Sunday, June 24, 2012

The Victory of  Muslim Brotherhood: Welcome to the World of Machiavelli

by Dr. Aslam Abdullah
Politics is an art of survival in a world of deceptions. It is a game to consolidate, bolster and retain power at any cost. It is a game to achieve absolute control over everything and it is a game, to maximize gains for oneself, one’s party or faction. This is how it is played. This is how the father of modern political science defined the role of a ruler when he said; the methodical exercise of brute force, deceit, etc. is needed to seize and retain power.  The following incident explains the way politics is run in our world today regardless.
The duke of Sforza had just died, and rebels in the Compagna of Italy rose up under the widowed duchess, Caterina Sforza. The war lasted for several months. Common people starved, and entire villages burned down during the ruinous warfare. Machiavelli advised Cesare Borgia thus,
"My Prince, I advise you to treat with Caterina Sforza under a white flag. Her troops are too strongly crenelated in the fortress, and it will take months to root the rebels out. For every day we fight, more of your loyal troops are slaughtered, more of your best citizens have property damaged or destroyed, and the crops go unharvested and children starve. The battle must be ended. Therefore, my advice is this. Treat with Caterina Sforza under a white flag and under the pretense of peace. Then seize her and take her captive. Once she is captive, strip her of her fine garments and place in her in an iron cage to parade her in front of the rebel troops, and rape her before their eyes before you kill her. The enemy forces will know their leader is captured and humiliated and the magnitude of this deed will so horrify them that they will flee from battle and fear and never raise arms against you again." Cesare Borgia supposedly did so.
Now an organization that claims to follow a higher authority in all matters of life including politics is in power in Egypt. The Muslim Brotherhood is the democratically elected party whose representative will rule Egypt. How far he will be able to follow those divine guidelines to deal with friends and foes will not only determine the future of the party but will also define Islam and its place in the modern world.
Will politics be the same as suggested Guru Machiavelli or will be run on the basis of the divine guidance of fairness, justice, honesty, integrity, transparency, and truthfulness? Will Egypt continue to be dependent on the dictates of some of the most invisible financial powers of the world or will it charter a course of economic independence by developing an economy that will bring its people prosperity.
Islam reminds the governed and the rulers that untruthfulness, rashness, guile, irrationality, avarice, dishonesty, and cruelty are crimes against humanity.
Islam reminds the rulers that without having the company of those who are capable, honest and committed they would not be able to govern properly.
Thus Islam reminds the rulers that:
A. Commitment to a disciplined and principled life  is at the root of a stable  society,
B. The increasing wealth of people is not a sin as it is essential for the welfare of people,
C. The good governance of the state must result in an increase in wealth,
D. Overcoming one’s ego and demonstrating self control are the roots of the stability of the government,
E. Humility alone will enable one to control oneself,
F. Recognizing the capable and efficient people regardless of their identity will also increase humility,

G. True Knowledge or wisdom results from serving the people not ruling them,
H. Economic disparity ultimately leads to the weakening of the state,
I. Discrimination against people based on their religion or gender is a disastrous sin whose ill effects become known quickly,
J. Justice is the foundation of a mature society,
K. Right means are needed to achieve the right goals.
In order to achieve these goals, Islam takes a stand against all unethical and immoral practices. 
Let us see how an Islamic party responds to the challenges of the modern state. In the past, many of those who ruled in the name of Islam did not show much respect for Islamic values. Even though they called them Caliphs, But with the exception of the four early Caliphs and Caliph Abdul Aziz, not many can be identified as symbols of integrity and honesty. After Tunisia, Egypt is the second country where people have voted an Islamic party in. Now it is up to the Muslim Brotherhood to prove that Islam is a life-affirming, progress supporting, justice maintaining and human rights, preserving faith, that Islam is a non coercive religion, that it respects the religious freedom of others and that it does not discriminate people on the basis of their gender as it allows its citizens to feel safe physically, economically and spiritually to assert their humanity in a manner that does not threaten the existence of others. 
Let us hope that those who want to govern in the name of Islam would create a better image of Islam through their compassionate and just governance. Let history not repeat itself, let history take a new course in Egypt, a course that would put principles over expediency.

Friday, June 22, 2012

Sharia! What it is and what it is not?

By Dr. Aslam Abdullah
In the US, with each passing day, the debate about Shariah is getting complicated. There are those who perceive Shariah as a threat to the US constitution and then there are those who view Shariah as a way of life lived according to principles promoted and protected by the US constitution. For some, it is the ideology of enemies and for others, it is a style of life of patriots. Some say that Shariah is totalitarian, demonic, authoritarian, and militaristic, others say that it is humane, compassionate, divine and peaceful. Some say that less than one percent Muslims of the US population wants to impose Shariah and others ask is the democracy in America so fragile that it would allow a minority to impose over the majority and they point out that over the years, the Christian evangelical community, much larger than the Muslim community, has not succeeded in putting prayers in schools. They ask; how can less than a percent of Muslims who are not unanimous on the definition of Shariah would ever achieve the task their opponents assign to them?

Those opposed to Shariah say that it is interchangeable with the concept of Caliphate, a totalitarian and authoritarian rule led by Muslims to subjugate non-Muslims. The proponents say that Shariah does not promote a particular system of government; rather it supports egalitarian principles that make governing easy.

The opponents say that Shariah deprives people of free choice, the proponents argue otherwise saying that it protects freedom.

The opponents say that Shariah does not give the governed a right to make law on their own. The proponents say that Shariah exhorts its followers to make laws to secure the interests of all- without giving in to any biases and discrimination.

The opponents say that Shariah is opposed to democracy; the supporters say that it promotes an open society with full respect to the will of people.

The opponents say that Shariah would endanger individual liberty; the supporters say that it strengthens liberty, freedom of expression, economic independence and equality before the law.

The opponents say that Shariah espouses violence and the supporters say that Shariah is non-violent. The opponents say that Shariah seeks to regulate all aspects of behavior in life; the supporters argue that it erases the dichotomy that exists in the behavior of people- in their various aspects of life.

The opponents say that laws based on Shariah would result in chopping off hands and stoning to death of those who are considered sexual deviants, the supporters say that it gives freedom to lawmakers to make laws based on the needs of people.

The opponents say that Shariah strangulates free scientific inquiry while the supporters say that Shariah is the main force and source of scientific inquiry.

With opinions. so diametrically opposed, and passions so energized around the debate that an average American, regardless of his or her religious background often feels confused about it. What is propaganda and what is reality? Who is telling the truth and who is using the issue as a political tool to incite the masses? One group is telling them that Shariah would destroy America and the other is assuring them that it would strengthen the country. Certainly, an average person is not sure whom to believe and whom to discount.

The situation becomes even more complicated when some sections of law enforcement agencies put their weight in favor of the opponents of Shariah agreeing with many of their claims. For the supporters of Shariah, it serves as an indication that the administration is biased towards them.

In the last decade alone, those who are opposed to Shariah have spent more than 42 million dollars to drive their point home and those who support it are working hard to make their perspective known to whomever they may reach. What will be the outcome of the debate? Whose opinions will the nation listen to in the end and authenticate?

Similar vitriolic and scathing criticisms were made against Catholics, Jews and Mormons in the past. The Mormons, for instance, were declared the enemies of the state in the state of Missouri by governor Lilburn Boggs and an order was issued that they must be exterminated, an order that was repelled on in 1976. Until 1940, regular demonstrations were organized by popular radio talk show hosts in New York against Jews demanding that they should be sent back in leaking boats to places they came from. Yet, today, in the 112th Congress, some 15 Mormons, 39 Jews and over 156 Catholics are serving in Congress.

Will the anti-Shariah movement die with the passage of time, especially after the 2012 presidential election cycle or will it linger on? Will the pro-Shariah groups succeed in convincing America of their perspective? Whatever the outcome, one thing is certain America would once again demonstrate its capacity of accommodating diverging points view to strengthen the Republic.

Today, America has a strong interfaith community that is intolerant of bigotry, racism and negative propaganda against any religion. Today, the internet has become the never-sleeping eyes of the people who can watch every incident of discrimination. Today America has become part of a global community where the interests of all are interlinked.

At present America learns about the debate on the Shariah through discussions going on in places of religious worship, legislative assemblies where some anti-Shariah bills have either been passed, rejected or under consideration, media, the internet, schools, and colleges, public debates and individual or group statements issued by opposing groups.

Easily accessible data on the internet does not help in developing a clearer understanding of Shariah. Islamic sites, in general, do not explain in great details what Shariah is and the opponents of Shariah do not explain how does Shariah endanger the US constitution? The irony is that the entire Shariah debate is being viewed in the context of 9/11, the day the country was attacked by the Al-Qaeda members fuelling fears of Muslims and Islam without realizing that Shariah has been in existence since time immemorial.

Objective non-Muslim Americans want to understand what Shariah is all about and in what manner does it relate to them and Muslims want to know how should they explain it to people including those who are hostile to Islam and Muslims.

None of them finds satisfying answers from those who are leading their initiative in either direction.

A search on popular Islamic sites on the net reveals that the answers to these questions are not easily found. Among the sites defining Islam, the Islamic Fiqh Council of North America has only one article on Shariah, Islamicity has about 15 articles, Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), and the American Muslim Jurist Assembly (AMJA) have a few research articles. The Sound Vision has recently launched a Sharia101.org website to explain Shariah and the ICNA has plans to expand its Shariah explained movement in grassroots movements. Why Islam.org is one of the few websites where several videos on the definition of Shariah can be found. Why Islam is an ICNA project. Other popular Islamic websites have news about Shariah phobia, but have no articles explaining what Shariah is. Sites such as Huffington Post, Sydney News, CNNbelief section or New York Times, etc. have articles written by Muslims and non-Muslims that give cursory definitions and explanations of Shariah without addressing the concerns occupying the public mind.


Muslim American Scholars' Opinions

Muslim Americans whose opinions are available on the web are Dr. Maher Hathout, senior advisor of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, Imam Mohammad Majid, President of ISNA, Dr. Muzammil Siddiqi, President of the IFCN, Dr. Sherman Jackson, Professor of Islamic studies at USC, Malik Mujahid, founder of Sharia 101 project, Shaykh Mokhtar Maghraoui a foundation scholar for Al-Madina Institute, Dr. Ahmadullah Siddiqi, Professor Media Studies at the University of Illinois, Macomb, Imam Mohamed Abdul Aziz of Salam Islamic Center in Sacramento and Dr. Nejatullah Siddiqi, a renowned world economist, and many others. By and large, they define Shariah through its objectives.

Dr. Muzammil Siddiqi, explains Shariah in a video of Why Islam.org as a path, a way of life shown to us by Allah and his Prophets. "Shariah is given by God and it is now law. The sources of Shariah are the Qur'an and the Sunnah (teachings and life of Prophet Muhammad) from where the laws are derived," he explains.

Dr. Maher Hathout outlines the five principles upon which Shariah is based: preservation of life; preservation and freedom of religion; preservation of mind and intellect, including freedom of conscience and thought; preservation of lineage and family; preservation of ownership.

Imam Mohamed Magid defines Shariah no different than the above. He, however, adds that it is "Islamic law that is based on the Holy Qur'an and the teaching of the Prophet Muhammad and that Shariah governs the practice of Muslims in Islam. This includes how to pray, when to fast, how to conduct a marriage, death and burial rituals and other aspects of Muslim life."

Dr. Sherman Jackson says, "At the most basic level, Shariah is the Muslim universe of ideals. It is the result of their collective effort to understand and apply the Qur'an and supplementary teachings of the Prophet Muhammad (called Sunna) in order to earn God's pleasure and secure human welfare in this life and attain human salvation in the life to come. While the Qur'an and Sunna are transcendent and unchangeable, Shariah itself is the negotiated result of competing interpretations. In fact, most Muslims tend to speak not of Shariah but of fiqh, which literally means "understanding" and underscores the distinction between God's prescriptions on the one hand and the human attempt to understand these on the other."

Dr.Yusuf Ziya Kavakci on Islamic Fiqh Council of North America does not make a distinction between Fiqh and Shariah when he writes: "It is, as I believe, a fact that Shariah, Fiqh in its early stages got established and developed in the wide area of the world, mainly where Roman law was dominant. Roman law (the law applied in the Byzantine Empire was Roman law) developed in the Beirut, Istanbul (Constantinople) centuries-long before Islam. Fiqh was established, acted upon and developed to answer the needs of people embracing Islam in Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Central Asia, Iran, Egypt, and North Africa where Roman law was dominant for centuries."

Dr. Nejatullah Siddiqi devoted an entire book on the Objectives of Shariah (Maqasid Shariah). He did not agree with those writers who insist on five categories of objectives mentioned by al-Ghazali, claiming that many other objectives come under them in one way or another. He suggested more objectives to be added beside and beyond the five mentioned above, such as honor and dignity of humankind, basic freedom, justice and equity, poverty alleviation, sustenance for all, social equality, bridging gap between the rich and the poor, peace and security, preservation of the system, and cooperation at the world level. He supports his stand by various verses of the Qur'an and the sayings of the Prophet especially in dealing with the non-Muslims, role of women in the society and the challenges of globalization."

Dr. Siddiqi surveyed the history of the idea of Shariah objectives. For him, the concept of Shariah objectives has existed from the very beginning of Islamic history. But it was al-Juwayni (d. 478/1085) who, first used the term, from whom his disciple al-Ghazali (d. 505/1111) took it and divided it into five categories: Protection of religion, life, reason, progeny, and property. Ibn Taymiyah (d. 728H/1328) introduced protection of dignity in place of progeny. He also argued that objectives should not be limited to the protection from haram (forbidden), but it should also include securing benefits. Thus, the number would not remain confined to five objectives. Ibn al-Qayyim followed the suit of his teacher, Ibn Taymiyah, and included justice among the objectives. The author examined the opinions of al-Shatibi (d. 790/1389), Shah Wali Allah al- Dihlawi (d. 1172/1763), as well as a quick survey of the contemporary literature.

Imam Mohamed Abdul Azeez, the religious leader of the Salam Islamic Center in Sacramento CA. explains that Shariah is the Arabic word for 'the path', which is commonly used to describe Islamic jurisprudence. In his views, there is no formalized code of Shariah. Rather, Shariah is an interpretive set of principles based on the Qur'an, the Hadith (the sayings and traditions of the Prophet Muhammad), and local custom and practice. Other than issues related to doctrine and belief, i.e. belief in one God, the vast majority of these religious decrees are subject to very wide interpretation.

Malik Mujahid on his Shariah 101 website says, "to understand Shariah is to understand Islam. Criminalizing Shariah will criminalize the practice of Islam in America. Shariah is in some ways similar to the Jewish Halacha law or Catholic Canon Law, with similar historic roots but far less complex. Unlike Jewish Halacha law, which is practiced in Jewish American courts called Beth Din, there is no Muslim court system in the United States, nor is the Muslim community demanding this. Shariah is neither one nor static. Shariah is not one monolithic body or a codified book of a comprehensive law. Shariah is based on the Qur'an and the teachings of Prophet Muhammad, but not all of Shariah is God's word. A good part of Shariah is made up of human contributions. There are literally hundreds and thousands of books written in the last 1,400 years, in multiple languages in places as diverse as Timbuktu in Africa to Bukhara in Central Asia, with millions of opinions, judicial reviews, etc. on various issues. Together, they form the body of Shariah and Shariah continues to evolve."

Dr. Ahmadullah Siddiqi explains, that "it is the guidance God has provided human beings through his prophets to conduct their daily lives. From Adam to Noah, Jesus, Moses, and Muhammad (Peace be upon all of them), all established a Shariah for their people. Praying five times a day, fasting in Ramadan, giving charity, hajj, dealing with one's neighbors, and conducting all of the affairs of life according to the guidance given by God are acts of Shariah."

Why Islam.org explains Shariah in the following words: ""Shariah is an integral part of Islam. It is often defined as 'Islamic law', causing one to assume that it consists mostly of criminal rulings and penalties. However, Shariah encompasses much more than the conventional understanding of the law. While Shariah provides the legal framework for the foundation and functioning of a society, it also details moral, ethical, social and political codes of conduct for Muslims at an individual and collective level."

Abed Awad, a New Jersey-based attorney and an expert on Shariah who regularly handles cases that involve Islamic law in the US in as well as a member of the adjunct faculties at Rutgers Law School and Pace Law School wrote:

"Shariah is more than simply "law" in the prescriptive sense. It is also a methodology through which a jurist engages the religious texts to ascertain the divine will. As a jurist-made law, the outcome of this process of ascertaining divine will is called fiqh (positive law), which is the moral and legal anchor of a Muslim's total existence. Shariah governs every aspect of an observant Muslim's life. The Shariah juristic inquiry begins with the Qur'an and the Sunna. The Qur'an is the Muslim Holy Scripture - like the New Testament for Christians or the Old Testament for the Jews. The Sunna is essentially the prophetic example embodied in the sayings and conduct of the Prophet Mohammed.

After the two primary sources of Islamic law, the Qur'an and the Sunna, the two main secondary sources of Islamic law are: (1) ijma (consensus of the scholars and jurists, and sometimes the entire community), and (2) qiyas (reasoning by analogy to one of the higher sources). Other secondary sources of Islamic law are juristic preferences, public interest, and custom. Shariah is extremely flexible and subject to various interpretations. In the 19th century, Western colonialism decimated the Shariah legal system, replacing it with Western codes. This caused a serious decline in the community of jurists. In addition, there is today a debate that revolves around the failure of the modern jurists - not the system of Shariah - to develop the Shariah to adapt with the current circumstances of modernity."

Wajahat Ali, a commentator and a US-based attorney writing in Huffington post said:

á Shariah is not static. Its interpretations and applications have changed and continue to change over time.

á There is no one thing called Shariah. A variety of Muslim communities exist, and each understands Sharia in its own way. No official document, such as the Ten Commandments encapsulates Shariah. It is the ideal law of God as interpreted by Muslim scholars over centuries aimed toward justice, fairness and mercy.

á Shariah is overwhelmingly concerned with the personal religious observance such as prayer and fasting, and not with national laws.

Dr.Tariq Ramadan, Professor of Islamic Studies at Oxford University, England and a worldwide well-known author on Islam in an article reproduced on Islamicity explained the Shariah in the following words:

"The Shari'a is not restricted to the penal code; in our typology and classification, it is an element, a part of a global path, methodology and philosophy of life. To consider one element out of the context which gives it meaning is not only unfair but methodologically incorrect. The teachings of the Qur'an and the Sunna give shape to a complete way of life and this is, in fact, the Shari'a we are commanded to follow: from performing daily Prayers to defending social justice, from studying to smiling, from respecting nature to helping an animal."

One interesting definition was offered on the website Jadaliyya.com where Maya Mikdashi defines Shariah as the following: "So what is Shariah? It is, in its most bland definition, the moral cosmology that is meant to saturate and legislate shared life in Muslim communities. In the Lebanese state, the Shariah is the Muslim personal status laws, in Iran it is the spirit and much of the content of the legal system, in Saudi Arabia it is what the state says it is, and in the minds of many Islamists throughout the world, it is the utopia that their struggle promises. It is a word that is cited by a Yemeni President to try to prop up his teetering regime, a word that was cited by an American President in order to foster support for a foreign invasion, and a word has been cited in Egypt and in Afghanistan to both promote and prohibit educating women. It is a word that conjures up, in the minds of some, promises of justice, gender equity, and social harmony. In the minds of others, it conjures up images of bearded men flogging adulterous women, hanging homosexuals, and marrying children. For some, it is the law of God, for others, it is the law of man trying to live within God's imperatives. For many, it is a body of jurisprudence that can be studied, appreciated and critiqued. It is many things in theory, and still more in practice. But unfortunately, today in the United States, Shariah is little more than a scare tactic."

Among some of the most influential Muslim scholars of the previous century, Syed Abul Ala Mawdudi in his book Let us be Muslims defining what is ' Shari'ah' says: "Now I shall tell you what Shari'ah is. The meaning of Sharia is the mode and path. When you have acknowledged God as your sovereign and accepted His servitude and have also admitted that the Messenger is the tangible ruler holding authority on His behalf and that the Book has been sent by Him, it will mean you have entered Deen (way of life). After this, the mode in which you have to serve God and the path you have to traverse in order to obey Him is called Shari'ah. This mode and path have been indicated by God through His Messenger who alone teaches the method of worshipping the Master and the way to become pure and clean. The Messenger shows us the path of righteousness and piety, the manner in which rights are discharged, the method of carrying on transactions and dealings with fellow-beings and the mode of leading one's life. But the difference is this that while Deen always was, has been, and is still one and the same, numerous Sharia came, many were canceled, several were changed but these alterations did not change the Deen. The Deen of Noah was the same as that of Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Shu'aib, Saleh, Hud, and Muhammad (peace be on them) but the Sharia of these Prophets varied from each other to some extent. The modes of saying a prayer and observing fast were of one kind with one prophet and of another kind with the other. Injunctions about halal (permitted) and haram (forbidden), rules of cleanliness and codes of marriage, divorce, and inheritance somewhat differed from one Shari'ah to another. In spite of this, all were Muslims---the followers of Noah, the followers of Abraham, the followers of Jesus and those of Moses, and we too are all Muslims because Deen is one and the same for all. This shows that Deen is unaffected by differences is the rules of Shari'ah. Deen remains one though the modes of following it differ.
Sayyid Qutb in his Milestone writes: "By 'the Shari'ah of God' is meant everything legislated by God for ordering man's life; it includes the principles of belief, principles of administration and justice, principles of morality and human relationships, and principles of knowledge."

The Shari'ah includes the Islamic beliefs and concepts and their implications concerning the attributes of God, the nature of life, what is apparent and what is hidden in it, the nature of man, and the interrelationships among these. Similarly, it includes political, social and economic affairs and their principles, with the intent, that they reflect complete submission to God alone. It also includes legal matters (this is what today is referred to as the 'Shari'ah', while the true meaning of the 'Shari'ah in Islam is entirely different). It deals with the morals, manners, values, and standards of the society, according to which persons, actions and events are measured. It also deals with all aspects of knowledge and principles of art and science. In all these guidance from God is needed, just as it is needed in legal matters."

Khurram Murad, prominent scholars of the Jamat Islami, Pakistan in his Shari'ah - The Way to God explains "In its fullest sense, the Shariah is therefore virtually synonymous, and can be used interchangeably, with the word Din, which can only inadequately be translated as 'religion'. Din literally means 'way of life', 'submission', 'following' or the 'Way'. Though the word Shari'ah in its various derivative forms is found in five places in the Qur'an, its extensive use only came into vogue much later; for the words, Islam and Din were more commonly employed to express the same meaning in the early days of Islam. The Shariah includes both faith and practice. It embraces worship, individual attitude, and conduct as well as social norms and laws, whether political, economic, familial, criminal or civil. It may also sometimes be used to imply, in a more restricted sense, do's and don'ts the rules and regulations for conduct and behavior. Lastly, it is also used as the equivalent of Islamic laws. The Shariah is thus nothing less than the divinely ordained way of life for man. To realize the divine will, man must follow the Shariah. To live in Islam is to live according to the Shariah. To give up the Sharia or any part of it knowingly, willfully or deliberately is to give up Islam. A Muslim must , therefore, do his utmost to observe and to implement the whole of it, wherever and in whatever situation he finds himself."

Yusuf al-Qaradawi in The Lawful and the Unlawful in Islam writes, "Finally, when mankind had reached the stage of intellectual maturity and was ready to receive the last message from Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala, Islam came with its complete, comprehensive, and eternal Shari'ah (law) for the whole of mankind."


Shariah in Secular Literature
In secular literature, the Encyclopedia of Britannica defines Shariah as the fundamental religious concept of Islam, namely its law, systematized during the 2nd and 3rd centuries of the Muslim era (8th-9th centuries CE). Total and unqualified submission to the will of Allah (God) is the fundamental tenet of Islam: Islamic law is, therefore, the expression of Allah's command for Muslim society and, in the application, constitutes a system of duties that are incumbent upon a Muslim by virtue of his religious belief. Known as the Shariah (literally, "the path leading to the watering place"), the law constitutes a divinely ordained path of conduct that guides every aspect of life.

The New York based Council on Foreign Relations defines Shariah as a guide in all aspects of Muslim life, including daily routines, familial and religious obligations, and financial dealings. It is derived primarily from the Qur'an and the Sunna--the sayings, practices, and teachings of the Prophet Mohammed. Precedents and analogy applied by Muslim scholars are used to address new issues. The consensus of the Muslim community also plays a role in defining this theological manual."

"Shariah developed several hundred years after the Prophet Mohammed's death in 632 CE as the Islamic empire expanded to the edge of North Africa in the West and to China in the East. Since the Prophet Mohammed was considered the most pious of all believers, his life and ways became a model for all other Muslims and were collected by scholars in what is known as the hadith. As each locality tried to reconcile local customs and Islam, hadith literature grew and developed into distinct schools of Islamic thought: the Sunni schools, Hanbali, Maliki, Shafi'i, Hanafi; and the Shiite school, Ja'fari. Named after the scholars that inspired them, they differ in the weight each applies to the sources from which Shariah is derived, the Qur'an, hadith, Islamic scholars, and consensus of the community. The Hanbali school, known for following the most Orthodox form of Islam, is embraced in Saudi Arabia and by the Taliban. The Hanafi school, known for being the most liberal and the most focused on reason and analogy is dominant among Sunnis in Central Asia, Egypt, Pakistan, India, China, Turkey, the Balkans, and the Caucasus. The Maliki school is dominant in North Africa and the Shafi'i school in Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei Darussalam, and Yemen. Shia Muslims follow the Ja'fari school, most notably in Shia-dominated Iran. The distinctions have more impact on the legal systems in each country, however, than on individual Muslims, as many do not adhere to one school in their personal lives."

The popular web Wikipedia writes:

"Shariah, in its strictest definition, is a divine law, as expressed in the Qur'an and Muhammad's example (often called the Sunnah). As such, it is related to but different from fiqh, which is emphasized as the human interpretation of the law. Many scholars have pointed out that the Shariah is not formally a code, nor a well-defined set of rules. The Shariah has characterized as a discussion of the duties of Muslims based on both the opinion of the Muslim community and extensive literature. Hunt Janin and Andre Kahlmeyer thus conclude that the Shariah is "long, diverse, and complicated."


Critics of Shariah
The critics of Shariah view Shariah a threat to America, its existence and its moral and constitutional fabric. The Threat is Shariah, published by the Center for Security Policy says: "These enemies adhere to an all-encompassing Islamic political-military-legal doctrine known as Shariah. It obliges them to engage in jihad to achieve the triumph of Islam worldwide through the establishment of a global Islamic state governed exclusively by Shariah, under a restored caliphate. The good news is that millions of Muslims around the world - including many in America - do not follow the directives of Shariah, let alone engage in jihad. The bad news is that this reality reflects the fact that the imposition of strict Shariah doctrine is at different stages across Muslim-majority and -minority countries. The appearance is thus created that there is variation in Shariah. Of late, representatives of Muslim and Arab-American groups and their apologists have been claiming that there is no single Shariah, that it is subject to interpretation and no one interpretation is any more legitimate than any other.

In fact, for especially the Sunni and with regard to non-Muslims, there is ultimately but one Shariah. It is totalitarian in character, incompatible with our Constitution and a threat to freedom here and around the world. Shariah's adherents are making a determined, sustained, and well-financed effort to impose it on all Muslims and non-Muslims, alike.

Defining the Shariah, the center says The Arabic word "Shariah," according to one modern English-language student textbook on Islam, "literally means a straight path (Qur'an 45:18) or an endless supply of water. It is the term used to describe the rules of the lifestyle (Deen) ordained for us by Allah. In more practical terms, Shariah includes all the do's and don'ts of Islam."

In other words, Shariah is held by mainstream Islamic authorities - not to be confused with "radical,"  "extremist" or "political" elements said to operate on  the fringes of Islam - to be the perfect expression of divine will and justice and thus are the supreme law that must comprehensively govern all aspects of Muslims' lives, irrespective of when or where they live. Shariah is characterized as a "complete way of life" (social, cultural, military, religious, and political), governed from cradle to grave by Islamic law. While many, many millions of Muslims around the world do not practice their faith in a manner consistent with Shariah, as this chapter makes clear, those that do have grounds for arguing that their version of Islam is the authoritative one. And those who claim that there is no single Shariah - a narrative that has recently emerged from representatives of Muslim- and Arab-American groups and their apologists - are either ignorant of the facts about Shariah discussed below or deliberately dissembling There are four sources for Sharia that make it authoritative: the Qur'an, the Sunna, ijma, and qiyas. Deemed the "the uncreated word of Allah," the Qur'an reflects the direct divine revelation and is understood to be the primary source of Islamic law. After the Qur'an, Islamic jurists next turn to the Sunna, considered to be an indirect divine revelation arising out of the hadiths, or sayings or acts of Mohammed. Ijma refers to the consensus of the grand mujtahids of the past, a historic process in which, once consensus attached, became a permanent part of the immutable body of Islamic law. Finally, the fourth source of Shariah is qiyas, or reasoning by analogy, which applies an accepted principle or assumption to arrive at a legal ruling."

Newt Gingrich, the former speaker, summarized the feelings of the critics of Shariah when he said in a speech published in the New York Times: "I believe Shariah is a mortal threat to the survival of freedom in the United States and in the world, as we know it,"

Qur'anic Definition of Shariah 

Obviously, there is a lack of consensus among Muslims about what Shariah is. Some define it stagnant, others dynamic. Some see it as a divinely given law, others say it is a source of law. Some say it is a set of principles, others describe it as a methodology. Some define it in the context of five objectives; others say that objectives are not stationary. Some say it is monolithic and others say it varies. Some say that by renouncing Shariah a person renounces Islam, others say that is non-binding. In general, if one looks at the existing literature and reads different opinions, one cannot but find oneself in a state of high perplexity.

The irony is that those defending the Shariah are still struggling to work out a common definition of the word and concepts associated with it. The internal debate among Muslims is missing. Everyone claims to have found a definite answer and everyone is controlled by that. How will a bystander know what is right and what is not, and whom to believe and whom not to?

The word Shariah is part of Islamic vocabulary primarily because it appeared in the divine scripture: the Qur'an, the main source of Muslim identity, as without the Qur'an, hadith and fiqh and other Islamic sciences exist in a vacuum. Thus the Qur'an and the language of the Qur'an are the two primary sources of defining the Shariah in the divine scripture. Any attempt to define the term has to be rooted in the Qur'an primarily; the rest may be considered an explanation.

Linguistically, Shariah is equivalent to the Arabic word zahara, which means in a state of being known, or being open or being clear. Thus, Ash-Share' means an open, spacious road that can be used by people without any restrictions. Similarly, Ash Shir' or Ash Shariah means open, clear and straight path. It also means a place that is open to humans and animals to drink pure, fresh water flowing freely from an uninterrupted source. In a theological sense, it would mean guidance coming from a higher, neutral and objective source for the benefit of all human beings.

The Qur'an in Surah 42 verse 13 and 14 says:

"In matters of faith, He has ordained for you that which He had enjoined upon Noah - and into which We gave thee [O Muhammad] insight through revelation as well as that which We had enjoined upon Abraham, and Moses, and Jesus: Steadfastly uphold the [true] faith, and do not break up your unity therein. [And even though] that [unity of faith] to which you call them appears oppressive to those who are wont to ascribe to other beings or forces a share in His divinity, God draws unto Himself everyone who is willing, and guides unto Himself everyone who turns unto Him." (Qur'an 42:13)

And [as for the followers of earlier revelation,] they broke up their unity, out of mutual jealousy, only after they had come to know [the truth]. And had it not been for a decree that had already gone forth from thy Sustainer, [postponing all decision] until a term set [by Him], all would indeed have been decided between them [from the outset]. As it is, behold, they who have inherited their divine writ from those who preceded them are [now] in grave doubt, amounting to suspicion, about what it portends. (Qur'an 42:14)

Thus, these verses explain at length stating that like His Laws, which operate in the outer universe, God has devised Laws for humanity. Since the beginning, these Laws have been conveyed through Anbia (prophets and messengers) by Wahi (revelation). (Therefore) The way of life proposed for human beings or those who believe in divine guidance is the same that was revealed to Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus (and the other Anbia). All of them were told to establish the system proposed by God; and to not create sects in it (because the main objective of the Divine System is that humanity should become one universal entity by the removal of all differences (see Qur'an  3:32; 3:104; 6:160; 45:17-18). Thus the call for the removal of sectarian differences for the sake of the unity is not acceptable to those who consider other powers as their helpers, and to those who intermix man-made rules with Divine Laws. Therefore, how can they come to the right path? As regards their objection to your selection as the messenger, tell them, Allah Almighty selects the one He considers suitable for this important task. The selection is not according to your standards, but according to His decision. Your task is to seek guidance from the Wahi revealed to the messenger. The guidance is available to anyone who seeks it willingly. It cannot benefit those who do not seek guidance."

Thus the Qur'an explains that the source of Shariah is the divine Himself, because He is the only continuous source of guidance to all regardless of their background. Throughout human history, it has been consistent, as God does not confuse different generations of human beings by giving them different messages.

The Shariah is revealed through prophets, chosen by Him, to human beings. It is not acquired on the basis of trials and errors and experimentations. It is not based on the whims of and wills of human beings. It is based on the unchangeable divine guidance and its purpose is to ensure preservation and perpetuation of the unity of humanity. In other words, when it comes to securing the interests and future of humanity, it is the guidance of God, that should be considered supreme, as human beings with all their divisions and baggage will not be able to develop a system that would ensure the interest of each and every human being.

Explaining these ideas further, the same sura states:

Is it that they [who care for no more than this world] believe in forces supposed to have a share in God's divinity, which enjoins upon them as a moral law something that God has never allowed? Now were it not for [God's] decree on the final judgment, all would indeed have been decided between them [in this world]: but, verily grievous suffering awaits the evildoers [in the life to come]. (Qur'an 42:21)

In other words, the path that these people have adopted for themselves, has not been ordained by the Almighty. They have made other entities (their religious leaders) partners of God. They devise different ways for them. The Deen (the way of life), which these entities promote, has not been confirmed by the Divine guidance.

Thus the divisions that human beings have created on the basis of their cultural, social, political and economic interests are not confirmed by the divine guidance and go against the logic of unity of humanity. Those who commit these acts are in fact causing great sufferings for them.

The Sura 5 verse 48 states:

And unto thee [O Prophet] have We vouchsafed this divine writ, setting forth the truth, confirming the truth of whatever there still remains of earlier revelations and determining what is true therein. Judge, then, between the followers of earlier revelation in accordance with what God has bestowed from on high, and do not follow their errant views, forsaking the truth that has come unto thee. Unto every one of you have We appointed a [different] law and way of life. And if God had so willed, He could surely have made you all one single community: but [He willed it otherwise] in order to test you by means of what He has vouchsafed unto, you. Vie, then, with one another in doing good works! Unto God you all must return; and then He will make you truly understand all that on which you were wont to differ. (Qur'an 5:48)

In this verse, the principle of the continuity of the divine message to all the prophets is repeated with the acknowledgment that differences of opinions would continue to exist as people would always act on the basis of their ethnic, cultural or even religious interests without identifying with the larger interests of humanity. The Qur'an affirms the principle of freedom in making a choice. It reminds human through the Prophet that God sent them a Book based on truth. The book confirms and subsumes the true teachings of the earlier Books. People should judge among them according to what Allah has revealed and should not follow their desires, which make them deviate from the truth. People might ask when Allah's guidance sent to all the Anbia was the same (and differences were created subsequently by their followers) why did Allah not compel the latter to follow His guidance? The answer is that doing so would have been against Allah's plan according to which freedom of the will has been given to human beings. Moral responsibility for all actions derives from this freedom, moreover, this gives them the greatest incentive to do good deeds, so, believers, are advised to hurry in doing good deeds, the result of which will come about according to divine laws. When the Divine Day of Judgment has established the differences and variations created by the followers of the earlier Anbia will become manifest.

The continuity of the divine message is reiterated again in sura 45 verse 18 when the Qur'an elaborates the concept of the unity of ideas through all messengers:

And, finally, [O Muhammad,] We have set thee on a way by which the purpose [of faith] may be fulfilled: so follow thou this [way], and follow not the likes and dislikes of those who do not know [the truth]. (Qur'an 45:18)

Thus it was stated clearly that the prophet was sent on the clear and right path indicated by the divine revelation and the responsibility of the follower is to ensure that they keep on following it, ignoring the whims and wishes of people who do not know the truth or who refuse to subscribe to the truth.

From a Qur'anic perspective, Shariah is the ultimate divine guidance given to humanity to find its identity and purpose in life. It comprises of broad principles and some specific rules that deal with the unity of humanity, freedom of choice, acceptance of differences and assuming moral responsibility for one's action. Its message to humanity is that you are one and its message to Muslims, specifically, is that you should work towards achieving the unity by ensuring that life is preserved, the freedom of religion is protected, the intellect is not suppressed, the progeny is protected and the labor is rewarded.

Shariah is life-affirming and life-preserving. Shariah is justice nurturing and Shariah is human dignity nourishing. Shariah is the ultimate source of a style of life for those who believe in divine wisdom and guidance, those who understand that only a higher, neutral and objective authority can preserve and protect the interests of all human beings. It is up to individuals to acknowledge, accept or reject the divine guidance. Thus Shariah cannot be imposed. It cannot be coerced upon people. There is no armed struggle prescribed to force people who reject the Shariah as a source of guidance in their life to accept it as their way of life. Jihad is permitted to defend one's dignity and one's right to live peacefully according to divine guidance. It is not to force people to accept the Muslim world view. People have a choice to live according to whatever laws they deem fit for them.

Sharia acknowledges the differences in human understanding and behavior and gives full freedom to people to organize their lives accordingly. It respects freedom, liberty, and the right to choose one's lifestyle.

Shariah should not be equated with the methods for achieving its goals. The prayers, the fasting, the charity, the pilgrimage, the marriage, the divorce, the inheritance, the childbearing and rearing, the education, the medicine, the food, the exploration, the utilization and distribution of resources are methods prescribed to achieve the inner and outer peace that is ultimately the goal of Shariah. Thus, anyone attacking the Shariah wants to deprive Muslims to practice their faith to secure a better world for them and others.

Human beings throughout their history have formulated laws and rules in different cultures and societies to preserve their collective interests. For almost 5,000 years, the world believed in the institution of slavery and formulated laws accordingly. Then in 1948, the United Nations decided to adopt its human rights charter and countries after countries including Muslim majority countries changed many of the laws that were on their books.

The argument based on Shariah guidance is that when feeling accountable to a higher, neutral and objective authority, i.e. God, Almighty and when they view His creation as equal without discriminating among them, the laws they would adopt would benefit all human beings.

Shariah advises Muslims to develop laws and implement them effectively keeping in mind the interests of all human beings and not just the interests of a ethnic, cultural, religious, social or financial group.

For instance, the Shariah declares that God has bestowed the dignity of human beings. Thus the responsibility of all those who claim to be guided by Shariah must ensure that practices, customs, ideologies, and laws that deny dignity to human beings must be eliminated. According to Shariah, people rule themselves on the basis of declared laws approved through a process.

Nowhere does the Shariah as defined in the Qur'an demands Muslims to convert people to their way of thinking. Nowhere does it say that if people reject their ideas, they should be confronted violently.

Shariah promotes freedom of expression to those who accept it and those who reject it, a cardinal principle secured in the US constitution.

The First Amendment of the US Constitution states clearly that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

All those who have launched the crusade to deprive Muslims of their right to live according to the divine guidance are violating their pledge of allegiance to the constitution. They are the ones who are posing the greatest threat to the country and they are the ones who need to be reminded that Shariah protects all that is protected by the US constitution.

They are inconsistent in their thinking. On the one hand, they want this freedom to be extended to Jews, Catholics, Mormons, Protestants, Hindus, Buddhists and atheists, while on the other they want only Muslims to be deprived of this freedom. They do not want Muslims to live their lives according to their belief system.

Their agenda is neither logical nor constitutional. They are acting like a hate-mongering group who on the basis of their own insecurities and fear want to deprive a viable and vibrant section of American society to express its identity. If they have taken such a stand against Muslims, today, there is no guaranteed that they would not repeat the same inconsistencies against others, tomorrow. Through their action, they are tearing down the foundation of this country and human civilization.

However, this should not absolve Muslims from accepting the responsibility to differentiate between laws emerged consequent to human understanding known as fiqh and Shariah, the divine guidance. Human beings are fallible and they may make mistakes in developing laws based on their limited understanding of the divine guidance or their own understanding of the society. For almost 5,000 years a particular religious tradition promoted the idea that women were without souls. Laws were formulated and inequality and discrimination were practiced in the name of God. But these laws reflected the human understanding within their historical and cultural understanding.

The increased interaction among human beings, the development of, and growth of our world on the basis of scientific methodology and the shrinking of cultural and social differences have forced all of us to examine our own understanding of the divine message in a global and wider context. This does not mean that the divine words have changed, it means our horizon has broadened and our understanding of our world has expanded and the divine guidance is revealing itself in a new context for us. Shariah reminds us of this ultimate reality and the Qur'an says in Surah 41:53:

"We will show them our Signs in the (furthest) regions (of the earth), and in their own souls until it becomes manifest to them that this is the Truth. Is it not enough that thy Lord does witness all things?" (Qur'an 41:53)

In other words, God, the Creator and the Master of the universe will continue creating circumstances in which people will see the signs and visible impact of the divine guidance so much so that it will become clear to them that whatever the divine revelation had told them was based on truth. It is up to those who believe in the divine guidance to understand their changing circumstances and situations and then view them in the light of the Shariah.

In simpler words, the Shariah is to reflect on the message of the Qur'an with the changing human conditions and circumstances with a view to secure the common good for each and every human being regardless of their background.

Sunday, June 17, 2012

The Age of Ayesha (RA) at the time of Her Marriage 

by. Dr. Aslam Abdullah

The age of the mother of believers, Ayesha bint Abu Bakr (RA), has been a matter of great controversy among Muslims and non-Muslims since long. Both Muslims and non-Muslims rely on sources mentioned in books of ahadith such as al-Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawud, an-Nasai and Ibn Majah and books of history to keep the controversy alive. There are reports in books such as Sahih Bukhari that claim that Ayesha (RA) got engaged with Prophet Muhammad when she was six and the marriage was consummated when she 9.  There is no reference to this event in the Quran, nor does there exist any statement of the Prophet (PBUH) that he married Ayesha (RA) when she was six. Muslim scholars, by and large, have continued to propagate the accounts of this wedding as accurate and sound. Some have gone a step further explaining that this marriage was planned in heavens and it was the intention or will of God that the Prophet marries her at this age.
Not many scholars have questioned the authenticity of these accounts. Not many have looked at the alternative narrations present in our books of history and ahadith. Not many have tried to evaluate the accounts on the basis of the criterion of the Quran. Even though there are narratives in our books of ahadith and history that challenge the notion that the mother of believers got engaged or married with the prophet at the age of 6 or 9, yet the majority of scholars have preferred accounts recorded in Sahih Bukhari or Sahih Muslim or other books of ahadith.
They have elevated these books to the status of the Quran whose every word is accurate and whose accounts cannot be questioned for their authenticity. It is interesting to note that the author of Sahih Bukhari, Muhammad Ibn Ismail Ibn Ibrahim Ibn al-Mughirah Ibn Bardizbah al-Bukhari purged over 98 percent of ahadith he had collected based on a methodology that he developed.  The methodology was not divinely revealed as the wahi or revelation comes to Prophets only. It was the outcome of his personal genius mixed with piety. Yet, when anyone asks to critically look at the accounts of such books on the criterion of the Quranic message, they immediately categorize such people as deniers of hadith.
They rarely ask, is this what the Quran asks people to believe in and practice? Was Prophet Muhammad sent to the world to set the example of marrying a six or nine-year-old child? They rarely ask is this account in line with the divine message on the issue of marriage? They rarely ask is this the character of the Prophet? They spend their energy and resources to defend these accounts even if it meant tarnishing the image of the Prophet or even Allah. Of course, this is not done consciously. It happens because most people often ignore the Quranic methodology to determine facts. The Quran constantly reminds people: "Do not take a stand (regarding anything) where you have no personal knowledge. Mind it, the ear and the eye and the heart - all of them shall have to answer in regard to the question whether a personal inquiry was made about the concerned matter.” (17:36)
Majority Muslim scholars show a paradox in their approach to the issue. When non-Muslims accuse the Prophet of marrying a child, they get angry and describe the accusation a conspiracy to malign the Prophet, and if some Muslims respond to these accusations by pointing out alternative narratives, they denounce these efforts as heretical. While in non-Muslim circles, they argue that the facts about the marriage between Ayesha (RA) and the Prophet (PBUH) are not understood clearly and Islam does not promote child marriages, in Muslim circles they support child marriages on the basis of this account claiming that they are only promoting a sunnah of the Prophet. None of them would ever give their six or nine-year-old daughter to even a 25 or 30-year-old man. Probably, they might take someone else’s daughter to live one more sunnah. They have contaminated the minds of their followers to such an extent that any discussion on alternative narrative is unacceptable. The one who rejects their version of Islamic history is declared either an apostate, heretic or a deviant who must renew his faith before claiming himself a Muslim again. In their views, they alone have the right to define, and explain the facts. Anyone not in line with their thinking is either a culprit or a trouble maker.
Based on alternative narratives in our books of ahadith and history, here are some facts to look into before we take any position on this issue.

1.      Calendar

The hijra calendar was introduced by Umar bin Khattab (RA) during his caliphate  Even though the hijra of the Prophet took place in the month of Rabi ul Awwal, as is recorded in many books, the first year of the calendar, began with the month of Muharram. Among the tribes of Arabia, there was no elaborate system of recording death and birth. Often, the main events were used to describe the year of birth and death of a person. If a person is born in the year when a particular event took place, it would be said that such and such person is born in the year of such and such event. For instance, it is said that Fatima (RA), daughter of the Prophet was born in the year when the Kaaba was being reconstructed. According to this calculation, a person born in Muharram or in Zil Qada with being of the same age.

2.      Sources

Hisham ibn Urwah (RA), a companion of the Prophet is the main source of the reporting on the issue. He said that he heard about it from his father that the marriage (event) took place when Ayesha bint Abu Bakr was six years of age. If this event had occurred as described, then there must be many other people who might have witnessed it or heard about it. Even though Malik ibn Anas (RA) was present, when Hisham was alive, yet he did not include this account in his book Muwatta, the earliest book of hadith. Moreover, Hisham bin Urwa (RA) did not report about the event when he was a resident of Medina for almost 71 years. He reported it in Iraq at the age of 90. Yaqub ibn Shaibah in his Tehzibu’l-tehzib, reports: “He [Hisham] is highly reliable, his narratives are acceptable, except what he narrated after moving over to Iraq.” (Tehz’bu’l-tehzib, Ibn Hajar Al-‘asqala’ni, Dar Ihya al-turath al-Islami, 15th century.  Vol 11, p. 50). It was further reported:  “I have been told that Malik ibn Anas (RA) objected on those narratives of Hisham (RA) which were reported through people of Iraq.” (REF: Tehzi’b u’l-tehzi’b, Ibn Hajar Al-‘asqala’ni, Dar Ihya al-turath al-Islami, Vol.11, p. 50)
In Mizanu’l-ai‘tidal, a book on the narrators on the life of the Prophet: it is reported: “When he was old, Hisham’s memory suffered quite badly” (Mizanu’l-ai‘tidal, Al-Zahbi, Al-Maktabatu’l-athriyyah, Sheikhupura, Pakistan, Vol. 4, p. 301)


In his criticism of the methodology of collecting ahadith, Allama Shabbir Meeuthi rejects the interpretation of hadith that says that Ayesha (RA) married the prophet when she was six and conjugal relations when she was nine. He argued that among Arabs was a common practice to shorten a sentence. So when Ayesha (RA) said she was six she meant that she was 16. To prove this point he cited an example from the Hadith itself. He quoted the narration reported by Bukhari himself on the blessed night (night of power) as the prophet said seek this night in, 25,27,29 of the month of Ramadhan.

3. Engagement

Tabari as well as Hisham ibn Urwah (RA), Imam Ibn Hanbal and Ibn Sad say that Ayesha (RA) was engaged at the age of six and she began to live with the Prophet at the age of nine. But Tabari contradicts himself by writing at another place: “All four of his [Abu Bakr’s] children were born of his two wives—the names of whom we have already mentioned—during the pre-Islamic period.”(Tarikhu’l-umam wa’l-mamlu’k, Al-Tabari (died 922), Vol. 4, p. 50, Arabic, Dara’l-fikr, Beirut, 1979)  If Ayesha (RA) was born before the revelation of the Quran to the Prophet, then she would be about 14 years of age at the time of her engagement. It is also reported that prior to the engagement with the Prophet, Ayesha (RA) was engaged to another person.  It is reported Ayesha (RA) accepted Islam quite sometime before Umar ibn Khattab (RA). This means that Ayesha (RA) must have accepted Islam during the first year of the Prophethood.   

Tabari has also reported that at the time Abu Bakr (RA) planned to migrate to Habshah (8 years before Hijrah), he went to Mut‘am—with whose son Ayesha (RA) was engaged—and asked him to take Ayesha (RA) in his house as his son’s wife. Mut‘am refused, because Abu Bakr (RA) had embraced Islam, and subsequently, his son divorced Ayesha (RA). Now, if Ayesha (RA) was only six years old at the time of her marriage, she could not have been born at the time when Abu Bakr (RA) decided to migrate to Habshah. There is no account to suggest that she was born in Ethiopia.

4. Age of Fatima (RA)

Ibn Hajar reports: “Fatimah (RA) was born at the time the Ka‘bah was rebuilt when the Prophet (PBUH) was 35 years old... she (Fatimah) was five years older than Ayesha (RA).”  (Al-isabah fi tamyizi’l-sahabah, Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, Vol. 4, P. 377,  Maktabatu’l-Riyadh al-haditha, al-Riyadh, 1978)  According to this narration, the age of Ayesha would be 12 at the time of her engagement with the Prophet and not six as generally mentioned.

5. Age of Asma bin Abu Bakr (RA)

Abda’l-Rahman ibn abi Zanna’d reports: “Asma (RA) was ten years older than Ayesha. (Siyar A‘la’ma’l-nubala’, Al-Zahabi, Vol. 2, p. 289, Arabic, Mu’assasatu’l-risalah, Beirut, 1992)

Ibn Kathir, a commentator of the Quran also reports: “She [Asma] was elder to her sister [Ayesha] by ten years”. (Al-Bidayah wa’l-nihayah, Ibn Kathir, Vol. 8, p. 371, Dar al-fikr al-‘arabi, Al-jizah, 1933)  Ibn Kathir further reports: “She [Asma] saw the killing of her son during that year [i.e. 73 AH], as we have already mentioned, and five days later she herself died. According to other narratives, she died not after five days but ten or twenty or a few days over twenty or a hundred days later. The most well-known narrative is that of hundred days later. At the time of her death, she was 100 years old.” (Al-Bidayah wa’l-nihayah, Ibn Kathir (died 1333), Vol. 8, Pg. 372, Dar al-fikr al-‘arabi, Al-jizah, 1933)
Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani notes: “She [Asma (RA)] lived a hundred years and died in 73 or 74 AH.” (Taqribu’l-tehzib, Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani, Pg 654, Arabic, Bab fi’l-nisa’, al-harfu’l-alif, Lucknow)
If Asma (RA) died at the age of 100 years in 73 AH, she should have been 27 or 28 years old at the time of hijra. If she is 10 year older than Ayesha (RA), then the age of Ayesha should have been 17 or 18 at the time of hijra.   

6.   Battle of Badr andUhud

In Sahih Muslim, Kitabu’l-jihad wa’l-siyar, Bab karahiyati’l-isti‘anah fi’l-ghazwi bikafir mentions the presence of Ayesha (RA) during the battle of Badr. In Sahih Bukhari, Kitabu’l-jihad wa’l-siyar, Bab Ghazwi’l-nisa’ wa qitalihinna ma‘a’lrijal records: “Anas reports that On the day of Uhud, people could not stand their ground around the Prophet (pbuh). [On that day,] I saw Ayesha (RA) and Umm-i-Sulaim (RA), they had pulled their dress up from their feet [to avoid any hindrance in their movement].”
Sahih Bukhari, in Kitabu’l-maghazi, Bab ghazwati’l-khandaq wa hiya’l-ahza’b: also records: “Ibn ‘umar (RA) states that the Prophet (PBUH) did not permit me to participate in Uhud, as at that time, I was fourteen years old. But on the day of Battle of Khandaq (Trench), when I was fifteen years old, the Prophet (PBUH) permitted my participation.” If Ayesha (RA) participated in the battle of Badr and Uhud, she must be at least 15 years old as youth under that age were not allowed to accompany the Prophet.  

7. Surah Qamar

Sahih Bukhari in kitabu’l-tafseer  reports that Ayesha (RA) was a young girl when Surah al-Qamar was revealed. “I was a young girl (jariyah)” when Surah Al-Qamar was revealed. (Sahih Bukhari, kitabu’l-tafsir, Bab Qaulihi Bal al-sa‘atu Maw‘iduhum wa’l-sa‘atu adha’ wa amarr)
Surah Qamar is the 54th surah of the Qur’an and it was revealed eight years before Hijrah. Accordingly, she must be somewhere between 6-13 years at the time of revelation of Al-Qamar, and thereby she must have been 14-21 years at the time she married Prophet. 

8. The Quran on Marriage

The Quran does not allow child marriages. It states:  “And make not over your property (property of the orphan), which Allah had made a (means of) support for you, to the weak of understanding, and maintain them out of it, clothe them and give them good education. And test them until they reach the age of marriage. Then if you find them maturity of intellect, make over them their property……” (4:5-6).

What is a marriageable age? In the wods of Allah, it is an age when a person is able to take a decision on his or her own and he and she is in a position to give consent to the proposal of marriage.  It is not a childhood age. It is almost young adult age. Prophet Muhammad and his father-in-law Abu Bakar Siddiqi (RA) must be aware of these facts. To suggest that the Prophet married a six year old child is like accusing the Prophet and his most trustworthy companion and suggesting that they violated the divine commandment in this matter. It is unthinkable that they would violate this Quranic command.
 
What is evident from all the above mentioned sources is that the age of Ayesha (RA) was not six at the time of her engagement to the Prophet. She was either 16 or 19 at the time when she was engaged and 19 or 22 when she joined the Prophet (PBUH).
Some of these scholars tell us that in order to defend the honor of the Prophet they would be willing to sacrifice millions of lives. What about about critically examining the hadith that gives distorted image of our Prophet?

Thursday, June 14, 2012

Egypt-The Pharaoh is Back  

by Dr. Aslam Abdullah
The Egyptian military has its own secrets, its own financial interests, its own underhand deals, and its own ideology. Mubarak was a symbolic figure. The real power was in the hands of the top brass of the army who worked behind the scene to ensure that their control over the country remains strong. The string of the military interests goes beyond the borders of the country. Those who manufacture arms and ammunition, those who want to control the economy of the so-called third world countries, those who view Israel as an essential component of their theology and those who view the emergence of any religious movement as a political power do not want  Egyptian democracy to succeed if it means handing power to those who are not under their control.
The police serve them the courts serve them; the clergy is on their side, and every institution that was built during the last 60 years serves them. Egypt is still under Pharaoh, the names have changed, the labels of governance have changed, and the nationality of rulers has changed, but the pattern of power is the same.
Egypt is no longer run by its people even though it had an elected parliament and when the elites feared that the parliament can bring about substantial change, it moved the courts to dismiss the parliament. Egypt is no longer run by its own military. They are puppets of an international mafia whose interests is to sustain its weaponry business and its economic interests. The decision to abolish parliament was not taken by the military in Cairo or Alexandria. It was taken by the powerful global mafia that signaled their puppets to do what was necessary to preserve their interests.
Muslim Brotherhood and Islamic groups that have popular support are naive to believe that the power would be transferred to them so easily. No dictator has ever relinquished its power, especially when he is invisible. 
Regardless, they must be open in their affairs. they must declare their manifesto ensuring that every citizen of Egypt, regardless of his or her religious, gender or ethnic identity would be treated equally and the constitution would be supreme.
The only solution to the ugly situation is when the ranks and file in the military revolt against the top brass with the help of the air force. Otherwise, the brutal force of the top military generals and their international backers do not care for hundreds and thousands of casualties.
No one in political America would ever shed a tear for those innocent victims.  The power elites of America do not care for human rights or human dignity or democracy. These ideas are acceptable only when the national interests (the interests of multinational corporations and the international financial mafia) secure. The elite knows that it has total control over the US military, it has huge nuclear weapons of mass destruction, its drone technology can kill anyone and everyone everywhere.
The simple fact is that the power elite in Washington and Europe do not trust the Muslim Brotherhood and any Islamic group.
So the struggle for human dignity would continue in Egypt as it would in many other countries of the world. There would be many setbacks, there would be many betrayals, but the power of the tyrants would disintegrate one day under the impact of the determination of people. It was Algeria yesterday and Egypt today. But with the social media at its best and the flame of freedom so high, nothing can prevent people from taking over their rightful place in their society.
Egypt is now the symbol of resistance and we all are Egyptians.

Wednesday, June 13, 2012

Rajam - Stoning to Death 

by Dr. Aslam Abdullah
Stoning to death is a slow death by collective torture. The Torah, the first five books of the Hebrew Bible introduced it as a legitimate legal practice ordained by God. The Torah sentences death by stoning for the following:
1.      Touching Mt. Sinai while God was giving Moses the Ten Commandments. Exodus: 19:13)
2.      An ox that kills someone should be stoned to death. (21:28)
3.      Breaking Sabbath. (Numbers: 15:32-36)
4.      Impregnating someone from Molech. (Leviticus: 20:2-5)
5.      Sorcery (Lev. 20:27)
6.      Cursing God. (Lev: 24:10-16)
7.      Idolatry. (Deuteronomy: 17:2-7)
8.      Propagating idolatry. (Deut: 13:7-12)
9.      Rebellion against Parents. (Deut: 21:18-21)
10.   Pretending to be a virgin. (Deut: 22:13-21)
11.  Adultery. (Deut: 22:23-24)

Mishna, the oral Torah, prescribes stoning to death to the following persons

  • one who has had connection with his mother –
  • One who has sex with his father's wife
  • One who has sex with his daughter-in-law  
  • One who has sex with a human male  
  • One who has sex with cattle  
  • The woman who uncovers herself before cattle  
  • One who has sex with a blasphemer  
  • an idolater
  • One he who sacrifices one of his children to Molech  
  • one that occupies himself with familiar spirits  
  • a wizard  
  • one who violates Sabbath  
  • one who curses his father or mother –  
  • one who has assaulted a betrothed damsel  
  • a seducer who has seduced men to worship idols  
  • and the one who misleads a whole town  
  • a witch (male or female)  
  • a stubborn and rebellious son  
Christians and Jews revere these laws and consider them sacred. They repeat them in their religious readings daily and they consider them God-given. Yet, they lack the commitment to be loyal to their books as they have abandoned them. They ignore these laws not because they are barbaric but because they are not sure if they are divinely ordained. With so much human interference in Biblical writings, they cannot be sure of every word in the Bible.
However, if these Biblical laws are applied in the US as more than 80 million Christian evangelicals and some 3 million Jews are striving for, then nearly two-thirds of the US population would be the easy the target for stoning to death including one percent zoophiles, four million homosexuals,  seventy million or more men and women living together without marriage, over one million Hindu idolaters, some 60 million youth who show stubbornness and rebellion to family traditions and the majority of media people who often mislead the entire world.
Stoning to death is a Biblical punishment and the last divine revelation, the Quran does not mention it. The Quran prescribes the punishment of 100 lashes to the one found guilty of the act. Yet Stoning to death is part of the Islamic penal codes in several Muslim countries. For instance, in Iran, the following articles give details of stoning to death.
Article 102 – An adulterous man shall be buried in a ditch up to near his waist and an adulterous woman up to near her chest and then stoned to death.
Article 103 – In case the person sentenced to stoning escapes the ditch in which they are buried, then if the adultery is proven by testimony then they will be returned for the punishment but if it is proven by their own confession then they will not be returned.
Article 104 – The size of the stone used in stoning shall not be too large to kill the convict by one or two throws and at the same time shall not be too small to be called a stone.
The justification of stoning to death is done on the basis of rules derived from the statements attributed to the Prophet or his companions. There are two opinions on this matter. There are scholars who suggest that both lashing and stoning to death should be carried one after another. For instance, Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Daud Zahiri, and Ishaq bin Rahawayh are among those who hold the view that there are two penalties for Zina` for a married person: 100 lashes followed by rajm, one stated in the Quran and the other in the Hadith. On the other hand are those who believe that the punishment of lashing is abrogated by ahadith of the Prophet that prescribe stoning to death for the guilty. The issue of abrogation of the Quranic verses is a different issue and it would be discussed in a separate article.
The stoning to death is being carried out for centuries in several Muslim societies in the name of God and in the name of the Prophet. Few have questioned its legitimacy on a religious basis. Those who have opposed this penalty on the basis of their understanding of the Quran are often described as ignorant Muslims or incomplete Muslims or Muslims influenced by western propaganda. Emotions run so high on this issue that people often ignore facts and logic.
The fact is if the ahadith of stoning to death are considered authentic and accepted genuine, then the authenticity of the Quran could be in jeopardy.  By accepting the accuracy of some of these ahadith, no longer could it be argued that the Quran is unchanged, unedited and protected. No longer could it be claimed that it was divinely revealed and preserved. In other words, the Quran would be like any other book subject to human intervention and human interference. It is an irony that some scholars of Islam, have tried to defend the narrations of Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, the two most authentic books of ahadith among Muslims, without realizing its implication on the authenticity and legitimacy of the Quran.
It is not the purpose of the article to discuss the merits and demerits of stoning to death or the strength of chain in the narration of ahadith related to stoning to death or their logic etc. the purpose of the article is to argue that the so-called ahadith about stoning to death question the authenticity of the Quran and challenges the divine assertion:We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly guard it (from corruption).” (15:9) Or “Praise be to Allah, Who hath sent to His Servant the Book, and hath allowed therein no Crookedness:” (18:1)
One of the ahadith that challenges the authenticity of the Quran is found in Ibn Maja. It says:  
“Reported Aisha (RA): 'the verse of stoning and of suckling an adult ten times was revealed, and they were (written) on a paper and kept under my pillow. When the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) expired and we were occupied by his death, a goat entered and ate away the paper.” (Sunan Ibn Majah, Hadith 1944)
Obviously, this hadith negates the divine claim that the Quran is protected. Even if it is assumed that the paper on which the verse was written was eaten by a goat, what prevented the earlier copies of the Quran to include it part of the Quran from their memories if the prophet had mentioned it as part of the Quran.
Ibn Ishaq, the earliest biographer of the Prophet mentions the same verse (The Life of Muhammad, Karachi, p. 684): "God sent Muhammad, and sent down the scripture to him. Part of what he sent down was the passage on stoning. Umar says, "We read it, we were taught it, and we heeded it. The apostle Muhammad stoned, and we stoned after him."
Sahih Bukhari reports the following. “…In the meantime, Umar sat on the pulpit and when the call makers for the prayer had finished their call, Umar stood up, and having glorified and praised Allah as He deserved, he said, "Now then, I am going to tell you something which (Allah) has written for me to say. I do not know; perhaps it portends my death, so whoever understands and remembers it, must narrate it to the others wherever his mount takes him, but if somebody is afraid that he does not understand it, and then it is unlawful for him to tell lies about me. Allah sent Muhammad with the Truth and revealed the Holy Book to him, and among what Allah revealed, was the Verse of the Rajam the stoning of married person (male & female)… I am afraid that after a long time has passed, somebody will say, 'By Allah, we do not find the Verse of the Rajam in Allah's Book,' and thus they will go astray by leaving an obligation which Allah has revealed. And the punishment of the Rajam is to be inflicted to any married person (male & female), who commits illegal sexual intercourse if the required evidence is available or there is conception or confession. And then we used to recite among the Verses in Allah's Book: 'O people! Do not claim to be the offspring of other than your fathers, as it is disbelief (unthankfulness) on your part that you claim to be the offspring of other than your real father'…” (Sahih Bukhari 8.817)
Omar, the Second Caliph, was the most powerful Caliph in the history of Islam. If he had believed that the aya of rajam was part of the Quran, why did he not include it and made the correction? There were many companions who were alive and who would have certainly known this aya to be part of the Quran, why did they not intervene then. They could have supported him in his endeavor. Why did the second caliph wait until his term to raise the issue? When the Quran was being reportedly compiled at his behest during the caliphate of the first Caliph, Abu Bakr, why did the second Caliph not point out the omission? The mother of believers, Ayesha, was alive and she could have backed him up for that. Why the fourth Caliph, Ali did, not corrected the mistake when he has all the authority in his hand to do so.
Sahih Muslim also refers to the verse for stoning adulterers claiming that it was lost: “Abdullah b. Abbas reported that Umar b. Khattab sat on the pulpit of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) and said: Verily Allah sent Muhammad (may peace be upon him) with truth and He sent down the Book upon him, and the verse of stoning was included in what was sent down to him. We recited it, retained it in our memory and understood it. Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) awarded the punishment of stoning to death (to the married adulterer and adulteress) and, after him, we also awarded the punishment of stoning, I am afraid that with the lapse of time, the people (may forget it) and may say: We do not find the punishment of stoning in the Book of Allah and thus go astray by abandoning this duty prescribed by Allah. Stoning is a duty laid down in Allah's Book for married men and women who commit adultery when the proof is established, or it there is pregnancy, or a confession. (Sahih Muslim 17:4194)
There is no explanation in our books that gives that reason for the omission of this verse from the Quran. Does this not raise a question about the authenticity of the Quran? Does it not challenge the divine promise?  Just for the sake of the authenticity and the preservation of the Quran, these ahadith should have been studied in depth to find explanations that would not jeopardize the status of the Quran.
Instead, our scholars have insisted on making stoning to death as part of the divine punishment without giving satisfactory explanations about the omission of the verse from the Quran.
The Quran is a book whose authenticity is the foundation of our iman and identity. Our firm belief is that this book is free from errors as it also claims the same. Anything that questions its authenticity should not be accepted because it weakens the foundation. People may have followed the stoning to death as part of tribal or Biblical or feudal practices, but to say that God revealed a verse about it and the Prophet and all those who were asked to preserve failed to write it in the pages of the Quran is unacceptable. Why did earlier scholars miss this point? This is not a good question because only they were able to answer it. What is apparent to many now is that any statement that would question the authenticity and legitimacy of the Quran would be set aside for any future research and understanding. Until then, it is better to put stop to the practice of stoning to death as part of our loyalty and commitment to Allah.