Director of National Intelligence James Clapper raised eyebrows all over the place the other day when he stated before a House Intelligence Committee that the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood was a "largely secular organization".
The Arabic word for secular is Almani, and secularism is Almaniyah. This is anathema to a committed serious Muslim. For a Muslim Brotherhood leader to describe himself as Almani would be like the Pope announcing he was agnostic. Had I been at that Senate hearing, I would have loved to ask Mr. Clapper to name one Muslim Brotherhood leader who has ever publicly stated that he was secular.
As could be expected, conservative columnists are already calling for the DNI to resign. But I think the issue is much broader than one official minimizing the religious element of the Muslim Brotherhood. It is a failure across the board throughout our government - Republicans as well as Democrats - to understand the religious motivation of organizations such as the Brotherhood. To interpret the fact that they build schools and stock clinics as meaning they are "secular" is to miss the point completely.
Not many of our government officials are sitting in church Sunday morning. That's not a problem to me; what I find difficult is their conclusion that because religion is not very important to them as secular people, it must not be that important to everyone else. Because they are not religious, they find it difficult to understand the significance religion plays in the lives of others. And that includes every single member of the Muslim Brotherhood. There is a reason it's not called the Egyptian Secular Brotherhood.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Jesus and Muhammad
"I have read and reread with great interest your Impossible Task thread," wrote a reader recently (that post and the following dozen or so gave reasons I do not think Muhammad was a Prophet from God). It would seem to me plenty of scholars might come up with a similar list about any of the prophets you speak of, including Jesus, that's all."
Actually you don't need to be a scholar to come up with a similar list about Jesus; I could do so in a heartbeat. Here is a baker's dozen, just off the top of my head.
1. Jesus was a narcissist who thought he was God - John 10:30
2. Jesus was suicidal, mesmerized with thoughts of his own death - Matthew 16:21
3. Jesus had dreams of invincibility, convinced he would not remain dead - Mark 8:31
4. Jesus was hallucinatory, imagining armies of angels coming to rescue him - Matthew 26:53
5. Jesus advocated violence, telling his followers to purchase weapons - Luke 22:36
6. Jesus practiced violence, damaging public property - Matthew 21:12
7. Jesus was racist, calling a Canaanite woman a dog - Matthew 15:22
8. Jesus was misogynistic, calling a Canaanite woman a dog - Matthew 15:26
9. Jesus was gay, with John as his lover - John 21:20
10. Jesus was homophobic, advocating human castration - Matthew 19:12
11. Jesus was sadistic, encouraging his followers to mutilate their own bodies - Matthew 18:8
12. Jesus was sarcastic, describing rabbis of his own faith as vipers - Matthew 12:34
13. Jesus was disrespectful of even his own mother - John 2:4
You can make Jesus into anyone you want him to be, and you can do the same with Muhammad. The question is, where is the truth?
The same reader asked, "Something has been troubling me about your post What I Believe. You wrote that God used Noah in spite of his drunkenness and Lot in spite of his incest. How do you reconcile the fact that God may in fact use people like those, but not Muhammad?"
Another good question that requires a thoughtful response. There are two ways to look at the life of any individual, including Muhammad. One is to choose anecdotes, incidents, quotes, and stories from that individual's life and use them as representative of their entire life. Muslims love to do this with their Prophet. Ask a Muslim about Islam's relationship with the Jews and she will quote a Hadith about Muhammad being nice to a Jewish neighbor who threw trash in his yard. Inquire about Islam and education and listen to a Hadith about seeking knowledge even if you have to go to China. Ask about Islam's relationship to non-Muslims, and hear the Quranic verse "there is no compulsion in religion".
The second and much more important way is to look at the trajectory of the individual's entire life, from birth to death. I believe that Muhammad learned the stories of the Biblical Prophets from his uncle Waraqah bin Naufal, who wanted Muhammad to succeed him as leader of the Ebionite Christian community in Mecca. Muhammad's 25-year marriage to Khadija, a monogamous relationship as far as we know, was performed by Waraqah and was essentially a Christian marriage. Muhammad's call for 13 years in Mecca was not to a new religion, but a return to the monotheistic faith of Abraham, Moses, and David.
Muhammad was ambitious, however, with dreams far greater than leading a flock of poor followers and slaves in Mecca. He began to promise them that if they followed him they would hold the treasures of Caesar and Khosrau, leaders of the Byzantine and Sassanid Empires. He understood that the Biblical heroes he longed to emulate were not only religious leaders, but held political and military power as well. After Khadijah and Waraqa died close to the same time, Muhammad migrated to Medina where he had persuaded members of the Khazraj tribe to accept him as leader. Medina was a Jewish majority city, and Muhammad had the naive idea that its Jewish rabbis would accept him as the Prophet he wanted to be. It was only when they rejected him that he changed the direction of prayer from Jerusalem to Mecca and the day of prayer from Saturday to Friday, laying the basis for a new religion.
The rest of Muhammad's life was an unceasing campaign of battles to extend his new empire. He expelled the Jews from Medina, apart from the 900 men and boys he beheaded and whose heads were thrown in trenches. His final act of conquest was to rape the daughter of one of his Jewish opponents in Khaybar the same day he tortured and beheaded her husband Kinana for refusing reveal the location of the family treasures. At the time Sofiya was 17 and Muhammad was 62.
It is possible, of course, that Muhammad was indeed being used mightily by his God. It's just that that isn't a deity I want anything to do with.
Actually you don't need to be a scholar to come up with a similar list about Jesus; I could do so in a heartbeat. Here is a baker's dozen, just off the top of my head.
1. Jesus was a narcissist who thought he was God - John 10:30
2. Jesus was suicidal, mesmerized with thoughts of his own death - Matthew 16:21
3. Jesus had dreams of invincibility, convinced he would not remain dead - Mark 8:31
4. Jesus was hallucinatory, imagining armies of angels coming to rescue him - Matthew 26:53
5. Jesus advocated violence, telling his followers to purchase weapons - Luke 22:36
6. Jesus practiced violence, damaging public property - Matthew 21:12
7. Jesus was racist, calling a Canaanite woman a dog - Matthew 15:22
8. Jesus was misogynistic, calling a Canaanite woman a dog - Matthew 15:26
9. Jesus was gay, with John as his lover - John 21:20
10. Jesus was homophobic, advocating human castration - Matthew 19:12
11. Jesus was sadistic, encouraging his followers to mutilate their own bodies - Matthew 18:8
12. Jesus was sarcastic, describing rabbis of his own faith as vipers - Matthew 12:34
13. Jesus was disrespectful of even his own mother - John 2:4
You can make Jesus into anyone you want him to be, and you can do the same with Muhammad. The question is, where is the truth?
The same reader asked, "Something has been troubling me about your post What I Believe. You wrote that God used Noah in spite of his drunkenness and Lot in spite of his incest. How do you reconcile the fact that God may in fact use people like those, but not Muhammad?"
Another good question that requires a thoughtful response. There are two ways to look at the life of any individual, including Muhammad. One is to choose anecdotes, incidents, quotes, and stories from that individual's life and use them as representative of their entire life. Muslims love to do this with their Prophet. Ask a Muslim about Islam's relationship with the Jews and she will quote a Hadith about Muhammad being nice to a Jewish neighbor who threw trash in his yard. Inquire about Islam and education and listen to a Hadith about seeking knowledge even if you have to go to China. Ask about Islam's relationship to non-Muslims, and hear the Quranic verse "there is no compulsion in religion".
The second and much more important way is to look at the trajectory of the individual's entire life, from birth to death. I believe that Muhammad learned the stories of the Biblical Prophets from his uncle Waraqah bin Naufal, who wanted Muhammad to succeed him as leader of the Ebionite Christian community in Mecca. Muhammad's 25-year marriage to Khadija, a monogamous relationship as far as we know, was performed by Waraqah and was essentially a Christian marriage. Muhammad's call for 13 years in Mecca was not to a new religion, but a return to the monotheistic faith of Abraham, Moses, and David.
Muhammad was ambitious, however, with dreams far greater than leading a flock of poor followers and slaves in Mecca. He began to promise them that if they followed him they would hold the treasures of Caesar and Khosrau, leaders of the Byzantine and Sassanid Empires. He understood that the Biblical heroes he longed to emulate were not only religious leaders, but held political and military power as well. After Khadijah and Waraqa died close to the same time, Muhammad migrated to Medina where he had persuaded members of the Khazraj tribe to accept him as leader. Medina was a Jewish majority city, and Muhammad had the naive idea that its Jewish rabbis would accept him as the Prophet he wanted to be. It was only when they rejected him that he changed the direction of prayer from Jerusalem to Mecca and the day of prayer from Saturday to Friday, laying the basis for a new religion.
The rest of Muhammad's life was an unceasing campaign of battles to extend his new empire. He expelled the Jews from Medina, apart from the 900 men and boys he beheaded and whose heads were thrown in trenches. His final act of conquest was to rape the daughter of one of his Jewish opponents in Khaybar the same day he tortured and beheaded her husband Kinana for refusing reveal the location of the family treasures. At the time Sofiya was 17 and Muhammad was 62.
It is possible, of course, that Muhammad was indeed being used mightily by his God. It's just that that isn't a deity I want anything to do with.
Saturday, February 5, 2011
Tawfik Hamid and Islamic Reform
The War on Terror has made a number of sharp turns as it has lurched forward over the past decade or so. Even the acronym WOT now seems so retro, so Bushie, so yesterday. For a short time it was the War on Extremism, but even that expression carried a negative connotation for some people. Radicalization is the new buzzword and the now defunct War on Terror has become the campaign to counter radicalization.
Professor Quintan Wiktorowicz, discussed here on NPR, is the new radicalization czar at the National Security Council, and his "broad tent" approach will certainly include moderate Muslims such as Tawfik Hamid who is the Chair for the Study of Islamic Radicalism at the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies. Tawfik recently gave this lecture at the Institute, and also appeared as a guest on the Arabic program Daring Question. His subject on both programs was his plan to deradicalize Muslims by presenting them with a new approach to the Quran. What caught my attention was that none of the attendees in the English lecture, even though they are educated and influential people, knew enough about Islam to counter anything presented by Tawfik. It was quite different in the interview with ex-Muslim Rashid, and I would like to concentrate on Rashid's comments. The material presented by Tawfik was basically the same in both lectures and readers can watch the English lecture to fully understand his perspective. I'll add a few comments at the end.
Rashid began the discussion by asking Tawfik to define moderate Islam. Tawfik said his definition was, "I love you; I don't hate you because you are different than me, and I leave the final judgement to God."
The next question was what it means to reform Islam. Tawfik responded that the relationship of a believer to his religion contains three basic elements. First is the Nuss, the sacred text, second is the Tafsir or interpretation of the text, and final is the thought process of the believer. A radicalized person can take even a peaceful text and reach a violent conclusion based upon his interpretation of that text and the way he thinks.
"We cannot change the original texts," said Tawfiq, "But we can change the way people interpret them by changing the way they think."
"Where does your role come in?" Rashid asked. "Do you begin with the text, or do you teach the radical to interpret the text and think in a new way?"
Tawfik replied that he began with the text itself. The Quran, he said, does not teach Hudud (capital punishment) for Riddah (leaving Islam), and no Ayah commands Rajam for Zina (stoning for adultery). On the contrary, it declares "there is no compulsion in religion" (Quran 2:256), and "whoever chooses can believe, and whoever chooses can disbelieve" (Quran 18:29). No one has the right, asserted Taufik, to deny anyone the freedom of belief that has been given them by God. By placing our priority on the Nuss of the Quran itself, rather than the Hadith and Sira (sayings and biography of Muhammad), we avoid many problems.
Does this mean, asked Rashid, that you are a Qurani, a "Quran-only Muslim"? (comment: I have discussed this group here). Tawfiq replied he did not follow their ideology because of the Quranic verse "those who listen to the Word and follow that which is good are guided by God and given understanding" (Quran 39:18).
"All truth is the Word," said Tawfik, "Even if it comes in the writings of a Buddhist. I accept what is good in any text. My only criterion is that it not contradict the Quran."
"Does that mean," asked Rashid, "That you accept the peaceful and tolerant Hadith that go along with the Quran, but refuse the violent ones that are not in line with the Quran?"
When Taufik said that was correct, Rashid continued, "Do you reject the saying of Muhammad, "If anyone leaves Islam, kill him."
"I absolutely reject that Hadith," replied Tawfik. "The Quran says that God did not choose to make all people Muslim, and you cannot force anyone to be a Muslim (Quran 10:99). That Hadith contradicts the plain teaching of the Quran."
"But the Ulama," replied Rashid, "Have determined that "if anyone changes his religion, kill him" is an authentic Hadith and its Sanad, or train of transmission, goes directly to Muhammad. It is something that Muhammad said. Even if the scholars agree this is true, do you still refuse it?"
"Of course," replied Tawfik. "I am not refusing anything the Prophet said, but I am suggesting that he did not really say it. There is always room for human error in the Sanad, and just because the scholars agree that Muhammad said something it does not necessarily make it true. The Quran tells us not to think that we are above mistakes (Quran 53:32). The Ulama are great scholars, but they can still make mistakes. I am not denying anything the Prophet actually said, and I am not even questioning the integrity of the Ulama. I am simply stating there is always room for human error."
"But the first Caliphs after Muhammad," countered Rashid, "Were the Sahaba, the companions of the Prophet. They were close to him and received his instructions. They practiced the Hudud for Riddah (capital punishment for leaving Islam). They certainly didn't make this up themselves. They knew that Muhammad said this Hadith, and they carried out his instructions. It sounds to me as if by refusing the Hadith you are saying that Caliph Abu Bakr did not understand, and neither did Caliphs Umar or Uthman or Ali. No one has understood for 1400 years except Dr. Tawfik Hamid!"
"No," replied Tawfik. "I look at it from another perspective. Those generations are gone, with their accomplishments and their mistakes. They have nothing to do with me. On Judgment Day, God is not going to ask me what so-and-so did many years ago. They were not perfect. The Quran says, "Muhammad is no more than a messenger, and there were many messengers before him. If Muhammad dies, will you turn away from him? (Quran 3:144). Who am I to say whether the Sahaba followed him correctly, or turned away from him to use Islam for political purposes? My methodology is to examine the text in front of me, and to understand it irregardless of its traditional and historical context. I set history aside and look at the text as if it were revealed to me just now."
"But that is exactly what the first Muslims did," replied Rashid, "They practiced the Quran as it was revealed to them, with the result that they enforced the punishments of Hudud (capital punishment) including Rajm (stoning)."
Realizing he was on shaky ground, Tawfik quickly shifted direction. "They weren't all the same," he said. "There were always people who disagreed. For example, the poet Muhyiddin Ibn Arabi (1165-1240) wrote,
My heart is capable of everything.
It is a pasture for gazelles, and a monastery for monks.
A temple for idols, and the Kabah of the pilgrim.
It holds the scrolls of the Torah, and the text of the Quran.
I follow the caravan of love, wherever it may take me.
Love is my faith and my religion."
"Dr. Hamid," said Rashid. "Ibn Arabi was rejected by the Muslim majority, who considered him a Sufi Kafir (Sufi unbeliever). Sufism is the result of Christian influence on Islam. When you study the Sufi books, you see the deep influence of Christianity. I am not talking about individuals outside the mainstream who were influenced by other ideologies. I am talking about Orthodox Islam. The first four Rightly Guided Caliphs were not ordinary people. They were the successors of the Prophet and they ruled in his name."
Tawfik simply repeated his earlier assertion that no Muslim could justify his actions before God on the Day of Judgment on the basis of what these Sahaba had done, because they were not perfect.
"Let's look at the verses you mentioned," said Rashid, "That say there is no compulsion in religion and everyone has the right to believe as they choose. The Ulama say these verses are Nasikh wal Mansoukh (abrogated). They were revealed in the early Medinan period, soon after Muhammad arrived from Mecca and before he instituted Jihad. Some of these verses were given for extenuating circumstances. For example, Quranic Mufassir (commentator) Ibn Kathir gives the historical context for the phrase "there is no compulsion in religion." The Arab women of Medina had a high infant mortality rate, and would sometimes give their infants to the Jewish woman to raise (comment: The Jewish tribes of Medina followed the dietary and sanitary laws of the Torah and as a result were more healthy than their Arab neighbors). When the Jews of Medina refused to accept Muhammad as a Prophet, he exiled them from the city. The Arab women wanted to bring their children back but Muhammad refused saying, "There is no compulsion in religion; you cannot force your children to return." (comment: rather than being a verse of tolerance, this phrase resulted in the disruption of families). That verse was revealed for a specific situation, but the general rule was to kill those who left Islam."
Dr. Tawfik suddenly looked like a deer caught in the headlights, and it was apparent he did not know the context of the very verse he was quoting. "If you say that verse was revealed for an extenuating circumstance," he said. "You can say the same about the verses of violence. They were also given for specific situations, and are not applicable today."
"Just as others have the right to interpret the Quran as they choose," continued Tawfik, "I have that same right. The Quran testifies that if it were not from God, it would contain many contradictions (Quran 4:82). When there are differences in interpretation we must return to the original text to remove the contradictions. The text does this by saying "there is no compulsion in religion".
"I also do not believe in the principle of Nasikh wal Mansoukh (aprogation)," said Tawfik. "First of all, the Quran says that the Word that comes from God cannot be changed (Quran 50:29). Secondly, the traditionalists say the fighting verses of Medina cancelled out the peaceful verses from Mecca. But the famous phrase "kill the unbelievers wherever you find them" (Quran 9:4) is followed by the verse "if any of the unbelivers ask you for protection, grant it to them so they may hear the Word of God" (Quran 9:6). If the verses of mercy were cancelled out, why would a verse offering mercy immediately follow Quran 9:4? Even the Medinan suras contain messages of mercy."
"The problem," replied Rashid, "Is that the Quran is not arranged chronologically. The fact that verse 6 follows verse 4 in the text does not necessarily mean they were both revealed at the same time."
When Tawfiq repeated his earlier assertion that he was only concerned with the words of the text and not its historical context, Rashid replied that the trajectory of the entire Quran moved from from the peaceful to the violent. In Mecca, Muhammad tried to gain converts by "preaching that which is better" (Quran 16:125). When he went to Medina he began to fight the Quraysh of Mecca, and by the end of the Quran he was preparing to attack neighbouring countries. The violence followed a pattern of escalation.
"If that were true," replied Tawfik. "Muhammad would have slaughtered the citizens of Mecca when he returned ten years after leaving. Instead it was a peaceful conquest."
"It was not a peaceful return," replied Rashid. "There are many Hadiths that speak of Muhammad's return to Mecca. He was determined to kill his enemies there, and he ordered they be seized even if they were clinging to the Kabah. Why would he kill all the people? He had an army surrounding Mecca of 10,000 soldiers. As soon as he killed the leaders, the city was his."
"The problem," continued Rashid. "Is that Muslim scholars who look at Islam from a historical perspective have evidence for their positions. They have the Hadith and the Sira. You come with just your opinion, and there is nothing historically to support you."
Tawfik responded that those scholars were not always in agreement with each other, and repeated his earlier assertion that if the verses of the Quran were all placed side by side, without bringing in extraneous texts, they would present a peaceful message. He then continued with his reasons for not believing abrogation.
"One of the justifications for the principle of abrogation," he said, "Is the verse that reads "Whenever we Nasikh (abrogate) a verse, we bring a better one (Quran 2:106). The word Nasikh has two meanings in the Quran. One is to erase, or abrogate. The Quran uses this meaning when it says, "Whenever we give a message to a Messenger, Satan comes and tries to Nasikh (remove) it (Quran 22:52)."
"But there is another definition of Nasikh in the Quran," continued Tawfik, "That means to confirm. The Quran says that on the Day of Judgment the angels will open the books on which they have written down, or confirmed, all our good deeds (Quran 45:29). The verb "to write down" is from the same root as Nasikh.
"If we think of Nasikh as confirmation and not abrogation," said Tawfik. "And apply that to Quran 2:106, it means that the message God gave to Muhammad was a confirmation of earlier messages God gave to Moses and Jesus and all the other Prophets. It is not speaking of abrogating Muhammad's peaceful revelations, but confirming all that was said by the previous Prophets."
"I can appreciate this Tafsir (explanation)," replied Rashid. "But the problem is that you are simply expressing your own opinion. You have nothing to support your exigesis. If we look at Islamic history and all its texts, whether in the Sira or Tafsir or Hadith, we find them in agreement on the principle of Nasikh as abrogation.
"Let's look at alcohol," continued Rashid. "In the beginning Muslims were allowed to drink but commanded to not perform Salat (the prayers) when they were drunk (Quran 4:43). The scholars have explained that Muslims were coming to the Mosque so drunk that when they tried to recite the verse, I do not worship what the unbelievers worship, and they do not worship what I worship (Quran 109:2,3), they got the words all turned around. For that reason the verse was revealed they were not to pray if they were drunk. In a later revelation, Muhammad stated that alcohol was a work of Satan and was to be avoided altogether (Quran 5:90), and this has been applied throughout Muslim history. No scholar would argue today that a Muslim can drink as long as he does not come to the mosque drunk, because that verse was abrogated by the later one forbidding alcohol. The principle of abrogation is an essential part of Muslim theology."
"I completely agree with you, said Tawfik, "That this is the traditional approach. Any child who reads the Hadith and the Sira and the Tafsir will find the principle of Nasikh wal Mansoukh. But even in the verses you mentioned I find a ray of hope. For example, the first verse you quoted said that believers were not to say their prayers when they were intoxicated. Not only alcohol, but some medications and even a lack of sleep can give one a sense of intoxication. So the verse might not have been referring to drinking alcohol, but the intoxication that can result from other things."
Tawfik quickly responded to the look of incredulity he saw come across Rashid's face. "I don't disagree with you," Tawfik said, "Muslim scholars have always looked at that verse in reference to people coming to the Mosque drunk. I'm just saying there could be another way to look at it."
"Dr. Tawfik," responded Rashid, "You are making things up. You are trying to make the text say what you want it to say. Scholars throughout history have made a connection between the revelations given in the Quran and the Sabab al-Nazoul (reasons they were revealed). Do you believe in the Sabab al-Nazoul?"
"No, I don't," replied Tawfik.
Rashid was astonished, "So you want to completely strip the Quran from its historical and cultural context," he asked, "And give it a 21st century meaning as if it were revealed today!"
"I am talking about the meaning of the Quran," Tawfik replied, "I agree with you that Ibn Arabi was persecuted as a Sufi, but his poetry reflects the meaning of the Quran. That is why I said in the beginning I do not rely on the Nuss only, but on a new Tafsir (interpretation) of the Quran."
With this segue Tawfik introduced his second element of deradicalization, a new way of interpreting the Quran, by telling a story from his younger days in Cairo. "I was reading the Quran," he said, "And I came to the verse, "Kill Al Mushrikun (the non-believers) wherever you find them" (Quran 9:5). The verse startled me. Even the thought of harming our Coptic neighbors was impossible to me. I went to a friend who was involved in Islamic Jihad to ask him what the verse meant. He replied that even if we could not kill the Christians now, we were to harbor enmity against them in our hearts for their refusal to accept Muhammad. I could not accept his explanation and went to see a Sufi Imam. His response was simply that we were to love all people and leave the final judgement to God. This was a better answer, but it still seemed as if he were evading the actual text."
"One day I was pouring over the verse," Tawfik continued, "And I realized it was not addressed to Mushrikun in general (an indefinite noun), but to Al Mushrikun (a definite noun). The Quran was not addressing unbelievers in general, but a particular group of unbelievers."
When Rashid asked who the verse was referring to, Tawfik replied it was the Quraysh who had opposed Muhammad in Mecca. He then explained how he used that verse in his work, "If I am speaking to a young radical, I show him this verse and ask him why Allah was angry at those unbelievers. He will reply it was because they persecuted Muhammad and his followers. I will then remind him that at the time the Muslims were the minority, and God was displeased with the Quraysh for mistreating this minority. If you mistreat Christian or Jewish or Buddhist minorities today, God will similarly be angry with you. I turn the verse around, and use it to teach a lesson."
Rashid had a perplexed look on his face at Tawfik's explanation. "In the first place, Al Mushrikun is always used in the Quran to refer to unbelievers everywhere. If the text mentioned the Mushrikun of Quraysh, or the Mushrikun of a certain time, I could accept your interpretation, but it doesn't."
When Taufik defended his argument by quoting that Muhammad "was granted permission to fight those who persecuted him" (Quran 22:39), and that this was a reference to the Quraysh, Rashid noted this was only the first stage of Jihad. In the final stage, Muhammad was ordered to fight unbelievers everywhere "until Allah alone was worshipped" (Quran 2:193).
Rashid then noted that the verse saying Al Yahoud (the Jews) were the strongest enemies of the Muslims (Quran 5:82) was also a definite noun, but Muslims have always interpreted this to mean that Jews in general are enemies of Islam. "If Muhammad would have specified "the Jews of Medina", or "the Jews of Arabia", said Rashid, "I could agree with you. But the Quranic reference is to all Jews."
Taufik responded by repeating his assertion that this reference was only to the Jews of Medina during the time of Muhammad. "How can you hate and insult all the Jews," he asked, "When the Prophet Moses was a Jew, and many of the other prophets mentioned in the Quran were Jews?"
Rashid replied that official Islam excepted the Prophets in its condemnation of the Jews, and then added, "It seems to me that you are an anomaly, a lone wolf in your understanding of Islam. You do not represent official traditional Islam."
"That is true," Taufik responded, "And I am proud of that."
Rashid continued, "To understand how the Ulema have interpreted Islam's relationship to the Jews, we must take it in its historical context. In the beginning Muhammad had no hostility against Christians and Jews, and even sent some of his followers to Ethiopia which was a Christian nation. When Muhammad migrated to Medina he thought the Jews would accept his ideas. It was when he put pressure on them to accept him that the conflict began. At that time, the attitude of the Quran changed towards the Jews and the Christians. It is true there is a verse that says "preach to them nicely", but that verse was from the early Meccan period."
When Taufik countered there were also peaceful verses in the Medinan suras, Rashid replied this was in the first two years of Muhammad's time there, when he was still trying to persuade the Jews to accept him. It was only when they rejected him that he turned against them by changing the direction of prayer from Jerusalem to Mecca and the holy day from Saturday to Friday. "But you don't believe any of this," commented Rashid, "You refuse the Hadith and the Sira and the Tafsir and say there are no problems in anything the Quran says."
Taufik reiterated that he did not believe any of the Hadiths that went against his understanding of the Prophet, including Muhammad's marriage to Ayesha when she was nine years old, the benefits of drinking the Prophet's urine, and the need for a woman to nurse adult men if she wanted to be in the room with them.
"That goes against my logic," he said. "How can I believe it?"
"But what are the things you accept?" asked Rashid, "And what are the things that you reject?"
"What I believe in," replied Taufik, "Is freedom of belief. Because the punishment for Riddah is not in the Quran, I reject it completely. I reject stoning for adultery, because that is not in the Quran. I reject the description of Jews as "monkeys and pigs", because that reference was only directed to the Jews of one particular tribe. I reject the choice between accepting Islam or paying the Jizya tax, because the Quran says God does not like aggression. Killing homosexuals is not mentioned in the Quran and I reject it. I reject the idea that Muslims must fight the Jews before the Day of Judgement because that is not in the Quran."
"But Jald (whipping) is clearly mentioned in the Quran," said Rashid, "And so is the amputation of hands. Do you reject that as well?"
"There is another verse," countered Taufik, "That enjoins Muslims to follow the Uruf (Quran 7:199) (comment: English Qurans translate this word as "good", but the Arabic conveys the meaning of the common good or common law). The Uruf in our day is the Declaration of Human Rights and the Geneva Convention, and we want Muslims to follow this. Even the Caliph Umar suspended amputations for theft during the Year of Poverty, when many Muslims were suffering from hunger. Is anyone going to accuse Umar of Kufr (unbelief)? He did not follow the letter of the law at that time, but adapted the law to the situation."
"The Quran allows men to have four wives," said Rashid. "What is your position on that?"
"When God first created Adam," replied Taufik, "He told him to live with his wife, not wives, in Paradise (Quran 7:19). He created Adam and Eve, not Adam and several wives. For that reason we say God's plan is for men to live with one wife. But when Muhammad lived, polygamy was common. The situation is similar to a man who becomes a Christian in Africa today and has multiple wives. Is he to divorce them, when divorce is not allowed in Christianity? In the same way in Islamic history, there was a time when it was necessary to deal with the problem of polygamy, and Allah allowed men to have more than one wife."
"The example you gave of Africa is different," countered Rashid. "It is one thing for someone to become a Christian when he already has multiple wives, and quite another to tell a man he can marry four. Muhammad did not find men with multiple wives, as the missionaries did, but he told them they could marry four women."
"Let me use this example," replied Taufik, "To move into my third main point, which is to develop a new way of thinking. It is well known that women feel oppressed and mistreated when their husbands take additional wives. The Quran warns that God will severely punish those who oppress others (Quran 25:19). If a Muslim marries a second wife and his first wife feels oppressed, he is in danger of God's punishment. My opinion is that oppression and mistreatment is present in multiple marriages and God hates oppression, so polygamy is not good."
"What about the command to beat disobedient wives?" asked Rashid. "That is a clear command in the Quran (Quran 4:34)."
"First of all," replied Taufik, "There is another verse that commands husbands to treat their wives reasonably (Quran 2:231) (comment: since this is a verse telling husbands how to treat divorced wives, it seems to me Taufik is stretching a little). If the Quran has a general amicable approach for marital relations, the "beating" verse must have another meaning. If a man finds his wife in bed with another man, the Quran orders him not to beat her but to produce four witnesses (Quran 4:15) (comment: Taufik does not mention the second part of this verse, which is that the adulterous woman is to be sentenced to life imprisonment within her house). If a husband does not even have the right to beat a wife he finds in bed with another man, how could he beat her at any other time? I admit, the beating verse presents problems, but there are other ways to look at it."
"Let me be frank with you," asked Rashid. "Is the problem just with the way people interpret the text of the Quran, or is it with the Nuss itself? I am looking at Quran 4:34. It says clearly in classical Arabic, "Beat them."
Taufik repeated his earlier argument that if a man was not allowed to beat a wife in bed with another man, there must be another explanation to Quran 4:34. He suggested that since the verse referred to "women" and not specifically to "wives", it might mean that Muslims at the time of Muhammad were allowed to beat disobedient women in the society, but this did not refer to husbands and their wives.
"I agree with you," said Taufik. "If we take the texts literally there are problems. But we must reinterpret them in light of today. I encourage people to not take the text literally, to not think only in black or white, but to take a deeper approach. The problem in traditional Islam is that every situation is viewed from the perspective of whether it is Halal (allowed) or Haram (forbidden). With polygamy, for example, Muslims have traditionally not questioned it because according to the literal text it is Halal. A Muslim can look at a Christian or a Jew and conclude he is a Kafir bound for Jehenim (hell) based upon the text of the Quran. I want people to look at others from a different perspective."
"Are you trying," asked Rashid, "To establish a new Fiqh (system of Islamic law)? Traditional Fiqh in Islam was built upon a particular way of interpreting the texts. Do you want to do this again?"
Taufik replied he was not necessarily trying to do that, but wanted Muslims to look at their own religion and at non-Muslims in a new and different way.
"But who," asked Rashid, "Will lead this reformation of Islam? Is is you? Al Azhar University? The official organizations of Islam?"
"The leaders of a reformed Islam," replied Taufik, "Do not need to come from Al Azhar University. Although I don't agree with them, the fact is that the most influential Muslims of the past century, men such as Hasan al-Banna (founder of the Muslim Brotherhood) and Sayyid Qutb (a writer who has influenced violent Muslim organizations) did not come from Al Azhar. Current popular preacher Amr Khalid is not from Al Azhar."
"Do you believe," asked Rashid in the final moments of the interview, "That everything Muhammad did was right and he never made a mistake? Do you believe in Usmat Muhammad (the infallability of the Prophet)?"
Taufik replied that Muhammad at times needed to be corrected and guided by God, but that the Prophet always responded to the correction. The Prophet once turned away from a blind man to give his attention to a rich man (Quran 80), but received God's correct guidance and never repeated the same mistake. The Muslim world, he concluded, made a great mistake by concentrating on the externals of Muhammad's behavior such as how he brushed his teeth, washed his hands, or went to the bathroom.
Comments:
1. I believe that Dr. Taufik Hamid is between a rock and a hard place, and it's not just because his interpretation of Islam differs from that of Yusuf al-Qaradawi. Muhammad has a iron tight grip on Dr. Taufik. As a lifelong believer, he is intellectually incapable of leaving Muhammad behind as Rashid has done. On the other hand, as a upright and moral person, he is unable to accept the Muhammad of history. His solution is to create the Prophet he wishes had existed, the Islam he wants to believe in, and the Quran he wishes were true.
2. Because American policy makers are not themselves scholars of Islam, they rely on people such as Taufik Hamid to teach them about Islam. They rarely realize the extent to which the fanciful information given them differs from the reality of Islam as it exists throughout the world.
3. Taufik's exegesis of Arabic grammar leaves much to be desired. He bases his conclusion that Quran 9:4 refers not to unbelievers in general but only to the unbelievers of Muhammad's day on the fact that the Arabic uses the definite article Al Mushrikun. A grammatical rule of Arabic, however, is that definite nouns are regularly used to express indefinite meaning. To say in Arabic, "I don't like American foreign policy", one says "Ana la uhibb Al siyasah Al Amrikiyah Al Kharijiyah" which is literally "I don't like the American foreign policy." The definite noun is used to express an indefinite meaning.
The reality is that the Quran consistently uses the definite noun to deal with all classes of people. Believers are Al Mumineen, Christians are Al Nasarah, Jews are Al Yahoud, the people of the book (Jews and Christians together) are Ahl Al Kitab, infidels are Al Kuffar, and unbelievers are Al Mushrikun. For Dr. Taufik to argue that the definite article in Quran 9:4 means it refers only to the unbelievers in Mecca is not only bad grammar, but also nothing more than wishful thinking.
4. Dr. Taufik also stated that husbands were not allowed to beat adulterous wives, but commanded to produce four witnesses against them. Apart from the obvious ridiculousness of finding four eyewitnesses of adultery, unless she was sleeping with the entire hockey team, Dr. Taufik ignored the law of Sharia that a husband cannot be prosecuted for murdering a wife who has committed adultery. Taufik's response, of course, would be that even if the entire Muslim Ummah followed this ruling it would mean nothing to him unless he could find it in the Quran.
Professor Quintan Wiktorowicz, discussed here on NPR, is the new radicalization czar at the National Security Council, and his "broad tent" approach will certainly include moderate Muslims such as Tawfik Hamid who is the Chair for the Study of Islamic Radicalism at the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies. Tawfik recently gave this lecture at the Institute, and also appeared as a guest on the Arabic program Daring Question. His subject on both programs was his plan to deradicalize Muslims by presenting them with a new approach to the Quran. What caught my attention was that none of the attendees in the English lecture, even though they are educated and influential people, knew enough about Islam to counter anything presented by Tawfik. It was quite different in the interview with ex-Muslim Rashid, and I would like to concentrate on Rashid's comments. The material presented by Tawfik was basically the same in both lectures and readers can watch the English lecture to fully understand his perspective. I'll add a few comments at the end.
Rashid began the discussion by asking Tawfik to define moderate Islam. Tawfik said his definition was, "I love you; I don't hate you because you are different than me, and I leave the final judgement to God."
The next question was what it means to reform Islam. Tawfik responded that the relationship of a believer to his religion contains three basic elements. First is the Nuss, the sacred text, second is the Tafsir or interpretation of the text, and final is the thought process of the believer. A radicalized person can take even a peaceful text and reach a violent conclusion based upon his interpretation of that text and the way he thinks.
"We cannot change the original texts," said Tawfiq, "But we can change the way people interpret them by changing the way they think."
"Where does your role come in?" Rashid asked. "Do you begin with the text, or do you teach the radical to interpret the text and think in a new way?"
Tawfik replied that he began with the text itself. The Quran, he said, does not teach Hudud (capital punishment) for Riddah (leaving Islam), and no Ayah commands Rajam for Zina (stoning for adultery). On the contrary, it declares "there is no compulsion in religion" (Quran 2:256), and "whoever chooses can believe, and whoever chooses can disbelieve" (Quran 18:29). No one has the right, asserted Taufik, to deny anyone the freedom of belief that has been given them by God. By placing our priority on the Nuss of the Quran itself, rather than the Hadith and Sira (sayings and biography of Muhammad), we avoid many problems.
Does this mean, asked Rashid, that you are a Qurani, a "Quran-only Muslim"? (comment: I have discussed this group here). Tawfiq replied he did not follow their ideology because of the Quranic verse "those who listen to the Word and follow that which is good are guided by God and given understanding" (Quran 39:18).
"All truth is the Word," said Tawfik, "Even if it comes in the writings of a Buddhist. I accept what is good in any text. My only criterion is that it not contradict the Quran."
"Does that mean," asked Rashid, "That you accept the peaceful and tolerant Hadith that go along with the Quran, but refuse the violent ones that are not in line with the Quran?"
When Taufik said that was correct, Rashid continued, "Do you reject the saying of Muhammad, "If anyone leaves Islam, kill him."
"I absolutely reject that Hadith," replied Tawfik. "The Quran says that God did not choose to make all people Muslim, and you cannot force anyone to be a Muslim (Quran 10:99). That Hadith contradicts the plain teaching of the Quran."
"But the Ulama," replied Rashid, "Have determined that "if anyone changes his religion, kill him" is an authentic Hadith and its Sanad, or train of transmission, goes directly to Muhammad. It is something that Muhammad said. Even if the scholars agree this is true, do you still refuse it?"
"Of course," replied Tawfik. "I am not refusing anything the Prophet said, but I am suggesting that he did not really say it. There is always room for human error in the Sanad, and just because the scholars agree that Muhammad said something it does not necessarily make it true. The Quran tells us not to think that we are above mistakes (Quran 53:32). The Ulama are great scholars, but they can still make mistakes. I am not denying anything the Prophet actually said, and I am not even questioning the integrity of the Ulama. I am simply stating there is always room for human error."
"But the first Caliphs after Muhammad," countered Rashid, "Were the Sahaba, the companions of the Prophet. They were close to him and received his instructions. They practiced the Hudud for Riddah (capital punishment for leaving Islam). They certainly didn't make this up themselves. They knew that Muhammad said this Hadith, and they carried out his instructions. It sounds to me as if by refusing the Hadith you are saying that Caliph Abu Bakr did not understand, and neither did Caliphs Umar or Uthman or Ali. No one has understood for 1400 years except Dr. Tawfik Hamid!"
"No," replied Tawfik. "I look at it from another perspective. Those generations are gone, with their accomplishments and their mistakes. They have nothing to do with me. On Judgment Day, God is not going to ask me what so-and-so did many years ago. They were not perfect. The Quran says, "Muhammad is no more than a messenger, and there were many messengers before him. If Muhammad dies, will you turn away from him? (Quran 3:144). Who am I to say whether the Sahaba followed him correctly, or turned away from him to use Islam for political purposes? My methodology is to examine the text in front of me, and to understand it irregardless of its traditional and historical context. I set history aside and look at the text as if it were revealed to me just now."
"But that is exactly what the first Muslims did," replied Rashid, "They practiced the Quran as it was revealed to them, with the result that they enforced the punishments of Hudud (capital punishment) including Rajm (stoning)."
Realizing he was on shaky ground, Tawfik quickly shifted direction. "They weren't all the same," he said. "There were always people who disagreed. For example, the poet Muhyiddin Ibn Arabi (1165-1240) wrote,
My heart is capable of everything.
It is a pasture for gazelles, and a monastery for monks.
A temple for idols, and the Kabah of the pilgrim.
It holds the scrolls of the Torah, and the text of the Quran.
I follow the caravan of love, wherever it may take me.
Love is my faith and my religion."
"Dr. Hamid," said Rashid. "Ibn Arabi was rejected by the Muslim majority, who considered him a Sufi Kafir (Sufi unbeliever). Sufism is the result of Christian influence on Islam. When you study the Sufi books, you see the deep influence of Christianity. I am not talking about individuals outside the mainstream who were influenced by other ideologies. I am talking about Orthodox Islam. The first four Rightly Guided Caliphs were not ordinary people. They were the successors of the Prophet and they ruled in his name."
Tawfik simply repeated his earlier assertion that no Muslim could justify his actions before God on the Day of Judgment on the basis of what these Sahaba had done, because they were not perfect.
"Let's look at the verses you mentioned," said Rashid, "That say there is no compulsion in religion and everyone has the right to believe as they choose. The Ulama say these verses are Nasikh wal Mansoukh (abrogated). They were revealed in the early Medinan period, soon after Muhammad arrived from Mecca and before he instituted Jihad. Some of these verses were given for extenuating circumstances. For example, Quranic Mufassir (commentator) Ibn Kathir gives the historical context for the phrase "there is no compulsion in religion." The Arab women of Medina had a high infant mortality rate, and would sometimes give their infants to the Jewish woman to raise (comment: The Jewish tribes of Medina followed the dietary and sanitary laws of the Torah and as a result were more healthy than their Arab neighbors). When the Jews of Medina refused to accept Muhammad as a Prophet, he exiled them from the city. The Arab women wanted to bring their children back but Muhammad refused saying, "There is no compulsion in religion; you cannot force your children to return." (comment: rather than being a verse of tolerance, this phrase resulted in the disruption of families). That verse was revealed for a specific situation, but the general rule was to kill those who left Islam."
Dr. Tawfik suddenly looked like a deer caught in the headlights, and it was apparent he did not know the context of the very verse he was quoting. "If you say that verse was revealed for an extenuating circumstance," he said. "You can say the same about the verses of violence. They were also given for specific situations, and are not applicable today."
"Just as others have the right to interpret the Quran as they choose," continued Tawfik, "I have that same right. The Quran testifies that if it were not from God, it would contain many contradictions (Quran 4:82). When there are differences in interpretation we must return to the original text to remove the contradictions. The text does this by saying "there is no compulsion in religion".
"I also do not believe in the principle of Nasikh wal Mansoukh (aprogation)," said Tawfik. "First of all, the Quran says that the Word that comes from God cannot be changed (Quran 50:29). Secondly, the traditionalists say the fighting verses of Medina cancelled out the peaceful verses from Mecca. But the famous phrase "kill the unbelievers wherever you find them" (Quran 9:4) is followed by the verse "if any of the unbelivers ask you for protection, grant it to them so they may hear the Word of God" (Quran 9:6). If the verses of mercy were cancelled out, why would a verse offering mercy immediately follow Quran 9:4? Even the Medinan suras contain messages of mercy."
"The problem," replied Rashid, "Is that the Quran is not arranged chronologically. The fact that verse 6 follows verse 4 in the text does not necessarily mean they were both revealed at the same time."
When Tawfiq repeated his earlier assertion that he was only concerned with the words of the text and not its historical context, Rashid replied that the trajectory of the entire Quran moved from from the peaceful to the violent. In Mecca, Muhammad tried to gain converts by "preaching that which is better" (Quran 16:125). When he went to Medina he began to fight the Quraysh of Mecca, and by the end of the Quran he was preparing to attack neighbouring countries. The violence followed a pattern of escalation.
"If that were true," replied Tawfik. "Muhammad would have slaughtered the citizens of Mecca when he returned ten years after leaving. Instead it was a peaceful conquest."
"It was not a peaceful return," replied Rashid. "There are many Hadiths that speak of Muhammad's return to Mecca. He was determined to kill his enemies there, and he ordered they be seized even if they were clinging to the Kabah. Why would he kill all the people? He had an army surrounding Mecca of 10,000 soldiers. As soon as he killed the leaders, the city was his."
"The problem," continued Rashid. "Is that Muslim scholars who look at Islam from a historical perspective have evidence for their positions. They have the Hadith and the Sira. You come with just your opinion, and there is nothing historically to support you."
Tawfik responded that those scholars were not always in agreement with each other, and repeated his earlier assertion that if the verses of the Quran were all placed side by side, without bringing in extraneous texts, they would present a peaceful message. He then continued with his reasons for not believing abrogation.
"One of the justifications for the principle of abrogation," he said, "Is the verse that reads "Whenever we Nasikh (abrogate) a verse, we bring a better one (Quran 2:106). The word Nasikh has two meanings in the Quran. One is to erase, or abrogate. The Quran uses this meaning when it says, "Whenever we give a message to a Messenger, Satan comes and tries to Nasikh (remove) it (Quran 22:52)."
"But there is another definition of Nasikh in the Quran," continued Tawfik, "That means to confirm. The Quran says that on the Day of Judgment the angels will open the books on which they have written down, or confirmed, all our good deeds (Quran 45:29). The verb "to write down" is from the same root as Nasikh.
"If we think of Nasikh as confirmation and not abrogation," said Tawfik. "And apply that to Quran 2:106, it means that the message God gave to Muhammad was a confirmation of earlier messages God gave to Moses and Jesus and all the other Prophets. It is not speaking of abrogating Muhammad's peaceful revelations, but confirming all that was said by the previous Prophets."
"I can appreciate this Tafsir (explanation)," replied Rashid. "But the problem is that you are simply expressing your own opinion. You have nothing to support your exigesis. If we look at Islamic history and all its texts, whether in the Sira or Tafsir or Hadith, we find them in agreement on the principle of Nasikh as abrogation.
"Let's look at alcohol," continued Rashid. "In the beginning Muslims were allowed to drink but commanded to not perform Salat (the prayers) when they were drunk (Quran 4:43). The scholars have explained that Muslims were coming to the Mosque so drunk that when they tried to recite the verse, I do not worship what the unbelievers worship, and they do not worship what I worship (Quran 109:2,3), they got the words all turned around. For that reason the verse was revealed they were not to pray if they were drunk. In a later revelation, Muhammad stated that alcohol was a work of Satan and was to be avoided altogether (Quran 5:90), and this has been applied throughout Muslim history. No scholar would argue today that a Muslim can drink as long as he does not come to the mosque drunk, because that verse was abrogated by the later one forbidding alcohol. The principle of abrogation is an essential part of Muslim theology."
"I completely agree with you, said Tawfik, "That this is the traditional approach. Any child who reads the Hadith and the Sira and the Tafsir will find the principle of Nasikh wal Mansoukh. But even in the verses you mentioned I find a ray of hope. For example, the first verse you quoted said that believers were not to say their prayers when they were intoxicated. Not only alcohol, but some medications and even a lack of sleep can give one a sense of intoxication. So the verse might not have been referring to drinking alcohol, but the intoxication that can result from other things."
Tawfik quickly responded to the look of incredulity he saw come across Rashid's face. "I don't disagree with you," Tawfik said, "Muslim scholars have always looked at that verse in reference to people coming to the Mosque drunk. I'm just saying there could be another way to look at it."
"Dr. Tawfik," responded Rashid, "You are making things up. You are trying to make the text say what you want it to say. Scholars throughout history have made a connection between the revelations given in the Quran and the Sabab al-Nazoul (reasons they were revealed). Do you believe in the Sabab al-Nazoul?"
"No, I don't," replied Tawfik.
Rashid was astonished, "So you want to completely strip the Quran from its historical and cultural context," he asked, "And give it a 21st century meaning as if it were revealed today!"
"I am talking about the meaning of the Quran," Tawfik replied, "I agree with you that Ibn Arabi was persecuted as a Sufi, but his poetry reflects the meaning of the Quran. That is why I said in the beginning I do not rely on the Nuss only, but on a new Tafsir (interpretation) of the Quran."
With this segue Tawfik introduced his second element of deradicalization, a new way of interpreting the Quran, by telling a story from his younger days in Cairo. "I was reading the Quran," he said, "And I came to the verse, "Kill Al Mushrikun (the non-believers) wherever you find them" (Quran 9:5). The verse startled me. Even the thought of harming our Coptic neighbors was impossible to me. I went to a friend who was involved in Islamic Jihad to ask him what the verse meant. He replied that even if we could not kill the Christians now, we were to harbor enmity against them in our hearts for their refusal to accept Muhammad. I could not accept his explanation and went to see a Sufi Imam. His response was simply that we were to love all people and leave the final judgement to God. This was a better answer, but it still seemed as if he were evading the actual text."
"One day I was pouring over the verse," Tawfik continued, "And I realized it was not addressed to Mushrikun in general (an indefinite noun), but to Al Mushrikun (a definite noun). The Quran was not addressing unbelievers in general, but a particular group of unbelievers."
When Rashid asked who the verse was referring to, Tawfik replied it was the Quraysh who had opposed Muhammad in Mecca. He then explained how he used that verse in his work, "If I am speaking to a young radical, I show him this verse and ask him why Allah was angry at those unbelievers. He will reply it was because they persecuted Muhammad and his followers. I will then remind him that at the time the Muslims were the minority, and God was displeased with the Quraysh for mistreating this minority. If you mistreat Christian or Jewish or Buddhist minorities today, God will similarly be angry with you. I turn the verse around, and use it to teach a lesson."
Rashid had a perplexed look on his face at Tawfik's explanation. "In the first place, Al Mushrikun is always used in the Quran to refer to unbelievers everywhere. If the text mentioned the Mushrikun of Quraysh, or the Mushrikun of a certain time, I could accept your interpretation, but it doesn't."
When Taufik defended his argument by quoting that Muhammad "was granted permission to fight those who persecuted him" (Quran 22:39), and that this was a reference to the Quraysh, Rashid noted this was only the first stage of Jihad. In the final stage, Muhammad was ordered to fight unbelievers everywhere "until Allah alone was worshipped" (Quran 2:193).
Rashid then noted that the verse saying Al Yahoud (the Jews) were the strongest enemies of the Muslims (Quran 5:82) was also a definite noun, but Muslims have always interpreted this to mean that Jews in general are enemies of Islam. "If Muhammad would have specified "the Jews of Medina", or "the Jews of Arabia", said Rashid, "I could agree with you. But the Quranic reference is to all Jews."
Taufik responded by repeating his assertion that this reference was only to the Jews of Medina during the time of Muhammad. "How can you hate and insult all the Jews," he asked, "When the Prophet Moses was a Jew, and many of the other prophets mentioned in the Quran were Jews?"
Rashid replied that official Islam excepted the Prophets in its condemnation of the Jews, and then added, "It seems to me that you are an anomaly, a lone wolf in your understanding of Islam. You do not represent official traditional Islam."
"That is true," Taufik responded, "And I am proud of that."
Rashid continued, "To understand how the Ulema have interpreted Islam's relationship to the Jews, we must take it in its historical context. In the beginning Muhammad had no hostility against Christians and Jews, and even sent some of his followers to Ethiopia which was a Christian nation. When Muhammad migrated to Medina he thought the Jews would accept his ideas. It was when he put pressure on them to accept him that the conflict began. At that time, the attitude of the Quran changed towards the Jews and the Christians. It is true there is a verse that says "preach to them nicely", but that verse was from the early Meccan period."
When Taufik countered there were also peaceful verses in the Medinan suras, Rashid replied this was in the first two years of Muhammad's time there, when he was still trying to persuade the Jews to accept him. It was only when they rejected him that he turned against them by changing the direction of prayer from Jerusalem to Mecca and the holy day from Saturday to Friday. "But you don't believe any of this," commented Rashid, "You refuse the Hadith and the Sira and the Tafsir and say there are no problems in anything the Quran says."
Taufik reiterated that he did not believe any of the Hadiths that went against his understanding of the Prophet, including Muhammad's marriage to Ayesha when she was nine years old, the benefits of drinking the Prophet's urine, and the need for a woman to nurse adult men if she wanted to be in the room with them.
"That goes against my logic," he said. "How can I believe it?"
"But what are the things you accept?" asked Rashid, "And what are the things that you reject?"
"What I believe in," replied Taufik, "Is freedom of belief. Because the punishment for Riddah is not in the Quran, I reject it completely. I reject stoning for adultery, because that is not in the Quran. I reject the description of Jews as "monkeys and pigs", because that reference was only directed to the Jews of one particular tribe. I reject the choice between accepting Islam or paying the Jizya tax, because the Quran says God does not like aggression. Killing homosexuals is not mentioned in the Quran and I reject it. I reject the idea that Muslims must fight the Jews before the Day of Judgement because that is not in the Quran."
"But Jald (whipping) is clearly mentioned in the Quran," said Rashid, "And so is the amputation of hands. Do you reject that as well?"
"There is another verse," countered Taufik, "That enjoins Muslims to follow the Uruf (Quran 7:199) (comment: English Qurans translate this word as "good", but the Arabic conveys the meaning of the common good or common law). The Uruf in our day is the Declaration of Human Rights and the Geneva Convention, and we want Muslims to follow this. Even the Caliph Umar suspended amputations for theft during the Year of Poverty, when many Muslims were suffering from hunger. Is anyone going to accuse Umar of Kufr (unbelief)? He did not follow the letter of the law at that time, but adapted the law to the situation."
"The Quran allows men to have four wives," said Rashid. "What is your position on that?"
"When God first created Adam," replied Taufik, "He told him to live with his wife, not wives, in Paradise (Quran 7:19). He created Adam and Eve, not Adam and several wives. For that reason we say God's plan is for men to live with one wife. But when Muhammad lived, polygamy was common. The situation is similar to a man who becomes a Christian in Africa today and has multiple wives. Is he to divorce them, when divorce is not allowed in Christianity? In the same way in Islamic history, there was a time when it was necessary to deal with the problem of polygamy, and Allah allowed men to have more than one wife."
"The example you gave of Africa is different," countered Rashid. "It is one thing for someone to become a Christian when he already has multiple wives, and quite another to tell a man he can marry four. Muhammad did not find men with multiple wives, as the missionaries did, but he told them they could marry four women."
"Let me use this example," replied Taufik, "To move into my third main point, which is to develop a new way of thinking. It is well known that women feel oppressed and mistreated when their husbands take additional wives. The Quran warns that God will severely punish those who oppress others (Quran 25:19). If a Muslim marries a second wife and his first wife feels oppressed, he is in danger of God's punishment. My opinion is that oppression and mistreatment is present in multiple marriages and God hates oppression, so polygamy is not good."
"What about the command to beat disobedient wives?" asked Rashid. "That is a clear command in the Quran (Quran 4:34)."
"First of all," replied Taufik, "There is another verse that commands husbands to treat their wives reasonably (Quran 2:231) (comment: since this is a verse telling husbands how to treat divorced wives, it seems to me Taufik is stretching a little). If the Quran has a general amicable approach for marital relations, the "beating" verse must have another meaning. If a man finds his wife in bed with another man, the Quran orders him not to beat her but to produce four witnesses (Quran 4:15) (comment: Taufik does not mention the second part of this verse, which is that the adulterous woman is to be sentenced to life imprisonment within her house). If a husband does not even have the right to beat a wife he finds in bed with another man, how could he beat her at any other time? I admit, the beating verse presents problems, but there are other ways to look at it."
"Let me be frank with you," asked Rashid. "Is the problem just with the way people interpret the text of the Quran, or is it with the Nuss itself? I am looking at Quran 4:34. It says clearly in classical Arabic, "Beat them."
Taufik repeated his earlier argument that if a man was not allowed to beat a wife in bed with another man, there must be another explanation to Quran 4:34. He suggested that since the verse referred to "women" and not specifically to "wives", it might mean that Muslims at the time of Muhammad were allowed to beat disobedient women in the society, but this did not refer to husbands and their wives.
"I agree with you," said Taufik. "If we take the texts literally there are problems. But we must reinterpret them in light of today. I encourage people to not take the text literally, to not think only in black or white, but to take a deeper approach. The problem in traditional Islam is that every situation is viewed from the perspective of whether it is Halal (allowed) or Haram (forbidden). With polygamy, for example, Muslims have traditionally not questioned it because according to the literal text it is Halal. A Muslim can look at a Christian or a Jew and conclude he is a Kafir bound for Jehenim (hell) based upon the text of the Quran. I want people to look at others from a different perspective."
"Are you trying," asked Rashid, "To establish a new Fiqh (system of Islamic law)? Traditional Fiqh in Islam was built upon a particular way of interpreting the texts. Do you want to do this again?"
Taufik replied he was not necessarily trying to do that, but wanted Muslims to look at their own religion and at non-Muslims in a new and different way.
"But who," asked Rashid, "Will lead this reformation of Islam? Is is you? Al Azhar University? The official organizations of Islam?"
"The leaders of a reformed Islam," replied Taufik, "Do not need to come from Al Azhar University. Although I don't agree with them, the fact is that the most influential Muslims of the past century, men such as Hasan al-Banna (founder of the Muslim Brotherhood) and Sayyid Qutb (a writer who has influenced violent Muslim organizations) did not come from Al Azhar. Current popular preacher Amr Khalid is not from Al Azhar."
"Do you believe," asked Rashid in the final moments of the interview, "That everything Muhammad did was right and he never made a mistake? Do you believe in Usmat Muhammad (the infallability of the Prophet)?"
Taufik replied that Muhammad at times needed to be corrected and guided by God, but that the Prophet always responded to the correction. The Prophet once turned away from a blind man to give his attention to a rich man (Quran 80), but received God's correct guidance and never repeated the same mistake. The Muslim world, he concluded, made a great mistake by concentrating on the externals of Muhammad's behavior such as how he brushed his teeth, washed his hands, or went to the bathroom.
Comments:
1. I believe that Dr. Taufik Hamid is between a rock and a hard place, and it's not just because his interpretation of Islam differs from that of Yusuf al-Qaradawi. Muhammad has a iron tight grip on Dr. Taufik. As a lifelong believer, he is intellectually incapable of leaving Muhammad behind as Rashid has done. On the other hand, as a upright and moral person, he is unable to accept the Muhammad of history. His solution is to create the Prophet he wishes had existed, the Islam he wants to believe in, and the Quran he wishes were true.
2. Because American policy makers are not themselves scholars of Islam, they rely on people such as Taufik Hamid to teach them about Islam. They rarely realize the extent to which the fanciful information given them differs from the reality of Islam as it exists throughout the world.
3. Taufik's exegesis of Arabic grammar leaves much to be desired. He bases his conclusion that Quran 9:4 refers not to unbelievers in general but only to the unbelievers of Muhammad's day on the fact that the Arabic uses the definite article Al Mushrikun. A grammatical rule of Arabic, however, is that definite nouns are regularly used to express indefinite meaning. To say in Arabic, "I don't like American foreign policy", one says "Ana la uhibb Al siyasah Al Amrikiyah Al Kharijiyah" which is literally "I don't like the American foreign policy." The definite noun is used to express an indefinite meaning.
The reality is that the Quran consistently uses the definite noun to deal with all classes of people. Believers are Al Mumineen, Christians are Al Nasarah, Jews are Al Yahoud, the people of the book (Jews and Christians together) are Ahl Al Kitab, infidels are Al Kuffar, and unbelievers are Al Mushrikun. For Dr. Taufik to argue that the definite article in Quran 9:4 means it refers only to the unbelievers in Mecca is not only bad grammar, but also nothing more than wishful thinking.
4. Dr. Taufik also stated that husbands were not allowed to beat adulterous wives, but commanded to produce four witnesses against them. Apart from the obvious ridiculousness of finding four eyewitnesses of adultery, unless she was sleeping with the entire hockey team, Dr. Taufik ignored the law of Sharia that a husband cannot be prosecuted for murdering a wife who has committed adultery. Taufik's response, of course, would be that even if the entire Muslim Ummah followed this ruling it would mean nothing to him unless he could find it in the Quran.
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Yusuf Qaradawi: Muslims Protect Muslims
Repercussions of the relationship between President Bill Clinton and a young woman named Monica Lewinsky in 1998 occupied the media and paralyzed America's political system for an entire year. Some commentators noted that if an European Head of State had done what President Clinton did, it would hardly have raised a yawn. Less noted was that if it had happened in an Arab or Muslim country, it would not have even seen the light of day. This is not just because Arab rulers control the media, which they do, but because of an important Muslim principle little understood in the West in which Muslims are commanded to conceal - not reveal - shameful or embarrassing deeds committed by themselves or other Muslims.
Dr. Yusuf al-Qaradawi explained the doctrine of Sitr in this recent Al Jazeera TV interview. The word itself is related to the Arabic word for a curtain or a veil, and carries the meaning of drawing a blind over something that is not to be revealed. I would like to summarize what Dr. Qaradawi said, and then add a few comments.
Moderator Uthman opened the interview with a quote from sura Nur. After Muhammad ruled that a woman could not be convicted of sexual immorality without four witnesses, the Prophet chastised the men who had raised the accusations against her. "Why did you speak about something when you should have kept quiet?" he asked. "Allah forbids you from doing this, and warns you not to do it again. Those who spread allegations of sexual misconduct among the Muslims will suffer a painful torment both in this world and in the Hereafter." (Quran 24:16-19).
What is the importance of Muslims practicing Sitr to protect other Muslims, asked Uthman. And how is this related to Aurah, or shame?
Dr. Qaradawi noted that Aurah is the common Arabic word for both the male and female genital organs. Just as these genital organs are covered, there are actions and deeds that also need to remain protected and covered. The Aurah are not limited to our physical bodies, but there are also social Aurah. People often do things of which they are embarrassed and ashamed, things they want to conceal from others. Each individual has his or her own weaknesses, things they do not want others to know. These are all Aurat (the plural of Aurah) that are to be protected. A man might hit someone in rage, for example, or engage in a sexual digression, or get drunk. He would be ashamed if others found out about his action. For this reason the Prophet said in an authentic Hadith, "The Muslim who protects another Muslim will himself be protected by Allah." The Hadith says that Allah is both a Protector and a Lover of Modesty. That means that Allah not only protects the Believers, but also wants them to protect each other. If a man falls into a transgression, he is not to be publicly exposed. Exposure only comes if he blatantly and flagrantly continues in the wrongdoing; then he must be punished.
This is true for all Muslim relationships. A Muslim is not to broadcast the sins of his neighbor, and a Muslim wife is not to make known the faults of her husband. They are instead to give the transgressor time to repent and seek forgiveness from Allah.
But what if the relationship has gone bad? asked the moderator. Can ex spouses badmouth each other after divorce, or neighbors criticize each other publicly after their friendship has come to an end?
Dr. Qaradawi replied that the principle of Sitr still applied. The neighbor should remember the good times they had together, and the divorced spouse should do the same. The Quran reminds Muslims in sura Baqarah to be generous to the wives they divorce (Quran 2:237).
Children should be taught from their youth that some things are to be kept private and not disclosed to others, continued Dr. Qaradawi. When the young Joseph dreamed that even the moon and the stars bowed down to him, his father Jacob warned him not to tell the dream to his brothers because they might plot against him in jealousy (Quran 12:5). (comment: the Biblical rendition of this same story in Genesis 37 does not contain this warning).
In a seeming reference to a parable of Jesus in Matthew 7, Dr. Qaradawi noted that some people were quick to notice a small speck of dust in their neighbor's eye, but oblivious to the log in their own eye. Similarly, he added, some people were more than willing to spread the word if a friend or neighbor committed sexual immorality, got drunk, or did something else shameful. The principle of Sitr requires that such behavior, whether committed by you or someone else, remains forever hidden behind the veil.
Comments:
1. At first blush, the principle of Sitr seems admirable. We in America live in a society that has perhaps gone overboard in the other direction. Just walk through the supermarket checkout line and see the tabloids, or listen to the TV political talk shows. Every real or imagined faux pas of politicians, athletes, and celebrities is broadcast for the world to see.
2. But I'm not so sure. Keeping secrets and shame locked behind closed doors is not always healthy. Many visitors to Muslim countries have noted that one striking difference is that here in America we do not keep children with mental or physical disabilities locked up at home. Walk through a mall in the Gulf and see how few families bring these children out with them. I still remember my conversation with a blind young man from Jordan who came to America as a teenager, learned English, and when I met him was about to graduate from an American University. Had he stayed in Jordan, he told me, he would probably still be a beggar on the street.
3. Law enforcement officers in the United States have noted that sometimes - not always, but sometimes - Muslims are reluctant to inform them about friends, family members, and neighbors who express radical tendencies and sentiments. I doubt if many of these officers have taken the time to inquire whether the principle of Sitr might have anything to do with the silence.
Dr. Yusuf al-Qaradawi explained the doctrine of Sitr in this recent Al Jazeera TV interview. The word itself is related to the Arabic word for a curtain or a veil, and carries the meaning of drawing a blind over something that is not to be revealed. I would like to summarize what Dr. Qaradawi said, and then add a few comments.
Moderator Uthman opened the interview with a quote from sura Nur. After Muhammad ruled that a woman could not be convicted of sexual immorality without four witnesses, the Prophet chastised the men who had raised the accusations against her. "Why did you speak about something when you should have kept quiet?" he asked. "Allah forbids you from doing this, and warns you not to do it again. Those who spread allegations of sexual misconduct among the Muslims will suffer a painful torment both in this world and in the Hereafter." (Quran 24:16-19).
What is the importance of Muslims practicing Sitr to protect other Muslims, asked Uthman. And how is this related to Aurah, or shame?
Dr. Qaradawi noted that Aurah is the common Arabic word for both the male and female genital organs. Just as these genital organs are covered, there are actions and deeds that also need to remain protected and covered. The Aurah are not limited to our physical bodies, but there are also social Aurah. People often do things of which they are embarrassed and ashamed, things they want to conceal from others. Each individual has his or her own weaknesses, things they do not want others to know. These are all Aurat (the plural of Aurah) that are to be protected. A man might hit someone in rage, for example, or engage in a sexual digression, or get drunk. He would be ashamed if others found out about his action. For this reason the Prophet said in an authentic Hadith, "The Muslim who protects another Muslim will himself be protected by Allah." The Hadith says that Allah is both a Protector and a Lover of Modesty. That means that Allah not only protects the Believers, but also wants them to protect each other. If a man falls into a transgression, he is not to be publicly exposed. Exposure only comes if he blatantly and flagrantly continues in the wrongdoing; then he must be punished.
This is true for all Muslim relationships. A Muslim is not to broadcast the sins of his neighbor, and a Muslim wife is not to make known the faults of her husband. They are instead to give the transgressor time to repent and seek forgiveness from Allah.
But what if the relationship has gone bad? asked the moderator. Can ex spouses badmouth each other after divorce, or neighbors criticize each other publicly after their friendship has come to an end?
Dr. Qaradawi replied that the principle of Sitr still applied. The neighbor should remember the good times they had together, and the divorced spouse should do the same. The Quran reminds Muslims in sura Baqarah to be generous to the wives they divorce (Quran 2:237).
Children should be taught from their youth that some things are to be kept private and not disclosed to others, continued Dr. Qaradawi. When the young Joseph dreamed that even the moon and the stars bowed down to him, his father Jacob warned him not to tell the dream to his brothers because they might plot against him in jealousy (Quran 12:5). (comment: the Biblical rendition of this same story in Genesis 37 does not contain this warning).
In a seeming reference to a parable of Jesus in Matthew 7, Dr. Qaradawi noted that some people were quick to notice a small speck of dust in their neighbor's eye, but oblivious to the log in their own eye. Similarly, he added, some people were more than willing to spread the word if a friend or neighbor committed sexual immorality, got drunk, or did something else shameful. The principle of Sitr requires that such behavior, whether committed by you or someone else, remains forever hidden behind the veil.
Comments:
1. At first blush, the principle of Sitr seems admirable. We in America live in a society that has perhaps gone overboard in the other direction. Just walk through the supermarket checkout line and see the tabloids, or listen to the TV political talk shows. Every real or imagined faux pas of politicians, athletes, and celebrities is broadcast for the world to see.
2. But I'm not so sure. Keeping secrets and shame locked behind closed doors is not always healthy. Many visitors to Muslim countries have noted that one striking difference is that here in America we do not keep children with mental or physical disabilities locked up at home. Walk through a mall in the Gulf and see how few families bring these children out with them. I still remember my conversation with a blind young man from Jordan who came to America as a teenager, learned English, and when I met him was about to graduate from an American University. Had he stayed in Jordan, he told me, he would probably still be a beggar on the street.
3. Law enforcement officers in the United States have noted that sometimes - not always, but sometimes - Muslims are reluctant to inform them about friends, family members, and neighbors who express radical tendencies and sentiments. I doubt if many of these officers have taken the time to inquire whether the principle of Sitr might have anything to do with the silence.
What I Believe
After I posted my interest in having Muslims consider the possibility that Muhammad was not a Prophet of God and the Quran not a book from God, a reader responded, "If you wouldn't mind, providing your readers the courtesy of describing why you - as a Lutheran, no? - believe Jesus is the Son of God and the Bible is the Word of God would be most appreciated."
It is common for Muslims to respond with a question to a question. Ask a Muslim about Muhammad, and he'll ask you about Moses. Raise a question about amputated hands flying in the Quran, and she will inquire about stones hurled in Leviticus.
But this was different. It was an honest question that deserves a serious answer. What do I believe, and why?
Before I get into it, let me present a few alibis. First of all I'm a Lutheran because, as I describe here, I made a spur-of-the-moment turn off the highway last year. The label of the church that attracted me was merely incidental (and what Martin Luther wrote about the Jews in his later years was, in my opinion, indicative of a person who had become mentally unstable).
Secondly, have you noticed how much easier it is for people to talk about what they don't believe than what they do? People proudly describe themselves as agnostics, or doubters, or atheists. Ask them what they do believe, rather than proclaiming what they don't, and you get an glazed stare.
One more thing. In religion, as in politics, it is imperative to define the terms you are talking about. What does the reader mean when she uses the terms "word of God" and "son of God"? If she is thinking Islamically, she means that God dictated words to Biblical writers who wrote them down as Muhammad recited verbatim the messages given him from Allah via Gabriel. She also means that a human, Jesus, somehow became God and Christians call this man-god the son of God.
Back to what I believe about the Bible and Jesus. I believe the Bible is a unique book that conveys two powerful messages: the presence and the purpose of God. God is present with us, and our lives have purpose. We are not alone, and the things we do as well as what happens to us is not meaningless.
Tell me about Noah's drunkenness, Lot's incest, Moses' murder, David's adultery, Samson cavorting with prostitutes, Joshua's plundering, Ezra forcing men to divorce their wives because they did not belong to the right tribe - and these were the good guys! - and my response is, "Yes, that's who people are and what people do. And the incredible message of the Bible is that God uses people like this to accomplish his purposes." People who, in spite of their weaknesses, want to live close to him. People like Martin Luther, and you and me.
So what do I believe about Jesus? Well, I do believe that for the only time in history a young virgin became pregnant without the input of male sperm. God himself impregnated her, and just as my sons carry characteristics of me Jesus carried the supernatural characteristics of his father. God expressed himself uniquely in human form (which is quite different than a man becoming God, and is also quite different than describing someone such as Gandhi, Martin Luther King, or Nelson Mandela as being godlike).
I also think that Jesus died and physically came back from the dead, and that somehow his death means that my shortcomings, sins, and failures are forgiven. The most important moment of my week is when the pastor says every Sunday morning, "You are forgiven of all your sins."
Why can't God just forgive sins? Why did he require the blood of a human sacrifice? I don't know, but I believe there was a necessary link between the death of Jesus and the pardon of my trespasses.
I believe one more thing. I think the Golden Rule is really important, but it is a lot harder to do consistently than people imagine and we often get it wrong. It's not just to treat other people the way you want them to treat you, it is to treat them as they want to be treated. When my housekeeper cleans my house, the Golden Rule is not for me to treat her the way I want her to treat me. I want her to clean thoroughly and not steal my valuables, but that's not the point. What is important is that I treat her with the respect and honor that she deserves as a human being, including not trying to get as much from her for as little money as possible.
Well, there you are. In a nutshell, that's what I believe.
It is common for Muslims to respond with a question to a question. Ask a Muslim about Muhammad, and he'll ask you about Moses. Raise a question about amputated hands flying in the Quran, and she will inquire about stones hurled in Leviticus.
But this was different. It was an honest question that deserves a serious answer. What do I believe, and why?
Before I get into it, let me present a few alibis. First of all I'm a Lutheran because, as I describe here, I made a spur-of-the-moment turn off the highway last year. The label of the church that attracted me was merely incidental (and what Martin Luther wrote about the Jews in his later years was, in my opinion, indicative of a person who had become mentally unstable).
Secondly, have you noticed how much easier it is for people to talk about what they don't believe than what they do? People proudly describe themselves as agnostics, or doubters, or atheists. Ask them what they do believe, rather than proclaiming what they don't, and you get an glazed stare.
One more thing. In religion, as in politics, it is imperative to define the terms you are talking about. What does the reader mean when she uses the terms "word of God" and "son of God"? If she is thinking Islamically, she means that God dictated words to Biblical writers who wrote them down as Muhammad recited verbatim the messages given him from Allah via Gabriel. She also means that a human, Jesus, somehow became God and Christians call this man-god the son of God.
Back to what I believe about the Bible and Jesus. I believe the Bible is a unique book that conveys two powerful messages: the presence and the purpose of God. God is present with us, and our lives have purpose. We are not alone, and the things we do as well as what happens to us is not meaningless.
Tell me about Noah's drunkenness, Lot's incest, Moses' murder, David's adultery, Samson cavorting with prostitutes, Joshua's plundering, Ezra forcing men to divorce their wives because they did not belong to the right tribe - and these were the good guys! - and my response is, "Yes, that's who people are and what people do. And the incredible message of the Bible is that God uses people like this to accomplish his purposes." People who, in spite of their weaknesses, want to live close to him. People like Martin Luther, and you and me.
So what do I believe about Jesus? Well, I do believe that for the only time in history a young virgin became pregnant without the input of male sperm. God himself impregnated her, and just as my sons carry characteristics of me Jesus carried the supernatural characteristics of his father. God expressed himself uniquely in human form (which is quite different than a man becoming God, and is also quite different than describing someone such as Gandhi, Martin Luther King, or Nelson Mandela as being godlike).
I also think that Jesus died and physically came back from the dead, and that somehow his death means that my shortcomings, sins, and failures are forgiven. The most important moment of my week is when the pastor says every Sunday morning, "You are forgiven of all your sins."
Why can't God just forgive sins? Why did he require the blood of a human sacrifice? I don't know, but I believe there was a necessary link between the death of Jesus and the pardon of my trespasses.
I believe one more thing. I think the Golden Rule is really important, but it is a lot harder to do consistently than people imagine and we often get it wrong. It's not just to treat other people the way you want them to treat you, it is to treat them as they want to be treated. When my housekeeper cleans my house, the Golden Rule is not for me to treat her the way I want her to treat me. I want her to clean thoroughly and not steal my valuables, but that's not the point. What is important is that I treat her with the respect and honor that she deserves as a human being, including not trying to get as much from her for as little money as possible.
Well, there you are. In a nutshell, that's what I believe.
Saturday, January 22, 2011
Yusuf Qaradawi and Applying Sharia Law
What exactly is Sharia anyhow? What do Muslims mean when they talk about applying Sharia today? Does a Shaykh addressing an Arabic-speaking audience explain it differently than a Muslim apologist talking to Americans? If so, does that matter?
Dr. Yusuf al-Qaradawi recently devoted an entire interview on Al Jazeera TV to this important subject. I would like to summarize what Dr. Qaradawi said, and then add a few comments. For those looking for a quick thirty-second read, I apologize. Dr. Qaradawi is a significant scholar in the Sunni Muslim world, and I want to accurately present what he said and believes.
Moderator Uthman began by quoting from the sura Talaq (Divorce), "These are the Hudud, the set limits of Allah, and anyone who transgresses them harms himself (Quran 65:1). He then posed his first set of questions. Why are people today calling for the application of Sharia? What does that mean? Are the corporal and capital punishments in Sharia relevant today? Can Sharia be applied in Western countries?
For 13 centuries, Dr. Qaradawi responded, Muslims were ruled only by Sharia which can be defined as the judgements of Allah and his Prophet as laid down in the Quran and the Sunnah (the life and teaching of Muhammad). Muftis, judges, and jurists all based their rulings on Sharia. This only changed when 19th century Imperialists entered Muslim countries and replaced Sharia with European law. Since then, Muslim reformers have been calling for the restoration of Sharia. This is to be expected, because Muslims must be governed by the laws that came down from Allah. It is only natural that people today are calling for a return to the rule of Sharia, and we are among those people.
The application of Sharia, however, must be governed by Ijtihad, or creative thought, to determine how it can be enforced today. It would not be helpful to simply take rulings from ancient texts and apply them carte blanche to modern societies. Just as the Ulama, or Muslims scholars, used Ijtihad in the past to determine how to apply Sharia, scholars today must do the same. Sharia is applicable for all societies throughout all time, but the Ulama must engage in Ijtihad to determine exactly how to apply it today. Most Muslim countries today are governed by civil law. This is often compatible with Sharia, with the main difference being that Sharia incorporates the corporal and capital punishments represented by Qisas and Hudud. Qisas is the element of recompense, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, and Hudud refers to the limits determined by Allah beyond which which physical punishment is required.
Sharia, continued Dr. Qaradawi, cannot be divided up into sections with some accepted and others rejected. If we are going to apply Sharia, we must apply it all. The controversial elements of Sharia, those of Qisas and Hudud, are contained in the final revelations of Allah to his Prophet (comment: the later suras of the Quran, in Islamic theology, are considered the most important because many of the earlier suras were abrogated or cancelled out by later revelations).
There are five rulings in the Quran that include corporal and capital punishment, including one for Qisas and four for Hudud. The text about Qisas is in Baqarah (Quran 2:178), which stipulates that a murderer is to be killed unless the family of the victim is willing to accept blood-money instead of the life of the killer.
The four rulings for Hudud are sex between unmarried people, falsely accusing women of immorality, opposing Allah and his Prophet, and theft. Sura Nur (Quran 24:2) states that unmarried people who engage in sexual activity, or Zina, are each to be flogged 100 times. The same sura (Quran 24:4) declares that men who falsely accuse chaste women of immorality are to be flogged 80 times. Sura Maidah rules that those who "wage war against Allah and his messenger and do mischief in the land" (Quran 5:33) are to have their hands and feet cut off from opposite sides. The final Quranic ruling, which is from the same chapter, states that both male and female thieves are to have their right hands amputated (Quran 5:38).
These few verses, however, represent only a small part of Sharia. There are thousands of verses in the Quran that lay out the way Allah commands people to live (comment: the literal meaning of Sharia is "the path Allah intends people to follow"). Sharia includes religious, civil, moral, cultural, and commercial rulings. It governs personal, family, national, and international relations. All of these are included under the rubric of "Sharia Law".
At this point in the interview, a viewer noted that videos splashed across Youtube and the Internet showing hands and heads flying off were giving "enemies of Islam" ammunition to attack Allah's religion. Isn't there a problem, the viewer asked, with the literal application of the Hudud of Islam?
The problem, replied Shaykh Qaradawi, is that the Hudud are being enforced before the conditions for their application are met. The first goal of Muslims is to establish true Islam, and then they can apply Sharia with the Hudud. Muhammad fully established Islam in Medina, with its rules for social and economic justice, before ruling the hands of thieves were to be cut off. The Quran states in 2:43 that "prayers are to be conducted and charity is to be given" in the Muslim society, and this refers to establishing true Islam. If this is done in equity, with money taken from the rich and given to the poor, and opportunities for employment given to all, there will be no need for the thief to steal. When a wealthy merchant informed the Caliph Umar that he wanted to cut off the hand of his slave because the slave had stolen his camel, Umar replied, "Had you properly fed and cared for your slave, he would not have needed to steal your camel. Go and meet his needs as his master, or I'll cut off your hand!" Islamic justice must first be established in Muslim countries, and then the Hudud can be applied.
Dr. Qaradawi followed this with an anecdote from an eighth century scholar in Basra, Iraq, named Imam Hasan al-Basri. During one of Hasan's sermons, a clamor arose in the street. When Hasan asked what the noise was about, he was informed that a thief had been arrested. Hasan commented, "So the thief who steals secretly (the government official) has arrested the thief who stole openly." Corrupt businessmen today, noted Qaradawi, who are close to Arab rulers and who steal millions from the national treasury are not prosecuted, whereas an unemployed laborer who steals to feed his family is punished.
It is also important, added Shaykh Qaradawi, to be sure that the accused really is guilty before applying the punishments of Hudud. For the ruler to err by granting pardon to a guilty man is better than his erring by punishing a man who was in fact innocent.
"That all sounds fine," responded moderator Uthman, "But are Sharia and the Hudud really applicable in the 21st century?"
Scholars have argued across the centuries, replied Dr. Qaradawi, whether Allah ordained the Hudud as a deterrent to crime or a purification for crimes committed. In reality they are both. They are a purification and a motivation for the individual who has been punished not to repeat his crime, and they provide a deterrent to others who see the severe punishment meted out upon the criminal. Some people argue that the Hudud of Sharia are overly severe, but what is the alternative? The alternative in civil law is imprisonment, but in reality prison is neither a deterrent nor a punishment. Many thieves who go to prison are released only to repeat their crimes. Even worse, they meet criminals in prison who teach them to become experts in crime. The individual with a high school education in crime gets his BA in prison, and the criminal with a BA gets his PhD! They meet people in prison with 50 years of criminal experience, and learn all the tricks of the trade. The thief who goes to prison because he stole a sheep learns how to steal the whole herd.
The Islamic law of corporal punishment is more severe, but more effective. The basic principle is that the individual must know that if he or she commits the crime the punishment will follow. The Caliph Umar said, "The punishment is only to be given to the person who knew it was coming." If the society does not know the difference between what is Hilal and Haram (right and wrong) in Islam, society must be taught.
Many people do not understand the principle behind the Hudud. They think, for example, that a man who commits fornication should be punished. But Sharia states that he is only to be punished if he does this flagrantly and openly with four witnesses. If a man commits fornication privately and seeks Allah's forgiveness, he does not need to be punished. But if there are four witnesses who testify before a judge that the man committed fornication, he is to be lashed. This is the punishment for a man who has sex with an unmarried woman; if she is married and there are four witnesses they are to be stoned to death.
When Islam has been established in the society, the rules of Hudud are to be strictly enforced. After the Prophet established Islam in Arabia, he commanded that a woman from the Beni Makhzum tribe should have her hand cut off because she had stolen. Her tribe sent spokesman Usamah bin Zayid to plead for mercy for her. Muhammad became angry and demanded, "Are you asking me not to apply the punishment that Allah has commanded? Are we to perish like those before us, who punished only the weak and did not punish the strong? I swear by Allah that if my own daughter Fatimah committed theft, I myself would cut off her hand."
The moderator next asked if the rulings for Hudud were only in the Quran, or were also found in other sources. Dr. Qaradawi replied that many were also located in the Hadith and the Sunnah, the sayings and life examples of Muhammad. The difference is that punishments not specified in the Quran are open to Ijtihad. As an example, the Quran forbids the drinking of alcohol, but does not specify the punishment for imbibing. Some scholars ruled that the punishment for drinking alcohol was 80 lashes, but others said 60 and still others 40. Some scholars, on the other hand, believe that the punishment for drinking alcohol should be merely a slap or a fine.
Capital punishment for the crime of Ridda, or leaving Islam, is also specified not in the Quran but in the Sunnah. Many people know the Hadith narrated by Ikrima, "The Prophet said, If a Muslim leaves Islam, kill him," but there are many similar Hadiths. Abdallah narrated, "The blood of a Muslim can only be shed in three cases: if they commit murder, adultery, or leave Islam."
Abu Musa recounted that after Muhammad sent him to Yemen as a governor, the Prophet sent Muadh bin Jabal to assist him in his duties. As Muadh rode into Abu Musa's court, he saw a man bound hand and foot as a prisoner. Before Muadh dismounted from his horse, he inquired why the man was bound and was informed he was a Jew who had become a Muslim and then left Islam. Muadh refused to get off his horse until the man was killed, saying, "I will not sit with you until he is killed in accordance with the decree of Allah and his Apostle." Only after he was killed would Muadh dismount and sit with Abu Musa.
The Quran also indicates the death penalty is to be applied for those who leave Islam, said Dr. Qaradawi. Sura Maidah (Quran 5:54) says that if Muslims leave Islam, Allah himself will bring people to fight against them. The meaning of this verse is that Ridda is to be resisted in the strongest possible terms, especially when it is a community or society that is turning away from Islam.
The interview concluded with Dr. Qaradawi giving his opinion on various details of Hudud; should the hand of a thief be cut off at the wrist or the elbow? The Shaykh says it is the wrist.
Comments:
1. A professor I had years ago used to say, "Consistency, thou art a jewel!" If nothing else, Dr. Yusuf al-Qaradawi is consistent. Unlike most Muslim apologists in the West, he does not water down his message to meet the expectations and assuage the concerns of his audience. With Shaykh Qaradawi, what you see is what you get.
2. His message is not only consistent, it is also perfectly logical if you accept his basic presupposition that Allah revealed his perfect and final revelation to Muhammad. If that is true, then whatever Allah told Muhammad is as relevant and applicable today as it was in Medina 1400 years ago.
3. The argument of Muslims in the West (as well as the Archbishop of Canberbury) that parts of Sharia can be adapted to Western civilization while other aspects can be rejected makes no sense in light of Qaradawi's primary argument. If Sharia is from Allah, his followers do not have the right to pick and choose what they want while rejecting the rest.
4. Western Muslim apologists often deny that Islam calls for the death penalty for those who leave Islam, as well as the stoning of married people who commite adultery. Based on the texts provided by Dr. Qaradawi, I don't think these apologists are telling the truth.
4. Media commentators have recently mocked the voters of Oklahoma for voting not to apply Sharia law in any form in their state. In the context of how Dr. Yusuf Qaradawi interprets Islam and Sharia, my opinion is that those voters probably made a pretty good choice.
Dr. Yusuf al-Qaradawi recently devoted an entire interview on Al Jazeera TV to this important subject. I would like to summarize what Dr. Qaradawi said, and then add a few comments. For those looking for a quick thirty-second read, I apologize. Dr. Qaradawi is a significant scholar in the Sunni Muslim world, and I want to accurately present what he said and believes.
Moderator Uthman began by quoting from the sura Talaq (Divorce), "These are the Hudud, the set limits of Allah, and anyone who transgresses them harms himself (Quran 65:1). He then posed his first set of questions. Why are people today calling for the application of Sharia? What does that mean? Are the corporal and capital punishments in Sharia relevant today? Can Sharia be applied in Western countries?
For 13 centuries, Dr. Qaradawi responded, Muslims were ruled only by Sharia which can be defined as the judgements of Allah and his Prophet as laid down in the Quran and the Sunnah (the life and teaching of Muhammad). Muftis, judges, and jurists all based their rulings on Sharia. This only changed when 19th century Imperialists entered Muslim countries and replaced Sharia with European law. Since then, Muslim reformers have been calling for the restoration of Sharia. This is to be expected, because Muslims must be governed by the laws that came down from Allah. It is only natural that people today are calling for a return to the rule of Sharia, and we are among those people.
The application of Sharia, however, must be governed by Ijtihad, or creative thought, to determine how it can be enforced today. It would not be helpful to simply take rulings from ancient texts and apply them carte blanche to modern societies. Just as the Ulama, or Muslims scholars, used Ijtihad in the past to determine how to apply Sharia, scholars today must do the same. Sharia is applicable for all societies throughout all time, but the Ulama must engage in Ijtihad to determine exactly how to apply it today. Most Muslim countries today are governed by civil law. This is often compatible with Sharia, with the main difference being that Sharia incorporates the corporal and capital punishments represented by Qisas and Hudud. Qisas is the element of recompense, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, and Hudud refers to the limits determined by Allah beyond which which physical punishment is required.
Sharia, continued Dr. Qaradawi, cannot be divided up into sections with some accepted and others rejected. If we are going to apply Sharia, we must apply it all. The controversial elements of Sharia, those of Qisas and Hudud, are contained in the final revelations of Allah to his Prophet (comment: the later suras of the Quran, in Islamic theology, are considered the most important because many of the earlier suras were abrogated or cancelled out by later revelations).
There are five rulings in the Quran that include corporal and capital punishment, including one for Qisas and four for Hudud. The text about Qisas is in Baqarah (Quran 2:178), which stipulates that a murderer is to be killed unless the family of the victim is willing to accept blood-money instead of the life of the killer.
The four rulings for Hudud are sex between unmarried people, falsely accusing women of immorality, opposing Allah and his Prophet, and theft. Sura Nur (Quran 24:2) states that unmarried people who engage in sexual activity, or Zina, are each to be flogged 100 times. The same sura (Quran 24:4) declares that men who falsely accuse chaste women of immorality are to be flogged 80 times. Sura Maidah rules that those who "wage war against Allah and his messenger and do mischief in the land" (Quran 5:33) are to have their hands and feet cut off from opposite sides. The final Quranic ruling, which is from the same chapter, states that both male and female thieves are to have their right hands amputated (Quran 5:38).
These few verses, however, represent only a small part of Sharia. There are thousands of verses in the Quran that lay out the way Allah commands people to live (comment: the literal meaning of Sharia is "the path Allah intends people to follow"). Sharia includes religious, civil, moral, cultural, and commercial rulings. It governs personal, family, national, and international relations. All of these are included under the rubric of "Sharia Law".
At this point in the interview, a viewer noted that videos splashed across Youtube and the Internet showing hands and heads flying off were giving "enemies of Islam" ammunition to attack Allah's religion. Isn't there a problem, the viewer asked, with the literal application of the Hudud of Islam?
The problem, replied Shaykh Qaradawi, is that the Hudud are being enforced before the conditions for their application are met. The first goal of Muslims is to establish true Islam, and then they can apply Sharia with the Hudud. Muhammad fully established Islam in Medina, with its rules for social and economic justice, before ruling the hands of thieves were to be cut off. The Quran states in 2:43 that "prayers are to be conducted and charity is to be given" in the Muslim society, and this refers to establishing true Islam. If this is done in equity, with money taken from the rich and given to the poor, and opportunities for employment given to all, there will be no need for the thief to steal. When a wealthy merchant informed the Caliph Umar that he wanted to cut off the hand of his slave because the slave had stolen his camel, Umar replied, "Had you properly fed and cared for your slave, he would not have needed to steal your camel. Go and meet his needs as his master, or I'll cut off your hand!" Islamic justice must first be established in Muslim countries, and then the Hudud can be applied.
Dr. Qaradawi followed this with an anecdote from an eighth century scholar in Basra, Iraq, named Imam Hasan al-Basri. During one of Hasan's sermons, a clamor arose in the street. When Hasan asked what the noise was about, he was informed that a thief had been arrested. Hasan commented, "So the thief who steals secretly (the government official) has arrested the thief who stole openly." Corrupt businessmen today, noted Qaradawi, who are close to Arab rulers and who steal millions from the national treasury are not prosecuted, whereas an unemployed laborer who steals to feed his family is punished.
It is also important, added Shaykh Qaradawi, to be sure that the accused really is guilty before applying the punishments of Hudud. For the ruler to err by granting pardon to a guilty man is better than his erring by punishing a man who was in fact innocent.
"That all sounds fine," responded moderator Uthman, "But are Sharia and the Hudud really applicable in the 21st century?"
Scholars have argued across the centuries, replied Dr. Qaradawi, whether Allah ordained the Hudud as a deterrent to crime or a purification for crimes committed. In reality they are both. They are a purification and a motivation for the individual who has been punished not to repeat his crime, and they provide a deterrent to others who see the severe punishment meted out upon the criminal. Some people argue that the Hudud of Sharia are overly severe, but what is the alternative? The alternative in civil law is imprisonment, but in reality prison is neither a deterrent nor a punishment. Many thieves who go to prison are released only to repeat their crimes. Even worse, they meet criminals in prison who teach them to become experts in crime. The individual with a high school education in crime gets his BA in prison, and the criminal with a BA gets his PhD! They meet people in prison with 50 years of criminal experience, and learn all the tricks of the trade. The thief who goes to prison because he stole a sheep learns how to steal the whole herd.
The Islamic law of corporal punishment is more severe, but more effective. The basic principle is that the individual must know that if he or she commits the crime the punishment will follow. The Caliph Umar said, "The punishment is only to be given to the person who knew it was coming." If the society does not know the difference between what is Hilal and Haram (right and wrong) in Islam, society must be taught.
Many people do not understand the principle behind the Hudud. They think, for example, that a man who commits fornication should be punished. But Sharia states that he is only to be punished if he does this flagrantly and openly with four witnesses. If a man commits fornication privately and seeks Allah's forgiveness, he does not need to be punished. But if there are four witnesses who testify before a judge that the man committed fornication, he is to be lashed. This is the punishment for a man who has sex with an unmarried woman; if she is married and there are four witnesses they are to be stoned to death.
When Islam has been established in the society, the rules of Hudud are to be strictly enforced. After the Prophet established Islam in Arabia, he commanded that a woman from the Beni Makhzum tribe should have her hand cut off because she had stolen. Her tribe sent spokesman Usamah bin Zayid to plead for mercy for her. Muhammad became angry and demanded, "Are you asking me not to apply the punishment that Allah has commanded? Are we to perish like those before us, who punished only the weak and did not punish the strong? I swear by Allah that if my own daughter Fatimah committed theft, I myself would cut off her hand."
The moderator next asked if the rulings for Hudud were only in the Quran, or were also found in other sources. Dr. Qaradawi replied that many were also located in the Hadith and the Sunnah, the sayings and life examples of Muhammad. The difference is that punishments not specified in the Quran are open to Ijtihad. As an example, the Quran forbids the drinking of alcohol, but does not specify the punishment for imbibing. Some scholars ruled that the punishment for drinking alcohol was 80 lashes, but others said 60 and still others 40. Some scholars, on the other hand, believe that the punishment for drinking alcohol should be merely a slap or a fine.
Capital punishment for the crime of Ridda, or leaving Islam, is also specified not in the Quran but in the Sunnah. Many people know the Hadith narrated by Ikrima, "The Prophet said, If a Muslim leaves Islam, kill him," but there are many similar Hadiths. Abdallah narrated, "The blood of a Muslim can only be shed in three cases: if they commit murder, adultery, or leave Islam."
Abu Musa recounted that after Muhammad sent him to Yemen as a governor, the Prophet sent Muadh bin Jabal to assist him in his duties. As Muadh rode into Abu Musa's court, he saw a man bound hand and foot as a prisoner. Before Muadh dismounted from his horse, he inquired why the man was bound and was informed he was a Jew who had become a Muslim and then left Islam. Muadh refused to get off his horse until the man was killed, saying, "I will not sit with you until he is killed in accordance with the decree of Allah and his Apostle." Only after he was killed would Muadh dismount and sit with Abu Musa.
The Quran also indicates the death penalty is to be applied for those who leave Islam, said Dr. Qaradawi. Sura Maidah (Quran 5:54) says that if Muslims leave Islam, Allah himself will bring people to fight against them. The meaning of this verse is that Ridda is to be resisted in the strongest possible terms, especially when it is a community or society that is turning away from Islam.
The interview concluded with Dr. Qaradawi giving his opinion on various details of Hudud; should the hand of a thief be cut off at the wrist or the elbow? The Shaykh says it is the wrist.
Comments:
1. A professor I had years ago used to say, "Consistency, thou art a jewel!" If nothing else, Dr. Yusuf al-Qaradawi is consistent. Unlike most Muslim apologists in the West, he does not water down his message to meet the expectations and assuage the concerns of his audience. With Shaykh Qaradawi, what you see is what you get.
2. His message is not only consistent, it is also perfectly logical if you accept his basic presupposition that Allah revealed his perfect and final revelation to Muhammad. If that is true, then whatever Allah told Muhammad is as relevant and applicable today as it was in Medina 1400 years ago.
3. The argument of Muslims in the West (as well as the Archbishop of Canberbury) that parts of Sharia can be adapted to Western civilization while other aspects can be rejected makes no sense in light of Qaradawi's primary argument. If Sharia is from Allah, his followers do not have the right to pick and choose what they want while rejecting the rest.
4. Western Muslim apologists often deny that Islam calls for the death penalty for those who leave Islam, as well as the stoning of married people who commite adultery. Based on the texts provided by Dr. Qaradawi, I don't think these apologists are telling the truth.
4. Media commentators have recently mocked the voters of Oklahoma for voting not to apply Sharia law in any form in their state. In the context of how Dr. Yusuf Qaradawi interprets Islam and Sharia, my opinion is that those voters probably made a pretty good choice.
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Matt Lauer and the Dr. Laura Interview
I don't watch much TV, but a recent snow day kept me in bed a few extra hours and flipping through the channels I noticed the Today show was about to interview Dr. Laura to discuss her new book Surviving a Shark Attack. I thought the interview was one of the dumbest I've ever watched. I encourage readers to view it here and let me know whether or not they agree.
Matt found it necessary to say repeatedly that Dr. Laura was "controversial". In today's media parlance, someone who is controversial is someone you don't respect very much. He inquired about the subject of her book, which deals with betrayal and revenge, but interrupted her midway through her response to indignantly inform her he did not agree because he prefers the "turn the other cheek" approach.
He looked down at his list of questions and proceeded to the next. He wanted to know more about the nude photos of Dr. Laura that a former lover had strewn over the Internet. She replied, probably for the 1000th time, and he again looked down at his paper for the next question. This one was about her use of the N word that garned much media attention last year. She patiently responded again, probably for the ten thousandth time, but halfway through they cut off for a commercial break and that was the end of this dumb interview.
Matt had no interest in really discussing her book, or learning what she thought about anything. He just wanted to put her down.
In ninth grade I was on my High School Junior Varsity basketball team. It was a lousy team; we didn't win a game all season. After each loss, however, we praised each other with High Fives and compliments. Way to go, Rich! Great jump shot, Ron. Nice rebounding, Bill!
Finally the coach had enough. In the locker room after yet another blowout, he threw his cap to the floor. "You guys are terrible," he shouted. "And yet you think you are fantastic. You keep telling yourselves how great you are. You have no idea how bad you play."
I think TV broadcasters are like that. They hang around with each other, interview each other, and tell each other how great they are. Just last night Anderson Cooper added Dr. Laura to his Ridiculist. They don't realize how shallow and dumb they often are.
Matt Lauer found it necessary to remind Dr. Laura that she had repeated the N word 13 times. Never mind that she repeated it merely for emphasis to get her point across. It's like my saying I thought his interview was dumb, dumb, dumb. And the questions he asked were dumb, dumb, dumb. And Anderson Cooper's reaction was equally dumb, dumb, dumb. There you go; I've outdone Dr. Laura. If I had a radio show, I'd probably be toast as well.
PS. By the way, Dr. Laura is now on SIRIUS radio. If you aren't a member, I encourage you to join. Her show alone is worth the subscription.
Matt found it necessary to say repeatedly that Dr. Laura was "controversial". In today's media parlance, someone who is controversial is someone you don't respect very much. He inquired about the subject of her book, which deals with betrayal and revenge, but interrupted her midway through her response to indignantly inform her he did not agree because he prefers the "turn the other cheek" approach.
He looked down at his list of questions and proceeded to the next. He wanted to know more about the nude photos of Dr. Laura that a former lover had strewn over the Internet. She replied, probably for the 1000th time, and he again looked down at his paper for the next question. This one was about her use of the N word that garned much media attention last year. She patiently responded again, probably for the ten thousandth time, but halfway through they cut off for a commercial break and that was the end of this dumb interview.
Matt had no interest in really discussing her book, or learning what she thought about anything. He just wanted to put her down.
In ninth grade I was on my High School Junior Varsity basketball team. It was a lousy team; we didn't win a game all season. After each loss, however, we praised each other with High Fives and compliments. Way to go, Rich! Great jump shot, Ron. Nice rebounding, Bill!
Finally the coach had enough. In the locker room after yet another blowout, he threw his cap to the floor. "You guys are terrible," he shouted. "And yet you think you are fantastic. You keep telling yourselves how great you are. You have no idea how bad you play."
I think TV broadcasters are like that. They hang around with each other, interview each other, and tell each other how great they are. Just last night Anderson Cooper added Dr. Laura to his Ridiculist. They don't realize how shallow and dumb they often are.
Matt Lauer found it necessary to remind Dr. Laura that she had repeated the N word 13 times. Never mind that she repeated it merely for emphasis to get her point across. It's like my saying I thought his interview was dumb, dumb, dumb. And the questions he asked were dumb, dumb, dumb. And Anderson Cooper's reaction was equally dumb, dumb, dumb. There you go; I've outdone Dr. Laura. If I had a radio show, I'd probably be toast as well.
PS. By the way, Dr. Laura is now on SIRIUS radio. If you aren't a member, I encourage you to join. Her show alone is worth the subscription.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
