Shi'a Pundit

Devoted to the viewpoint of Islam of Muhammad SAW and Amir ul-Mumineen, Ali ibn Abi Talib SA, in the Shi'a Fatimi Ismaili Dawoodi Bohra tradition.

halal and kosher slaughter to be banned in UK?.

Muslims and Jews are cousins - in fact the greatest threat to pur respective religions is not each other, but the concerns of te material world against which we must be united. Case in point: an attempt to ban the halal and kosher slaughter of animals in the UK:

The method of animal slaughter used by Jews and Muslims should be banned immediately, according to an independent advisory group.

The Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC), which advises the government on how to avoid cruelty to livestock, says the way Kosher and Halal meat is produced causes severe suffering to animals.

Both the Jewish and Muslim religions demand that slaughter is carried out with a single cut to the throat, rather than the more widespread method of stunning with a bolt into the head before slaughter.

Kosher and Halal butchers deny their method of killing animals is cruel and have expressed anger over the recommendation.

It remains to be seen whether this issue is addressed jointly by muslim and jewish groups or whether they choose to fight the battles separately out of mistrust. Guess which strategy will succeeed and which will fail?

America is the greatest Islamic country in the world.

permalink | posted by Shi'a Pundit

collateral damage and niyat.

Katherine, a commentator on this Tacitus post about Israel's jihad on Hamas, writes:

Suicide bombers intentionally kill civilians--they want that result to happen. Israel knowingly kill the family members of Hamas leaders--they know that it will result from their actions; but they will be happy, not disappointed to find out they weren't in the car after all.

So there is a distinction. But most states treat crimes committed knowingly and those committed intentionally exactly the same. They certainly do so for homicide.

this comment resonates with an Islamic understanding of judgement. The concept of niyat (intention) is a major input to the evaluating the consequences of your actions (in both the material and spiritual regimes). Niyat is of course a major factor in the American judicial system as well - for example, its why some people are charged of manslaughter and others murder-1.

That said, the concept of "collateral damage" is absolutely immoral because it seeks to disavow all responsibility. To take the manslaughter example, consider scenario A, the teenager driving drunk who hits a tree that falls and kills a man. The teen will be charged with manslaughter, because despite the fact that killing the man (or felling the tree) was not his niyat, it was still the direct consequence of his actions. Saying the tree killed the man doesn't work because the "upstream" causal actor was the teen. The tree didn't decide to fall down because teh teen hit the tree, it fell because that was part of the immediate mechanical outcome of the teen's decision to act wrongfully - drive drunk.

Scenario B: If the teen was actually driving sober and lost control of his car because of a road hazard, then there was no wrongful action on the teen's part and the resulting death would not be directly caused by his upstream actions.

Collateral damage essentially argues that the death caused by the upstream is analgous to Scenario B. I disagree, because there is known, finite, and probable outcome that you will it a tree and kill a man when you go out driving sober. However, teh decide to fire a missile into a civilan area, there is indeed a known and probable outcome that noncombatants will be killed. By pursuing the action regardless, you are firmly in Scenario A.

Compare and contrast teh actions of the American military with the IDF - when faced with fedayeen firing from the rooftops of civilian homes, our forces withdrew (and actually lost an Apache). IDF helicopters in the same scenario would have simply leveled the neighborhood.

Collateral damage may be necessary from a tactical standpoint, but it still amounts to manslaughter. Any attempt to justify it is absolutely immoral and indefensible.

permalink | posted by Shi'a Pundit

hug a Jew.

As a companion to the fantastic (if dated) piece in Slate on the roots of anti-semitism in Arab cultures, I have to point out the Hug a Jew! column over at Muslim WakeUp! They also have a link to an important article by Tariq Ramadan, grandson of teh founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, who addresses the incompatibility of anti-Semitism with Islamic teaching:

“To my regret, anti-Semitic utterances have been heard not only from frustrated and confused young Muslims, but also from certain Muslim intellectuals and imams,” he says, “who in every crisis or political backsliding see the hand of the ‘Jewish lobby.’ There is nothing in Islam that gives legitimization to Judeophobia, xenophobia and the rejection of any human being because of his religion or the group to which he belongs. Anti-Semitism has no justification in Islam, the message of which demands respect for the Jewish religion and spirit, which are considered a noble expression of the People of the Book.”

Even when he identifies urges that have their source in economic distress and social frustration, or the desire to protest against Israel’s oppressive policy, among people who express themselves in an anti-Semitic way and are involved in anti-Semitic acts, Ramadan refuses to demonstrate understanding or forgiveness toward them. He says: “The social and political forces in the Muslim communities must act to educate toward the delegitimization of elements of anti- Semitism. Leaders and imams have the responsibility to disseminate an unequivocal message about the profound connections between Islam and Judaism and Islam’s recognition of Moses and the Torah.”

“Despite what is happening today in Israel and Palestine, despite [Prime Minister Ariel] Sharon’s policy, despite the feelings of anger and frustration - those responsible for all the Muslim political and social organizations must open a clear dialogue that distinguishes between criticism of Israel’s policy, and anti-Semitic and Judeophobic statements and actions. This is lacking today and this is a great responsibility.”

This is a critical aspect of akhlaq (character) for a muslim - adherence to the Truth and rejecting falsehood for short-term political gain. The abuse of religion to justify anti-Semitism is a great atrocity on both the material and spiritual levels.

Ramadan is careful to identify the shared responsibility of both Muslims and Jews with regard to invoking anti-semitism as a barrier to dialouge^[1] :

Ramadan warned, in his interview with Ha’aretz that two dangerous phenomena exist side by side: one is criticism of and protest against the Israeli government’s policy toward the Palestinians that are accompanied by declarations that deny that the Holocaust took place and the other defines any criticism of Israel as anti-Jewish propaganda and as ignoring the memory of the Holocaust.

“Recently, in a public debate that was held in Brussels on the war in the Middle East,” related the Muslim philosopher, “a woman in the audience challenged: ‘Why do you always bring up the Holocaust?’

”I replied immediately, ‘It is possible to be against Israel’s policy in Palestine, but we must take into account the real memory of the Jews’ suffering in the 20th century and evince special sensitivity to the Holocaust. This is an obligation of conscience and ethics. We must remember what happened so that it will never happen again.’

“From a different perspective, it is our obligation to tell every Jew or Zionist who supports Israel’s official policy that it is impossible to make systematic use of the Holocaust and the memory of the victims to give legitimization to Israel’s oppressive policy in Palestine. This is forbidden. The fact that there are people who use the memory of the Holocaust to justify Israel’s actions, which many define as state terror against the Palestinian people, does not justify others not taking into account the memory of the Holocaust. Both approaches must be condemned.”

permalink | posted by Shi'a Pundit

Karbala revisited.

The Washington Post has an article describing how things are going (rather well) in Karbala. I'm certainly not surprised to see a co-incidence of stability and piety in one place. But I think the real reason for the success in Karbala of the American occupation is more due to strong and principled leadership rather than any actual policy decisions by the American side:

For many, Abdel-Mahdi Salami is the city's spiritual authority. He is the deputy of Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, the ranking cleric at the Shiite seminary in Najaf, 50 miles south of Karbala. In contrast to some more activist clerics, Sistani eschews a role in government for the clergy, a message welcomed by U.S. officials here. He has suggested in edicts that politics is beneath clerics' spiritual calling.

Salami -- with his thick-framed glasses and a beard streaked with gray -- has followed that injunction. By all accounts, he wields great authority and enjoys popularity from the hectic, even anarchic days after the fall of Hussein's government on April 9 when he and 25 other clerics stepped in to run the government. He refuses to meet with the Americans, conveying his wishes through the city council, and Belcher credits him as instrumental in enabling his forces to work with the council.

Outside the worn metal door of Salami's office, down a dirt path bisected by a trickle of sewage, Sistani's edicts are posted. One urges residents of Karbala to adhere only to clergy representing Sistani and three other senior ayatollahs in Najaf.

Another urges all residents to return any stolen property to the local government. "Keeping this property is forbidden," it reads. In past weeks, Sistani has urged clerics -- divided as they are -- to remain outside the government and has warned against revenge killings.

But in a hint of the ambivalence of the clergy toward the U.S. occupation -- a mix of cooperation and suspicion -- Salami said he worried about the corruption that he said he was witnessing in Karbala. Drugs are becoming more prevalent, some sold near the shines, "immoral" compact discs are for sale and U.S. troops are searching women and spreading pornography, he said. He was particularly angry that a U.S. detachment remained stationed at Karbala University, which both male and female students attend.

The voices of sanity, and moderation, are also often the voices of piety and sacrifice. But the question is whether such fledgling idealism can survive the coming onslaught from the gathering forces of tribalism and political intrigue on the geopolitical scale (Iran especially has much to gain). And the inherent cultural clash, with American soldiers spreading porn in the holy city, and insensitivity to gender sensitivities, is only added fuel for the fire. I still remain pessimistic, but I'm convinced that having taken the reins, we must see it through. The alternatives are worse.

UPDATE: It doesn't look good though. When both DailyKos and Steven Den Beste agree that the forces are stretched thin, you know the writing is on the wall. I doubt that this administration can make this commitment.

permalink | posted by Shi'a Pundit

Islam is Freedom.

Matthew points to an interesting poll which suggests people in Islamic countries are more in favor of democracy than we in America and the UK. I think that this speaks more about the universal desire of human beings for freedom they don't have rather than any particular insight into Islam. Remember that in places like Bangladesh, "democracy" is synonmous with America in a semantic sense, and America is synonymous with the images of wealth and luxury and power that even the poorest slum residents see on Star TV.

But there is indeed a direct link between Islam and democracy, a positive one whose authority comes straight from the Qur'an itself. I've previously discussed this in the context of Iran and the struggle for freedom from the theocracts there - the essence is understanding that religious freedom is essential to Islam. Freedom of religion is enshrined in Ayat 2:256, which states that "there is no compulsion in religion."

In fact the Islamic argument against imposition of religious belief stems from the same philosophical root as the idea that proving the existence of God is counter to religion's self interest - both deny deny faith. If I oonly pray or wear a beard because of fear of the religious police, then what value is my religious action? Absolutely zero. You cannot be compelled to faith, it must call you to it of your own free will. And free will is the highest faculty of Man, the sole gift of God.

permalink | posted by Shi'a Pundit

the sum of all fears.

What is the best way to ensure an Iranian-style theocracy in Iraq, complete with subjugation of women? Confiscate the Shi'a guns while letting the Kurds keep theirs.

This will of course exacerbate tensions and increase the perception that the US is a Crusading conqueror. That will radicalize the Shi'a, and then of course the US will have to crack down even harder. This is a feedback loop.

UPDATE: Don't forget the fact that religious clerics are providing social services superior to what the Americans offer (and promised).

permalink | posted by Shi'a Pundit

disaffected.

I have been reading Fatimah's blog Disaffected Muslim for a few weeks now and I've been struggling with competing impulses. There has been much critique of Fatimah from other muslim blogs, on the basis that he writings are well-received by others who are outright hostile to Islam (such as the comment threads at LGF). This is the wrong kind of criticism to make, it is tantamount to guilt by association, and Fatimah deserves to have her writing evaulated on th basis of their own intrinsic content, not how it is received by other parties.

That said, Fatimah does expose herself to a reasonable critique, namely that she examines a very narrow interpretation of Islam and then proceeds to critique it as if it were representative. The entire theme of her blog is that of someone struggling within the faith against its inherent flaws, rather than someone who is trying to criticize muslims for betraying their religious principles. As such, her critiques often stray beyond the boundaries of Islam, and approacjh these topics from the perspective that the basic axioms of Islam are even false. For example, in her "glossary" for muslims, she writes:

Logic, logical reasoning, rational -- Islamic texts often talk about how important it is to be "rational" and use "logic," but this generally is taken to mean that Islam is so self-evidently true to the writer that they could not concieve how anyone could not see it as the truth--look at all the proofs in the Qur'an, it must be the truth! In any case, it derives directly from the acceptance of Islamic doctrine about how the Qur'an is the direct word of Allah (and if you used your Allah-given sense of reason, you would see how eminently reasonable this truth is!) and the sunnah (example) of Muhammad is the model for behavior. Any reasoning that does not accept these a priori assumptions isn't going to get much traction among said Muslims, especially not a "rational discussion" about whether it is reasonable to accept the Qur'an as the very word of Allah, or about the existence of God, or the historicity of the early Islamic history.

This would be a masterfully concise statement of critique if neither the author, nor the intended targets of the critique, were muslim. But part of the fundamental definition of being Muslim does indeed require the basic commitment to faith that the Qur'an is the Word of Allah. What she dismisses as circular reasoning is actually a matter of faith. It's almost abusrd that I even have to mention this. Elham, another female Muslim blogger, has a very detailed response to Fatimah's glossary post which I highly recommend.

In another post, Fatimah states authoritatively that:

Islam comes from a totally different worldview [from the West], one that states that the highest value is to submit oneself to the will of Allah, to follow His rules (the shari'ah), and to fight for the triumph of Islam, which could mean fighting to bring non-Muslim nations under the dominance of Islamic law, fighting to replace a corrupt Muslim ruler with one who more fully follows the Shari'ah, or working to spread Islam.

I mean Fatimah no disrespect, but to assert that Islam and the West are "totally different worldviews" is to be ignorant of 1500 years of history of cross-pollination between Islamic and Christian nations. And "fighting to bring non-Muslim nations under dominance of Islamic law" is straight from the Wahabi extremist handbook. Has she no interest in the vast landscapes of the Mu'tazili, the Hanafi, the Maliki, the Ismaili, the Fatimi, the Ithna Ashari, etc. schools of thought that lie beyond the tiny pool of blackness that is Osama bin Laden's transcript?

And it certainly does not bode well for Fatimah's faith that her sources on Islam include noted polemical sites like domini.org. I wonder if she has ever been to answering-islam.org? It seems she would like it a great deal.

On the whole, Al-Muhabajah is perhaps the supreme example of a muslim who is engaged in jihad against defamation of the faith by outsiders and misuse of it from within. Comparing al-M to Fatimah's writing is like yin and yang. Al-M ably embraces much the same goals as Fatimah, to reveal the misuse of Islamic ideology, but does so firmly within the framework of Islam. I respect Fatimah's right to write as she pleases on Islam however she sees fit, but her blog is not useful to me as part of the dialouge about Islam that is now 1423 years old. I leave her to her version of the faith with best wishes.

UPDATE: I tried to leave this comment on Fatimah's blog, but was prevented by a server error. I will try again later. For now though here's the text.

I believe that Fatimah's ideas should be judged on their own merits, not by character assassination ("she's just LGF-lite") etc.

I disagree with much of Fatimah's impressions, because I feel her viewpoint of Islam is extremely narrow (perhaps, because she uses sites like LGF and domini.org as sources).

As a Shi'a I'm only too happy to agree that the Caliph Umar was a poor leader and cruel tyrant. I can suggest looking at the Fatimid Caliphate instead for a more true-to-Islam example of tolerance. And as Bill Allison has noted, many Jews fled Europe to the Ottoman Empire's protection in eth late 19th and early 20th centuries.

These are just as valid examples for a religion that is vast and has spawned many societies, cultures, nations, and empires. Fatimah's entire data set appears to be the early caliphates between Muhamad SAW and Ali AS. And after - who can honestly say that Yazid or the Ummaiyads were good muslims!

This is what I mean by a narrow view of Islam. Fatimah does her own quest or knowledge a disservice by selectively choosing which aspects of Islamic history to focus on and proclaim as representative.

I urge you to see Zack's summary of this debate

and Bill Allison's posts in particular:
http://ideofact.blogspot.com

wassalam
Shi'a Pundit | shiapundit.blogspot.com

permalink | posted by Shi'a Pundit

bounded by the Qur'an and the Constitution .

Tacitus points to this absurdity. I feel that the woman has no right to make this demand.

My religion demands that I neither pay nor receive interest. But if I pay my taxes late, then you better believe that I'll be paying interest. Being compelled to pay interest under threat of jail is a consequence of not paying taxes on time - therefore paying taxes on time is a religious duty.

First of all, neither the Qur'an nor the authentic hadith of the Prophet SAW demand that the face be fully covered. If this woman was part of some other religion that had scriptural requirements that supported full facial covering, then she might actually elicit some sympathy from me. However, her invocation of Islam here is disingenious on her part, since she demonstrates her intent to violate her own stated beliefs by choice.

Let's take her at her word. Suppose that her religion (whatever it may be) truly demands that she wear a full facial covering. The requirement by the State of Florida that her photo show her face is a requirement for the privelege to drive (neither the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights demand that driving is a right). Then by the constraints of the belief system she chooses to adopt, not driving becomes a religious duty^[1]

The bottom line is that this woman chooses to wear her full facial veil based on a personal interpretation of religion^[2] . She is attempting to leverage that personal interpretation to evade a civic requirement in order to lay claim a privelege. This puts he in the position of placing her desire to drive above her belief in her religious responsibilities.

She has to decide which is more important. If she was truly as committed to her personal interpretation as she claims from her high horse, then she should consider driving haram, just as I am personally forced to consider paying taxes late haram.

Note however that this issue is fundamentally different from the restrictions on Muslim schoolgirls in France from wearing the hijab. That is a true case of discriminating victimization by the State and interference with religion.

^[1] The irony of this compared to the opposite situation regarding women drivers in Saudi Arabia is not lost on me. and is grist for the comments mill.
^[2] Which has essentially zero scriptural or doctrinal support. It's essentially a religious innovation (bida).

permalink | posted by Shi'a Pundit

Archives

About Shi'a Pundit

Shi'a Pundit was launched in 2002 during the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. The blog focuses on issues pertaining to Shi'a Islam in the west and in the Islamic world. The author is a member of the Dawoodi Bohra Muslim community. Bohras adhere to the Shi'a Fatimi tradition of Islam, headed by the 52nd Dai al-Mutlaq, Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin (TUS).

traffic stats -