conversations with history: abdullahi ahmed an-naim

An interesting hour of conversation between Abdullah Ahmed An-Naim and Harry Kreisler on the subject of Islam and the secular state. I still haven't made up my mind about An-Naim. I have too many books on my reading list at the moment and haven't gotten to his yet. However his website is pretty well-stocked with articles and video clips expressing his ideas.

down with fanatics!

Down With Fanatics!

If I had my way with violent men
I'd simmer them in oil,
I'd fill a pot with bitumen
And bring them to the boil.
I execrate the terrorist
And those who harbour him,
And if I weren't a moralist
I'd tear them limb from limb.

Fanatics are an evil breed
Whom decent men should shun;
I'd like to flog them till they bleed,
Yes, every mother's son,
I'd like to tie them to a board
And let them taste the cat,
While giving praise, oh thank the Lord,
That I am not like that.

For we should love the human kind,
As Jesus taught us to,
And those who don't should be struck blind
And beaten black and blue;
I'd like to roast them in a grill
And listen to them shriek,
Then break them on the wheel until
They turned the other cheek.

-- Roger Woddis

the end of the covenant

God's Covenant, Judaism and Interfaith Marriage by Paul Golin starts off as a pretty unsurprising review of Jewish views on inter-religious marriage on the occasion of the Chelsea Clinton and Marc Mezvinsky nuptuals. But I was definitely surprised by the second half the article which started to swim in much deeper waters:

In the 1970s, when radical modern-Orthodox thinker Rabbi Irving "Yitz" Greenberg grappled with the full implications of the Holocaust, he concluded that God's withdrawal from earthly affairs and failure to protect His chosen people meant, quite dramatically, that "the covenant was broken." However, Rabbi Greenberg suggested that "the Jewish people was so in love with the dream of redemption that it volunteered to carry on with its mission." And in fact those who took up the "voluntary covenant," as he called it, were even greater than those who acted "only out of command."

Personally I found the above intriguing for a number of reasons. First, while many (but not necessarily all) Christians, Muslims, Bahais, etc. might readily admit that God's covenant with the Jewish people is no longer in effect, it seems unusual (perhaps even contradictory) to find an Orthodox Jew making that claim.

Secondly, as horrible as the Holocaust was it really more theologically significant than other great tragedies in Jewish history like the destruction of the First Temple and the Babylonian Captivity, or the destruction of the Second Temple and the subsequent diaspora?

Thirdly, the quote serves as a cautionary "tale", the article makes me wonder if Muslims attitudes towards the sharia will ever become comparable to Jewish attitudes towards the halakhah?

green deen

For a while I've known that there were isolated Muslim environmentalists here and there. But recently it seems "Islamic environmentalism" has become much organized and fleshed out as a movement. If you are interested in the subject, here is a website for the book Green Deen: What Islam Teaches about Saving the Planet by Ibrahim Abdul-Mateen.

Green Deen is also the name of an apparently independent set of group blogs. The older incarnation was on blogspot Green Deen (old) but a few years ago they switched over to wordpress: Green Deen (new).

Yet another blog is the The Ramadan Compact which touches on the environment but really emphasizes excessive consumption from a $$$ perspective.

And finally there is Green Zabiha an organic, halal/zabiha meat provider.

All the pages have interesting links for further exploration.

jihad and the modern world

Jihad and the Modern World by Sherman Jackson is a candid, and at the same time thoughtful and nuanced paper discussing the concept of jihad in Islam. While not denying that jihad has a role in Islamic law and affirming that the Muslim ummah has a right to self-defense, Prof. Jackson argues, with support from the Quran and later classical scholarship, that peaceful co-existence between the Muslim and non-Muslim world is possible.

book talk: the african caliphate

A discussion of The African Caliphate : The Life, Works, and Teaching of Shaykh Usman Dan Fodio (1754 - 1817) by Ibraheem Sulaiman

Summary: This scholarly work focuses on the establishment in 1809, in what is today Northern Nigeria, of the celebrated Sokoto caliphate, which may well have been the last re-establishment, anywhere in the world, of Islam in its entirety, comprising all its many and varied dimensions.

brazilian slave results as a form of jihad

The title of The Islamic Slave Revolts of Bahia, Brazil: A Continuity of the 19th Century Jihaad Movements of Western Sudan by Abu Alfa Muhammad Shareef bin Farid is pretty self-explanatory. The link is to a 73-page book on the subject.

"it doesn't end with a period, it ends with a comma"

Heru: The Epic African Drama

rallying of the muhammadaic forces

Rallying of the Muhammadaic Forces by Imam Zaid Shakir

Now is not the time for Muslims in the West to hide or run away in the face of the abuses some elements in western societies are heaping on Islam and its adherents. Now is the time for us to stand up and become messengers and ambassadors of the truth we profess. This is the only way we will beat back the lies, distortions, and propaganda that have made even some Muslims question the possibility of a positive future for Muslims in the western world.

shariah: between two popes

Sharî'ah: Between Two Popes by Sherman Abdul-Hakim Jackson looks at some interesting differences in how the Catholic and Coptic popes approach the Shariah. Pope Benedict XVI, viewing the issue through the lens of modern Western notions of the state and assumes the shariah will impose a uniform law without any accommodation for religious difference. On the other hand, Pope Shanoudah, understanding that the shariah actually allows for religious minorities to govern themselves according to their own rules, actually appealed to the shariah in order to enforce Coptic principles on Coptic couples.

the postcolonial condition of muslim states

A brief observation of the condition of the Muslim world by Abdullahi An-Naim

dr. jackson issues a challenge

Dr. Sherman Jackson, Professor of Arabic and Islamic Studies at University of Michigan and author of several pioneering books, including “Islam and the Problem of Black Suffering,” has issued a challenge for supporters of IMAN (the Inner-City Muslim Action Network based in Chicago) in these final days of Ramadan. In a generous commitment, Dr. Jackson has agreed to match, dollar for dollar, all donations received online until the end of our Heal the ‘Hood campaign. Read more about the challenge here.

hip-hop artistry knows no borders

I was listening to NPR the other day and caught part of an interview with Ana Tijoux. Tijoux is a Chilean rapper, born in France to parents who fled there to escape the Pinochet regime. The interview also mentions Detroit MC, Invincible who has appeared here before. NPR also posted a clip Ana Tijoux: Tiny Desk Concert of Tijoux performing her raps in a small intimate space accompanied only by a single percussionist.

Aside from liking the music and her delivery, the other thing I was struck by is the degree to which hip-hop has become "respectable" in recent times. This year Invincible (Ilana Weaver) was awarded a Kresge Foundation grant. NPR is doing stories on rappers. And PBS is televising hip-hop shows. The times, they are a changing.

Planet Grenada:
invincible / emergence
mos def and k'naan on austin city limits

two folks getting ready for burn-a-quran day

h/t to islamicate

the king's torah and the roots (and branches) of jewish violence

What follows is mostly from Coteret with a few passages from Haaretz. But to make a long story short, Rabbis Yitzhak Shapira and Yosef Elitzur wrote a legal text called The King's Torah which discusses the circumstances, according to Jewish law, when it is permissible to kill non-Jews. The book is apparently a bestseller in Israel. Personally I don't find it all that shocking. Don't get me wrong, based on the excerpts, the book is definitely evil and racist and offensive. But it isn't particularly surprising. Even among mainstream rabbinic Judaism's traditional enumeration of the 613 commandments of the Torah you will find:

596. Destroy the seven Canaanite nations Deut. 20:17
597. Not to let any of them remain alive Deut. 20:16
598. Wipe out the descendants of Amalek Deut. 25:19
599. Remember what Amalek did to the Jewish people Deut. 25:17

The above-listed commandments from Deuteronomy are clearly genocidal. And in the book of Joshua one can read about how they were implemented by the armies of the children of Israel who went from city to city "killing everything that had breath" in the "Promised land". And as far as the Old Testament is concerned those laws are still valid. Do I think all Jews and Christians are genocidal maniacs? Of course not. Christians typically teach that Jesus (as) abrogated those commandments (although I would argue it is still problematic to accept God would reveal such commandments in the first place) while many Jews today find creative ways to read those texts non-violently (e.g. saying that the Canaanite nations don't exist in the present-day, treating Amalek as a metaphor for the evil inclinations inside of everyone). Although in Israel today you definitely have more hawkish voices (like Netanyahu) who rhetorically invoke the label of "Amalek" to refer to the enemy of the day (Saddam Hussein, Iran, the PLO, Hammas, etc.)

So while the authors of the King's Torah are clearly extremists, they generally don't seem to be disavowed by the rabbinical establishment which makes it hard not to conclude that the apple isn't falling very far from the tree.

Something else which should be mentioned is that apparently US taxpayer money is being used to help support Rabbi Shapira's organization which definitely needs to be fixed.


[modified article begins]

The marble-patterned, hardcover book embossed with gold Hebrew letters looks like any other religious commentary you'd find in an Orthodox Judaica bookstore - but reads like a rabbinic instruction manual outlining acceptable scenarios for killing non-Jewish babies, children and adults.

The prohibition 'Thou Shalt Not Murder' applies only "to a Jew who kills a Jew," write Rabbis Yitzhak Shapira and Yosef Elitzur of the West Bank settlement of Yitzhar. Non-Jews are "uncompassionate by nature" and attacks on them "curb their evil inclination," while babies and children of Israel's enemies may be killed since "it is clear that they will grow to harm us."

When is it permissible to kill non-Jews? The book Torat ha-Melekh [The King’s Teaching], which was just published, was written by Rabbi Yitzhak Shapira, the dean of the Od Yosef Hai yeshiva in the community of Yitzhar near Nablus, together with another rabbi from the yeshiva, Yossi Elitzur. The book contains no fewer than 230 pages on the laws concerning the killing of non-Jews, a kind of guide for anyone who ponders the question of if and when it is permissible to take the life of a non-Jew.

Although the book is not being distributed by the leading book companies, it has already received warm recommendations from right-wing elements, including recommendations from important rabbis such as Yitzhak Ginsburg, Dov Lior and Yaakov Yosef, that were printed at the beginning of the book. The book is being distributed via the Internet and through the yeshiva, and at this stage the introductory price is NIS 30 per copy. At the memorial ceremony that was held over the weekend in Jerusalem for Rabbi Meir Kahane, who was killed nineteen years ago, copies of the book were sold.

Throughout the book, the authors deal with in-depth theoretical questions in Jewish religious law regarding the killing of non-Jews. The words “Arabs” and “Palestinians” are not mentioned even indirectly, and the authors are careful to avoid making explicit statements in favor of an individual taking the law into his own hands. The book includes hundreds of sources from the Bible and religious law. The book includes quotes from Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook, one of the fathers of religious Zionism, and from Rabbi Shaul Yisraeli, one of the deans of the Mercaz Harav Yeshiva, the stronghold of national-religious Zionism that is located in Jerusalem.

The book opens with a prohibition against killing non-Jews and justifies it, among other things, on the grounds of preventing hostility and any desecration of God’s name. But very quickly, the authors move from prohibition to permission, to the various dispensations for harming non-Jews, with the central reason being their obligation to uphold the seven Noahide laws, which every human being on earth must follow. Among these commandments are prohibitions on theft, bloodshed and idolatry. [The seven Noahide laws prohibit idolatry, murder, theft, illicit sexual relations, blasphemy and eating the flesh of a live animal, and require societies to institute just laws and law courts]

“When we approach a non-Jew who has violated the seven Noahide laws and kill him out of concern for upholding these seven laws, no prohibition has been violated,” states the book, which emphasizes that killing is forbidden unless it is done in obedience to a court ruling. But later on, the authors limit the prohibition, noting that it applies only to a “proper system that deals with non-Jews who violate the seven Noahide commandments.”

The book includes another conclusion that explains when a non-Jew may be killed even if he is not an enemy of the Jews. “In any situation in which a non-Jew’s presence endangers Jewish lives, the non-Jew may be killed even if he is a righteous Gentile and not at all guilty for the situation that has been created,” the authors state. “When a non-Jew assists a murderer of Jews and causes the death of one, he may be killed, and in any case where a non-Jew’s presence causes danger to Jews, the non-Jew may be killed.”

One of the dispensations for killing non-Jews, according to religious law, applies in a case of din rodef [the law of the “pursuer,” according to which one who is pursuing another with murderous intent may be killed extrajudicially] even when the pursuer is a civilian. “The dispensation applies even when the pursuer is not threatening to kill directly, but only indirectly,” the book states. “Even a civilian who assists combat fighters is considered a pursuer and may be killed. Anyone who assists the army of the wicked in any way is strengthening murderers and is considered a pursuer. A civilian who encourages the war gives the king and his soldiers the strength to continue. Therefore, any citizen of the state that opposes us who encourages the combat soldiers or expresses satisfaction over their actions is considered a pursuer and may be killed. Also, anyone who weakens our own state by word or similar action is considered a pursuer.”

Rabbis Shapira and Elitzur determine that children may also be harmed because they are “hindrances.” The rabbis write as follows: “Hindrances—babies are found many times in this situation. They block the way to rescue by their presence and do so completely by force. Nevertheless, they may be killed because their presence aids murder. There is justification for killing babies if it is clear that they will grow up to harm us, and in such a situation they may be harmed deliberately, and not only during combat with adults.”

In addition, the children of the leader may be harmed in order to apply pressure to him. If attacking the children of a wicked ruler will influence him not to behave wickedly, they may be harmed. “It is better to kill the pursuers than to kill others,” the authors state.

In a chapter entitled “Deliberate harm to innocents,” the book explains that war is directly mainly against the pursuers, but those who belong to the enemy nation are also considered the enemy because they are assisting murderers.

Retaliation also has a place and purpose in this book by Rabbis Shapira and Elitzur. “In order to defeat the enemy, we must behave toward them in a spirit of retaliation and measure for measure,” they state. “Retaliation is absolutely necessary in order to render such wickedness not worthwhile. Therefore, sometimes we do cruel deeds in order to create the proper balance of terror.”

In one of the footnotes, the two rabbis write in such a way that appears to permit individuals to act on their own, outside of any decision by the government or the army.

“A decision by the nation is not necessary to permit shedding the blood of the evil kingdom,” the rabbis write. “Even individuals from the nation being attacked may harm them.”

Unlike books of religious law that are published by yeshivas, this time the rabbis added a chapter containing the book’s conclusions. Each of the six chapters is summarized into main points of several lines, which state, among other things: “In religious law, we have found that non-Jews are generally suspected of shedding Jewish blood, and in war, this suspicion becomes a great deal stronger. One must consider killing even babies, who have not violated the seven Noahide laws, because of the future danger that will be caused if they are allowed to grow up to be as wicked as their parents.”

Even though the authors are careful, as stated, to use the term “non-Jews,” there are certainly those who could interpret the nationality of the “non-Jews” who are liable to endanger the Jewish people. This is strengthened by the leaflet “The Jewish Voice,” which is published on the Internet from Yitzhar, which comments on the book: “It is superfluous to note that nowhere in the book is it written that the statements are directly only to the ancient non-Jews.” The leaflet’s editors did not omit a stinging remark directed at the GSS, who will certainly take the trouble to get themselves a copy. “The editors suggest to the GSS that they award the prize for Israel’s security to the authors,” the leaflet states, “who gave the detectives the option of reading the summarized conclusions without any need for in-depth study of the entire book.”

One student of the Od Yosef Hai yeshiva in Yitzhar explained, from his point of view, where Rabbis Shapira and Elitzur got the courage to speak so freely on a subject such as the killing of non-Jews. “The rabbis aren’t afraid of prosecution because in that case, Maimonides [Rabbi Moses ben Maimon, 1135–1204] and Nahmanides [Rabbi Moses ben Nahman, 1194–1270] would have to stand trial too, and anyway, this is research on religious law,” the yeshiva student said. “In a Jewish state, nobody sits in jail for studying Torah.”

Coteret: Settler Rabbi publishes “The complete guide to killing non-Jews” — UPDATED
Haaretz: The King's Torah: a rabbinic text or a call to terror?
AlJazeera: The King's Torah
Pakalert Press: FALSE FLAG NUKE ATTACK ON U.S. JUSTIFIED….”KING’S TORAH”
Alternet: How to Kill Goyim and Influence People: Israeli Rabbis Defend Book's Shocking Religious Defense
of Killing Non-Jews (with Video)
MyJewishLearning: Genocide in the Torah: The existential threat of Amalek by Shmuly Yanklowitz
City of Brass: Iran as Amalek: Netanyahu pulls an Ahmadinejad

synchronicity

It seems like every few years there are interesting and meaningful connections between days on the Islamic calendar and days on the Gregorian calendar. Unfortunately, it seems like this year, Eid al-Fitr may fall on 9/11. Ouch.

the rise of islamic rap

The Rise of Islamic Rap by Peter Mandaville focuses on how South Asian Muslim youth in the UK have chosen to express themselves using Black American musical forms. The article goes on to view this movement in the context of increasing cooperation between young Muslims and left-leaning movements (the World Social Forums, the Green Party, alter-globalization, etc.)

planet grenada and islam and hip-hop

eid in cuba 2009

Dripping River Water: Eid in Cuba 2009 (part 1) by Maceo Cabrera Estevez

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

man bites dog: buddhist fundamentalists and muslim prisoners of conscience

I totally missed this story when it happened but it seems worth noting as an example.

An expatriate Sri Lankan woman who wrote two books about her conversion from Buddhism to Islam has been arrested while on holiday in Sri Lanka, apparently for causing offence to Buddhists.

Sarah Malini Perera, who was born in Sri Lanka but has lived in Bahrain since 1985 and converted to Islam in 1999, was arrested last week under the country’s strict emergency laws, according to the police.

They declined to give precise details of the 38-year-old writer’s offence, but suggested that her books were deemed to have caused offence to ethnic Sinhalese Buddhists, who account for about 70 per cent of Sri Lanka’s 20 million people.

For the whole story, see: Author Sarah Malini Perera held ‘for offending Buddhists’ in Sri Lanka

The same piece mentions that the Sri Lankan government denied a visa to Muslim (yes Muslim) singer Akon because the video for his song Sexy Chick included images of video "vixens" dancing with a statue of the Buddha in the background. Part of the backlash included a crowd of over 200 angry rock-throwing Buddhists attacking the offices of Akon's concert promoters, damaging property and injuring a few individuals. You can find more details on that story here.

Both these stories, especially taken together, totally invert the usual narratives we are spoon-fed about religion and the tolerance/ sensitivity and peacefulness/ violence of Buddhism / Islam respectively. I'm a little surprised (but not really) that they didn't get more attention. A few more accounts like these and the dominant narrative would begin to crack. If members of a "good" religion like Buddhism can be pushed to violence when their sensitivities are threatened and if even Muslims can be victims of censorship and exclusion for acting on their conscience then who are the heroes and who are the villains?