In July 2005, King Abdullah II of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan organized an International Islamic Conference. The ostensible goal was to agree on a contemporary definition of who is a Muslim and thus make it impermissible to declare them as apostates. After deliberations between 200 ‘scholars’ a ruling was issued known as the Amman Message (http://www.ammanmessage.com/). Adherents of eight (8) Sunni, Shia, and Ibadhi Madhahib (schools of jurisprudence), of Ash’arism (theology), of Sufism (mysticism), and of Salafism were defined as valid Muslims. The Amman Message was soon ratified by several ulema (clergy) and Islamic assemblies and councils across the world. Commentators, especially in the Islamic  world, have hailed the sagacity of the scholars for having looked beyond their differences, and declared the event  as path-breaking with the potential to unite the ummah (community of believers).

I find all this quite troubling. The very idea that a group of individuals, however qualified to represent the viewpoint they claim to espouse, can so precisely define a Muslim is problematic and inflammatory. In the past, Muslims groups may have labeled each other as apostates. However, in the absence of anything other than sectarian polemic, it was often possible to establish reasonably stable peace and tolerance among them. The Amman Message opens the door for legally sanctioned intolerance of and violence against groups and individuals that do not neatly fall into the defined categories of its definition. A prime example here is of the Ahmadiyya community. Having been excluded from this declaration, it would not be inconceivable to see the persecution they face in Pakistan being replicated across the Muslim world. The ruling also deals a blow to intellectuals and individuals who take the effort to study Islam and arrive at an understanding that may differ from such tightly defined specifications.

God completed his message of enlightenment to the human race through the Noble Quran and made it clear in Surah al-Baqarah:256, “La Iqra fid-Deen (There is no compulsion in religion).” A truly enlightened message from Amman would have been a declaration that anyone who professes their religion to be Islam, confesses that there is no God but God, and accepts the Noble Quran as their guide, should be unquestioningly accepted as Muslim regardless of their laws, philosophy, culture, practices, and interpretations.

The Muslim world’s downward spiral of illiteracy, extremism, and instability will not be arrested by the Amman Message. Such efforts to strictly define religious identity instead serve to strengthen the unfortunate narrow-mindedness that afflicts many in the Islamic ummah. We need to focus instead on rebuilding the cultural, economic, and intellectual strengths that made Muslims in the middle ages an inspired force of progress and development.

In Pakistan, non-Muslim minorities such as Christians and Hindus are ignored or worse intensely harassed at an institutional level. The fate of minorities within the Muslim fold is even worse. The Shia are routinely bombed and murdered. The Ahmadiyya are labeled non-Muslim and regularly inflicted with riots and mayhem on their communities. The Ismailis are regarded as heretics and tolerated as long as they are not visible. Blasphemy laws are used against all the minorities in ways that violate basic human dignity.

In Saudi Arabia, the situation is stark. The only acceptable persuasion is the Wahabbi cult – one really can’t reward the barbarity of it with the label of religion. Followers of all faiths – Muslim or not – are heretics in the eyes of the Wahabbi lords and are treated with near equal levels of intolerance and discrimination. The only advantage Muslims have is that the Noble Quran serves as their guide, which the Wahabis use for their nefarious ideology, and so are spared the anguish of seeing it confiscated by the mutaween (religious police). However, the moment they deviate from any of the orthodoxies of the Wahabbis, the Muslims are beaten, humiliated, and murdered in ways that are as inhuman as the treatment of non-Muslims. We could have treated the vehement Wahabbi claim that they are followers of the true Islam as comedic, if it wasn’t so tragic for the rest of humanity.

In Iran, the Vilayat-e-Faqih (guardians of the faith) have no compunction in torturing and killing their Shia co-religionists if it serves to retain their hold on power. Imagine the fate of minority Sunni groups who live under the constant fear of unacceptable retaliation every time the Shia are attacked in neighboring Iraq or Pakistan. The non-Muslim minorities such as the Bahá’í and Jews are routinely the victims of political expediency when the so-called guardians want to rattle their sabres against Israel. The original religion of Iran, the Zorastrians and their sects, escape persecution only because they have no strategic strength and no one in the world cares about their fate.

In Egypt, the government is supposedly secular, but shows no hesitation in discriminating against the native Coptic Christians in all aspects of existence. Their men find it impossible to get government jobs unless they convert to Islam. Their women are forcibly converted and married to Muslim men. Riots against their communities and churches, instigated by local Muslim leaders are tolerated without any law enforcement or judicial impact on the perpetrators.

The mention of Egypt brings up an interesting article I came across recently regarding the protection guaranteed by the Prophet Muhammad to the Christians in his realm, especially a charter of rights that he issued in favor of the St. Catherine’s Monastery located at the foot of Mt. Sinai. Read the full text of the charter here – http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=36388 – and reflect on the irony of Muslim intolerance in these times.

Imam Hussein’s tormentors and eventually killers, the Umayyad rulers, were bent upon subverting and destroying the nascent Islamic community.

Imam Hussein’s struggle against injustice wasn’t fought by harming innocent people. His endeavor to uphold the truth wasn’t achieved by terrorism or persecution. His conviction to uphold the principles of seerat-al-mustaqim (path of goodness) was not imposed through vengeance or intolerance.

In a supreme act of conscience, Imam Hussein succeeded in achieving all of his objectives by accepting martyrdom for himself and his children, one as young as 6 months; and in this act he sealed forever the fate of those who use violence and intimidation to suppress the goodness of people.

Isa Ruhullah (Jesus Christ) famously asked his community to offer their other cheek when slapped on one. Mohandas Gandhi asked his followers to tolerate the beatings of the British colonists without retaliation. Imam Hussein offered the lives of himself and his family to save his community and the principles they lived by.

In these days when Muslims are looked upon everywhere with suspicion and anxiety, it behooves every member of the Islamic community to reflect upon the sacrifice of Imam Hussein and the Ahl-e-Bayt (the Prophet’s family). Each of us needs to summon courage from the depths of their conscience and reject all forms of violence by anyone claiming to be a Muslim.

The Prophet was sent as a mercy to the people with a message from the Almighty. Each of us needs to spread this message of peace, justice, and goodness again. The Prophet brought this message to the pagans of his time. We need to bring the same message to the pagans of our time, those who have become slaves and addicts of violence and intolerance.

It is a coincidence this year that Christmas and Ashura have occurred within a day of each other. And it may seem incongruent to compare the two observances, one celebrating the birth of Christ, and the other commemorating the martyrdom of Imam Hussein. However, the core message is the same. Both give us hope – hope in humanity, and hope in the goodness of people.

Criminal cases in even the most scientifically and technologically advanced nations with legal systems based on due process, have repeatedly found post-conviction evidence that has often cast a shadow of reasonable doubt around inmates on death row, if not exonerating them completely. The situation in nations with lesser judicial capabilities is even worse. This is especially so in countries that deem themselves “Islamic,” but unfortunately have not even the remotest implementation and idealism of justice that a system based on Islamic thought is supposed to embody.

Several Muslim societies in this 21st century live with the notion that taking another human life is “permissible” for many reasons - murder, apostasy, bidah (deviation from the mainstream), kufr (disbelief), blasphemy, and so on. The truth is that each and every one of these supposedly permissible reasons is based on historical events that shaped the actions of the early Muslims but are out of context when applied in the current era. Unfortunately the codification of many of these events in to the Hadith literature has lent them an unjustified religiosity that is misplaced, and almost always counter-productive to a more contemporary understanding of faith and justice.

It is no surprise that almost all sections of the Sunni community affirming adherence to the Hadith literature have ignored, if not opposed, any attempts at re-reading the Quran and re-igniting the liberating influence of ijtihad (rational thinking). Among those trying is Dr. Muqtedar Khan. Read his blog on Ijtihad and especially an article on reform through ijtihad. In the meantime, traditionalists from Nigeria to Saudi to Pakistan to Indonesia continue labeling people in ways that make their condemnation by death possible and to execute them.

The Shia, who are supposed to place a great emphasis on adl (justice) and the irfan (spirituality) of their faith, are doing no better. Iran, as a religio-political entity is well known for convictions and executions through legal processes that routinely fail muster with many of their own marja (religious experts). Imagine the extent of fallibility when even the most learned class among the faithful does not agree on the form or content of justice.

The real irony here is that Muslims routinely proclaim that only God knows best, but don’t have any hesitation in taking upon themselves the divine right to determine the fate of another human life.

Death as a penalty is too final. It provides no space for humans to recover from any possible miscarriage of justice due to their inherent fallibility.

We must strive to abolish the death penalty everywhere!

More on this later.

Bismillaahir RahmaanIr Raheem. Alhamdulillaah WasSalaatu WasSalaam Ala Rasulillaah Wa Ala Aalihi.

Wa Alaykum AsSalaam wa rehmatullahe wa barakatohu

Thank you for ……

Jazakum Allaahu Khayran. WasSalaam.

I can understand that this gentleman really wants to spread the peace and blessings all around. But so much of it?

Salaams can be like sugar. Too little leaves you bitter and too much can make you sick.

The Prophet, and many illuminaries after him such as Imam Jaffer as-Sadiq, emphasized the virtues of moderation in every aspect of life. I can’t imagine they would appreciate people tripping all over themselves with excess salaams.

The tag line “How the intellectuality of Political Islam turned into the brutality of faithful fascism” mixes it up a bit, but conveys an important point – the intellectualism of a tradition can lead to the popular rise of strains of thought that can subvert and destroy the very intellectualism that gave birth to it. We see parallels of this phenomenon across the globe in varying degrees but in their most potent form in the rise of so-called “purist” Islamic movements. Some thinkers have suggested setting some ground rules – such as no intellectual coups – as part of all philosophical activity? Who will create these rules and how does one get everyone to agree to them? How do we ensure that philosophy and theology when channelized into popular understanding doesn’t become self-defeating by curbing free thought, the bedrock principle of intellectual activity?

The next day I got up to headlines on CNN, “Islamic Leaders in Malaysia Ban Yoga for Muslims.” Apparently, the worthies at the National Fatwa Council of Malaysia decided that Yoga would corrupt Muslims and weaken their faith. To clarify the ruling, Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi put out a statement saying “The physical parts of Yoga are not a problem. It’s the accompanying chanting that can affect Muslims faith.”  Wow! This is black comedy at its best. Is faith in Islam so fragile that it will be compromised by a cross-legged posture with some chanting of the primal sound?  What’s crazy is that Malaysia actually has a council staffed by people whose only job is to pronounce fatwas! I want that job!

What’s with the propensity of modern Muslim leaders to keep themselves busy by indulging in silly polemic with arcane and sometimes outright ridiculous logic? As a Malaysian Muslim said in response to the Yoga ban “The leaders need to have more faith in the faith of the common Muslim and stop trying to micro-manage our lives.” It’s unfortunate to see beautiful syncretic cultures like Malaysia and Indonesia engaging in a race toward intolerance and small-mindedness.

A few days ago, I came across an interesting article on this topic called “The Yoga of Islamic Prayer” by Karima Burns. Some of the points seemed contrived, but the central point of the article needs to be well taken. It’s easy to get lost in the trivia about the practice of Islamic prayers. Treating it as a form of Yoga is a great way to get back to basics – to communicate with the almighty cosmic force we call Allah (God), and to fuse body and mind into a cohesive transcendental whole. As fallible humans we are easily distracted and the practice of prayer can often be imperfect. If some of us can derive spiritual benefit from supporting practices, it can serve to smooth the frayed edges. If God in his infinite compassion decides to give extra credit for the effort, that would be the icing! The only problem could of course be the fatwa merchants, who might decide to ban God from rewarding any Muslim who deviates from their precious fatwa. Does this remind you of the idol peddlers at the time of the Prophet (pbuh), anyone?

Meanwhile, I still need to push my father to incorporate Yoga into his routine. Procrastination is a tough enemy to fight.

In September 2005 in East Java, the Imam of a local mosque, Muhammad Yusman Roy, was jailed for 2 years for leading the prayers bilingually in Arabic and Indonesian. Roy was released after one year and fortunately for Muslims everywhere he persists in praying bilingually.  His statement to the Jakarta Post on his release is priceless, “The problem with many Muslims in Indonesia is that they don’t think for themselves. They stand in the mosque and mumble, but they don’t understand what the clerics are saying because they don’t know Arabic. What’s the problem with using Indonesian? God understands everything we think and say regardless of the language.”

The argument put forth for insisting that the obligatory prayers be recited in Arabic exclusively is based purely on precedence. The Noble Quran stipulates the requirement for prayer but leaves the method and form to the practitioners albeit with guidance from the Prophet. It’s understandable that the Arabic-speaking world involved in the laying the foundations for Islamic practice, did so with an Arabic audience in mind. They probably never expected or imagined that of the 1.5 billion Muslims in the 21^st century, over 70% would be from non-Arab cultures. The people of South Asia and Indonesia (together 50% of the Muslim population) never got the chance to put their stamp of influence on the research, analyses, debate and inquiry of the early Islamic period that led to development of Fiqh(jurisprudence). South Asians with their proclivity for inclusiveness, tolerance, and sense of timelessness would have undoubtedly left a strong liberal impact on all aspects of Fiqh as they undoubtedly have on Falsafa (philosophy), Kalam (theology) and Tasawwuf (mysticism). Unfortunately, since the closure of the gates of Ijtehad(analytical discourse) in the 12^th century, Muslims have lived under the strange orthodoxy, reinforced by Salafi-type revivalist groups, that work done by the early Islamic scholars is sacrosanct and any new analysis is a modern deviation to be opposed.

Is it really too much to ask those who lead prayers to incorporate into them the language of the nation, state, or congregation along with or after the Arabic prayers?

Change is hard. Any attempts to radically alter widely held beliefs are likely to be vehemently contested. But the practice of prayer cannot be left to stultify and decay. The mind needs to comprehend and the spirit needs to prosper. Faith can only be realized with full consciousness and not just as a matter of form or a fulfillment of law.

The obsession with achieving the perfect orientation for the Qiblah is of a piece with the tendency of Muslims everywhere to lose sight of the forest for the trees. Any excuse to get lost in the details and intricacies is welcomed, especially when it relates to prayer. There are tons of these nitty-gritties, followed blindly in most cases, which have turned the soul-lifting spirituality of salat (Islamic prayer) into an incomprehensible set of complicated maneuvers. Disentangling oneself from them is going to be a fight, especially since many of the practices have been drilled into us by elders, society, culture, the ulema, and all sorts of influences that insist they know best.

“To God belong the East and the West; and wherever you turn, there is the presence of God; for God is All-Pervading, All-Knowing”

Noble Quran [Surah al-Baqarah: 115]