Ask the Muslim Guy

[Muslim_Guy]

*Originally posted by elmwood *
do you think Middle Eastern immigrants and Muslims are more or less assimilated into American culture than other ethnic groups and/or those who practice Judiasm?

Let’s hope Americans will “assimilate” into accepting the diversity of world cultures instead of expecting the whole world to be homogenized into a bland boring K-Mart look. I think there’s hope for this yet. Maybe there’s something to be said for Muslims retaining some pride in their distinctiveness and helping to keep diversity alive. I hope to God Indian women do not all forsake the beautiful, graceful sari for K-Mart clothes.

But as for women “walking a few steps behind husbands,” have you actually seen this, or is this such an engrained stereotype that you only think you’ve seen it? There is of course no such rule in Islam. The unfortunately real degradation of women’s equality comes from cultures, not from the religion. It’s taking a long time to remedy slowly. But, as I’ve said elsewhere, America is the best place for Muslim women to fully exercise their God-given rights, so in that sense America is great for Islam.

**Another question – if a mosque near me is experiencing security issues, what can I do to help? **

That’s a nice thought. Maybe get your Christian and Jewish neighbors together, and pay a visit. Stand outside and show solidarity of religious tolerance to everyone passing by. Offer to help to keep an eye out for trouble, like the “Neighborhood Watch” signs you see all over residential streets.

[Muslim_Guy]

*Originally posted by zev_steinhardt *
I know (and please correct me if I’m wrong), that Islam permits a man to marry up to four wives. Is this true across all sects of Islam, or am I accessing some sect-specific information

It isn’t a question of sects, but across the board this practice (never very prevalent) is now dying out. It originated as an emergency measure when the male population has been decimated and widows and orphans need caring for.

If so, what percentage of Muslim men do have more than one wife (I realize that you may just be guessing, but any info you have would be helpful).

As far as I can estimate, less than 1%.

In Judaism, there is a Talmudic dictum called dina d’malchusa dina. Translated, this means that the law of the land (where it does not conflict with Jewish law) must be followed. Is there a similar restriction in Islam. Specifically, with regard to polygamy, is there any Islamic restriction (aside from any civil restriction) against a Muslim taking more than one wife in a country where the civil law forbids it (such as in the United States).

Yes. In Islam you have to abide by the law of the country you’re in as long as it doesn’t prevent you from fulfilling religious obligations like daily prayer. Just as you explained it.

I’m so tired, I have to get some sleep, I can’t write any more tonight. Please excuse me for now, everybody. What a response this thread got!

[astro]

Your answers to inquiries have been most informative and are appreciated.

What is the extraordinary appeal of this fundamentalist style of Islam that seems to drive politics in the middle east and gives the western world the image of Islam as an extremely dogmatic and inflexible system of belief that is at odds with the (as described by you) more liberal and inclusive nature of Islam. What’s going on in this context, are there real problems or is it just bad PR or both?

[Muslim_Guy]

*Originally posted by Dr_Paprika *
**Apart from level of fundamentalism (if that), what is the difference between Sunni, Shi’ite, Druze? **

Didn’t want to leave anyone out if I can help it.
I answered about Shi‘ite and Sunni in another one of these posts. The Druze is a separate religion from Islam. It’s supposed to have started as a result of the Mad Caliph al-Hakim in 10th century Egypt, of the Fatimid dynasty, part of the Isma‘ili sect of Shi‘ism. He really was nuts. The only time Christians and Jews were persecuted in classical Islam was under al-Hakim’s reign, which goes to show that he wasn’t doing it right. The story goes that a guy named Darzi started saying al-Hakim was God. Why, I have no idea. He went to the mountains south of Lebanon and converted people to his new religion. Actually what it seems to be is a survival of some obscure pre-Islamic cult. The mountainous environment allowed the people to avoid the influence of Christianity and Islam around them. They are secretive and don’t allow outsiders much information about their religion. I never got what the Druze were all about.

[Muslim_Guy]

*Originally posted by astro *
**Your answers to inquiries have been most informative and are appreciated.

What is the extraordinary appeal of this fundamentalist style of Islam that seems to drive politics in the middle east and gives the western world the image of Islam as an extremely dogmatic and inflexible system of belief that is at odds with the (as described by you) more liberal and inclusive nature of Islam. What’s going on in this context, are there real problems or is it just bad PR or both? **

When the central government is felt to lack legitimacy, a small minority of hardliners can begin to intimidate the more moderate general population. Again, the perverseness of the world. Mean people get more play than nice people. Especially when it comes to PR, as you noted. Media focus on sensationalism means that troublemakers get all the attention. When was the last time you saw a news flash about people being nice to each other?

Don’t want to oversimplify a complex situation.

Goodnight, all.

[Atreyu]

Thanks for your reply to my earlier questions. I could see that they took a considerable amount of time to type, and I appreciate your efforts.

I have another question for you. Was going to send it by e-mail, for I fear that it is not general enough for this thread, but your e-mail link is disabled. Which is fine.

I’ll go ahead and post it here.

A few months ago, I began work on a novel. I wanted some quotes prior to the first chapter, and among the places I looked for a quote was Beliefnet.com, where they allow online searches of a variety of sacred texts, including the Qu’ran.

The quotes I was looking for specifically relate to deafness, and I found some useful quotes, eventually using a quote from the Bible.

However, I came across a quote from the Qu’ran that disturbs me:

[8:22] Surely the vilest of animals, in Allah’s sight, are the deaf, the dumb, who do not understand.

As someone who was born severely to profoundly deaf, I’m a little troubled by this statement. Scratch that…I was very shaken by this line. Is this quote out of context? If not, what gives?

I promise that I’m not trolling here. I just want some insight into this.

[Weird_AL_Einstein]

Muslim Guy, thank you for this thread. It is highly informative. I will start off with two questions, likely I will think of more later. First, what broadly speaking is the Muslim view of life after death/afterlife? I have heard things like, in the Muslim Paradise the men get female servants called “houris” that…ahhh…attend to their every need, so to speak. I have also heard that aside from them there are no women there. Is there any basis for these beliefs in the Muslim religion? And second, were your Muslim beliefs a factor in motivating you to oppose the Gulf War?

[Tamerlane]

Muslim Guy: A fine thread and fine answers .

If you will allow me to expound further on a random few points of interest:

1.) Druze - The founder of this faith was in fact al-Hakim’s vizier. He lost out in a political struggle with al-Hakim’s chief general and was forced to flee Egypt for his life. Since al-Hakim ( who was indeed a notable loon ) had mysteriously disappeared in the desert after riding out by himself one day, his vizier declared that he had been occultated by God, in much the same manner as Is’mail, the seventh Imam accepted by the Is’maili ( or “Sevener” ) Shi’a faith that the Fatimd anti-Caliphs followed ( not to be confused with the “Twelver” or Imami Shi’ism practiced today in Iran, or the Zaydi or “Fiver” Shi’ism practiced in Yemen ), was said to have been. Whether he took these actions out of genuine religious fervor or crass political maneouvre ( or both ), is unclear. At any rate since the Druze believe the Koran has now been superseded by these events, they are in effect no longer Muslim at all, but rather a fully separate religion ( rather like Baha’i ).

2.) Multiple Wives - It is interesting that a few modern theologians have said that in effect the Koran forbids multiple wives. Why? Because the Koran entreats that you must treat them all exactly the same. Since this is obviously impossible for any human being to truly accomplish ( the exception that proves the rule of course being Muhammed ), de fact multiple wives are verboten . Perhaps not a widespread interpretation, but an interesting one.

3.) Shi’ism: A fine response, but I’ll nitpick and say that is only the Sunni tradition that recognizes all four of the Rashidun ( the “Rightly Guided Caliphs” ). The Shi’a tradition recognizes only the fourth, Ali. And I believe the mainstream, classical Sunni tradition only recognized one of the Umayyads, Umar II, as anything other than a Malik ( secular king ), though by historical tradition they are all referred to as Caliphs. Of course history is made by the victors and the first Umayyad dynasty lost in the end.

Also in realtion to the above, I will make the point that although the Caliphs weren’t considered successors to the Prophet in the strictest sense, they were considered as something along the lines as first among equals in the religious community, the religious and political being inextricably intertwined in Islamic society. Hence the distinction made between Malik and Caliph and the ceremonial significance attached to the office of the Caliph, long after the Caliphs themselves had become political irrelevancies…

Shibboleth: Thank for the kind words . But not to leave you with any misapprehensions, I should make a small correction. Though I have a strong interest in the history of Islamic civilization and of the Middle East/Mediterranean Basin generally, and though I repect the Islamic faith, I am not a Muslim. Atheist, actually .

Since Muslim Guy made mention of his name, I thought I’d recommend his book The Islamic Threat: Myth or Reality?. A very readable, concise, and even-handed treatment of Islam and its relation to the wider world in the latter half of the 20th century ( covers the Gulf War, Salman Rushdie, etc. ).

• Tamerlane

[astro]

*Originally posted by Atreyu *
**

[8:22] Surely the vilest of animals, in Allah’s sight, are the deaf, the dumb, who do not understand.

As someone who was born severely to profoundly deaf, I’m a little troubled by this statement. Scratch that…I was very shaken by this line. Is this quote out of context? If not, what gives?

I promise that I’m not trolling here. I just want some insight into this. **

Not to step on MG’s thread but in classic context IIRC this quote is not really intended to insult hearing impaired people but to address those who are willfully deaf, dumb and uncomprehending. ie

http://www.toluislam.com/pub_online/islam_a_challenge/chapter5.htm

"The worst of beasts in Allah’s sight are the deaf, the dumb, who do not use their intellect to understand (8:22).

This is a graphic description of the degradation of man when he does not press reason to his service. Such a man, the Qur’an tells us, not only lives a worthless and debased life in this world but also renders himself unfit to live in the higher plane on which he enters after death"

[zoid]

one word…

WHY?

[Tamerlane]

That would be Richard Esposito that I was refering to as the author of The Islamic Threat: Myth or Reality?.

• Tamerlane

[Tamerlane]

A few more random comments ( because I love to listen to myself “talk” ).

RE: Shi’ism - To expound just a little further on this, Muslim Guy is correct that originally it was more a political designation with a religious overlay ( again, the two are nearly inseparable in Islam ). Eventually it grew into a more of a well-defined religious sect. But Shi’ism was at first a rather murky conglomeration of loosely allied factions with some differing beliefs. There were at least four major schisms off the main Shi’ite line ( this isn’t even mentioning plenty of other splits, such as that of the Druze, as well odd esoterica like the Safavid sufi order ). The first ocurred during Ali’s lifetime and resulted in the creation of the Kharijite sect. The second occured over a dispute about who deserved to be the fifth Imam. The third occured after the Abbasid overthrow of the Umayyads ( some of those who were then considered Shi’ites viewed the Abbasid line, which descended from Muhammed’s uncle, to be sufficiently close in bloodline to Muhammed to make legitimate claim to the Caliphal title - They accepted the new status quo and ceased to be Shi’ites ). The fourth occurred after the death of Jafar al-Sadiq, the sixth Imam, who is given credit for really establishing Shi’ism as a true religious movement, laying down a great deal of jurisprudence. So only one Shi’a sect actually recognizes all twelve Imams. But it just so happens that it is far and away the largest of those sects around today. Curiously the Imami sect was originally the more apolitical sect ( Jafar al-Sadiq wrote and lived under the protection of the Abbasid Caliphs ) and the Is’maili sect was the militant, radical one ( well the Zaydi were pretty militant too, but their effect was mostly felt in remote areas ). Today it is just the reverse.

Regarding Shi’a/Sunni raproachment - When Nadir Shah, the famed ( and ill-famed )18th century ruler of Persia was wooing the Ottomans and his own Sunni Afghan troops, he tried unsuccesfully to have Shi’ism accepted as just another school of mainstream Sunni jurisprudence ( as per the Maliki, Hanafi, etc. ), called Jafari.

oliversarmy: Great name, first off ( that’s from my favorite Elvis Costello album ). Second, I wonder if you maybe heard wrong? Was it professor Tenami? Because I think I heard the same interview and I don’t remember that comment ( though I might have just missed it ). I have a hard time believing it anyway as Osama bin Laden is a particularly extreme member of a particularly small and extreme sub-sect of Islam. Maybe the comment was referring to non-Shi’a, fundamentalist Muslims? I can think of quite a few whole blocks of Muslims that wouldn’t be huge fans of him, starting with essentially all Shi’ites and extending to most mainstream Muslims that regard terrorism as anathema.

• Tamerlane

[Muslim_Guy]

*Originally posted by Atreyu *
**

[8:22] Surely the vilest of animals, in Allah’s sight, are the deaf, the dumb, who do not understand.

**

Don’t take it personally. If you had read it in context, the intent of this verse would have been clear. It means people who are willfully deaf and dumb, i.e. people who refuse to listen to reason. It certainly does not apply to literally hard of hearing people, only metaphorically.

[seasga]

Allaah, says in the Quran:

Allâh does not forbid you to deal justly and kindly with those who fought not against you on account of religion and did not drive you out of your homes. Verily, Allâh loves those who deal with equity. (Surah Mumtahinah 60:8)

The classical commentators and erudite exegetes of the Qur’aan:

Ibn Katheer: “And as for His, the Most High’s, saying, “Allaah does not forbid you to deal justly and kindly…”, meaning, (they did not assist) in expelling you (from your homes), meaning, Allaah does not forbid you from dealing with the non-Muslims who do not fight with you on account of the religion, with benevolence (ihsaan), such as the women and the weak ones amongst them. And that you show ihsaan to them and that you establish justice with them, as Allaah loves those who are just.”

Al-Qurtubi:, “This verse contains the permissibility from Allaah, the Most High, to establish good relations with those who do not show enmity towards the Muslim believers and who do not fight against them.”

Allaah also says in the Qur’an

Because of that We ordained for the Children of Israel that if anyone killed a person not in retaliation of murder, or (and) to spread mischief in the land - it would be as if he killed all mankind, and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all mankind. (Surah Maa’idah 5:32).

Ibn Katheer: “…meaning that whoever killed a soul without any just cause such as retribution (for murder), or causing of mischief upon the earth, and made lawful the killing of this soul without any reason or crime then it is as if he has killed the whole of mankind…”. From al-Awfee, from Ibn Abbaas who said, “He says that whoever kills a single soul which Allaah has declared inviolable, is just like the one who killed the whole of mankind”.

The Shaikh of Saudi Arabia, Shaikh Ibn Uthaimeen (may Allaah have mercy upon his soul) stated during a telephone conversation in which the Muslims of the UK sought advice from him (in July 2000):

“To proceed, then on this night – the night prior to the Jumu’ah (’Friday’) – the 26th of Rabee’ al-Aakhir of the year 1421 – I speak to my brothers – [ in which city are you?
[[‘we are in Birmingham in Britain’]] ]

Fine, I speak to them via the telephone, hoping that my words are met with attentive ears, heedful hearts, and that Allaah causes this to be of benefit.
“…Likewise I invite you to have respect for those people who have the right that they should be respected, from those between you and whom there is and agreement (of protection). For the land which you are living is such that there is an agreement between you and them. If this were not the case they would have killed you or expelled you. So preserve this agreement, and do not prove treacherous to it, since treachery is a sign of the hypocrites, and it is not from the way of the Believers.

And know that it is authentically reported from the Prophet that he said : “ whoever kills one who is under and agreement of protection will not smell the fragrance of Paradise. “

Do not be fooled by those sayings of the foolish people : those who say : ‘Those people are non-Muslims, so their wealth is lawful for us (i.e. to be taken unjustly). ’ For by Allaah – this is a lie. A lie about Allaah’s Religion, and a lie in Islamic societies.

So we may not say that it is lawful to be treacherous towards people whom we have an agreement with.

O my brothers. O youth. O Muslims. Be truthful in your buying and selling, and renting, and leasing, and in all mutual transactions. Because truthfulness is from the characteristics of the Believers, and Allaah – the Most High – has commanded truthfulness – in the saying of Allaah – the Most High –

[meaning : O you who believe – fear and keep you duty to Allaah and be with the truthful]

And the Prophet encouraged truthfulness and said : “Adhere to truthfulness, because truthfulness leads to goodness, and goodness leads to Paradise; and a person will continue to be truthful, and strive to be truthful until he will be written down with Allaah as a truthful person”

And he warned against falsehood, and said : “ Beware of falsehood, because falsehood leads to wickedness, and wickedness leads to the Fire. And a person will continue lying, and striving to lie until he is written down with Allaah as a great liar. “

O my brother Muslims. O youth. Be true in your sayings with your brothers, and with those Non-Muslims whom you live along with – so that you will be inviters to the Religion of Islaam, by your actions and in reality. So how many people there are who first entered into Islaam because of the behaviour and manners of the Muslims, and their truthfulness, and their being true in their dealings.

[Muslim_Guy]

*Originally posted by Tamerlane *
That would be Richard Esposito that I was refering to as the author of The Islamic Threat: Myth or Reality?.

John Esposito, head of the Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University.

Good man. I’ve worked with him. I bet he’s working overtime too.

[bagkitty]

Muslim Guy like a lot of others, I would like to welcome you to the board.

There are a couple of points I would like to see you expand on.

While you have drawn the distinction between Sunni and Shia, you have seem to have overlooked the Isma’ilis. While I completely agree that the Druze are not part of the Islamic community, I don’t believe this applies to the Isma’ilis, and I think it would help many get a greater grasp on the breadth of the community (but please, no excursions into the silliness they engaged in during the 12th and 13th centuries). Since there are large numbers of Muslims in my local community who originate from Kenya and East Africa, this is actually the group I am most familiar with.

Also, since the only translation of the Qur’an I have is something Penguin books cobbled together and doesn’t follow the traditional order, I can’t find the reference that is commonly used to defend the veil. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I have argued with people that the clear intent of the passage is for women and men to act and dress modestly and that the veil, chador, etc. are cultural in their specificity, not religious per se.

Thanks. And good luck with this thread.

[London_Calling]

Just a quick ‘Thank you’ for your answer to my question. You’ve taken on a big job here, good luck with it and thanks also for taking the very considerable time to give such thorough responses.

[Tamerlane]

Muslim Guy: Thanks for the correction, don’t know where I pulled that “Richard” from . I’m sure he’s busy indeed.

bagkitty: Actually Muslim Guy did mention this Is’mailis when he was answering the question on the Druze and I mentioned them briefly as well . They are Shi’ite Muslims that split from the main line of Shi’ism when Ja’far al-Sadiq’s designated heir, Is’mail, was said to have died and Ja’far appointed another son to follow him as Imam. The Is’mailis or “Seveners” ( because they recognize seven Imams, the last of which is obviously not in common with the “Twelver” Shi’ites ), believed that Is’mail didn’t die, but was rather occultated by God and would one day return as a messiah.

The Is’mailis as I mentioned, were once among the most militant of the Islamic sects. They were fiercely opposed to Sunni orthodoxy and spawned a number of groups, includin the Qaramita in eastern Arabia, the Fatimid anti-Caliphate in North Africa ( which sprang from the Qaramita ), and the Nizari’s ( history’s infamous assassins - springing from the Fatimids ). Again, as I said, these days they are for the most part a largely apolitical and very peaceful sect. Radical, fundamentalist Shi’ism these days is more often seen among some members of the “mainstream” Shi’a sect of the “Twelvers”.

• Tamerlane

[Muslim_Guy]

*Originally posted by bagkitty *
**Muslim Guy While you have drawn the distinction between Sunni and Shia, you have seem to have overlooked the Isma’ilis. **

I mentioned Isma‘ilism in passing because al-Hakim was of the Isma‘ili Fatimid dynasty in North Africa about 1100 years ago (there have not been any Isma‘ilis in North Africa for many centuries now).

**While I completely agree that the Druze are not part of the Islamic community, I don’t believe this applies to the Isma’ilis, and I think it would help many get a greater grasp on the breadth of the community **

All right, as Tamerlane mentioned above, they began from a disagreement over who was the successor to the Sixth Imam, Ja‘far al-Sadiq. The Twelvers backed Musa, one of his sons, but the Seveners backed a different son, Isma‘il. As they considered him the last Imam, that’s why they have only seven instead of twelve. Most of the Isma‘ilis in the world today are of Indian and Pakistani origin (including the ones in East Africa). The largest group is the Nizari Isma‘ilis, the ones who follow the Aga Khan (whose dad the Aga Khan was better known as an international playboy and the present one Sadruddin better known as an international philanthropist. There’s also the Dawudi Bohra community of Bombay. The Isma‘ilis form their own communities and don’t have much to do with other Muslims, not even other Shi‘ites.

**(but please, no excursions into the silliness they engaged in during the 12th and 13th centuries). **

Bagkitty is referring to the early days of the Nizaris, when they held the mountain fortress Alamut in Iran, led by Hassan-i Sabbah, whom Marco Polo called “The Old Man of the Mountain.” They are better known to history as the Assassins. Peter Lamborn Wilson wrote about them in his book Scandal: Essays in Islamic Heresy. The successor to Hassan-i Sabbah declared the Qiyamah (Resurrection) by drinking wine at midday during Ramadan, and saying all rules were abrogated. Since then they have tamed down a lot, and you hardly hear about them, except for the Aga Khan.

Also, since the only translation of the Qur’an I have is something Penguin books cobbled together and doesn’t follow the traditional order, I can’t find the reference that is commonly used to defend the veil. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I have argued with people that the clear intent of the passage is for women and men to act and dress modestly and that the veil, chador, etc. are cultural in their specificity, not religious per se.**

The N.J. Dawood translation. I don’t recommend that one. My favorite translation by a non-Muslim is The Koran Interpreted by A.J. Arberry, an Oxford don who was a poet and had a good ear for the sound of the English language (the opposite of that atrocious Saudi Arabian translation by Hilali, which is just unreadable in English). Yes, I see it as you described. There really is no religious requirement for a veil or a chador. Those are products of local culture and not part of the religion of Islam. I know several European and American ladies who converted to Islam and wear the sari as do most Indian Muslim women.

[Tamerlane]

bagkitty: And, as it happens, I have sitting in my little “mini-library” here at work, a book to recommend .

A Short History of the Ismailis, Traditions of a Muslim Community by Farhad Daftary ( 1998, Markus Wiener Publishers ). Everything you ever wanted to know . Glancing quickly through the forward, I see it confirms that it Is’mailis are the second largest Shi’a community and are scattered across some 25 countries today. Modern Ismailis are all descended from ( and are members of ) the Nizari sect.

• Tamerlane