While I slept, Gaza bled

An Op-Ed in the LA Times by Mousa Abu Marzook, deputy of Hamas' political bureau.

Renewed calls today for our movement to "recognize the right of Israel to exist," in the face of murderous onslaught, ring as hollow as Israel's continuing claims to be acting in "self-defense" as her jets bomb civilians. Without debating here the Zionist state's fictive, existential "right," which of the many Israels, precisely, would the West have us recognize? Is it the Israel that militarily occupies land belonging to three of its neighbors, ignoring international law and scores of U.N. resolutions over decades? Is it the Israel that illegally settles its citizens on other people's land, seizes water sources and uproots olive trees? Is it the Israel that in 60 years has never acknowledged the forced expulsion of Palestinians from their farms and villages as the foundational act of its statehood and denies refugees their right to return?

And from Tel Aviv:

Thousands of Israelis Protest Against the War in Gaza (facebook link)

The Ayat of Evolution

Interesting perspective by Salman Hameed in the December edition of Science: Bracing for Islamic Creationism.

I've come across many an individual who express a gut rejection of anything related, even tangentially, to evolution. I think we've already come to the point that many in the Muslim community equate the term to atheism or materialism. Some people like Harun Yahya reject evolution completely, but I find his arguments completely unfounded and baseless. When I prod most people I know further however, they'll admit that there's nothing preventing God from creating His creatures by evolving them. Of course, few would dare extend that outlook to the origins of humans themselves.

My view: it is God who reveals countless ayat to humanity, either as the written words of revelation or the signs of nature. The ambiguity of the word ayat as used in the Qur'an, found to represent both nature and the Qur'an itself, is an amazing statement of God's everpresent constancy in making Himself known. We are simply to believe with satisfaction and trust that these ayat from God can never contradict one another.

And yet what do we do when they do seem to contradict? Essentially, there must be some problem in either the way we interpret the ayat of nature or the ayat of revelation. As the widespread rejection of evolution shows, it is common for us to question our own interpretation of the ayat of nature - we may see countless homology between humans and other animals, but many continue to discount any evidence for evolution.

But many are weary about any attempt to reassess our understanding of the ayat of revelation. Not to say that it hasn't ever been done before. There may have been a time, for instance, when many scholars across the Muslim world used to believe that the Qur'an's description of Dhul-Qarnain's travels until the "setting of the sun" as implying that he reached the place on the flat earth where the sun sets at night. As people became convinced that the world was round, the vast majority came to understand the verse to refer to the king traveling until a certain time, i.e. sunset. This wasn't reinterpreting the Qur'anic verse as not literally true - essentially the verse was ambiguous and could have been interpreted both ways in the first place.

Are we scared to reassess our understandings of the origin of humanity? Does God's creating Adam from turab exclude the possibility of evolution - I'm not so sure. Turab, for instance, could be a reference to our bodies' earthly origins. And to say that God fashioned humans with His own hands also does not exclude the possibility of that fashioning occurring through generations of change.

I actually haven't come across any Qur'anic verse which convinces me against the possibility of evolution. I'd have to do a better survey of not just the Qur'anic ayat but also what we know of the prophetic teachings to make a confident statement on the matter, but I'm not bothered standing in this current state of agnosticism over the matter of Adam's creation.

More Graveyard Politics

A declaration from India's Muslim Council Trust: the perpetrators of the Mumbai attacks were apparently not Muslim.

"Islam does not approve of wanton killings and targeting non-combatants. As such it can be safely surmised that such criminals cannot be Muslims. Hence we request you to deny them burial..."

It is understandable to see this reaction from the Indian Muslim religious authorities. Here, their own homeland had been attacked brutally, many of their relations and neighbors had been murdered. Furthermore, it is impossible to ignore India's troubled history of communal violence, especially since Partition in 1947. How could one not fear that the thought that such an attack was perpetrated by Muslims create an excuse to blame all Indian Muslims and lead to the possibility of greater violence? It makes sense that Indian Muslims would want to distance themselves greatly from any of the perpetrators. But to declare them non-Muslims? Is that a little too far?

Denying someone a religiously directed funeral is an interesting expression of what I call Graveyard Politics. A few weeks back, I had written an entry concerning the case of Shafayet Reja, whose parents had decided upon cremating him after his death. That touched of a minor storm over whether Reja's purported Muslim identity in life should trump his parents' wishes. Those trying to prevent cremation were essentially trying to claim Reja's memory as a win for Islam over the secularism of his parents.

Here we have the same effect going on in the opposite direction, denying so-and-so the last rites expected of a Muslim, to be washed and buried. Doing such is essentially the most effective form of excommunication that Muslim groups may see in their disposal. Those who desire to declare living individuals as non-Muslims have to contend with their opponents simply reciting the shahada, lessening the power of such a claim. But when people aren't alive to demand a Muslim burial for themselves, the excommunicator can get off scott-free.

I'm very troubled whenever I see people clamor towards declaring terrorists and murderers as non-Muslims. It's definitely a fairly understandable emotionally driven behavior - we hate what they do and hate them for claiming what we may find beautiful. Furthermore, some Muslims may find themselves on a hot-seat, questioned why Islam doesn't excommunicate the likes of Bin Laden et al. as one would expect a wayward Catholic or Mormon to be excommunicated by the authorities at the Vatican or Salt Lake City.

Is it a problem that the Muslim community is not organized as centrally as Catholicism or Mormonism? At times, I guess. Muslims, who place their authority in God and His messenger, can find no present authority to give any religious matter a final word. We're all then left with a heavy burden to weigh the validity of competing opinions, all of which claim to be the best. Thus, no group among Muslims has an easy ride in proving that its opinions are best - it would have to work for it.

Arguing for the excommunication of unrepentant terrorists and murderers as a valid Islamic practice, in spite of the prophetic narrations that seem to condemn all forms of excommunication, would be essentially validating the takfirist ideology that we are trying to counteract. The discourse degenerates and loses all substance - we're left with two parties, each claiming to hold truth from God and claiming the other as expressing disbelief. The real issues that must be resolved - about when fighting is necessary and when it is sinful - gets pushed aside.

Rather than hoping for religious authorities to excommunicate those whose actions we consider repulsive, Muslims should accept the reality that there is no such central authority which can comment on what's going on in the world. Our focus must then shift to what we can do in our communities and societies to encourage good and prohibit evil, knowing well that God and only God will judge between us in our intentions and our actions.

Fooding

(Click image to make grande)

It always amazed me that whenever Islam talks about eating, its about not eating something, or eating in moderation, and that the cultures that I encounter (deisi, arab, etc.) are all really big on eating, every event in arabic households involves tons of food and plenty of leftovers, people can even sit down and talk about certain dishes they've had before, it seems completely at odds with our religious direction in terms of food. Also its cool it's always neat when I read an article and notice that its just an affirmation of something the Prophet (S) said a long while ago.

The Prophet said: "Do not eat before you are hungry, and stop eating before you are full"

"1/3 of your stomach for food, 1/3 for water and 1/3 for air."

Thoughts on the Prayer

Wander with me through the verses of the Qur'an's second chapter, Baqarah - through its parables and its admonitions, its remembrances and its legislation. We come upon the verses of divorce, widowhood, and lactation when suddenly we are given a jolting reminder: Hafidhu 'alas-salawati was-salatil-wusta wa qumu lillahi qanitin.

"Guard over the prayers and the middle prayer, and stand before God with obedience" (Q2:238).

And then, we return again to the verses of divorce and widowhood, and we're left amazed as to how the Qur'an went so jarringly off-topic - how the Qur'an interrupted itself so abruptly. It's as though the Book was trying to make a point about the primacy of prayer over all matters.

The Salah, prayer five times a day, has always been a pillar of the Muslim existence, and yet so often we let it pass by us and slip from our fingers while we are unaware. The Salah: it becomes reduced to a mindless construction of oft-repeated statements and rote movements - to the point that we may wonder what just happened between our raising our hands to say Allahu akbar and our final salams. So I wanted to share some random thoughts about the prayer that I've found have benefited me.

Fatihah

No prayer is complete without the recitation of the Qur'an's first chapter, entitled Fatihah, the "Opening." And despite beginning the Qur'an, Fatihah stands apart from it, as though unlike any other part of the Book. The rest of the Qur'an has a specific voice, where God is speaker referring to himself in either the first or third person. The believers' words are still relayed to us, but their statements are often first introduced by quotatives like qalu or commands like qul - "they said" or "say" respectively.

Fatihah, however, was revealed entirely in the voice of the believer, a simply cry to the Lord of the Universe. Here, the reciter begins in God's Name, acknowledging His compassion and universal benevolence. Then she praises God until beseeching the Lord uninhibited, saying Iyyaka na'budu wa iyyaka nasta'in. Ihdinas-siratal-mustaqim.

"Guide us, all of us, upon the straightened path."

So when we compete the recitation of the Seven Verses of Fatihah and continue with some other portion of the Qur'an, we experience that tremendous shifting of voice. While reciting Fatihah, we are speaking, calling out to God; while reciting another portion of the Qur'an, it is God who is the Speaker - speaking back to us and answering our prayer for guidance.

Sami'al-lahu liman hamidah

For the most part, changes in position during the prayer, such as to go into prostration or rise up from sitting, are signified by saying Allahu akbar, "God is greater." The statement is a simple reminder as the worshiper enters each new state, that one's concentration belongs to God alone and no other lesser entity - that God is greater than all that may divert us.

But in rising from bowing, the statement is different: Sami'al-lahu liman hamidah. I've always seen this statement translated "God hears those who praise Him," so when we subsequently respond Rabbana wa lakal-hamd, "And to You, our Lord, is all praise," it has always seemed to me to be an attempt to praise God in order to be heard by Him.

But it struck me that we're technically not saying "God hears those who praise Him." The verbs used in the statement are all in the perfect tense, so a better translation may be "God has heard the one who has praised Him." Here, the praising and God's hearing have already occurred, even before we say Rabbana wa lakal-hamd, which left me wondering which "praising" the statement was actually referring to.

Maybe the statement is actually referencing our recital of Fatihah before going down into bowing, our saying Al-hamdu lillahi rabbil-'alamin. That understanding infused for me new meaning in what we say upon rising from bowing. It is as though we are being informed that God has heard our recitation of Fatihah and the Qur'an, God has heard our calls for guidance towards His path. And to be informed of that should be a matter of great happiness and thankfulness. As we stand up from bowing, knowing that God has heard our calls, how can we not feel a sense of gratitude driving us to praise God all the more?

Rabbana wa lakal-hamd

California Propositions and "Sarah's Law"

I recently dedicated a chunk of my afternoon deciding which of the California Propositions to vote for this coming Tuesday. After reading the arguments and rebuttals for and against each proposition, I decided I'll be voting Yes to only three of the twelve propositions, although my opinions could still change in the next two days. Curious as to how my opinions compared with others in the Muslim-American community, I checked the recent MPAC publication, "Activate 08: An Analysis of the California State Propositions," which turned out to be an immensely interesting reflection of the Muslim-American community's precarious political position today and its alienation from the right-wing conservatism associated with the Bush administration. Take, for instance, MPAC's uber-PC tip-toeing around Proposition 8, which would constitutionally define marriage as a heteronormative institution. It seemed to me as though MPAC's indecisiveness on the matter was an attempt to not alienate the Muslim community's liberal allies. I guess that's just how the political game must be played nowadays, huh?

Another one of MPAC's indecisions concerned Proposition 4, which I had already decided to vote against. Entitled "Sarah's Law," Prop 4 would call for a "waiting period and parental notification before termination of a minor's pregnancy." Both sides of the issue argue that they would be protecting the girls involved. Proponents are arguing that a law would prevent girls from getting abortions against their will, especially if forced to do so by the men who may have raped and manipulated them. Opponents argue that mandating that parents are informed about their daughter's decisions would force many towards unsafe, underground procedures in desperation.

The proposition isn't about the issue of abortion itself, but I'll digress a bit to talk about abortion because it's something that American faith-based groups have found themselves quite polarized over. My sense is that the discussion of abortion hasn't played out so strongly Muslim-American community, and this maybe because of apathy or alienation from those segments of the Christian population who are strongly opposed to abortion. But the silence may also be due to juristic allowances for abortion based upon some statements attributed to the Messenger. Islamic scholars have pointed out that the "ensoulment" of the embryo does not occur at conception as Christians may postulate, but rather occurs after a period of 40 or 120 days. This has led some scholars to deem abortion before the "ensoulment" to be permissible, although reprehensible.

Still, I feel there's a general uneasiness in the Muslim community over abortion, but this uneasiness may have less to do with the Islamic prohibition of killing one's children and far more to do with a fear that abortion would lead to a greater freedom of sexuality in society. "Allowing even juristicly permissible abortion," the argument goes, "would lead to greater sinfulness in society because sexuality would not have consequences." And to prevent such loose sexuality, some may advocate banning or extremely restricting abortion along with other juristicly permissible things like condoms, birth control, or even vaccines against sexually transmitted diseases. Society's health and psychological consequences from these actions would simply be brushed aside as a due God-given punishment for enjoying forbidden sexuality. This fear, in my opinion, can cause far more harm than good, driving the existence of sexuality's undesired consequences underground and placing a heavy social stigma on the very people who, after making mistakes, may need the most help.

(By the way, I recently watched a troubling film, Four Months, Three Weeks, and Two Days, set in Communist Romania where abortions had been banned under Ceauşescu. That didn't stop desperate girls looking to manipulative men for underground abortions. And if medical problems from these abortions were to arise, where could these girls turn? Not to the hospitals run by a government that would promptly incarcerate them as criminals.)

Back to Proposition 4. The arguments in favor of the proposition are very emotional, arguing that there are girls who are forced to have abortions under the pressure of the men who have manipulated them. Under the current California laws, such abortions can take place without parental notification, and proponents argue that these child predators could continue to prey on young girls without anyone "having to know." Although this is a problem, I can't see Proposition 4 doing anything to adequately solve it. The predators who do take advantage of girls could easily manipulate those girls into protecting their identity even when parents are informed. Or they may place a greater pressure on the girls to turn towards unsafe underground abortions. All the while, the law may harm those many girls who don't have supportive households and who may go through considerable emotional distress if their parents were involved.

I believe the arguments of those in favor of Proposition 4 would be better addressed with laws that require medical professionals to be more in tune with the possibility of child-abuse and create a safe medical environment where girls can seek confidential help (not that I'm saying that many of those laws and structures don't exist already). In Prop 4, however, I see a thinly disguised attempt to portray medical professionals who perform abortions as dangerous practitioners. Furthermore, in attempting to place greater impediments for girls in obtaining an abortion and limiting its availability, "Sarah's Law" seems to be an effort born out of a society's fear of sexuality where we would rather maintain the undesirable societal consequences of sexuality than risk letting people "get away with it."

Stoning Aisha

The word perversion is an understatement here. Amnesty International recently reported that a thirteen year-old girl was stoned to death in Somalia, accused of adultery. Amnesty reports that sources claim she was raped by three men and that she attempted to inform the authorities who saw fit to charge her for violating Islamic law.

Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow was accused of adultery, but sources told Amnesty International that she had in fact been raped by three men, and had attempted to report this rape to the al-Shabab militia who control Kismayo. It was this act that resulted in her being accused of adultery and detained. None of men she accused of rape were arrested.

Shari'ah in practice? The case of Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow and the Saudi girl from Qatif earlier this year all too painfully bring to light the injustices across the Muslim world arising from the attempted implementation of Islamic law. Maybe the masses are fooled due to ignorance of the Qur'an or the true Prophetic Paradigm. Or maybe people have been trained to deem anything that opposes the West and its liberalism as a valid Islamic alternative. Have we come to accept any harsh and unpalatable corporal punishment as a true manifestation of God's will? And have we become silent to injustice in our communities fearing that we may be questioning God's mysterious wisdom?

So a girl was murdered for a crime in which no four witnesses testified against her. In 2005, Tariq Ramadan made a strong point in calling for a moratorium on corporal punishment in the Islamic world, earning the antagonism of many. But when our laws and punishments blatantly target the weakest segments of our society - women, ethnic minorities, and the poor - this shari'ah we cling to uphold is far from a "well-trodden path" towards God but rather a path to our own self-destruction.