Polygamy : My 2-cents in response to a comment.

In my previous posting Wanna b a bride, I talked about the problem facing Muslim women in many Muslim societies not finding Muslim husbands.  One of the comments mentioned polygamy in Islam asked about its impact of the problem discussed in the posting.

I responded with enough material that may deserved its own 'mini' posting.  Also, re-posting my comment may lead to stimulating a discussion on polygamy.  So, here is the question and my comment.

MW said in a comment: "If some men have more than one wife, does that mean that there is also a proportional amount of men with no wives?"

My response was:

This is not a problem in most cases because the proportion of polygamous men is tiny. I lived in Egypt for 30 years and have not known of a single person in my family, friends, family friends, coworkers and other immediate contacts that married more than one woman. It does happen (more commonly in rural areas, especially if first marriage did not produce children), but the proportion is very small.

That could theoretically still lead to disturbance of the balance between men and women available for marriage, but only if one does not know enough about the man-female sex ratio in population at different ages and under different conditions of society dynamics.

Natural discrepancy in sex survival rates, tendency in ALL societies to maintain few years difference on average between husbands and wives, emigration sex biases, wars, etc, all result in about 5% bias in favor of women. You can research this if you will. I already have.

Of course if polygyny becomes a goal in itself (usually in rich spoilt societies of the gulf), it looses the actual legitimacy that comes from the very tight regulation on polygamy in Islam. The only verse that allows polygamy (i.e., polygyny) in Islam has pretty tight conditions for that practice and, still, it was in the context of extending supportive family structure to a large number of orphans after some of the early battles that was associated with significant losses amongst Muslims men in the battle, leaving behind unsupported women and children in a society where support comes traditionally in the form of nuclear family structure.

Many Arab and Muslim societies have legally restricted the right to have more than one wife to varying degrees, and in most Muslim society polygamy IS looked down upon unless its legitimacy could be gleaned from the circumstance. Men who marry a new 18 year old girl every few years are not considered appropriately behaving. Polygamy in early days of Islam meant to marry an older woman, usually with children, as a second wife, not a 'trophy' young girl to prove that you are 'the Man'.

While I do not intend, or need, to justify polygyny under the strict limitations in Islam by mentioning extramarital affairs, I think it is most telling that rates of polygamy among Muslims is a small fraction of adultery among married men AND women in Western societies.  I am not picking on Western societies, but that is where more statistics are available).   And by marriage, I mean ongoing marriages - not past marriages or among separated couple.

Khaled

Good Charity or Bad Charity: Facing the Charity Challenge

I remember one of my professors over 25 years ago saying: "put a little of your heart into what you do". That way, nothing is "just a job". What you do becomes part of you, becomes more enjoyable, and more likely also gets better done. If you cannot put a little of your self into you job, then you are in the wrong business.

Charity work is also like a job. For some people it is 'just a job' they are supposed to do, they have their orders in the Holy book and they followed orders. But for others, their hearts and souls are part and parcel of the charity they do. The latter group is the really charitable one.

As for the others - I am not sure about. I just do not think they are getting the best of the charity they are doing, but how each group is rewarded is - thankfully - up to God and not to any of us.

Talking about some of this has been on my mind for a couple of weeks after I came across two acts of charity that moved me, then I heard about another 'act of charity' that can hardly qualify as one.Let me get the 'bad charity' story out of my system first.It is about someone who volunteers at a food pantry, donating time and effort (and possibly money) to help poor hungry families.

'Nothing can be wrong about that', you say. Unfortunately for that person, charity was just a job. He was just following God's orders. So, he felt the job was done just by being their, donating the time and effort. Still, he could not hide his disrespect for the human beings on the receiving end of his charity, expressing to a friend of mine that 'those people' were not deserving of his charitable deeds.

Example #2 is for a good charity that I was on the receiving end of.During the last snow storm in St. Louis, my fuel-efficient small car proved so light that it could not get a grip on the road. I could not make it all the way uphill to the subdivision where I live. I let my self roll down in reverse, turned back, and tried another route. I made it most of the way up , then my small car started spinning it wheels while stubbornly remaining where it is. It could not climb another inch.

I got out and started signaling to other cars to go past my stalled car. That was pretty easy for the heavier gas-guzzling SUVs that passed me quickly and drove on without looking back. Then came another canary yellow compact car.Naturally it got stuck just behind my car. The driver was more persistent, and kept hitting the accelerator and spinning the wheels while the car was swinging right and left. Lucky for the driver, after about over a minute of spinning, the car managed to move forwards about 10 yards to make it to a less steep stretch of the road And from that point on, it was going to be an easy ride home.

But at the top of the hill the car stopped again - parked safely on the side of the road this time. The driver came out and started walking towards me, slowly to avoid slipping on the icy road. Half a minute later, the driver was close enough that i realized it was a small woman trying to put her gloves on. As soon as she came close to me, she said: 'Get in your car, and I will push you'.

I had to laugh. The woman looked like she was a mere 120 pounds at the most, my car was stuck facing uphill, and the tarmac was slippery enough that the tires could not even get a grip on the road surface. Despite that, the woman, rather, than going home and enjoying a cup of hot cocoa, was putting on her gloves and getting ready to push my car uphill on the icy road.

I kid you not - it took me quiet a while to convince her that this was a physical impossibility, and it took even a bit more to convince her to go back to her car and go home promising her that I will find a way out of my problem.I finally managed to get myself and my car out of trouble, and I drove home the remaining half mile uneventfully. But that encounter with the charitable anonymous woman made me feel really good. Helping a stuck driver is not unusual, but to do that under those circumstances is special enough. And to be persistent trying to offer help that is likely to be a tremendous amount of effort and is practically impossible from a 'physics' point of view is definitely exceptional.

Her knowledge of mechanics and physics is probably limited, but her capability for a random, and selfless act of charity and help to a total stranger is amazing.
My last story goes even further. It is a most inspiring example that a good friend of mine, JS, told me.

JS was planning to travel overseas to visit some family. His good friend asked him if he would be willing to take some money to distribute to needy people back in the old country. Knowing the tight financial situation of his friend, JS was surprised by the amount of money his friend was giving away, and he asked the friend how he could set aside that kind of money. The answer tells you a lot about that friend and his wife.

During last Ramdan, the fasting month for Muslims, most Muslims engage in more religious activities, but most also indulge in socializing as well as in eating traditional foods and sweets, usually in excess. Of course, many are also more charitable in ramdan than during other times of the year.

JS friend and his wife made a decisions this year. The first day of Ramadan was a typical Ramadan day. The family did the usual for that month: cooked and ate a lot of food, and lot of deserts, etc. The good wife kept track of every bit of expense that the typical Fast-breaking meal cost. The second day was a different story. The family ate a good, but modest meal. They were not hungry when they finished their meal, but the luxuries were not their. The cost of that meal was calculated as well.

And for the rest of the month of Ramadan, the family broke their fast on a modest meal, and the difference in cost was set aside. By the end of the month what was saved was passed on to JS to distribute to some needy people.

Now, that is real charity. Can you top that?

Charity in my religion, Islam, and as I imagine in many other religions, is not just about giving things. It is about feeling the gratitude to God, and thanking him by helping his creations, humans or otherwise.

Thanking God would not be sincere if it is done without your heart and soul being into it. Insincere thanks are probably worse than none at all.
Helping with what comes at no cost to you, with what you do not need or value, or with a small some of what you have a tremendous abundance of, does not seem to me like a sincere act of thanksgiving.

I cannot imagine that it will be sincere either if one is giving or helping while harboring ill feelings towards God's creations that he or she is helping as a way of thanking God.
But loving God's creations and helping them just because they are His, and giving from what you tremendously value and from what you cherish the most - that is true giving.

Khaled

I truly cannot finish this without presenting some of the many Quran verses that teach those who listen, what true charity is.

"O you who have attained to faith! Spend on others out of the good things which you may have acquired, and out of that which We bring forth for you from the earth; and choose not for your spending the bad things which you yourselves would not accept without averting your eyes in disdain. And know that God is self-sufficient, ever to be praised." (Quran, 2:267)

"[But as for you, O believers,] never shall you attain to true piety unless you spend on others out of what you cherish yourselves; and whatever you spend - verily, God has full knowledge thereof." (Quran, 3:92)

"BELIEVE in God and His Apostle, and spend on others out of that of which He has made you trustees for, those of you who have attained to faith and who spend freely [in God's cause] shall have a great reward." (Quran 57:7)

"... and who give food - however great be their own want of it - unto the needy, and the orphan, and the captive, [saying, in their hearts,] 'We feed you for the sake of God alone: we desire no recompense from you, nor thanks." (Quran 76:8-9)

And what could make thee conceive what it is, that steep uphill road? [It is] the freeing of human beings from bondage or the feeding, upon a day of [one's own] hunger, of an orphan near of kin, or of a needy [stranger] lying in the dust. (Quran 90:12-16)

I guess that is the point. If it is easy to give away, it must not be that valuable. Khaled

A Jew Re-redfining Jihad: a lesson in cross-cultural communication

Most Muslim know very well what Jihad means. We know that it is not about beheading 'infidels' - whatever 'infidels' mean. We know it is not about forcing the world into submission to an Islamic Caliphate. And above all, we know its meaning is more about deep and very personal struggle with one's own desires and inclinations than about war and bloodshed.

That true Jihad is not the Jihad that the Western media talk about. Islamic Jihad has been redefined for us as an ugly hateful and scary ideology that the civilized world must eliminate. And, as some Islamophobes propagate, if eliminating all Muslims is the price needed to eliminate Jihad, it is a small price to pay to save the Civilization of Mankind.

I, and 99.99% of Muslims in the world, have not done anything that helped tarnish the meaning of the word Jihad. But I am certain we do not do enough to restore the word to its real glory either. Many Muslims have legitimate grievances against Israel, former and current colonial powers, international media, international religious bodies, .. etc, etc. Many of us, though, have little experience in presenting our cases and causes in a way that is conventional and accepted by centers of power in the world. We are even miserably less experienced in communicating with the average person in Europe and North America, where public opinion has serious impact on the decision making of current super powers.

Many of us take a 'defiant oppositional stance' that alienates many of the non-Muslims that could be our allies in straightening the record, and in addressing the grievances that Muslims legitimately have.
Learning the skill of cross-cultural communication is probably the single most important goal that good Muslims should aspire too to help the cause of Islam.

This is not an innovation into Islam. This is a directive that God has made as part of the Quran over 1500 years ago:

• "CALL THOU (all mankind] unto thy Sustainer's path with wisdom and goodly exhortation, and argue with them in the most kindly manner ..." (Ch 16.125)
• "AND TELL My servants that they should speak in the most kindly manner [unto those who do not share their beliefs] ..." (Ch 17.53)
• "But [since] good and evil cannot be equal, repel thou [evil] with something that is better - and lo! he between whom and thyself was enmity [may then become] as though he had [always] been close [unto thee], a true friend!" (Ch 41.34)

Wisdom, good exhortation, speaking in kindly manner, and repelling evil deeds with good ones have been the eternal advice by God that many, even most, of us have not followed closely with sad consequences for all of us.

Many of us accuse the West of double standards when they judge Arab and Muslim causes - a legitimate charge in many cases. But we rarely look at the way we judge issues ourselves. Many of us are profoundly guilty of the same thing we accuse the west of: having double standards. Yet we do not easily and willingly identify it in our own behavior and the behavior of other Muslims. It is not healthy to scream loudly to complain of what many of our own practice with our complicit approval, attempts at justification, or at best benign negligence.

Speaking up against our own for injustices they commit is an Islamic duty. God is very explicit in enjoining us to stick to one standard: upholding truth and justice no matter who is at fault:

• "... Be ever steadfast in your devotion to God, bearing witness to the truth in all equity; and never let hatred of anyone lead you into the sin of deviating from justice. Be just: this is closest to being God-conscious..." (Ch 5.8)
• "... when you voice an opinion, be just, even though it be [against] one near of kin..." (Ch 6.152)
• "... Be ever steadfast in upholding equity, bearing witness to the truth for the sake of God, even though it be against your own selves or your parents and kinsfolk." (Ch 4.135)

For those who are still reading, it is about time to know what any of this has to do with re-redefining Jihad by a Jew.
while doing my daily world newspaper tour I came across this title in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz:

"This year, this Jew is embracing Jihad"

And before you start wondering about any subliminal hidden vicious meaning for the title let me tell you: He is not talking about fighting till death against Muslims, Arabs or Palestinians. He is not talking about beheading the enemies of Israel, and he is not talking about establishing a Jewish theocratic Caliphate in Muslim Land.
He is actually, and simply talking about Jihad the way it was meant to be in the glorious days of Islam "... [as it] has been used in the Koran in its root meaning, i.e. to strive and to strive for betterment of society, to spread goodness (maruf) and contain evil (munkar)."

I would not quote every great sentence in the article, otherwise I will be quoting a lot. I promise you this: you will feel a lot better after you follow the link at the end of this posting and read the article in its entirety.
A Jewish Journalist embracing Jihad in the pages of the major Israeli Newspaper ... How did this happen?
Simply he came a across two Muslims who followed the teachings of the Quran that I mentioned earlier:

First, use wisdom when presenting you case and,
Second, be fair in judging the world: you own and the others.

Bradley Burston simply came across an article (see link below) by Asghar Ali Engineer explaining true Jihad, and how different it is from what some violent Muslims claim it to be. He also came across a Muslim, Peter Dames, commenting on the latest violence between Arabs and Jews in Akre, Israel, during the cerebration of Yum Kippur.

Peter Dames wrote:

"As a man who practices Islam, I have to say both sides ought to be ashamed of themselves. Why are you committing such crimes? In the name of religion? No, I don`t think so, because God-fearing men contemplate God throughout their day.

This has got to end. We are children of Abraham - not children of Satan. People, wake up! Monotheism is under attack because of such actions. Let not ignorance prevail over your emotions but rather let your intellect achieve peace, love, stability & closeness to God. Let's stop pointing fingers. Let's forgive and forget and live for the future for the sake of our children. Salaam/Shalom/Peace everyone. - Petere Dames"

Wouldn't it be great if we read more articles by non-Muslim journalist embracing Jihad? Or at least using the the word the way it was meant to be? Unfortunately, this is not going to happen until we have a lot more Muslims embracing Jihad the right way, communicating their understanding to non-Muslims the right way, and applying justice using the same standards accross the board.
It is about time to 're-redefine' Jihad.

Khaled

Links:

Read Bradley Burston's article here:

This year, this Jew is embracing Jihad - by Bradley burston in Haartez.

Burston is one of my favorite journalists of the Israeli daily Haaretz. I may not always agree with him, but he rarely talks like an ideologue and, mostly, the reader feels he thinks of the issue at hand, then decides how he should react and what to write about it. No foregone conclusions, and no prejudging.

Also, check the article that moved him to writing the article listed above:

Making Mockery of Jihad - by AsgharAli Engineer

Apostacy and Freedom of religion in Islam

By Khaled Hamid

04/22/2008 11:52 pm

This posting started as a response to good comments made by 2 readers following my last postings. You can read their comments here and here. I responded to the first under the same posting here, but the second response (by GF) got so long that I preferred to post it as a main entry. Their comments was detailed, documented and challenging. I hope my response clarifies some of the issue.

First, I am surprised that GF would take exception with the Egyptian Grand Mufti’s edict. I would imagine any one worried about Islam being a violent ideology should be happy that the most senior cleric of the most prestigious Islamic University in the world establishes that the proper Islamic response to apostasy (Redda or reversion away from Islam) is not a violent one, but a position of freedom of choice. That should be a solid argument against extremist Muslims who advocate violence. It brings down their position from one of ‘establishing God’s word’ to being ‘in violation of God’s word’.

The Ignoramuses of the world (be they Muslim, Christians, Jews, etc) will continue to do whatever they want no matter what clergy tell them. The moderate majority now knows the violent ones are wrong.

No interpretation of a holy book is considered divine no matter how famous their authors may be. As I mentioned in previous response, all the commentaries and legal interpretations in Islam are tools for those who wish to read them, but they are not God’s word, and denying their correctness or validity, or understanding them in the historic and political context they originated in does not make one an apostate.

I cannot help change the fact that some Muslims understand things differently. Diversity in understanding the Book of Revelations is an example in point on the Christian side. But I look as Holy books this way: God revealed His holy books on chosen Messengers but aiming at lay, mostly illiterate people. The Messengers did not select who followed them, and did not perform any ‘pre-admission’ testing for the believers. And in Islam God, definitely, did not mandate that scholars explain God’s words to His followers.

Actually one of the recurring Quranic criticisms for the early People of the Book (an Islamic term for Christians and Jews) at the time of Quran revelation was that they accepted the interjection of scholars and clergy between God and the believers. Yet, Muslims quickly (i.e., after few decades after the Prophet’s death) fell in the same trap. It is human nature, I guess.

But Islam is truly a lot simpler than most scholars would like us to believe. Unfortunately most believers want to rely on someone else telling them what God wants rather than make some effort on their own.

I was lucky that Arabic as my mother tongue. I can read the Quran easily. I can understand the very vast majority of the verses at face value. It is simple and easy to understand, as God himself promised four times in different verses (54: 17, 22, 32 and 40, “Hence, indeed, We made this Quran easy to bear in mind: who, then, is willing to take it to heart?”) As for the few verses that may have a word or two not in common use today, the overall meaning of the verse is more than obvious if one is too lazy to look up the exact meaning.

I have a strong feeling that GF understands enough Arabic. I suggest to he/her to read the verses mentioned in the comment made, and forget about the ‘famous interpreters’ that GF repeatedly mentioned. They occasionally help, but most of the time, they are just the way. Of course, there are other interpreters (modern and not so modern) who would understand the verses differently, but that makes my point stronger: we all need to do the homework ourselves understanding the original words of God, and we should not take anyone’s interpretation for granted, even if we end up sometimes wrong. Otherwise, taking someone’s else’s words for what God really wants may be convenient, but it makes that person almost ‘God’ for us.

A famous quote from one of the early Scholars (I do not remember exactly which one) was “If you do not know our proof, you should follow our conclusion”.

The reader listed some verses to make his point, and this is where this posting gets a bit technical (and possibly boring) for some readers, so forgive me. But an elaborate comment requires a detailed response.

The reader agreed that verses 6:96 and 4:90-91 are already interpreted by modern scholars in an agreeable way, i.e., punishment for apostasy is in the hereafter, not capital punishment in this life. This is how the text reads in Arabic anyway, so I will skip those.

The verse GF sees as problematic is 2:217. I read the Arabic, and I read the English translation of M Asad, and I see no indication that it carries capital punishment for apostate.

• “… [Your enemies] will not cease to fight against you till they have turned you away from your faith, if they can. But if any of you should turn away from his faith and die as a denier of the truth - these it is whose works will go for nought in this world and in the life to come; and these it is who are destined for the fire, therein to abide.”

Clearly, in Arabic as it is in this near literal translation, this is not talking about capital punishment, but about bad outcome on the Day of Judgment. Hell fire has never ever been mentioned in the Quran as a reference to punishment in this life. No commentator, regardless of their prestige or stature can tell other wise.

Regarding Verse 4:89

• “They would have you disbelieve as they themselves have disbelieved, so that you may be all like alike. Do not befriend them until they have fled their homes for the cause of God. If they desert you seize them and put them to death wherever you find them. Look for neither friends nor helpers among them“.

please read the preceding verse (4:88, and subsequent verses 4:90) before making judgment on this verse.

The word ‘they‘ in this verse refers to a group mentioned in the preceding Verse 4:88 as the Hypocrites, a group of Muslims that got in alliance with enemies of Muslims engaging in active acts of war. Finding and killing them was for their act of treason at time of war, not for apostasy

And despite this, the following verse 4:90 gives them the way out of the punishment as it states clearly: arriving and seeking protection with others (Muslims or otherwise) with which Muslims have a covenant OR coming back to the Muslims declaring their desire not to FIGHT Muslims - They were not required to declare their reversion to Islam. If they come back in peace “God does not allow you to harm them

The full text of verse 4:90 is here:

• “unless it be such [of them] as have ties with people to whom you yourselves are bound by a covenant, or such as come unto you because their hearts shrink from [the thought of] making war either on you or on their own folk - although, if God had willed to make them stronger than you, they would certainly have made war on you. Thus, if they let you be, and do not make war on you, and offer you peace, God does not allow you to harm them.“

I really do not see how anyone would interpret this as mandating capital punishment. If a commentator opted for that for historic or political reasons, this is definitely not binding for us, especially when God made His words so clear and unequivocal.

Verse 5:54 is the ONLY verse that talks specifically about the apostate (Murtadd, or those who abandon their faith as the verse describes them). It does not even mention death in any way:

• “O you who have attained to faith! If you ever abandon your faith,’ God will in time bring forth [in your stead] people whom He loves and who love Him - humble towards the believers, proud towards all who deny the truth: [people] who strive hard in God’s cause, and do not fear to be censured by anyone who might censure them: such is God’s favour, which He grants unto whom He wills. And God is infinite, all-knowing.”

Let me conclude by some Quran verses that explicitly commit to the freedom of faith. These teach the Prophet, and us, Muslims, how to behave when someone refuses to accept Islam, at any stage. They require no comment from me or anyone else.

• (2:256) THERE SHALL BE no coercion in matters of faith. Distinct has now become the right way from [the way of] error…
• (3:20) … Ask those who have been vouchsafed revelation aforetime, as well as all unlettered people, ‘Have you [too] surrendered yourselves unto Him [God]?’ And if they surrender themselves unto Him, they are on the right path; but if they turn away - behold, thy duty is no more than to deliver the message: for God sees all that is in [the hearts of] His creatures.
• (5:29) … if you turn away [from God’s way], then know that Our Apostle’s only duty is a clear delivery of the message [entrusted to him]
• (5:99) No more is the Apostle bound to do than deliver the message [entrusted to him]: and God knows all that you do openly, and all that you would conceal.
• (6:70) And leave to themselves all those who, beguiled by the life of this world, have made play and passing delights their religion…
• (6:107) Yet if God had so willed, they would not have ascribed divinity to aught beside Him;_’ hence, We have not made thee their keeper
• (9:129) But if those [who are bent on denying the truth] turn away, say: ‘God is enough for me! There is no- deity save Him.
• (10:99) And [thus it is:] had thy Sustainer so willed, all those who live on earth would surely have attained to faith, all of them: dost thou, then, think that thou couldst compel people to believe,
• (16:082) BUT IF they turn away [from thee, O Prophet, remember that] thy only duty is a clear delivery of the message [entrusted to thee].
• (23:117) Hence, he who invokes, side by side with God, any other deity* for whose existence he has no evidence - shall but find his reckoning with his Sustainer: [and,] verily, such deniers of the truth will never attain to a happy state!

A point made by reader Logus referred to early (Mecca) chapters being softer and gentler than later chapters (Medina). It is the same incorrect point made by the Pope while referring to the conciliatory verse 2:256 listed above as being Mecca verse in a speech last year that causes a lot of distress to Muslims. The Pope was wrong as chapter 2 is a chronologically late (Medina) chapter although it is early in the Quran text arrangement, which does not follow chronological order. And so are some of the chapters used above (3, 5 , 6, and 9). Actually chapter 5 is the last long chapter of the Quran and has a special status as the final part of the revealed word of God. So the argument about gentle verses being early in Islam when there were fewer Muslims, while violent chapters came late, after Muslims became numerous enough to fight, is invalid.

All these verse, and many more, stress one key message: people choose whether to believe or not. God did not aim for all people to have the same faith. The Prophet (and his followers) are not to compel anyone to believe. Their job is to deliver the message. The rest, is our own personal choice.

“Why would Muslims want to live in America? Why would not Muslim live in Saudi Arabia or some other Muslim country?”

This title reflects the first of 2 good questions posed by one of the readers (who named his/her Centrist) of my first blog posting about finding my Muslim voice. The part I am going to address in this post is quotes below (emphasis in the quote is mine).

“I saw a woman in a West County grocery store the other day with traditional Muslim dress, not a burka, but the only part showing were her eyes. That is fine, I have no objections with her choice.”

“… Our culture is so different in terms of outward sexuality and homosexuality that is so contradictory to the Muslim faith, that I don’t understand why they would not prefer to live in Saudi Arabia or some other Muslim country where they can live more easily which in the norms of their culture and religion.

I have a problem with Muslims coming here and not wishing to assimilate and try to get calls to prayer and footbaths etc. which kind of cross the line of seperation [sic] of church and state in our country.

My first question is, why don’t Muslims just live in Muslim countries and why do they choose to live in America or England where the culture is do different from what their religion espouses? Many of us fear that we will one day be forced to live under Sharia law such as Saudi Arabia or Iran if the Muslims take over our country.”

The reader’s second questions is equally interesting and is about Muslims and why they vote Democrat. Whether this assumption is right or wrong, that question will have to wait for another posting.

But for now, let us tackle the first question. There are a lot of points to cover so I will use almost a point format to cover the different issues raised in the comment:

• Niqab (Arabic name for attire that covers a womens face) is Not the traditional Muslim dress. It is a dress that some traditional Muslim women wear (although is is admittedly ‘mandatory’ in some societies, especially Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia which are hardly the beacons of democracy, freedom or individuality). We are not all traditional in that sense. Many practicing Muslims women with strong devotion to Islam do NOT wear niqab or burqa (burka is a word derived from a Farsi root). Some of them wear traditional western attire, and some wear a more conservative attire with long sleeves, below knee outfit with or without a head cover (Hijab in Arabic). The latter group would look more or less like many orthodox Jewish women, or catholic nuns (before the change in their dress code in Vatican II). They wear the typical attire that the Virgin Mary, the most revered woman in Islam, is portrayed in.
• And why should it be assumed that a Muslim has somewhere else to go and live. This statement is based, assuming best of intentions, on ignorance. Half of the American Muslims are ‘real’ Americans, born and raised here to American parents that may have been Muslims, Christians, Jews or atheists. Some are Black, White, Hispanic or of Middle Eastern and Indian ancestry. But some are of German, Irish or Chinese ancestry amongst many other possibilities. They did not chose to come to America. God created them here. They have no where else to go to, Muslim country or otherwise. And even if they do have another country to go to, why should they? Do we expect a Muslim born in this country to a Muslim family, or who has converted to Islam as an Adult, to leave America and look for another homeland just for the dress code?
• A homeland is more than place with a dress code that I like. The culture that defines someone by how they dress is a very shallow culture, and our American culture, mine and yours, is not shallow. That is why many people, Muslims and non-Muslims alike, come to America. Moreover most of us, Muslims and non-Muslims alike, disagree with the society at large on one or more intellectually or practically pivotal issues. Take for example abortion, same sex marriage, the war in Iraq, affirmative action, universal health care, or even home schooling. Is there anyone out there who is willing to leave there homeland if the law of the land is opposite to their choice for a way of life? Should I assume that the reader Centrist would have to go and live in Denmark if his/her dress code is more on the nudist side; or to somewhere else where abortion is still criminalize if they were anti-abortion? People are not defined by one issue, neither should a homeland, especially by something as trivial as dress code.
• Centrist also has a ‘problem with Muslims coming here and not wishing to assimilate and try to get calls to prayer and footbaths etc‘. Without belaboring the point, I will restate that half of the American Muslims have not come here - they were born here.
• Assimilation deserves some comment. Every time I here it in this context it reminds me of the ‘Borg hives’ on Star Trek. The goal was “assimilating all species by incorporating their knowledge and technology into one Borg super collective”. None of us would ever desire to be part of that super powerful society for a simple reason: individuals lost their uniqueness, that is ‘the quality of being one of a kind’, i.e., different in some ways. Assimilation that does not retain the individuals identity is not only evil; it is doomed to failure in the long run.
• And, on the legal side of this, if a municipality accommodates some Muslim communities and issues a permit for a mosque to have the call to prayer, that is the municipality’s right (although I am not aware of any that did this in Missouri). If the council of elders is democratically elected, and feels comfortable giving their OK to that, then that is the stance they would like to face voters with in the next election. And that is called democracy in action.
• I am not even sure the reader Centrist is using that term “separation of church and state” correctly. Church bells ring every Sunday, and that is not violating the separation of church and state. The first amendment of the US Constitution states that “… Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. For a private business to make a free-will decision to establish footbaths for their Muslim clients, or employees, because the business owners feel morally good about being inclusive, or because it is good for their business, is a far cry from violating what the constitution enshrined in the first amendment. Any constitutional lawyer amongst the readers to chip in??

On a rather personally note, I am not a supporter of a dress code that covers the face. A big part of an individual’s identity is in the face. I am even sure I would not know how to communicate with someone covering their face. That is not just from the security point of view, but for many other practical reasons. The face communicates a lot more than words. My early medical training was in a Egypt at a time when some medical student started wearing niqab. The dean of medical school was decisive about it. If you wear a niqab, you were not allowed to get on the medical school campus. I am not aware of any women students that left medical school because of that. Niqab is not mandatory according to the very vast majority of Muslim scholars. It is actually forbidden during the most sacred of all Muslim events, Pilgrimage to the Holy Mosque in Mecca. It is still a very uncommon practice outside Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia were is it a dominant cultural habit to many, not a religious tradition. And therefore, many women stop wearing it when they are out of those countries.

Even in Iran, it is becoming less and less popular. For passports, drivers license, security Ids, and in courts of law the face must always show. If one woman wants to wear it in a West County grocery store, and the store does not have a problem with it, who am I to stop them?

Do I want wearing Niqab or burqa to be the law of the land for women here? NO.

The bottom line is this: this is a society where the rule of the law is king. If it is legal no one should expect others to change just to please the rest of us. But if Centrist’s argument is that this is a Christian Nation, and that only Christians should decide how it is run, then that is a violation of the first amendment. And that can be a topic for another post.

Khaled

[Note: The reader Centrist, in a second comment expressed deep unhappiness and disappointment that I did not respond right away to the comment. Since I am not a full time blogger or a journalist, and I am a full time professional, I will rarely be able to respond right away to comments (except to the most simple of questions). Other readers are welcome to participated in the discussion and have a dialog go on, but I will not oblige myself to respond in a particular time frame.Blogging is NOT about instant response. That is called instant messaging. I would rather take my time posting something that I put some thought into, than to response in a haste with a half-cooked one and a half sentences. Other bloggers may have the talent to do that and produce something good. This blogger does not. Sorry if anyone is disappointed. Khaled]

Islam, Violence and War

Click here for a PDF of referenced chapters & Verses

The essence of the relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims, as individuals or as communities, is that of kindness and respectful coexistence (60:8). This friendship and kindness is, however, denied for those who actively engage in systematic effort to harm Muslims (60:9).

Lack of friendship does not automatically mean engaging in war, and human life is looked at with extreme respect. The loss, or saving, of one human life, Muslim or non-Muslim, is considered a major event for all humanity (5:32). But if war became inevitable (see later), Islam since its early days has established clear rules for the conduct of hostilities. Several sections in the Quran discuss war in detail and, contrary to the ‘out-of-context snippets’ that tend to dominate media coverage and anti-Muslim portrayal, a careful look at the discussion of war in the Quran shows a very unique perspective that favors non-violent means, and looks at war as the least desired path to solving conflicts. That perspective was unique by 6^th century standards as much as it is unique by 21^st century standards.

1. War is permitted under Islamic rules, but only for defensive purposes. War of aggression is not permitted in Islam (2:190).
2. If the non-Muslim warring party stops aggression, Muslims have no choice but to stop (2:192, 4:90, 8:61) even if they think it is not in Muslim’s army interest (8:61 and 8:62).
3. The purpose of war is to resist or stop oppression and to fight aggression (2:190, 2:193, 4:75) not to expand territory or to dominate others (28:83) [note: Exalt in this verse means ‘raise in rank and status, or attain supremacy, Uluwan in Arabic]. War is definitely not a mean to force Islam on non-Muslims (2:256, 2:272 [first sentence], 10:99, 16:82).
4. War with another Muslim community is also permitted (for the same purpose stated of fighting oppression and aggression) if that Muslim community engages in oppressing another community, and does not heed the calls for just and fair resolution (49:9)
5. War is permitted in defense of the right and religious freedoms of non-Muslims well as Muslims suffering from oppression (22:39 and 22:40)
6. Revenge for past hatred and hostilities does not justify war and aggression (5:2, 5:8) and Muslims are instructed and advised by God to forgive (43:89, 15:85)

War is the last resort: Not only does the Quran forbid wars of aggression, but it also very strongly encourages peaceful means to counter aggression and resolve conflicts before war is resorted to (8:61, 23:96, 41:34).

But it is also important to realize Islam is not a pacifist religion. It strongly believes in peaceful coexistence, supported by deterrent defensive stance (8:60), and the inclination to peaceful resolution of conflict (8:61, 23:96, 41:34) but without denying Muslims the right to wage war against aggression if other measures fail.

Once war starts (legitimately as discussed before) Muslim men and women are expected, by God, to fight it with utmost zeal, and with the willingness to sacrifice themselves and their material wealth in defense of their community and in the cause of God. In the fervor of war, Muslims are expected to obey the Islamic code of conduct during war time (47:4).

Granting protection to enemy fighters: In addition, every Muslim man and woman, is endowed with the right to grant asylum and protection to one or more enemy warriors if those warriors declare themselves non-combatant, and ask for the protection of a Muslim. They are not to be treated as prisoners of war, nor should they be detained. They are allowed to live within the Muslim community until war is over, or helped to travel to another society of their choice that is not at war with the Muslim community (9:6, 4:90).

Martyrdom: Those who die in the fight, be they men or women, are considered martyrs (defined as ‘ones who die for the sake of principle’) who will be in close proximity of God in heavens (2:154, 3:169, 4:74). The urban myth of ‘seventy virgins awaiting the martyrs in paradise’ has no basis in the Quran.

The Prophet’s teaching: Muhammad, pbuh, has set a very well defined path for warriors to follow. During the sending off the Muslim army to a battle, the prophet issued the following ‘battle field code of conduct’: “You shall not break a promise you make, you shall not mutilate the dead”, and “You shall not kill an elder, a child or a woman”. He gave clear instructions not to kill the injured and unarmed enemy members (equivalent to army civilians, and non-combat support troops in modern times).

Ensuring the moral conduct of war is the responsibility of all Muslim fighters, commanders and lowly soldiers alike. The Prophet made his well authenticated statement “There shall be no obedience of a leader in the violation of the rules of God”. This unequivocal statement was made in support of some Muslim soldiers who refused to obey a commander’s order when they felt the order violated the morality of Islam.

Prisoners of war (captives) enjoyed a status under Islam not seen in previous wars. They were to be treated without abuse or humiliation. They were to be well fed even when food was not abundant (76:8-76:9), kept warm and adequately sheltered. After the war POWs were treated based on the reciprocity principle with the enemy (e.g., freed in exchange for Muslim prisoners, or after reparations (47:4). In a real life example, the prisoners of war during the first battle with the people of Mecca were freed in exchange for teaching 10 Muslims each how to read and write. Illiterate prisoners were freed unconditionally when the battle was over. Enemy fighters who surrender (i.e., willingly give up fighting), are kept as prisoners of war until the fighting is over, and are then released unconditionally.

Civilian leaders of the Muslim community who succeeded Prophet Muhammad followed his teachings meticulously. Abu-Bakr, the first of those leaders, echoing the Prophet’s past instructions, gave his last minute advice to the commander of the Muslim army heading to the north to fight then. On dealing with fighting and non-fighting members of the enemy he said: “Do not betray, do not steal [i.e., take property unlawfully], and do not break a promise you make. Do not mutilate the dead; do not kill a child, an elder or a woman. Do not damage a palm tree or burn it. Do not cut a healthy tree; kill a goat, cow, or other animal except for food. You will come across people who dedicated themselves in monasteries [i.e., monks]; do not disturb them [i.e., let them carry on with worship of God that they dedicated themselves to].” Omar, the second leader who followed Abu-Bakr, maintained the same stance with his military leaders: “do not steal, do not betray [whomever you made promises to], do not kill a child, and beware of God [by not committing injustices] when you treat those who farm the land [that you pass through]”. In a different message to another military leader, Omar ordered: “Never kill and old man, a woman or a child. Make sure to avoid them during battles and in conducting raids”. These commandments, a millennium and a half ago, puts to shame many modern nations and armies for what they have done to civilians over the last few decades.