نصا يحدد مشاركة المرأة حتى يكون لها دور في الأحزاب والانتخابات وقيادة البلاد.
وظل الترابي كلما اتيحت له السانحة، يقدم افتاءات مثيرة للجدل الديني، وأخيرا اعتبر الترابي أن القول بظهور المسيح من جديد غير صحيح، وأفتى الترابي أن الخمور لا تكون جريمة، إلا اذا تحولت الى عدوان، وكان قد أثار قوله بجواز إمامة المرأة للرجل قبل اشهر، الساحة الدينية في البلاد وجعلها بين مؤيد ومعارض، ومن بين افتاءاته المثيرة للجدل قوله إن «الحور العين

Don't be silenced by extremists

A plea from 11 Canadian Muslim academics and activists:
Feb. 28, 2006. 10:37 AM

The Toronto Star
http://tinyurl.com/gkxyr

curtain of fear has descended on the intelligentsia of the West, including Canada. The fear of being misunderstood as Islamophobic has sealed their lips, dried their pens and locked their keyboards.

With hundreds dead around the world in the aftermath of the now infamous Danish cartoons, Canada's writers, politicians and media have imposed a frightening censorship on themselves, refusing to speak their minds, thus ensuring that the only voices being heard are that of the Muslim extremists and the racist right.

Emboldened by the free rein they have received, Canada's Muslim extremists and their supporters flexed their muscles at Queen's Park last week, with speakers promising to drown the Danish people "in their own blood".

A protestor carried the sign "Kurt Westgaard — countdown to justice has begun ... it's just a matter of time."

Elsewhere, in Pakistan, a Muslim woman was pictured carrying a sign, "God Bless Hitler," and a Muslim cleric placed a $1 million reward for the murder of a Danish cartoonist. Embassies were burned, churches ruined and hundreds died in different Muslim countries.

Undoubtedly, Muslims were angered by the insulting cartoons. But the overblown reaction was partly due to their pent-up frustrations, and partly the result of orchestrated mischief by certain Islamist leaders.

Islamic societies, run by variances of autocratic regimes, are in turmoil. Ravaged by rampant corruption, a widening gap between rich and poor, and suppression of dissent, the people in these societies have lost hope in their own futures.

The U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, the unending occupation of the Palestinian territories and the quagmire of the Kashmiri dispute, have led many Muslims and non-religious peoples of Islamic origin, to view the West as the source of their countries' problems.

The growing popularity of the extremists in Muslim societies, the electoral success of the likes of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Iran, Shia radicals in Iraq, and Hamas in the Palestinian territories, rather than signifying the growing religiosity of the peoples of the Middle East, reflect political despair in the region.

In the West, people of Muslim origin, be they religious or secular, are facing growing racism, Islamophobia and discrimination reflected in immigration policies and anti-terrorist legislation.

The cartoon crisis was the straw that broke the camel's back.

The Muslim extremists seized the opportunity and added fuel to fire. The calculated role played by the two Danish Muslim extremists, backed by Islamic fundamentalist regimes, is a case in point. They not only aggravated an already inflammatory situation, but added their own infuriating images, never published in the West, as they took their case to clerics in the Middle East.

Both, Imam Abu Laban and Ahmad Akkari have escaped the attention and scrutiny their acts deserved. These two men, who now sit in the comfort of their homes in Denmark, should be held accountable for their criminal actions.

For too long the media have created an image that portrays communities from the Muslim world as a monolith entity, best represented by extremists.

The media have created a false dichotomy that pits these Muslim extremists against the West. The fact is that in all Muslim countries, progressive citizens are trying to break loose from the tyranny of the autocrats and clerics and wish to develop a civil society where citizenship is based not on inherited race or religion, but the equality of all, irrespective of faith, race, sexuality or gender.

In Tehran today, the city's bus drivers are on strike. Thousands have been arrested; entire families have disappeared. Yet, this has not made a blip in the western media. If the same bus drivers were burning books or embassies, this would certainly be on the evening news. This is an appalling example that only outrageous, violent expressions of faith by Muslim extremists are taken as the aspirations of people from Islamic societies.

It is time for Canadians to stand up for the hard-won democratic values that the Muslim extremists oppose.

By rejecting the agenda of the extremists, Canada's intelligentsia would be standing shoulder to shoulder with the Muslims and secular individuals from the region who reject both Islamophobia and Islamism. Islamism is not the new revolutionary movement against global forces of oppression, as a section of the left in this country erroneously perceives.

Today, the religious right and autocracies in the so-called Islamic world are united in their call for passing legislation to make any discussion on religion a criminal offence. This, at a time when many writers in Jordan, Iran, Yemen, Pakistan and Afghanistan are rotting in jails, facing charges of apostasy and blasphemy.

We call on Canadian politicians and intellectuals to stand up for freedom of expression. Our democratic values, including free speech, should not be compromised under the garb of fighting hate. To fight Islamophobia and racism, we do not need to sacrifice free speech and debate.

Dr. Mahdi Ibn Ziyad: On the Inter-religious Marraige

The progressive Muslim imam, Dr. Mahdi Ibn Ziyad has recently officiated a marriage between a Muslim woman and a Christian Man. He kindly agreed to share the marriage Khuttaba (sermon) with us here on this Blog.

P.S. Dr. Mahdi is the director of the Africana Islamic Institute in Camden, NJ and he is the author of many articles on human rights and faith. Check out his article "An Africana View of Progressive Islam" which is posted on this blog and aslo found here:http://www.forusa.org/fellowship/sept-oct-04/ibnziyad.html

Nikah Marriage
of
Muslim Woman and Christian Man
Officiated by:
Dr. A.S. Mahdi Ibn-Ziyad

Opening Prayers
Al-Fatihah, Muslim
Lord’s Prayer and Hail Mary, Christian
Reading of Kahlil Gibran’s The Prophet, “On Love” by Sister XX

Part I

Key Points Pre-Nikah Counseling Session 10:30 am
(To Be Repeated in the khutbah, Part II Below)

Assalamu’ alaikuum

Liberal Islamic and Africana Assumptions of Marriage

* First, given the fact that I, as a liberal Muslim, have been called by the marrying parties to officiate at their marriage, I must follow my own religious tradition, while respecting and appreciating the Christian religious tradition of my friend and collegue, Brother Y who is set to marry Sister X, a free, adult Muslim woman.

* Mine is a life-long calling of pursuing the path of faith in God and faith in the fact that God alone is the Best Judge of our intents, behaviors and philosophical differences (Qur’an 16: 63-64).

* Though it’s a mixed religious marriage, the marriage format will follow a mostly Muslim style etiquette, interspersed with elements of the Christian tradition.

* Secondly, given that I joyously accepted their call to assist them in this mixed marriage between people two wonderful African people of different faith traditions, I take to heart the fundamental notion that all humans, male and female, rich and poor, and from whatever nationality and religion are inherently equal with certain basic human rights and privileges. Among these rights is the freedom to marry the person one chooses, within certain limitations.

* Thirdly, given the nature of this proposed mixed marriage between a Muslim woman and Christian man, a decidedly liberal interpretation of the Islamic view of marriage must obtain.

Why? Because in the majority, conservative and orthodox interpretations of Islam a Muslim woman marrying a non-Muslim man is not permitted and is strictly forbidden.

However, since marriage in Islam is a sacred covenant or contract, the parties to the contract must be able to meet each other on equal grounds in order to give their voluntary consent to the contract.

If women are actually free, they ought to then be equal to men in both Islamic theory or theologizing and the freedom to fully practice religion.

* The liberal Muslim view for approval of this marriage is thus based on the principles of reason, justice, and respect for other people of faith who may be of a different religious persuasion.

This liberal view is both grounded in a liberal view of religion and in Islamic humanism.

It is Islamic because we note that Islam, as Divine Revelation, is both unitarian and universalist and has been since its inception over 1400 years ago as vouchsafed by the Prophet Muhammad.
It is unitarian in that God is and remains One and Indivisible, no matter the names humans understand the Divine with.

It is universal because prophets of God and God’s revelations have been sent to all nations and people (Qur’an 10: 17) and people of other faiths who are sincere in their beliefs may be as certain of salvation as sincere Muslims are (Qur’an 2:62).

It is the decidely humanistic Islamic spirit that demands that all are equal and that there be no divisions based on matters of faith for according to the Qur’an “there is no compulsion in religion” (Qur’an 2:256).

* Moreover, the liberal view of this matter of woman’s status in marrying takes its cue from the egalitarian philosophical idea that Muslim women, as well as Muslim men, are or should be considered mature adults and ought to be treated equally and have equal rights.

* The liberal view certainly understands that most male scholars who have interpreted the Qur’an and hadiths have made it allowable for Muslim men to marry believing women who are not Muslims. These women may be Jews, Christians, Sabians, Hindus or Buddhists or any other religion recognized by various schools and sects of Muslim scholars. These same predominantly male interpreters have also seen fit to not extend that right of marriage to women.

* Modernist and progressive Islamic thinking seeks the establishment of more updated notions of justice in relations among males and females, to the extent that these newer notions do not violate the fundamental standards of justice revealed in the Qur’an.

* The liberal view thus opposes and challenges the ancient cultural traditions and customs of male privilege which demands female inferiority and submission to perpetual male tutelage. Women, as well as men, ought to be free to conduct their lives in a wholesome manner in accordance with reason and a rational understanding of religion.

* Hence both Muslim men and Muslim women ought to feel free to marry men and women of other religious faiths, as long as these others demonstrate some kind of involvement in the faith or practices of their choice.

Africana Heritage

* Surely in this pre-Kwanzaa time of preparing to bring forth the yearly harvest celebration it is fitting that we African people ask the question in Swahili, “Habari Gani?” What’s the news or what’s happening? Today the obvious answer is that Y and Sister X are getting married. That’s what’s up!!!

* Our long gone African ancestors and the great Pan-Africanist teachers would rejoice at the site of this nuptial between a son and daughter of Mother Africa.

I can hear the voices of Ture, Garvey, DuBois, Kenyetta, Nkrumah, Samora Machel, Malcolm X, Ida B. Wells, Queen Mother Audley Moore and even Joaquim Chissano and his old rival Afonso Dhaklama …all joyous at the thought of this wedding between two of continental Africa’s own children, now of the African diaspora living in America.

* That both parties to this proposed marriage are of African descent is good, because racial and ethnic solidarity and similarity may help solidify the marriage over the long haul.

* Racial and ethnic relatedness is no guarantee of a life of marital bliss in paradise, yet such kinship relations can most often serve to keep the marriage partners together because of mutual cultural, language and other such interests.

* Let the words of our great Jamaican ancestor and father of Pan-Africanism, Marcus Mosiah Garvey ring true here in recognition of this marriage, as we are:

“Invoking the aid of the just and Almighty God, we do declare all men, women and children of our blood throughout the world free citizens, and do claim them as free citizens of Africa, the Motherland of all Negroes.

Up, Up, You Mighty Race, You Can Accomplish What You Will!!!”


Up, Up, You Mighty Race, In Love You Can Accomplish What You Will!!!”


Up, Up, You Mighty Race, In Marriage You Can Accomplish What You Will!!!”

ONE GOD, ONE AIM, ONE DESTINY!!!



Al-Fatihah and Christian Tradition Prayers
Reading of Kahlil Gibran’s The Prophet, “On Marriage” by Sister XX

Part II

The Nikah or Marriage Proper 12: 00 pm

The Marriage Contract, Witnesses and Dowry

Assalamu’ alaikuum

* Are both parties free persons. Are the contracting parties of sound mind and do they have the ability to enter a marriage contract under their own volition without duress?

* Are there any reasons why the marriage parties would not be able to freely and voluntarily enter into the sacred covenant of marriage?

* Have you both reviewed the stipulations of the contract?

* Are there any parts of the contract to which either party has not firmly agreed to?

* Is there any contractual language that you do not clearly understand?

* Do you now agree to give your mutual consent to the marriage contract?

* Who are they who witness this public marriage contract?

Witness ___________________________________________________________

Witness ___________________________________________________________

* Will the two witnesses step forward and briefly peruse the written contract between Brother Y and Sister X? The witnesses must ascertain if a contract is evident.

* Is there a dowry or nuptial gift to be settled on the woman?
The dowry given by Y “is an admission of the independence of the wife” because she becomes the sole owner of the property is given (Qur’an 4:4).

* What is the nature of the gift of Brother Y Sister X? Y will please place the dowry on X’s person.

* The sacred marriage covenant or contract is now entered into by the mutual consent of the prospective husband and wife.

* Words of love and appreciation by the new husband and wife.

Allahu Akbar, Allahu Akbar, God is Great, Muslim

Hallelujah, Rejoice, Glory to Christ, Christian

The End of the Marriage Etiquette Proper

Part III

Al-Fatihah and Christian Tradition Prayer

Short Sermon (khutbah) by Dr. Ibn-Ziyad

Assalamu’ alaikuum

* Reading of Qur’an 4:1 “O people, keep your duty to your Lord, who created you from a single being and created its mate of the same kind, and spread form these two many men and women. And your duty to Allah, by whom you demand one another your rights and to ties of kinship. Surely Allah is ever a Watcher over you”.

* Reading of Qur’an 4:28 “And man (and woman) was created weak [cannot be patient in matters of sexual intercourse]”. Thus marriage becomes a blessing against sexual promiscuity and other related ills.

* Reading of Qur’an 24: 32, “And marry those among you who are single, and those who are fit … if they are needy Allah will make them free from want out of Divine grace. And Allah is Ample-giving, Knowing”.

Brother Lemane and Sister Arline, yours is a religiously mixed marriage and that is good. It is also one in which the man is non-Muslim while the woman is Muslim. Yours is a different kind of marriage and thus demands loving, celebratory words that diminish the differences while expanding and building on that which binds humans together.

To your credit you called me, a liberal and progressive Muslim African American religious philosopher and activist, to assist you in making this marriage a public reality. I hope to not fail you in this task.

Given who I am, what then are some liberal Islamic and Africana assumptions of the nature of marriage?


* First, given the fact that I, as a liberal Muslim, have been called by the marrying parties to officiate at their marriage, I had to follow my own religious tradition, while respecting and appreciating the Christian religious tradition of my friend and colleague, Brother Y who has now married Sister X, a free, adult Muslim woman.

* Mine is a life-long calling of pursuing the path of faith in God and faith in the fact that God alone is the Best Judge of our intents, behaviors and philosophical differences (Qur’an 16: 63-64). I have a pre-Islamic background as a Christian pastor and minister of the social gospel. I also teach university courses in the history and philosophy of Africana religious thought. My own doctoral studies were in Islamic and Africana ethics and social teachings of faith.

* Secondly, given that I joyously accepted their call to assist them in this mixed marriage between people two wonderful African people of different faith traditions, I take to heart the fundamental notion that all humans, male and female, rich and poor, and from whatever nationality and religion are inherently equal with certain basic human rights and privileges. Among these rights is the freedom to marry the person one chooses, within certain limitations.

* Thirdly, given the nature of this proposed mixed marriage between a Muslim woman and Christian man, a decidedly liberal interpretation of the Islamic view of marriage must obtain.

Why? Because in the majority, conservative and orthodox interpretations of Islam a Muslim woman marrying a non-Muslim man is not permitted and is strictly forbidden.

However, since marriage in Islam is a sacred covenant or contract, the parties to the contract must be able to meet each other on equal grounds in order to give their voluntary consent to the contract.

If women are actually free, they ought to then be equal to men in both Islamic theory or theologizing and the freedom to fully practice religion.

* The liberal Muslim view for approval of this marriage is thus based on the principles of reason, justice, and respect for other people of faith who may be of a different religious persuasion. This liberal view is both grounded in a liberal view of religion and in Islamic humanism.

It is Islamic because we note that Islam, as Divine Revelation, is both unitarian and universalist and has been since its inception over 1400 years ago as vouchsafed by the Prophet Muhammad.
It is unitarian in that God is and remains One and Indivisible, no matter the names humans understand the Divine with.
It is universal because prophets of God and God’s revelations have been sent to all nations and people (Qur’an 10: 17) and people of other faiths who are sincere in their beliefs may be as certain of salvation as sincere Muslims are (Qur’an 2:62).
It is the decidely humanistic Islamic spirit that demands that all are equal and that there be no divisions based on matters of faith for according to the Qur’an “there is no compulsion in religion” (Qur’an 2:256).

* Moreover, the liberal view of this matter of woman’s status in marrying takes its cue from the egalitarian philosophical idea that Muslim women, as well as Muslim men, are or should be considered mature adults and ought to be treated equally and have equal rights.

* The liberal view certainly understands that most male scholars who have interpreted the Qur’an and hadiths have made it allowable for Muslim men to marry believing women who are not Muslims. These women may be Jews, Christians, Sabians, Hindus or Buddhists or any other religion recognized by various schools and sects of Muslim scholars. These same predominantly male interpreters have also seen fit to not extend that right of marriage to women.

* Modernist and progressive Islamic thinking seeks the establishment of more updated notions of justice in relations among males and females, to the extent that these newer notions do not violate the fundamental standards of justice revealed in the Qur’an.

* The liberal view thus opposes and challenges the ancient cultural traditions and customs of male privilege which demands female inferiority and submission to perpetual male tutelage. Women, as well as men, ought to be free to conduct their lives in a wholesome manner in accordance with reason and a rational understanding of religion.

* Hence both Muslim men and Muslim women ought to feel free to marry men and women of other religious faiths, as long as these others demonstrate some kind of involvement in the faith or practices of their choice.



Africana Heritage

* Surely in this pre-Kwanzaa time of preparing to bring forth the yearly harvest celebration it is fitting that we African people ask the question in Swahili, “Habari Gani?” What’s the news or what’s happening? Today the obvious answer is that Y and Sister X are getting married. That’s what’s up!!!

* Our long gone African ancestors and the great Pan-Africanist teachers would rejoice at the site of this nuptial between a son and daughter of Mother Africa.

I can hear the voices of Ture, Garvey, DuBois, Kenyetta, Nkrumah, Samora Machel, Malcolm X, Ida B. Wells, Queen Mother Audley Moore and even Joaquim Chissano and his old rival Afonso Dhaklama …all joyous at the thought of this wedding between two of continental Africa’s own children, now of the African diaspora living in America.

* That both parties to this proposed marriage are of African descent is good, because racial and ethnic solidarity and similarity may help solidify the marriage over the long haul.

* Racial and ethnic relatedness is no guarantee of a life of marital bliss in paradise, yet such kinship relations can most often serve to keep the marriage partners together because of mutual cultural, language and other such interests.

* Let the words of our great Jamaican ancestor and father of Pan-Africanism, Marcus Mosiah Garvey ring true here in recognition of this marriage, as we are:

“Invoking the aid of the just and Almighty God, we do declare all men, women and children of our blood throughout the world free citizens, and do claim them as free citizens of Africa, the Motherland of all Negroes.

Up, Up, You Mighty Race, You Can Accomplish What You Will!!!”


Brother Y and Sister X, as I close, let me offer a few words of hope and encouragement to our newly weds.

Be in love with each other and your ideal vision of God.
Enjoy each other’s company and companionship.

Be of good cheer. Respect each other. Defend each other.

Hold fast to that which is good and forswear evil if at all possible; understand that evil must not be allowed to break bonds of love and solidarity.

When wrong ask for forgiveness. In the face of conflict and misunderstandings, after a short time forgive if you can and pray long if you cannot.

Attend to your religious duties in whatever way you mutually agree to.

Be generous and charitable and share your gifts with those who are more needy than you.

Enjoy the company of friends, relatives and visitors but enjoy the company of yourselves more so for you are mates and companions to one another.

Develop intellectual, artistic and recreational activities that bring mutual pleasure. Travel often if your budget allows.

Keep you financial matters tight, but not niggardly. Plan, save and invest if possible. Enjoy the fruits of your labor.

Make zakat or tithe some percentage portion of your income towards helping the poor, wayfarer, needy, homeless or orphan.

Remember and visit (if possible) your African ancestors and extended families on the continent and in the Diaspora.

Be pious, but not arrogant and flashy in things spiritual.

Seek understanding and clarity always.

After all is done and said once again remember your Nikah contract and its rights and obligations. After a reasonable time in marriage has elapsed, you may modify it along the way if that is mutually satisfactory.

Remain steadfast in your search for ultimate meaning as your vision of God is the being and ground of truth.

These then are my words to you, Brother Y and Sister X, as you embrak on this blessed venture of marriage.

May God grant you both the peace, happiness and security you have longed for.

Amin, Allahu Akbar!!

It's Time to Change the Haj Rituals

So far 345 bodies piled up in the streets of Mecca waiting to be buried and more than 1000 lay down injured in the hospitals after the becoming-annual-routine stampede during the last day of Muslim pilgrimage rituals: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/4607238.stm


This is happening every year (in 1990 the number exceeded 1000) since the Haj started to bring more people every year in the past 3-5 decades… the Saudi authorities know this will happen every year and did not move to take any serious action to prevent/reduce it…

Those who claim themselves Muslim imams are held responsible for not advising the Saudi authorities to change the Haj rituals in order to prevent this annual mass killing that especially targets women, children and older and sick people…

It’s not true that the Haj rituals could not be changed. We have to make up our minds (Ijtihad) the same way the second Caliph Omer bin-Khattab made it 12 years after the Prophet Muhammad’s death (in the Seventh Century). The Caliph had stopped the distribution of the War Spoils (Ghana’im) according to the Quran and noted that the clear verse (Aya) had not been working any for that time.

Numbers of progressive Muslim thinkers are suggesting to seriously considering the creation of multiple replicates of the original site, Satan Shrine, that hundreds get killed in stampede each year. Even some more are suggesting virtual sites (on large screen like those used during large crowds) in different locations around the Kaaba…

The Saudi royal king carries the title of “Servant of the two Shrines” and it’s time to hold him accountable.

Mohamed Elgadi

Making the Connection: Darfur & the Lost Boys of Sudan

Darfur Alert Coalition and the Free Library of Philadelphia Show Award-winning Film: The Lost Boys of Sudan
to an Overflow Crowd!

Friday, December 2nd,
The Darfur Alert Coalition partnered with The Free Library of Philadelphia to sponsor The Lost Boys of Sudan, the Award winning documentary that follows two Sudanese refugees on their extraordinary journey from Sudan to America.
This film offered people in the Philadelphia area a chance to make the connections between a number of key issues: refugee and immigrant rights issues, the effects of the war in Southern Sudan, and the on-going genocide in Darfur.

The Southern Sudanese Association, Western Sudanese Association and the Group Against Torture in Sudan (GATS) also co-sponsored this event and provided speakers for the panel discussion following the film.
The room for the viewing began filling up as people arrived early. By the 6 PM show time, the place was packed. As people continued arriving, we added new rows of extra seats and eventually squeezed dozens more in until people stood heel-to-toe from the last chair to the back wall. Even in this uncomfortable situation, the audience stayed, perhaps because as Jonathan Curiel said, the film was spellbinding. It humanized Sudan's continuing refugee problem.

Megan Mylan, the instigator of this opportunity and film's co-producer and her colleague sat outside the room with other organizers from DAC. We could hear the film playing and regularly hear the audience laugh at such scenes as when one of the Lost Boys fails his driving test and returns to the parking lot, smiles and gets in his car to drive off.

After the film, the overflow of the crowd cleared out, leaving a comfortably full room to participate in an open discussion with the panel. Dr. Mahdi Ibn Ziyad introduced the panel. People were riveted as Mohamed Ibrahim shook with passion while outlining the history of US involvement in Sudan and it's impact on Sudanese politics and his own life. Mohamed provided a context for understanding the cause of the refugee exodus that challenged the audience to dig deeper and learn more especially on the role of the Nixon/Reagan administrations in the current mess in Sudan .

Two Lost Boys, Michael Kuch and Joseph Deng spoke briefly about their experiences. They fielded questions from the audience about tribal conflicts and their efforts to lobby in Washington. They also pointedly addressed the value of Southern Sudanese joining with Darfur rights activists in working for a just, peaceful and unified Sudan.

Megan Mylan updated the audience on how the two Lost Boys in the film are doing now. She was also encouraged by someone in the audience to turn her attention and camera towards Mohamed Ibrahim and other survivors of torture and consider making a documentary about their harrowing and courageous experiences. Megan agreed and wrote down the man's contact information.
Fatima Haroun also made the connections between the suffering of the people from the war in Southern Sudan and her own people from Darfur. She was joined by another Darfurian voice from Philadelphia, Amira Teben who spoke very movingly about the importance of responding to the violence in Sudan as a human being and not allowing the twisted complications of politics to interfere with the urgency of attending to the humanitarian catastrophy that is causing so much anguish and suffering throughout the Darfur region.
Dr. Jerry Ehrlich looked as if he carried every one of the children who had died in his arms last year while he worked in Kalma Camp in Nyala, Darfur, Sudan. With remarkable humility and palpable anguish, he brought the depth of the human tragedy right into the room. He gave the audience a way to understand the necessity of each one of us doing all we can to stop the violence and get relief for the people of Darfur.
Dr. Ibn Ziyad addressed a question from the audience concerning the split among American Muslims' response to the genocide in Darfur.

Lou Ann Merkle thanked the audience for coming, the Free Library for hosting the event, the speakers for participating on the panel and the volunteers for helping make the evening a success. She particularly thanked Megan Mylan for using her creativity and skills to tell such important stories. She noted how invaluable the film is as tool for raising awareness, building community and helping heal the wounds of war. Merkle invited the audience to become actively involved in the work of the Darfur Alert Coalition including the upcoming Sudanese Speaking Tour.
Pat DeBrady brought letters urging our Congressional representatives to co-sponsor The Darfur Peace and Accountability Act. People signed the letters that will be sent to key Congress people.

Sonya Springer helped promote the event and Martina Johnson-Allen helped hand out our DAC literature at the event. Tigani Abu Algasim and many other Sudanese were there, as were Suzannah Gund, Stephanie Nyambyire, Rita, Katie and a lot of other Swarthmore students.
Temple professors and students were there along with folks who had attended our first event a year ago at The Church of the Advocate or this past summer at The African American Museum.

Nearly 50 people signed up to be on our mailing list with some noting they wanted to volunteer with DAC. Our challenge will be to continue offering such programs and find a way to keep working together to advocate for an end to the violence in Darfur and help the people of Darfur reclaim their lives, livelihoods and land.

reported by Lou Ann Merkle

Maher Hathout: ANSWERS TO FIVE 'REPULSIVE' QUESTIONS

"Answers to Five 'Repulsive' Questions"
By Maher Hathout

Los Angeles Times, 12/4/05
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-faith4dec04,0,183165.story

ON NOV. 13, Current's Faith Front featured an essay by contributor Dennis Prager, "Five questions non-Muslims need answered." Maher Hathout, spokesman for the Islamic Center of Southern California, replies: Prager's attempt to make America's more than 6 million Muslims feel like culprits was repulsive, but for the sake of argument, let's examine the questions to which he requested a response.

• "Why are you so quiet?"
Like an urban myth, the idea that Muslims have been mute since 9/11 plagues us. Prager knows that mainstream Muslims have issued condemnations of terrorism ad nauseam, and American Muslim scholars even issued a fatwa against terrorism this summer. The organization I advise (the Muslim Public Affairs Council) last year put together an integrated, grass-roots campaign to fight terrorism and extremism. The problem isn't how loud we are but how deaf some people can be.

• "Why are none of the Palestinian Christians terrorists?"
Beyond the seemingly deliberate tone of cynicism here, Prager seems to forget that the current spate of suicide attacks was initiated by the Munich Olympics tragedy, which was concocted by a non-Islamic group led by a Christian named George Habash. There is nothing about being Muslim that leads to terrorism. The premise is wrong; so is the conclusion.

• "Why is only one of the 47 Muslim majority countries a free country?"
Lest we forget, the good people of Germany were led to their defeat by Hitler. The same scenario is true of Mussolini in Italy, and is true of present-day North Korea. Likewise, some Islamic nations are not free because they are led by tyrants who suppress the will of their people. But let's not forget that the colonial powers that dominated these countries found it easier to deal with the dictators they installed than with masses intent on creating their own destiny. Our country is not completely innocent on this score.

• "Why are so many atrocities committed and threatened by Muslims in the name of Islam?"
Yes, criminals are exploiting the grievances of depressed, oppressed and desperate masses in order to try to justify the unjustifiable. But finger-pointing won't get us anywhere. What we need now is to enable robust, mainstream Muslim organizations to expose this minority, isolate it and rid us of this scourge. Casting doubt about Muslims only adds to the haze and confusion that allow extremists international prominence. Innuendo only makes it less likely that any religion will be respected or its followers accepted.

• "Why do countries governed by religious Muslims persecute other religions?" What makes you so sure they're "religious Muslims"? The religiosity of any person or regime that does not respect human rights is dubious. You can't overlook the fact that these dictators direct the majority of their oppression toward active Muslim citizens who naturally pose a challenge to their religious and/or political authority.
Islam isn't the problem in these countries -- it would be the solution if moderate, inclusive leaders could gain international backing. These are the answers, but it seems that Prager has already drawn his own conclusions.
Rather than spreading doubts about the integrity of Muslims as Prager does here, countless other Jewish and Christian leaders have joined their Muslim colleagues in widespread campaigns to demystify Islam. As one of those Muslims with whom Prager has interacted, I had thought we could coordinate our efforts to spread the good word about Islam and Muslims for the sake of the harmony and safety of our society. Apparently, he's more interested in bigotry than progress.

Maher Hathout is senior advisor to the Muslim Public Affairs Council and a spokesman for the Islamic Center of Southern California.

What is your take on this?

The Controversial 'liberal' LA writer challneges Muslims...
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-faith4dec04,0,183165.story

FAITH FRONT
Five questions non-Muslims would like answered
By Dennis Prager,

He may be contacted through his website: www.dennisprager.com.

THE RIOTING IN France by primarily Muslim youths and the hotel bombings in Jordan are the latest events to prompt sincere questions that law-abiding Muslims need to answer for Islam's sake, as well as for the sake of worried non-Muslims. Here are five of them:

(1) Why are you so quiet?
Since the first Israelis were targeted for death by Muslim terrorists blowing themselves up in the name of your religion and Palestinian nationalism, I have been praying to see Muslim demonstrations against these atrocities. Last week's protests in Jordan against the bombings, while welcome, were a rarity.
What I have seen more often is mainstream Muslim spokesmen implicitly defending this terror on the grounds that Israel occupies Palestinian lands. We see torture and murder in the name of Allah, but we see no anti-torture and anti-murder demonstrations in the name of Allah.
There are a billion Muslims in the world. How is it possible that essentially none have demonstrated against evils perpetrated by Muslims in the name of Islam? This is true even of the millions of Muslims living in free Western societies. What are non-Muslims of goodwill supposed to conclude? When the Israeli government did not stop a Lebanese massacre of Palestinians in the Sabra and Chatilla refugee camps in Lebanon in 1982, great crowds of Israeli Jews gathered to protest their country's moral failing. Why has there been no comparable public demonstration by Palestinians or other Muslims to morally condemn Palestinian or other Muslim-committed terror?

(2) Why are none of the Palestinian terrorists Christian?
If Israeli occupation is the reason for Muslim terror in Israel, why do no Christian Palestinians engage in terror? They are just as nationalistic and just as occupied as Muslim Palestinians.

(3) Why is only one of the 47 Muslim-majority countries a free country?
According to Freedom House, a Washington-based group that promotes democracy, of the world's 47 Muslim countries, only Mali is free. Sixty percent are not free, and 38% are partly free. Muslim-majority states account for a majority of the world's "not free" states. And of the 10 "worst of the worst," seven are Islamic states. Why is this?

(4) Why are so many atrocities committed and threatened by Muslims in the name of Islam?
Young girls in Indonesia were recently beheaded by Muslim murderers. Last year, Muslims — in the name of Islam — murdered hundreds of schoolchildren in Russia. While reciting Muslim prayers, Islamic terrorists take foreigners working to make Iraq free and slaughter them. Muslim daughters are murdered by their own families in the thousands in "honor killings." And the Muslim government in Iran has publicly called for the extermination of Israel.

(5) Why do countries governed by religious Muslims persecute other religions?
No church or synagogue is allowed in Saudi Arabia. The Taliban destroyed some of the greatest sculptures of the ancient world because they were Buddhist. Sudan's Islamic regime has murdered great numbers of Christians.
Instead of confronting these problems, too many of you deny them. Muslims call my radio show to tell me that even speaking of Muslim or Islamic terrorists is wrong.
After all, they argue, Timothy McVeigh is never labeled a "Christian terrorist." As if McVeigh committed his terror as a churchgoing Christian and in the name of Christ, and as if there were Christian-based terror groups around the world.As a member of the media for nearly 25 years, I have a long record of reaching out to Muslims.

Muslim leaders have invited me to speak at major mosques. In addition, I have studied Arabic and Islam, have visited most Arab and many other Muslim countries and conducted interfaith dialogues with Muslims in the United Arab Emirates as well as in the U.S. Politically, I have supported creation of a Palestinian state and supported (mistakenly, I now believe) the Oslo accords.

Hundreds of millions of non-Muslims want honest answers to these questions, even if the only answer you offer is, "Yes, we have real problems in Islam." Such an acknowledgment is infinitely better — for you and for the world — than dismissing us as anti-Muslim.
We await your response.

ٲول سودانية تقود الصلاة

Breaking News

Friends,
Ramadan Mubarak to all of you and may the spiritual peace of this Holy month be with all of you…

On Sat 10/8/2005 another Muslim group broke the silence and joined the growing Muslim movement that is calling and implementing the equality of women and men in front of Allah.

The Amherst Progressive Muslims www.amherstmuslims.blogspot.com is a core group of concerned Muslims from different background ethnicities (immigrants and non-immigrants). They want to “bring the true social justice face of Islam that has been hijacked by right-wing conservatives for centuries”.

The pray was led by Haja Zeinab Omer, a 78 year woman of the indigenous African people of Nubia (Egypt and Sudan). Ten Muslims participated in this historical event for the Muslim community of Western Massachusetts while many could not make it because of the tropical storm.

I spoke to Haja Zeinab (Haja is a title given to women who went to pilgrimage in the Holy Muslim city Mecca) after the Mughrib (sunset) prayer. She told me that there is no single reason that prevents Muslim women of leading men, women, or mixed-gender prayer. She draws my attention to the fact that in Mecca, the holiest place for Muslims, men and women pray in one place side by side..

The Amherst Progressive Muslims (APM) took this step after hearing about the Progressive Masjid of Philadelphia, another group that took this emancipatory step before the first publicly announced prayer in NYC last March. APM did not announce the historic event in advance for the safety of the fledgling group.

For many people, this woman-led prayer may not be a big issue but actually it’s a breaking news for immigrant Muslims in this country. It’s one indicator of women empowerment and successful step in claiming their faith…
(see this link to know about the history of women-led prayers http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/2232/context/archive)

Mohamed Elgadi
Reporting from Philadelphia, PA (USA)

Breaking News: Our First Woman-Led Prayer

Very soon our small group is going to have its first woman-led prayer in Amherst....!

Mainstream Muslim Orgs and Fear of Ijtihad

The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) is an umbrella of Muslim orgs that aim to be "an exemplary and unifying Islamic organization in North America that contributes to the betterment of the Muslim community and society at large".

How "the betterment of the Muslim community and society at large" would be possible without equal rights for women and men in the Mosque?
Read ISNA statement here:

http://www.isna.net/index.php?id=35&backPID=1&tt_news=11

Position on Leading Salat (the Formal prayer)

by Women

03-21-05 01:49 ISNA
To understand the role of woman in Islamic society, it is not sufficient to consider the factual status of women in one society or another, but one must look at the Qur'an and the Sunnah of Rasulillah. The main sources of Islamic norms are the Qur'an and the Sunnah of the Prophet SAW. These sources contain regulations and commandments including some which relate to the role of women in Islamic society. Allah said: "O you who believe, obey Allah, and obey the Messenger, and those charged with authority among you. If you differ in anything among yourselves, refer it to Allah and His messenger, If you do believe in Allah and the Last Day: That is best and most suitable for final determination" ( 4:59 ). He also says, "Whoever obeys the Messenger, obeys Allah" (4:80). And Allah said:" By your Lord they will never attend faith till they make you judge in all their affairs and then they should find any difficulty in their heart to accept and submit to you" al Nisa' (4: ) Salat is an act of worship and all in acts of worship we have to follow what our Prophet (SAW) did and after him the Khulafa and Imams of the Ummah. The Prophet (SAW) said: "Pray as you see me praying." The salat has been a practice of the ummah through 1400 years and there is no room for modification of the Salat according to the "changing times."

Woman leading the congregation
The scholars have put requirements and qualifications for the Imam of the salat, as they saw Rasulillah and his companions praying. Those qualifications are:

1. To be a Muslim.
2. To be 'Aqil (have a sound mind).
3. To be Baliq (reach the age of puberty). If a minor should lead the prayer, Abu Hanifa says the prayer (whether Fard or Sunnah) is not valid. Malik and ibn Hanbal allow it though.
4. To be a man. Many fuqaha allow women to lead women in prayer (Hanafi, Hanbali and Shafi'e). Imam Malik did not allow her to lead the prayer (Ref: Jawahir Al Akil, vol 1, pg 78; Ibn Abdeen, vol 1 pg 388; Al Dosouqee, vol 1 pg 326).
5. To be pure (have Tahara and Wudu). If someone does not have wudu or breaks his wudu, he should not lead the prayer.
6. To know the Ahkam (rules) of salat and to be able to read the Qur'an properly.

In a hadith the Prophet (SAW) said: "The best line of salat for men are the front and worse are the last. The best lines of salat for women are the last, and the worst are the front." In a hadith narrated by Ibn Majah the Prophet said:" A woman should not lead men in prayer," (Ibn Majah Vol:1,P343). According to the general consensus of jurists and scholars of Hadith, a woman is not allowed to lead men in Fard or Sunnah prayer or in congregation. She is, however, allowed to lead a congregation consisting only of women.

In the latter case, it is not only permitted for women to do so, rather it may even be considered highly recommended according to Imam Sha'f'ee, because of the greater rewards of praying in congregation (jama'ah) as compared to praying individually. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) never said that such rewards are solely applicable to men and that women are excluded. The authentic practice of the Mothers of the Faithful, such as `Ayesha and Umm Salamah (may Allah be pleased with them), also confirms this conclusion they lead women in fard prayer and they stood in the middle of the line( Al Muhalla Imam Ibn Hazem Vol 4 P 126,127). Ibn Umar (RA) he instructed his daughter to lead women in Ramadan, and Ayesha RA led women in Tarweeh prayer and in Maghrib prayer and she stood in the middle of line. Both of the esteemed wives of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), who were highly regarded for their deep grasp of religion, used to lead women in Salah (Prayer). Although the vast majority of scholars are of the opinion that a woman may not lead men at all, there is a minority of them - including scholars such as Imam Ibn Jarir, and a jurists such as Abu Thawr and Al-Muzani - who consider it permissible for a woman to lead members of her own household in Salah.

The last mentioned group of scholars have based their ruling on the following report of Abu Dawud on the authority of Umm Waraqah: The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) used to visit her in her own home; he appointed a mu'adhin (one who calls the adhan for Prayer) for her, and ordered her to lead the members of her household (in Salah)." Abu Daoud Hadith# 592)Umm Waraqah-as stated in the sources-was an esteemed woman of Al-Ansar who had memorized the Qur'an. `Abdul-Rahman Ibn Khalid, the narrator of the Hadith, further states: "I happened to see her mu'adhin, who was a person advanced in age."

Based on the above evidence, some scholars have concluded that a woman is allowed to lead her own family members in Salah especially in the following cases:

1. If she is exceptionally qualified and others are not so well versed in the rules of Salah and knowledge of the Qur'an.
2. If her husband is a new Muslim who is struggling to learn the rules of Salah and the Qur'an, while she herself is perfectly well versed in them;
3. If she is a mother of minors who are still learning the rules of Salah and the Qur'an

In the 1400 year history of Islam no scholar who knows and has studied fiqh and the rules of Rasulillah and the Sunnah has permitted the Friday prayer to be led by a woman. The main schools of thought (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'e, Hanbali, and Ja'fari) as well as the Zaydi's and the Zahari's consider this prayer invalid.

Allah knows the best
Shaikh M. Nour, President of ISNA
636-394-7878 Ext: 11
E-mail: mnur1366@yahoo.com

http://www.qantara.de/webcom/show_article.php/_c-373/_nr-6/i.html?PHPSESSID=8e8ef8db36f1df61c348d8f165fe9d67
originally Published: 12.11.2004

Are Sharia Laws and Human Rights Compatible?

In their correspondence, Emran Qureshi (journalist and expert for Islam and human rights) and Heba Raouf Ezzat (lecturer for political science and women’s' rights activist) discuss the role of the sharia in Islamic countries and in how far sharia laws are compatible with human rights.


Dear Heba,
The Sharia law, as is practiced in many Muslim countries today, is clearly incompatible with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Today Sharia is a source of injustice that profanes Islam and shames Muslims who adhere to a compassionate and merciful interpretation of their faith. At the same time I cannot see why a more humane and gentler Sharia law that is confined to the personal realm could not emerge in the future.
Traditional Muslims - apart from Salafi and Wahhabi Muslims who are dominant in Saudi-Arabia - have long recognized the legitimacy of multiple schools of Islamic jurisprudence. This is in addition to latitudinarian Islamic juridical practices, e.g. the borrowing of more liberal practices from other schools of thought. It shows that there is a remarkable capacity in Islam for reinterpretation.
Nevertheless, I sadly think that a gentler Sharia is unlikely to emerge since today we are presented with the anti-intellectualism, authoritarianism, and moral depravity of these self-appointed Salafi guardians of Sharia.Instead one should ask the question: Why has Sharia become the marker of the Muslim state? Thus Islam as envisioned by Islamist intellectuals is simply a penal code, and an Islamic State, a penal colony, which enforces the "pure" Islam.
This is an extraordinary failure on the part of modern Muslim thinkers.
Khaled Abou El Fadl, a prominent Islamic intellectual reformer in the United States, has observed of contemporary Islamist intellectuals "Instead of Islam being a moral vision given to humanity, it becomes constructed into the antithesis of the West. In the world constructed by these groups, there is no Islam; there is only opposition to the West."
This is sadly true.These corrosive ideas do not spring from a vacuum. They arise instead from impoverished Salafi and Wahhabi discourses, which are corroding Islam from within. There is a straight line between the Salafi/Wahhabi interpretations - a puritanical, anti-rationalist, misogynistic Islam with a punitive, intolerant Sharia - and the violence, which now bloodstains our faith. Those who challenge this moral and ethical perversion of our faith are instead attacked as heretics as we can witness in Saudi-Arabia.
Sincerely,
Emran Qureshi
_______________________


Dear Emran,
The Sharia law is not only compatible with human rights but also the most effective way to achieve human rights. Human rights violations in Muslim countries - whose regimes are usually supported by Western allies - are not due to Sharia law.
The violence in Islamic countries is mainly exercised by the state and dates back to the post-colonial era. There was an attempt to secularize the different laws of the Islamic societies and to remove Sharia.
The legal systems of the late French and British colonial powers were seen as a model for the judicial reformation and as a basis for modernising the state. However, these new secular and socialist regimes were totalitarian.
They manipulated the up to then independent traditional religious institutions and appointed the heads of religious bodies and universities.
Islam, when reduced to a penal code, was used to violate human rights.Modern Islamic intellectuals were influenced by this. In their eyes the state was the means by which society and religion were being reshaped. In order to achieve an Islamic renaissance - and that is why Sharia has become the marker of the Muslim state – they tried to get their hands on the state. In the struggle against the totalitarian regimes they wanted and want to bring back the law of Sharia. For them it is only through the Sharia that the strength of Islam can be recaptured.
This struggle is a matter of power, with religion used and abused by both sides.
The Muslim Brotherhood that is banned in Egypt advocates Sharia and has been running for elections for more than a decade accepting the rule of law.

The word "Sharia" means path. The road of Islam encompasses belief and morality for an individual, as much as a legal, economic and social framework, to govern a society. Moreover, Sharia is a progressive platform which empowers the people and protects their rights against totalitarianism and utilitarian ultra-capitalism.
It can be an egalitarian force for democratic social justice, in the Muslim countries and globally. Islam’s central values are justice and personal freedom. However, they can also threaten Western economic interests when Muslim societies defend not only their cultural values but also aspire for economic independence.
Reducing Islam to the individual moral dimension, as you would suggest, means that Islam loses its core as a progressive socialist liberation theology with a vision of a just society. Ironically, the Islamic groups themselves are far from recognizing that and instead focus on penal codes and some outdated interpretations of Islamic jurisprudence. It is true though that some Islamic groups regard Islam as an anti-thesis of the West. However, this mainly results from Western support for some of the most despotic regimes in the Middle East.

Sincerely, Heba Raouf Ezzat
_______________________

Dear Heba,
On the whole I agree with you though with a caveat: Sharia may one day in the distant future be a positive force for change. Though for me it is emblematic of what is profoundly and pathologically wrong with the Muslim world. It seems that existing reality does not filter into the consciousness of this discussion. Sharia as practised today illustrates injustice and denies human freedom. For example, in parts of the Muslim world like Pakistan and Nigeria, women who are raped are prosecuted under Sharia law for fornication. In Saudi-Arabia the amputation of limbs as a punishment still occurs. Is that an act that is morally defensible? Finally, women under the reign of the Taliban were denied basic human elementary freedoms such as mobility, education, and healthcare - all in the name of Islam.

To their everlasting shame, many Islamist intellectuals remained for the most part indifferent or silent to these crimes.The ideals of the existing Sharia are imbued with a Salafi and Wahhabi ideology. That’s why I do not only criticise Sharia as practised today, but also Salafism and Wahhabism, which provide the intellectual framework for the Sharia. I noticed that you could not bring yourself to say anything remotely critical or even mention these two ideologies by name.
Certainly there is no denying that colonialism was a disaster of epic proportions for Muslims - mostly because of the pathological reactive Islamist ideologies and despotic states that played a role in perpetrating violence that emerged. And I cannot at all disagree with you on Western state support for despotic regimes. However, it does not alone explain the violence in Muslim lands today or deny the fact that this violence is largely a result of a congealed globalized Salafi and Jihadi ideology. This Islamist globalisation must be resisted.

It is a violence that profanes past traditions of Islamic pluralism and tolerance (I know it is Ramadan in Pakistan because that is when Sunni Jihadi organisations best like to firebomb Shiite mosques).You define Islam as a political ideology and criticise Islam for being relegated to the realm of the personal moral dimension.

Islam should apparently not be viewed as a moral vision for humanity, but instead be received as a utopian political ideology one in which the state enforces virtue, and has a socialist inflection. Thus Islam for Islamists is nothing more than a utilitarian receptacle for their favourite ideologies de jour. I also sense a denigration of ideals that deal with personal liberties and freedoms, but I hasten to note that the human freedoms, which matter the most are those that are the closest to the individual.

Sincerely, Emran Qureshi
___________________
Dear Emran,
I do not limit the Sharia to a political ideology, but instead view it as a solution, one that encompasses the public and private spheres and centralizes around civil and individual values. Civil morality and civic virtues have been, and will continue to be, central to the future manifestation of Islam.
These are rooted in a solid system of socio-economic welfare advocated by Islamic jurists over centuries, in which the average citizen is empowered and in which the grass root politics of presence is stronger than the elitist politics of representation.If today there is an "over-legalization" of the concept of Sharia - I am referring to abuses in the name of the Sharia - one cannot only blame the Islamists.
The spread of global capitalism and its impact on human rights should be ignored in this discussion, because for many Islamists - apart from the Salafis and Wahhabis who defend a puritan and exclusive understanding of the Sharia which they want to impose on Muslims and non-Muslims alike - Sharia presents a form of resistance to the global capitalist order which they feel is infringing on their communal and national rights.
If some Islamists resort to violent means in order to impose Sharia we should also remember that for many other millions of civil activists Sharia remains a legitimate source of dignity and freedom and a trigger for global justice and equality.
In order to respect the right of Muslims to an alternative world view, a new vision needs to be established between how Muslims and the global civil society interact. Your reference to the misuse of Sharia in Nigeria or Pakistan is right, but in these cases Sharia was manipulated. Atrocities also occur in non-Muslim where there is no Sharia and where other cultural and religious values get abused.We need to understand in more depth why humans resort to violence. Otherwise we will continue to look at Muslims and their cultures as barbaric and view their Sharia as the root of all evil.
That would mean that Muslims can only hope for the future if they trivialize the role of Islam in their public life and restrict it to personal morality. This is simply not fair.

Sincerely, Heba Raouf Ezzat
_______________

Dear Heba,
A democracy offers intrinsic political, economic and social benefits and does not deserve the condescension that you offer by "elite representation".I have problems with the "civic virtue" that you describe. On the one hand, Islamists, especially Salafis, tend to generalize their interpretations and project it backward into history in order to enforce validity. On the other hand "civic virtue" has historical as well as geographical specificities.

In "Islamic" Indonesia civic virtue is shaped by different influences than in cosmopolitan centres of Islam or in agrarian and nomadic regions. Centuries ago, civic virtues denied women denied the right to education. However, enforcing "virtue" and Sharia are staples of Islamist discourse: Thus Pakistani mullahs obsess about their citizenry watching Indian "Hindu" Bollywood movies and music and this pattern repeats itself elsewhere. Notice how here aesthetic and artistic endeavours are restricted in the guise of "virtue".

I also sense Islamists continue to profoundly define their worldview reactively vis-à-vis the West. Thus Islamism today is both a by-product of globalization. Islamists, as the Taliban in Afghanistan, who are ideologically driven will fail. Against that Islamists parties as you find them in Turkey that attempt to meet the needs and aspirations of its citizenry will be successful. In effect, these Islamists will help to secularize their societies.

Thus, Islamists are the harbingers of globalization: democracy, secularization, and individual rights. So I must congratulate them for this. Iran is a perfect example. There the young people of that country put bluntly want freedom from the Mullahs. Who would but think that possibility would arise from within political Islam?You also disparage capitalism in the name of Islam, but I suspect would not deny the appeal of the latest capitalist gadgetry (e.g. the laptop computer, cell phone, television, and Hermes scarves).
Please remember that Prophet Mohammad and his wife were humane business people that engaged in commerce. Recall the Hadith: "He who accumulates earnings by honest trade is the beloved of God." Interestingly, it was thanks to mainly Muslim traders that Islam spread into India and South East Asia. That is a kind of Islamic globalization if you will that is not criticized by present-day Islamists.Finally, the intellectuals are responsible for criticizing their received traditions and practices.
But I do not know one - not one single Islamist intellectual that criticizes in a sustained manner Salafism or Wahhabism (a cancer corroding Islamic traditions from within), and is further willing also to acknowledge the corrosive effects of Jihadi "suicide" violence.
To mention this is to not demonize Muslims, as it should be apparent that no people have a monopoly on virtue or vice. I also note that when Islamist regimes engage in genocide or mass murder we see little internal condemnation - witness the reaction to the genocide campaign in Darfur against African Muslims by the fascist Sudanese regime.What we see today is nothing less than a profound anti-intellectualism and immorality that is corroding the soul of Islam by those that purport to unfurl and defend the banner of Islam.
Sincerely, Emran Qureshi
__________________
Dear Emran,
I support liberal as well as Islamic civic virtues as well as the celebration of human dignity and social welfare. But I do not believe that democracy necessitates a specific economic system. As Islam is more of a social democracy than an economically liberal one, it can be viewed as a democracy and platform to tame capitalism. If we enjoy the fruits of modernity, mainly science and technology as you pointed out, it does not mean that we should not be critical to the ultra utilitarian ideas some modernists advocated.

Capitalism is not what we are keen to defend but rather an egalitarian and humanist Islam.Darfur is a sad story if you wish to give an example of how a regime that advocates a narrow legal notion of Sharia can become so authoritarian and ignore equal distribution of national wealth and social justice as well as true power sharing. Yet allow me to ask: is this a problem of Islamic politics or rather a recurrent policy of African political elites?Iran is enjoying a dynamic political change and that we can only hope that other regimes in the region would allow the same transparency and openness. I do not advocate an Iran without Mullahs in the public sphere, as the grip of Shii doctrines is strong, but I do advocate a larger presence of progressive voices.

We should admit that an Islamic Iran has been relatively more democratic that the secular rule of the former "Shah of Persia" who was an ally of the "liberal" American administration.Moreover, many Muslims have raised their voice against atrocities committed in the name of Islam.

The Wahhabis and Salafis were subject to harsh criticism by Muslim intellectuals such as Yusuf Qaradawy and late Mohamed Ghazali. Both these intellectuals stressed democratic notions of women’s rights and minorities’ equality. Many other names can be mentioned in other contexts who had critical views regarding the practices of Wahhabis in the domestic politics of many regimes in the Arab peninsula.It is true there are those who abuse Islam.
In the same way we see liberals or socialists abusing the moral core of their respective ideologies, be it individual liberty or the primacy of social justice.

In a global age we need to unite across ideologies, religions and cultures to defend us of extremists of any kind. Through constructive debates we could come to democratic experience that, with time, sweeps away injustice, hegemony and arrogance in each and every corner of this small world and allows the heart of Islam to be recaptured as a message of mercy, justice and power sharing.

Sincerely, Heba Raouf Ezzat

***
The correspondence was conducted between June and August 2004. The letters were first published in the German daily Frankfurter Rundschau on 4 October 2004. The correspondence was initiated by free-lance journalist Monika Jung-Mounib, currently working in Switzerland.Emran Qureshi is a journalist and expert for Islam and human rights. He is currently a fellow at the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at Harvard University. "The New Crusaded, Constructing the Muslim Enemy" is his most recent publication (Columbia University Press, 2003). He resides in Ottawa, where he is working on his next book, "A Study of Islam and Human Rights".Heba Raouf Ezzat teaches political theory at the Department of Political Science, Cairo University. She is co-ordinator of the Civil Society Program at the Center for Political Research and Studies at Cairo University and editor of the Global Civil Society Yearbook. She also works as womens' rights activist.
Published: 12.11.2004 - Last modified: 12.11.2004

Fatwas Against Religious Liberalism!

Islam in Indonesia
Fatwas against Religious Liberalism

Eleven new religious decrees have sparked off animated debates among the Indonesian public over the past few weeks. Moderate Muslims and representatives of liberal Islamic organisations in particular have lodged appeals and are calling for a review.
Bettina David reports

Eleven new fatwas (religious decrees) were formulated during the 7th Congress of the Indonesian ulemas council (MUI, "Majlis Ulama Indonesia"), which took place in Jakarta in late July 2005. Fatwas are not legally binding in Indonesia, but they are an important source of guidance for many devout Muslims.The decrees recently issued by MUI have aroused vigorous controversies and heated debates, and once again highlight the huge gap that exists between the liberal, moderate and the orthodox, neo-fundamentalist currents in contemporary Islam in Indonesia.

Ban on women leading Friday prayers
One of the fatwas bans women from leading Friday prayers. This fatwa is MUI's reaction to the taboo broken by Amina Wadud in New York in March of this year when she led Friday prayers that were attended by both men and women. Another fatwa deals with superstition and the associated shamanistic practices that are currently experiencing a boom in the Indonesian mass media and on television in particular.

The fatwa emphasises the danger of sliding into a polytheism that is supposedly caused by this phenomenon and that would make jinnees (spirits) objects of worship alongside God. However, the fatwa that brewed up the biggest storm was the one that categorised religious liberalism, secularism, and religious pluralism as haram (forbidden).

From the point of view of the MUI, a profession of these values equates with a break with Islam because these values are described as being incompatible with the true Islam. In its statement, the council defines religious liberalism as Islamic thought that is not based on a religious foundation, but which instead subscribes to the freedom of human intellectual capacity.

Secularism is defined as a view of the world according to which religion only regulates the relationship between individuals and God, while the relationship between humans is not regulated by any religious order at all, but must instead be negotiated by people themselves. Finally, pluralism is defined as the conviction that all religious are equal and their respective claims to the truth are ultimately only relative, and that no religion can claim to propagate the one and only truth. According to Ma'ruf Amin, the fatwa commission chairman of the council, "it is acceptable to have a pluralism that accepts the social reality that several different religious denominations exist side by side in Indonesia and that these religious should respect each other and maintain good relations with one another.

" A blow for liberal Muslim movements"

This fatwa is a definite blow for the growing influence of progressive and liberal Muslim movements like the Liberal Islam Network ("Jaringan Islam Liberal", JIL).

MUI considers religious liberalism, which speaks out against a literal interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, to be a serious threat to the fundamental principles of the Islamic faith and something against which the faithful must be protected. The protests were not slow in coming: one such protest came from the former President and chairman of Indonesia's largest mass Islamic organisation, Nahdlatul Ulama (NU, loosely translates as the Awakening of Islamic Scholars), Abdurrahman Wahid, various Islamic intellectuals like the JIL coordinator, Ulil Abshar-Abdalla, and human rights activists.

Together, they issued a joint statement calling for a revision of the key points of the eleven religious decrees. Among other things, they accused MUI of propagating a one-sided, distorted definition of the concepts of religious liberalism, pluralism, and secularism, and issued a stout warning against an increase in authoritarianism in religious matters.

The second fatwa that triggered furious debates targeted Ahmadiyah. Ahmadiyah's teachings are condemned as being "deviant", "misleading", and beyond the Islamic pale in theological terms. In short, the MUI considers Ahmadiyah's followers to be apostates.

As far back as 1980, the MUI issued a fatwa that labelled Ahmadiyah as "deviant" and haram. MUI's repeated damnation of Ahmadiyah has a topical background: in July, a radical Islamic group of thugs attacked a meeting of the Ahmadiyah in Bogor, near Jakarta.

A signal for radical Islamic groups?

Critics now fear that the MUI fatwa could be interpreted by radical groups as a green light for more violent attacks on followers of Ahmadiyah.

The possible legitimation of attacks on unpopular religious groups and minorities on the basis of the fatwa is also, in the eyes of many critics, a threat to the already precarious relations between the religions in the archipelago. Officially, the MUI fatwas have the backing of 26 Islamic organisations. These have, however, issued statements calling on the people to take up the fatwas in a considered and calm way, and to resolve any differences of opinion in a "civilised" manner through dialogue and encounters.
In view of the highly charged atmosphere, both supporters and opponents of the fatwa warn against possible outbreaks of violence and call for an intense dialogue between all parties involved to resolve any possible differences.

It is worth noting that this is the first time the MUI's fatwas have aroused such emotional public debates. The MUI has long been renowned for its controversial fatwas, which have not, however, generated a comparable reaction at other times in the past.
The fact that its orthodox fatwas have caused such a rumpus this time is an illustration of a new awareness among the Indonesian public.

Different interpretations of religious matters are boldly stated and openly discussed in a way that has rarely been witnessed here in the past. The gulf that is growing between the supporters of a liberal, moderate interpretation of religion on the one hand, and a variety of orthodox, neo-fundamentalist, and radical Islamic currents on the other hints at the crucial test that Indonesia's Islam and, consequently, its democratic system will face in the future.

Bettina David© Qantara.de 2005Translation from German: Aingeal Flanagan
Qantara.deLuthfi Assyaukanie

Amina Wadud's Breakthrough The controversy continues to rage over Amina Wadud, a woman Muslim scholar, who recently led Friday prayer services in New York. Her case is ultimately not about gender and prayer, but about religious tolerance, says Luthfi AssyaukanieThe "Prosperous Justice Party" PKS in Indonesia

No Contradiction between Islam and Democracy The successful new centrist Islamic party PKS is a moderate alternative to radical Islamism and has won respect for its disciplined campaigns and a reputation for clean politics. Elizabeth Fuller Collins and Ihsan Ali Fauzi reportAnalysis Susan Blackburn
Indonesia - How Do Women Influence Political Islam? Efforts to influence political Islam are made by Indonesian women both within the Islamic movement and outside it. Which is more effective is difficult to say. However it is clear, that women in Indonesia have changed their political strategies considerably over the years. By Susan Blackburn

Interesting Articles

Violence Is a Human, Not an Islamic Trait
Originally published in the Philadelphia Inquirer on Feb. 01, 2004.
By Hussein Ibish

The idea that Islam, and by extension Muslims, are inherently violent and irrational has become commonplace in our culture.

This misperception, with deep origins in the historical rivalry between Christian Europe and the Muslim Middle East, was intensified by the Arab-Israeli conflict and a slew of bigoted Hollywood movies, and gained a solid foothold in the minds of many Americans after 9/11. Since 9/11, right-wing evangelical preachers such as Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, and commentators such as Robert Spencer and Daniel Pipes, have spared no effort to spread fear and hatred of Islam and the growing American Muslim community.

This defamation probably has its greatest parallel in the anti-Semitic ideas that took hold in American culture between the First and Second World Wars. The charges directed against the American Jewish community - now eerily echoed by anti-Muslim rhetoric - smeared a religious minority as dangerous and subversive aliens. The Father Coughlins and Henry Fords of that era, and ours, found the political space to promote prejudice yet remain "respectable."

Certainly the 19 hijackers responsible for the carnage of 9/11 saw themselves as Muslims. But so, of course, did about 300 of their victims. And it is true that the United States faces a threat from al-Qaeda and like-minded organizations. But so, of course, does the entire Arab and Islamic world, in which almost all governments and most people are committed to the war against al-Qaeda, and which is home to most of the victims of such fanaticism.

Some point to the glories of Muslim Spain, the notable tolerance and multiculturalism of the Ottoman Empire, or the relative peacefulness of the Islamic world over the past millennium compared to Christian Europe to make the case that Islam is essentially an agent of peace.
The more complex truth is that the Islamic world, at present and historically, is composed of a vast constellation of human beliefs, experiences and endeavors - a dizzying multiplicity, not a monolith. Like all great civilizations and cultures, those of the Islamic world have produced more than enough of the good to demand the highest respect, and enough of the bad to prohibit any complacency or chauvinism on the part of Muslims.

More than 1.3 billion people are Muslims, constituting about one fifth of humanity. Hence, the entire range of human experience and orientation can be readily found among them.
The Nigerian novelist Chinua Achebe said simply that "Africa is people." So is the Islamic world. Not better or worse, villain or victim, but simply people. Violence, extremism and intolerance are universal human failings. They certainly are not particular to any culture or faith.


Hussein Ibish is communications director for the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee.
Posted on October 6, 2004 01:39 PM

Progressive Muslim Union and CAIR

Press Statements http://www.pmuna.org/archives/2005/06/pmu_response_to.php

PMU Response to

"Women-Friendly Mosque Brochure"

The Progressive Muslim Union welcomes the release of the brochure, "Women Friendly Mosques and Community Centers: Working Together to Reclaim Our Heritage," written and distributed by several conservative North American Muslim organizations.
We are pleased by the realization that justice issues in the Muslim community are always linked to gender issues, and that Muslims from a wide range of backgrounds can work together to achieve gender-just communities.

The PMU feels that Mosques and community centers should adopt and implement these guidelines, however not as a final answer to the alienation and exclusion of women from these institutions, but as a first step towards complete gender equality. The brochure rightly calls for the full participation of women, but unfortunately the guidelines stop short of actually achieving this goal.

Until the right of women to give sermons and lead mixed-gender congregational prayers is recognized, their participation will, of a necessity, be less than complete. In sum, we welcome the release of the brochure, encourage its adoption, and yet simultaneously urge all Muslims to settle for no less than the complete gender equality in our mosques and community centers

Posted on June 24, 2005 12:13 PM

The concept of Progressive Islam

Last Fri 4/8/05, I spoke to a crowd of more than 100 activists at the Unitarian Church of Providence, RI on the issue of Progressive Islam.
At the begining of the talk I focused on needed general information about Islam for non-Muslim activists before focusing the talk on Political Islam and how it has been hijacking our religion for the past 15 centuries. The role of Muslim, non-Muslim fanatics, and the western intelligence in distorting the image of Islam and Muslims took great part of the lecture.

I presented my argument that progressive Muslims should draw clear line between the ‘religious’ and the ‘political’ in Koran and Sunna. Fanatics Muslims do not get this clear message of Islam. For example, the Prophet Mohamed (and Koran) had been dealing with specific political situations when he (or the Holy Text) condemned some acts of Jewish tribes of Meddina. That condemnation should not be taken against/extended to all the Jews (or Christians) of the world in our time.

The same argument is to be used in any part of the Koran/Sunna that seems to be contradicting with any basic civil and human rights of our time. This especially in the case of women status in Islam. The conservative Muslims are disserving Islam when they arrogantly claim that one man equal to two women. When The Koran and Sunna advocated this 1500 years ago it was a very progressive thing for women who almost had no similar rights.

I would like to pursue this discussion more in our next meeting
Regards

Mohamed Elgadi

Religion vs. Politics in Islam

Muhammad: Prophet and Politician
Published: 4/9/2004 http://islamlib.com/en/page.php?page=article&id=699

I am, here, using simple terminology. I want to call Muhammad a prophet and a politician as well. In his 23 year career, Muhammad showed a moral reformation through his prophetic career, and led a social and political reformation in Medina.
By: Ulil Abshar-Abdalla

This article was published in the daily Media Indonesia, Tuesday 4th May 2004The advantage of Islam as a religion is this: unlike Christianity, Islam found ‘Constantine” within itself. Muhammad was not merely a prophet, but also a figure who struggled hard to bring his teaching down to earth so that it would not be only a ‘white cloud’ drifting in the air. In Christianity, Jesus had three years to convey his message. Afterward, Jesus came into conflict with the ‘political structure’ of the great Roman Empire and was ultimately crucified. At that time, Christianity was exactly like plants that sprout after being cut. If Constantine the Great had not embraced Christianity in the third century and made it a religion of the state, what would have happened to this religion that now has the most disciples in the world. Without ‘political’ power, would this religion have progressed rapidly and become a universal religion? We’ll never know.

Islam, in sloppy comparison, is a case of Muhammad being Jesus and Constantine at once. Compare the history of Jesus and Muhammad. The years of Muhammad’s life in Mecca (610 AD when Muhammad attained first revelation up to 622 AD when he migrated to Medina) can be seen as the period of ‘The Sermon on the Mount’, the period when the prophet propagated his teachings. This period went on for 13 years. The Medina period, from 622 AD up to 632 AD when he died, was the period of political and social institutionalization. I want to call it the ‘Constantine period’.An important phase which is symbolically considered as reflecting the mission of Muhammad is his meditation in a cave outside Mecca. After he attained the revelation in 610 AD, in spite of staying in the cave, enjoying solitary meditation, and staying away from society, he returned to the city to propagate the teachings, and directed a ‘social transformation’.

In Islam there is a difference between a Nabi (prophet) and a Rasul (messenger). A Nabi is the one who attained revelation, and who is not required to disseminate it to society. While a Rasul, on the contrary, attained revelation and had to propagate it. Muhammad was both a Nabi (prophet) as well as a Rasul (messenger). I am, here, using simple terminology. I want to call Muhammad a prophet and a politician as well. In his 23 year career, Muhammad showed a moral reformation through his prophetic career, and led a social and political reformation in Medina.

One of the advantages of the Prophet was that he did not live in the Roman or in the Sassanian empires in Persia. This is a historical advantage which Christianity did not posses. Christianity was born in the Roman Empire and within the stable local ‘religious power’ of Judaism. Islam, on the contrary, was born within –let’s say— a ‘terra incognita,’ vacant space with no power. Mecca, where Muhammad was born and started his mission, was a distant city from the Roman and Persian Empires. Using Ben Anderson’s analysis about the concept of political rule in Java, I think what has been conveyed by Anderson is typical of pre-modern kingdoms in which power is declining which was the condition at that time. The influence of both great empires of the day was not great in Mecca. This condition benefited the new religion and community developed by the Prophet. If Islam had appeared in Turkey, the journey of this religion would have been different.

An Egyptian scholar, Ali Abdul Raziq, in his controversial message, al-Islam wa Ushul al-Hukm (Islam and principles of governance), conveyed that Muhammad was only a prophet and a messenger, not a leader of the state. Although I agree with his objective of writing this message – to repudiate the claim of Muslims to reestablish the caliphate, his illustration of Muhammad is unfair. Muhammad was truly a messenger, but he was also leader of a real community which was the ‘embryo’ of a state in Medina. Therefore, it is acceptable for modern Muslim intellectuals to search for inspiration for managing modern society through the example of the Prophet in Medina. One policy of Muhammad’s ('Abqariyyat Muhammad), was to initiate a ‘political contract’ between the Muslim community and other social groups in Medina.

In Islamic history, this contract is known as 'Mitsaq al-Madinah' or the Medina Concord or Charter. An Egyptian writer, Muhammad Husen Haikal, in Hayat Muhammad (The Life of Muhammad), considers this as a 'watsiqah siyasiyyah' or political document guaranteeing the freedom of faith, freedom of opinion, the protection of the country, the right to live, and the right to own property.I agree that Medina was an embryo state. The Prophet was the leader. As a politician leading a state, he succeeded in establishing the first political entity in Arabia. In that new entity, Arab society from various tribes and clans was united: a great achievement which never been achieved by an Arab leader before Muhammad. Like Constantine, the Prophet made Islam a ‘cement of civilization’ tying Arab and later non Arabs together.

What I don’t agree with is whether the Prophet’s entire policy in Medina must be copied for the current time because the example of the Prophet in Medina belonged to a specific social and historical context. The model of Medina can be an inspiration to search for forms of management of Muslim society, but it is not a ‘blueprint’ which must be copied in detail. Muslim society must formulate new models in accordance with current challenges.

Allahumma shalli 'ala sayyidina Muhammad wa 'ala ali Sayyidina Muhammad.***(Translated by Lanny Octavia, edited by Jonathan Zilberg)