"lord i've really been real stressed/ down and out / losing ground..."

For those who still haven't heard, a bill has been introduced in the Tennessee legislature, sponsored by Republican Sen. Bill Ketron of Murfreesboro, which would basically make it a felony to practice Islam in Tennessee. The bill was written by lawyer David Yerushalmi, a white supremacist Jew who also hates Muslims and Black people. A link to the bill is provided below. Read it yourself if you have time.

Here are some of the highlights:

This bill defines "sharia" as the set of rules, precepts, instructions, or edicts which are said to emanate directly or indirectly from the god of Allah or the prophet Mohammed and which include directly or indirectly the encouragement of any person to support the abrogation, destruction, or violation of the United States or Tennessee Constitutions, or the destruction of the national existence of the United States or the sovereignty of this state, and which includes among other methods to achieve these ends, the likely use of imminent violence.

A couple of things: Since Christian Arabs also use the term "Allah" for God, I wonder if one could argue that Arab churches are also "sharia organizations"? Also, depending on how you read "abrogation" this seems to include even peaceful attempts to amend (abrogate) the constitutions of Tennessee or the US. Also, since a constitution isn't a physical object in the first place, what does it actually mean to cause its "destruction"? And since the US Constitution is a basic text for detailing the structure of government bodies and agents, is it something which individuals can violate? I mean, I have a sense of what it may mean for the President, or Congress or the Supreme Court to violate the Constitution, but I'm honestly not sure what it means for Joe or Zayd down the street to do so. In any case, in spite of the difficulties with the above definition, I can almost understand a bill which singled out "bad Muslims" from "good Muslims" but the definition in the bill actually continues:

Under this bill, any rule, precept, instruction, or edict arising directly from the extant rulings of any of the authoritative schools of Islamic jurisprudence of Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i, Hanbali, Ja'afariya, or Salafi, as those terms are used by sharia adherents, is prima facie sharia without any further evidentiary showing.

In other words, the overwhelming majority of mainstream, traditional Muslims (both Sunni and Shia) are going to be lumped together with any Muslims who are trying to destroy "the national existence of the United States" without any specific evidence of violent or criminal behavior.

The bill then goes on to criminalize "sharia organizations" (basically, any two Muslims) and makes it a felony to give such "groups" material support.

It would be hard for me to overstate just how stupid and ill-conceived I think this bill is. I would say that the bill is retarded if it weren't so insulting to retarded people.

- The bill is clearly a violation of the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution. What part of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" don't they understand?

- Even if it wasn't such a literal violation of the bill of rights, trying to criminalize religious activity is anti-democratic.

- Even if non-Muslims are scared of having the shariah imposed on them without their consent, again, that pesky First Amendment already prevents that from happening making an anti-shariah bill unnecessary.

-The alleged reason for the anti-sharia bill is to protect US citizens from "homegrown" terrorism. But as the folks at Loonwatch have most ably pointed out, all terrorists are Muslims... except for the 94% that aren't. If we are really serious about protecting the homeland, then we need to look at the causes of violence regardless of what flag it may fly under. (I hope that the IRA supporting Rep. King is listening.)

-A question: I wonder how many of these anti-sharia fear-mongers are Christians who are willing to use the government to impose their view on abortion, homosexuality, or US Middle Eastern policy on citizens who don't share their view. Just curious.

- Even if there was some honest (but ill-conceived) concern that Muslims would magically take over the country and adulterers would suddenly be stoned (with rocks) on the White House lawn or women would suddenly lose the right to drive to work (or drive... or work), there are more constructive ways to handle those issues without demonizing Muslims and conflicting with the First Amendment. By all means, strengthen laws against spousal abuse or other forms of domestic violence across the board. Pass the ERA. Strengthen the rights of criminals against cruel and unusual punishment. If you think "they" are the enemy the "defeat" them by being the best "you" that you know how to be.

Text of SB 1028
Summary of B 1028 from State Congressional Website
Loonwatch: Bill Would Make it Illegal to Be Muslim in Tennessee
The American Muslim: David Yerushalmi and (in)SANE
Huffington Post: Tennessee Considers Bill That Makes Following Shariah A Felony

kind of like jews

Over at Killing the Buddha, Kind of Like Jews by Gordon Haber is an article about a group of former Messianics who converted to the Noahide faith. The article is a nice glimpse of the modern community of Shomrey Tzedek. The main reservation I would have is that Haber seems to view Noahidism only as a "new" religious movement which he traces back to the nineteenth century Italian rabbi Elijah Benamozegh and his French Gentile disciple, Aime Palliere. But even in the Bible, the book of Acts mentions the Gentile Godfearers who had some attachment to Judaism in ancient times.

See also:
"god gave noah the rainbow sign..." (part four)
"god gave noah the rainbow sign..." (part one)

sausage and the law

Mark Twain once said, "Those who respect the law and love sausage should watch neither being made." But as a Muslim, I would actually argue that he was wrong on both counts. First, anyone who eats (pork) sausage should find out exactly what they are putting into their bodies with a quickness.

But in terms of the law (at least the shariah) I've had an interesting time trying to learn more about usul al-fiqh. Right now I'm in the middle of Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence by M.H. Kamali. Unfortunately I was only able to find it free online after ordering it on Amazon. The book goes into a fair amount of detail on how the ulema across different schools of thought derive legal rulings from the Quran and sunnah and the chapters are nicely organized according to various sources or principles. I found it refreshing because it gave me respect for some of the logical and linguistic nuance which goes into harmonizing different texts. It was also comforting to see that local customs, public interest, and avoiding harm are also considered in the shariah and allow it to be more flexible than many people realize.

In case you don't have time to read a 300 plus something book on usul al-fiqh, The Fundamental Principles of Imam Malik's Fiqh from Muhammad Abu Zahrah is organized in much the same way as Kamali's work except it is much more abbreviated and emphasizes the Maliki school's opinion.

Some other interesting pages:
Maxims of Islamic Jurisprudence from Al Majalla (an Ottoman law Manual) gives 100 different legal aphorisms which guide legal reasoning, from a Hanafi perspective.

The blog, Scholar's Pen: The Tools of a Mujtahid- A glance at the Hanafi Methodology gives a brief summary of some of the distinctive principles of the Hanafi school.

While The Principles and Codes of Law of Hanafi Fiqh by Hadhrat Moulana Ashraf Ali Thaanwi is another large book, full of untranslated legal terms and is much less clear than Kamali's work.In fact, these last three sites are all a bit technical and would make much more sense after reading the first two pieces.

Planet Grenada: differences between schools

islam and homosexuality

Over at the Goatmilk blog there has been an interesting set of discussions on homosexuality and Islam. The original articles are framed in terms of whether American Muslims should support the right of same sex marriage in the US. Mahdi Ahmad and Sister A take the "No" position while Sabir Ibrahim and Michael Muhammad Knight argue "Yes." The negative argument emphasizes the sinfulness of homosexual acts according to Islamic principles. The more nuanced affirmative argument says that yes, homosexual acts are sinful but the US isn't run according to the Shariah and Muslims should embrace a model of American society which allows space for many different groups (racial / political / ethnic / religious / sexual) have a right to co-exist.

What I found surprising is that much of the discussion in the comments section wasn't about the above arguments as much as about whether homosexual acts were really prohibited in the first place. For most Muslims, the fact that homosexual acts are prohibited in Islam is fairly uncontroversial. In order to argue otherwise one basically has to ignore any kind of mainstream fiqh, take a radically skeptical attitude towards the hadith which clearly speak negatively towards sodomy (whether homosexual or heterosexual) and then radically reinterpret the multiple Quranic statements addressing the people of Lot along the lines of: Most surely you come to males in lust besides females; nay you are an extravagant people.

In the course of participating in those discussions I found some interesting resources:

First, a blog called Eye on ‘Gay Muslims’ with the subtitle "Principled, compassionate Islamic perspective"

Second, a paper The Effeminates of Early Medina by Everett K. Rowson gives some insights and descriptions into the role of the mukhannathun or so called 'effeminates' during the time of the prophet and the later generations.

And thirdly, the paper Ibn Hazm on Homosexuality: A Case-study of Zahiri Legal Methodology which, as the title explains, looks at how the Zahiri (Literalist) school derives its ruling on homosexuality. I think the paper is interesting on two counts; first, it is a good example of how "literal" doesn't necessarily mean "strict" or "harsh", and second, the paper argues that Ibn Hazm himself was a chaste homosexual.