Returning to Irony

After an absence of several months, I all but shut down this blog, deleting all of its entries and posting a short mea culpa. My heart wavers before the blows of opposing arguments, now swaying one way, now swaying another. But each time I return to my skepticism I am more vehement in it. My previous arguments (now restored to this blog) I maintain more forcefully. I will expand on them as time permits.

What occasions this change? Anger. Anger at having been sold a bill of goods. Anger at my own lack of critical thought. Anger at believing apologists.

Anger at the instructions given by Shabbir Ahmed Usmani in his commentary on 34th ayay of Suratan Nisaa’ that, when beating one’s wife for being “impudent or discourteous or impolite” that “the beating should not be serious- short of bone fracture.” Again, “the beating should not be so serious that the bone is fractured, nor the blow should be so hard that it may smite a wound leaving a scar after healing.” He admonishes us that “Every fault has its own degree [of beating]” and that “if there is any big fault on the part of woman [sic], then there is no sin or fault in beating” (Volume I. pg. 335) provided that she has been first admonished and then, if she persists, been abandoned sexually. Only after these first two measures have failed does the Shaikh, in his magnanimity to the women, recognize that beating is permissible. This was all prefaced by a discussion of the “natural” and “material” reasons for the superiority of men over women, reasons such as the “fact that man is superior to woman in knowledge and action- and the whole sociology (sic) is controlled by this one single fact” (ibid., pg. 334-335). These are not the obscure writings of a back water Shaykh. These statements are found in a tafseer of the Qur’an famous throughout the sub-continent, written by a scholar of world-wide renown and a major figure within the Deobandi movement.

Anger at the double standards displayed by Muslims activists. I am still opposed to Zionism, just as I am opposed to all forms of colonialism and racism. But the attitude of Islamic activists on the issue of Palestine disturbs me. While rightfully decrying the destruction of the olive trees and confiscation of land that the Israeli Army practices, acts which are against international law and any morality with pretensions towards universality, they ignore the fact that these types of actions are allowed in Jihad. The Talqeen, a relied upon manual of fiqh (jurisprudence) within the Maliki school of thought, states that burning planted gardens, cutting trees and date palms, wounding animals, and destruction of the country are all permissible in Jihad. A condemnation of Isaeli actions cannot be based upon Islamic morality because this morality countenences these acts when performed by Muslims against non-Muslims. An Islamic condemnation can therefore be nothing but tribal and thus unworthy of support by anyone with a critical mind. Similarly, there has been much justified anger in the Muslim world at the practice of extra-judicial killings and drone assassinations by the US, actions which frequently result in the deaths of civilians (euphemistically referred to as 'collateral damage'). The case here is the same as that of the Palestine: I condemn these actions as immoral, striking against the very notion of the rule of law and due process. This condemnation, however, is a product of a secular process of critical moral deliberation. The Islamic critique, in so far as it is traditional and not itself a product of secular modernity, can only be tribal: it is wrong for them to do it to us, but not for us to do it for them. This issue can be considered under two headings: a.) the permissibility of extra-judicial killing in Islam and b.) the permissibility of undertaking military action when it is known that this will result in civilian deaths. Both of these types of actions can be established from sound Islamic sources. The first is established from the assassinations that were ordered by the Prophet of Islam against his enemies such as Ka'b ibn al-Ashruf and Abu Rafi’. These are all mentioned in reliable sources such as Al-Bukhari. The second is established from a hadeeth in Bukhari which is as follows:

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 256:

Narrated As-Sab bin Jaththama:

The Prophet passed by me at a place called Al-Abwa or Waddan, and was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans)." I also heard the Prophet saying, "The institution of Hima is invalid except for Allah and His Apostle."

A similar hadeeth can be found in Muslim:

Muslim Book 019,Number 4322:

It is narrated by Sa'b b. Jaththama that he said (to the Holy Prophet): Messenger of Allah, we kill the children of the polytheists during the night raids. He said: They are from them."

Note, however, that I am not claiming that these narrations are used to justify suicide bombings or the like; they are sufficient, however, to establish that the likelihood of collateral damage is not sufficient for a military operation to become impermissible under Islamic Law (see http://www.load-islam.com/artical_det.php?artical_id=414&subsection=Misconceptions#29 for a more detailed discussion of this). It is hypocritical for Muslims to condemn the US (or Israel, for that matter) for an action that would be permissible if Muslims carried out themselves. The only way to avoid this hypocrisy is to posit a universal ethical framework that applies to both Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

Anger over women being forced to veil. According to the Hanafi, Maliki, and Shafi’i jurists, the face veil is obligatory. Not something that the apologists like to mentioned, to the annoyance of traditionalists such as Ustadh Abdus Shakur Brooks and Abu Layth. Being a civil libertarian, I don't think it should be banned, but any critically thinking person has to ask themselves: is this the type of social relationship between the sexes that I can affirm? Is it right to confine women to a mobile cage of cloth?

One good thing to come from my recent re-embrace of traditionalism was a renewed commitment to the Arabic language. I love its beauty and rhythm and richness. I love its poetry. And it is the miftaah (key) to understanding Islam. To getting beyond the gloss of the apologists. To getting to the truth of Islam, whatever is commendable or repugnant from the view of critical consciousness. The concept of shariah has been a hot topic in American culture for the past year. I hope to weigh in on this subject with translations from authentic texts representing the traditional (pre-Modern, pre-Apologetic) views on such topics as Jihad, Apostacy, the status of women and non-Muslims under Islamic law. If there is to be a fruitful discussion of this subject it must be conducted on the basis of the historically normative legal views of classical Islamic scholarship, not on the basis of the misrepresentations of both the Islamophobes and the Islamophyles.