My photo
Islam means "submission to God in peace". Islam teaches there is only One God, whose primary name is "Allah" in the Arabic language. Islam is the same essential message given to all the prophets, from Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and finally to the Last Prophet, Muhammad, (peace be upon them all). They all proclaimed the same basic Divine message: worship only God, stop worshipping human beings and other created things There's a different between Islam and Muslims!! What's the purpose of life? What Do You Know About Islam? Not what you have heard about Islam, not what you have seen in the actions of some Muslims, but what do you really know about Islam?

Friday, December 24, 2010

Struggling to Surrender









Dedication:


“To Jameelah, Sara & Fattin”



Also, I would like to thank amana publications and its
production and editorial staff for their kind and enthusiastic
support and for their many very valuable suggestions.
Special thanks to Br. Jay Willoughby for his careful editing
of the book and to Br. AlÈμ R.Abuμza‘kuμk for his careful
reading and critique of the original manuscript.


Jeffery Lang





Struggling to Surrender:

Some Impressions
of an American Convert to Islam

Jeffery Lang



The book link:




Contents



Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .vii


Chapter 1: The Shahadah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Chapter 2: The Qur’an . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

Initial Observations: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22
A Challenge to Reason —Parallels with the
Old and New Testaments
Central Considerations: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38
Qur’anic Imagery—Back to me “Signs”—
The Role of Reason—Faith and Reason—
Allegory—Satans and Jinn—Time and Eternity—
Man’s Purpose in Life—The Straight
Path
Inner Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62
Chapter 3: Rasul Allah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69
Beginning with the Qur’an—In the Mosque
—Hadith, Sunnah, and Sirah—The New
Testament and the Hadith—Expectations—
Western Criticism of the Traditions—A
Question of Need—A Question of Truth—
Who is Muhammad?
Chapter 4: The Ummah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .119
Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .127
Family . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .130
Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .137
To the Islamic Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .140
Women in the Qur’an: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .142
The Male and the Female—Rights and
Responsibilities—Beginnings and Endings
—Ways to Paradise —Beyond Husband and
Wife—A Woman’s Witness—Leadership—A
Woman’s Dress—Education and Segregation—
The Woman’s Complaint
Law and State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .182
Jihad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .183
Faith and Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .190
Apostasy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .195
Chapter 5: Ahl al Kitab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .201
Revelation and History: An Interpretation—
Ahl al Kitab (People of the Book)—Muslim-
Chrisitan Dialogue—The Israeli-Palestinian
Problem—Ties of Kinship
Parting Thoughts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .230
PREFACE
Almost everything of their beauty could be traced to northern Europe—
the delicate angularity of their features, their fair complexions, their long,
luxuriant golden-brown hair—but not their eyes: large, flashing dark brown
eyes, the type you might steal a glance from at an outdoor market or on a
village street in Arabia, the type that sees right through you and lingers in
your memory for a long time.
“Why did you become a Muslim?” asked one of my two interrogators.
What answer would their innocence comprehend? Both gazed up at me dispassionately,
as if they had all eternity to wait for an explanation. Maybe
they were not meant to understand but only to ask, to initiate the process of
self-examination.
No, I thought, their question was more personal than that. I remember
when I asked my own father why he had become a Catholic. It was not due
to curiosity alone but a result of my own search for self-definition.
When I became a Muslim, I did not consider how many choices I was
making, not just for myself but for my three daughters and their children
and their descendants. Of course they needed to know why I made that
decision, because it had been made for them as well and they would have
to come to terms with it for the rest of their lives.
The prophet Muhammad said of his youngest daughter: “Fatimah is a
part of me and I am a part of her. Her happiness is my happiness and her
pain is my pain.” A father finds special fulfillment in his relationship with
his daughters. Through their feminine nature, he can reach beyond the limits
of his gender and is opened to a greater range of feelings and emotions
than his public life allows. They complement and counter-balance him, not
just as females but as his children, because he sees the completion of himself
in their personalities. “Why did you become a Muslim?” holds an
entirely different significance for me when it comes from my daughters,
for it originates in me. It is my completory voice, in its still untainted truthfulness,
cross-examining me.
I explained it to them briefly and as well as I could, but not in a way
that finalized the matter, as I wanted to be sure the door was left open for
further inquiry. Their question is the impetus behind this book, which began
as nightly reflections on their question.
If you are not honest with your daughters, you are being untrue to
yourself. For that reason, I did my best to tell it as sincerely and honestly
vii
as I could: to “tell it like it is,” as we used to say. This meant including all
the various highlights and lowlights, discoveries and doubts, answers and
questions. Thus, this is in no way an authoritative book on Islam in the
United States. My daughters know that their father is not a scholar of Islam
and Muslim scholars will easily recognize this as well. I therefore offer
this remark as a caution to those with lesser knowledge of the religion. For
those who wish to understand mainstream Islam in the United States today,
I may suggest Gamal Badawi’s excellent Islamic Teaching Series.
The work before you might be best described as my experience of or
reaction to Islam, something like a diary or personal journal, that will most
likely be of interest to a certain type of audience. As I could not include
every personal reflection or question I have ever had, I confined myself to
topics that seemed to be of general concern to converts, as voiced in
American Muslim newsletters and magazines. In addition, I have relied on
personal communications with fellow converts, some of whose recollections
appear throughout this book.
Some themes (i.e., the signs of the Qur’an and science) became of interest
to me through association, while others (i.e., questions about divine
mercy and justice) were intrinsic to my own search for spirituality. The
first two chapters are reflections on becoming a Muslim: the first chapter
highlights the decision to convert and the second focuses on the part
played by the Qur’an. Although I have done my best to interpret these topics,
there is so much contained within them that still remains a mystery to
me. The last three chapters, which form the major part of this work, are, in
reality, an appendix to these subjects. They deal with the difficulties encountered
after conversion and the struggle to participate in Muslim community
life.
The American Muslim convert is most often of Christian or Jewish
background, which means that he or she has rejected one prophetic tradition
and one version of history in favor of another, closely related one. As
this entails rebellion against the prior religious tradition, it should come as
no surprise that converts are often skeptical of Islamic tradition, particularly
when dealing with the sayings and reports concerning Prophet
Muhammad. Tradition, Muslim scholarship, popular feeling, history, and
Western criticism all collide to create what appears to be irreconcilable
confusion. This is the subject of chapter three.
The Muslim congregations in the United States are made up of a vast
array of cultures and customs, many of which have a religious basis. The
majority are from traditional and more conservative societies. The shock
that they face upon their arrival in this country, like all immigrants before
them, is perplexing and frightening. The convert also experiences this
viii
pain, for he/she finds himself/herself in the unaccustomed position of
being a minority within the Muslim religious community. This aspect of
conversion to Islam is taken up in chapter four, with special emphasis on
the changing roles of the sexes. The last chapter deals with some of the
difficulties of being a Muslim in a non-Muslim family and society.
I have been fighting with myself for some time over whether or not I
should publish this book. My hesitation was not due to any fear of causing
controversy but rather because of its very personal character. Without
doubt, it is a very American interpretation of Islam, for how could it be
otherwise? I cannot (and should not be expected to) extricate myself from
the first twenty-eight years of my life. I continue to follow a strategy that
I used when I was an atheist: I study what scholars inside and outside of a
religion say about it. Insiders often overlook or brush aside sensitive questions,
whereas outsiders have their own prejudices. Through cautious
comparison and contrast, I hope to offset the two tendencies. Thus, my
understanding of Islam has been influenced by non-Muslim scholars.
Nevertheless, it was the encouragement of fellow Muslims that finally
prompted me to publish this book. I was reminded of my own opinion that
the many questions and issues that now face American Muslims need to be
explored openly and patiently; for the unity of the community is at stake.
This book, then, represents my very small contribution to the growth of
Islam in the United States. Like Muslim writers of old, I attribute what is
good therein to the mercy and glory of God, and seek His forgiveness for
that which is not.
Note: It is a long established and cherished tradition among Muslims to follow the mention
of a prophet’s name by the benediction, “May peace be upon him.” In time, this practice
was adopted in writing, although the most ancient extant manuscripts show that this
custom was not adhered to rigidly by Muslim writers in the first two centuries. To avoid
interrupting the flow of ideas, especially for non-Muslim readers, I have not followed the
customary practice. I will simply take this occasion to remind the Muslim reader of this
tradition.
Note: It is quite a problem to decide upon the best transliteration system for Arabic words.
The most common solution is to use the system followed by the Library of Congress as
outlined in Bulletin 91. For the sake of simplicity, to make my own life easier, I have
adopted the spellings of this system but omitted the superscriptal and subscriptal dots and
dashes. Experts should still be able to discern the corresponding Arabic words, and it
should not, I hope, pose a disadvantage to nonexperts.
ix
CHAPTER 1
The Shahadah
Then Satan whispered to him, saying, “O Adam, shall I lead you
to a tree of eternity and a kingdom which does not decay?”
(20:121)1
It was a tiny room with no furniture, and there was nothing on its
grayish-white walls. Its only adornment was the predominantly red-andwhite
patterned carpet that covered the floor. There was a small window,
like a basement window, above and facing us, filling the room with brilliant
light. We were in rows; I was in the third. There were only men, no
women, and all of us were sitting on our heels and facing the direction of
the window.
It felt foreign. I recognized no one. Perhaps I was in another country.
We bowed down uniformly, our faces to the floor. It was serene and quiet,
as if all sound had been turned off. All at once, we sat back on our heels.
As I looked ahead, I realized that we were being led by someone in front
who was off to my left, in the middle, below the window. He stood alone. I
only had the briefest glance at his back. He was wearing a long white
gown, and on his head was a white scarf with a red design. And that is
when I would awaken.
I was to have this dream several times during the next ten or so years,
and it was always that brief and always the same. At first it made absolutely
no sense but later I came to believe that it had some kind of religious
connection. Although I shared it with persons close to me on at least one
occasion, possibly two, it did not appear to be worth any further consideration.
It did not trouble me and, as a matter of fact, I would feel strangely
comfortable when I awoke.
It was at about the time of that first dream, either a little bit before or
after, that I was expelled from religion class. Before that semester, I had
never had any misgivings about my faith. I had been baptized, raised,

1
1For the most part, I have relied on ‘Abdullah Yusuf ‘Ali’s The Holy Qur’an: Text,
Translation and Commentary (Brentwood, Maryland: Amana, 1983). This source was
republished in 1992 under the title of The Meaning of the Holy Qur'an: New Edition with
Revised Translation and Commentary.
schooled, and confirmed a Catholic. It was “the one true religion”—at
least in southern Connecticut. All my friends, neighbors, relatives, and
acquaintances, with the exception of a few Jews, were Catholics. But one
thing just led to another.
It was the beginning of my senior year at Notre Dame Boys’ High
School, and our religion teacher, a truly fine priest, decided that we needed
to be convinced that God exists. And so he proceeded to prove it by arguing
from first causes. I was a pretty good mathematics student and enamored
of mathematical logic, so I could not resist the urge to challenge his
conclusions.
My position was simply that an explanation is not a proof. The existence
of a Supreme Being, if given the right attributes, could explain our
existence and our deeper perceptions of guilt, right and wrong, and so on,
but there are alternative explanations, such as those—admittedly imperfect—
that we learn from science. While religions are still struggling with
their own conflicts with reason, science appears to be making steady
progress toward complete solutions. The ontological argument is hardly a
proof, since one can argue that widespread belief in God may have its origins
in widespread ignorance and fear. Perhaps the more secure we are in
our knowledge, the less we will adhere to religion. This is the case with
modern man, especially those in academia.
For the next few weeks we would argue in circles, and I was winning
several classmates over to my point of view. When we reached a critical
impasse, the Father advised me and those who agreed with me to leave the
class until we could see things differently. Otherwise we would receive an
F for the course.
Several nights later at dinner, I thought I had better explain to my parents
why I was going to fail religion. My mother was shocked and my
father was angry. “How can you not believe in God?” he screamed. Then
he made one of those predictions of his that always have had a way of
coming true: “God will bring you to your knees, Jeffrey! He’ll bring you
so low that you’ll wish you were never born!” But why? I thought. Just
because I could not answer my questions?
There I was, an atheist in the eyes of family, friends, and schoolmates.
The strange thing was that, at this point in time, I had not abandoned my
belief in God but instead was only pursuing a line of argument largely for
the sake of argument. I had never stated that I disbelieved. What I had said
was that I found the proofs presented to our religion class inadequate.
Nonetheless, I did not reject this new designation because the altercation
did have a profound effect on me. I came to realize that I was not sure what
I believed or why.

2
In the months to come I would continue to challenge, in my mind,
the existence of God. It was the spirit of our time to doubt our institutions,
even religious ones. We were a generation raised on mistrust. In
grade school we use to have air raid drills, during which we would run
to the basement in anticipation of nuclear fallout. We stocked our cellars
with provisions in case of such an emergency. Our heroes, the Kennedy
brothers and Martin Luther King, Jr., were being assassinated and
replaced by leaders who would eventually be forced into political exile
and disgrace. There were race riots, burning and looting, especially in
industrial towns like mine. Every night on television there were the body
counts. There was a lingering fear that at any time you might be harmed
by someone, and for something of which you had no knowledge. The
idea that God had made us/it this way and, on top of that, that He was
going to punish all but a few of us in the end, was more terrible and
haunting than not to believe at all. I became an atheist when I was eighteen.
At first I felt free, for my new view liberated me from the phobia that
Someone was tapping into my thoughts and fantasies and condemning me.
I was free to live my life for myself alone; there was no need to worry
about satisfying the whims of a superhuman Power. To some extent, I was
also proud that I had had the courage to accept responsibility for who I was
and to assume control of my life. I was secure, for my feelings, perceptions,
and desires were entirely mine and did not have to be shared with
any Supreme Being or anyone else. I was the center of my universe: its
creator, sustainer, and regulator. I decided for myself what was good and
evil, right and wrong. I became my own god and savior. This is not to say
that I became completely greedy and self-indulgent, for now I believed
more than ever in sharing and caring. But my reason for so doing was not
to attain a future reward: I felt a real genuine human love. We hold love to
be the highest human emotion. Whether this is due to evolution, chance,
or some eco-biological utility hardly matters, for it is as real as anything
else and it makes us happy. When you give out love, you really do receive
in return, here and now.
Going away to college is not the same as leaving home: you are simply
not living with your parents any more. It is a transition between dependence
and independence, a time and place when it is still safe to test your
views. I learned very quickly that no one knows loneliness like an atheist.
When an average person feels isolated, he can call through the depths of
his soul to One who knows him and sense an answer. An atheist cannot
allow himself that luxury, for he has to crush the urge and remind himself
of its absurdity. He may be the god of his own universe but it is a very


3
small one, for its limits are determined by his perceptions and it is continuously
shrinking.
The religious man has faith in things that are beyond what he can
sense or conceive, while an atheist cannot even trust those things. Almost
nothing is truly real for him, not even truth. His concepts of love, compassion,
and justice are always turning and shifting on his predilections,
with the result that both he and those around him are victims of instability.
He has to be absorbed in himself, trying to hold it all together, to balance
it, to make sense of it. Meanwhile he must contend with outside powers
that rival his, those human relationships that he cannot control and that
intrude upon his universe. He needs simplicity, solitude, and isolation, but
he also needs to extend himself beyond himself.
We all desire immortality. The religious man imagines a solution,
whereas an atheist has to construct one right now. Perhaps a family, a
book, a discovery, a heroic deed, the great romance, so that he will live on
in the minds of others. His ultimate goal is not to go to Heaven but to be
remembered. Yet what difference does it make after all?
Mankind aspires to perfection; it is an inner craving that whips us into
action. Shall I become the great mathematician, runner, cook, humanitarian,
or parent some day? For an atheist, nothing satisfies the need, because
his creed is that there is no perfection and no absolute. The next best
thing is stability. I followed the tested social patterns not because I valued
them but because they were functional and serviceable.
After finishing my studies at the University of Connecticut, I got married.
My wife and I moved to West Lafayette, Indiana, so that we could
enroll in Purdue University’s graduate school. Although newly married,
we agreed that our marriage was not a permanent commitment and that it
would end amicably if better opportunities arose. But for the moment, it
had some practical advantages. We were certainly friends but there was no
passion, and, as expected, we divorced three years later on good terms.
To my surprise, I was stricken with sorrow. It was not that I had lost
the love of my life or someone I could not live without; it was that I was
afraid to face myself alone again. But when I really thought about it, I
knew that I was always alone, whether I was married or not. Through three
years of matrimony, I had always hoped for this moment. My wife was a
wonderful person but I just had no room for anyone else in my life. The
day she left—and she had initiated the divorce—I came to the harsh realization
that my universe had become a prison, a place to hide. But I had no
idea what I was running from. It was not so easy being a god, after all!
At that point I so intensely wanted to break out. I wanted to be all
things to all people and it mattered how others saw me, even if I insisted


4
to myself that it didn’t. We all have this need to justify our existence, and
if no one else valued my life, then of what value was it? If it had no value,
why live at all? But at least I had my mathematics, and so I concentrated
on finishing school. I had a few brief romances over the next two years,
just long enough to experience love but not long enough to effect a bond.
Then something very strange happened.
I had just defended my Ph.D. thesis and was waiting outside the room
while my committee was coming to a decision. It was five years of intense
devotion to my subject that had brought me to that day and I was emotionally
exhausted. The door opened and I was greeted with the words,
“Congratulations, Doctor Lang!”
But as I wandered back to my apartment, my joy began slipping away.
The more I tried to recover it, the more I was overcome by melancholy,
disappointment, and bitterness. It reminded me of when we outgrow
Christmas, when we try so hard to retrieve the excitement of our childhood
but cannot because we are no longer children. Maybe life is a series of
television ads, I thought, and this is why we become so desperate for the
most frivolous things. We cheat ourselves into believing that our goals
have some real value when, in truth, we are only another kind of animal
trying to survive. Is this what life is all about—one artificial victory after
another? I started to rethink it all.
It was December 1981 when I graduated, and I stayed on as an instructor
for another semester while I searched for a job. West Lafayette was
made for contemplation; there was nothing else to do there. It was the type
of college town that becomes a ghost town when the students leave for vacation.
It had several fast food restaurants, a couple of movie theaters, a
few churches, three laundromats, and some large grocery stores. You did
not have to go very far before you were out in the rural farming areas. I
walked several miles each day along the roads, crunching through the deep
snow. It was the coldest winter I had ever known. The sea of white was
invitingly peaceful as I sifted through my thoughts.
I could not forget the young lady who had come to my office for help.
When I opened the door, there was this mysterious, presumably Middle
Eastern woman facing me. She was completely covered in black from
head to toe, although her hands and face were visible. She needed help in
field theory, she said, and her professor had recommended me.
I agreed to help her, and my preconceptions about Arab women were
very quickly shattered. She was a graduate student in mathematics and I
supposed that, since she shared an office like mine with other teaching
assistants, she must be a teaching assistant as well. But I simply could
not imagine her standing in front of a class of Indiana natives of Ger-


5
manic descent dressed like that. At the same time, she had such poise and
dignity that I felt a little ashamed of myself next to her. I found myself
trying not to stare at her, although her face was radiantly and unintentionally
beautiful.
Although I only tutored her twice, I felt that I needed to talk to her
again. I was not sure whether it was curiosity or infatuation—probably
both. There was a gentle inner strength and beauty in her that I had to
know. Several times I came close to knocking at her office door, but I
never actually did it.
I now acquired a heightened interest in other religions. I began to have
close foreign student friends from Egypt, India, Pakistan, Japan, and
China. Up to that point, I had always considered the panorama of different
religious systems as one more evidence against monotheism. But I now
saw that the essential beliefs were very similar and that only the symbols,
rituals, and deities varied. Maybe there was some universal power or soul,
a vital force, that permeated our beings, I thought. The symbols for expressing
that awareness would naturally be determined by the culture from
which it grew. This would account for the diversity of ideas. Since we both
shape and are shaped by our cultures, I thought that I might now return to
my religious roots.
I went home to Connecticut for six weeks during the summer. My
mother was excited, although not completely surprised, when I asked if I
could join her and my father for the Sunday church service. There had
been enough signs in my letters and telephone calls to indicate that I was
searching.
I would stand at the back of the church, as my father always did,
listening intently to the sermon. However, the words did not reach me, for
the priest seemed to be talking to someone else, to those who already
believed. And even they did not appear to be listening, just as they had
never done so, as far as I could remember. They must have been getting
something out of the Mass, however, or else why would they attend?
But that was not the case with me. When we would go out for pancakes
after church, my parents would share their personal experiences, dissatisfactions,
and doubts with me. I knew they were trying to help me and
I loved them for it. And I attended church on the next three Sundays.
It was hard for me to tell my mother on the fourth Sunday that I would
not be going with them. I could not even face her and kept my back to her
when she came to wake me. “It’s just not for me, mom,” I told her.
There was a short pause. Perhaps she was thinking of a way to encourage
me. Maybe she was going to tell me that I should give it more time,
that it was naive to assume that three Masses would be enough. “All right,


6
son,” my mother said at last. Her words were sunk in despair and resignation,
suspended in that parental pain and love that digs so deeply when you
have a suffering child and there is little you can do to help. I wanted to get
out of bed and hug her, to tell her that I was sorry. But I could not even
turn around. She stood silently by my bed a moment longer, and then I
heard her footsteps leave the room.
San Francisco was a chance to begin anew, for new places provide
new opportunities. You can do something different or unexpected because
of your anonymity. My professors encouraged me to work elsewhere but I
chose the University of San Francisco.
I was not sure why. It was not a research school, and I had never liked
big cities. At the start of the semester, my personal life was already exciting
and chaotic. I had decided to live for the moment and not to dwell so
much on the future or the past. It was wonderful to be earning a real living
instead of the graduate student stipend I was used to.
I was about to begin my first lecture when this extremely handsome,
regal-looking Arab fellow walked in the rear door of the classroom—or, I
should say, made his entrance. He was tall, slim, and dressed in a style that
reflected impeccable taste. The entire class turned to view him; I thought
they might even stand up. Everyone obviously recognized him, and he was
acknowledging members of his audience with smiles and polite quips that
had them laughing as he made his way to his seat. The mood of the group
had actually changed!
My lecture had some relation to medical research, and I asked the
class if anyone had any insights to share. Who should raise his hand from
the back of the room but the young man whom I had assumed was a
prince? In perfect English tinged with a slightly British accent and with
great self-assurance, he elucidated the entire matter for the class.
“What’s your name?” I asked.
“Mahmoud Qandeel,” he responded.
“You seem to know quite a lot about medicine. Is that your area of
study?”
“No,” he replied. “I happened to read a magazine article on this subject
the other day.”
“Well, thank you for sharing it with us, but I think you should consider
a career in medicine. Hereafter, I’ll refer to you as Doctor Qandeel.” He
smiled graciously in response.
Mahmoud was five years younger than I and light-years more worldly.
He took it upon himself to introduce me to San Francisco. Everyone
knew him (adored might be a better word): the mayor, the police chief,
rock stars, drug dealers, street people. He was excessively generous and


7
could make the humblest person feel important. At the same time he was
completely open and self-effacing.
You did not have to hide things from Mahmoud, for he accepted you
as you were. His greatest skill was with people. He could discover your
hurts and make you forget them, at least temporarily. He was charming,
fun, and impossible to keep pace with. Women greeted him with kisses on
the cheek everywhere we went—and we went everywhere! It was a world
I had never seen before, one that consisted of the finest cars, clothes, jewelry,
restaurants, delicacies, yachts, dignitaries, diplomats, call girls, champagne,
and discotheques, in which wealthy middle-aged women would ask
you to come home for the night—“for breakfast,” they would say.
It glittered and glamored in every direction—like ice! Conversations
were cold, lifeless, and led nowhere. We were poor actors playing roles for
which we were poorly suited. Everyone was desperately absorbed in having
a good time, preoccupied with being “in” and “with it” and “exclusive”.
There was no joy or happiness, only empty laughter. I had never
before felt so much hurt in one place and at one time. I did not fit in with
that society, nor did I ever want to.
Although he had mastered the game, Mahmoud did not really belong
to it either. Intrinsically, he was a simple, humble, generous man. His attraction
was his innocence, his honesty, his boyishness, all of which had
miraculously survived San Francisco only slightly tarnished. And I was
not the only one who was missing something: Mahmoud had his own
agony. He could not have relieved the pain of so many others if he had not.
And I hoped so badly that he would find what he had lost.
He introduced me to his family. It was not clear immediately who had
adopted whom, but they surely gave more of themselves than I.
Mahmoud was the eldest son, which is a position of responsibility in a
Saudi family. His brother Omar was a very bright physics student at the
University of California—Berkeley. Omar was tall and muscular and a
second degree black-belt in Tae Kwon Doe. His eyes were so intense that,
when he was not smiling, you thought that he might be angry. But when
he smiled, as he frequently did, it was the most gentle and comforting
smile.
Their sister Ragia, also a student at the University of San Francisco,
was pure goodness and kindness. Her large brown eyes were her whole
story; they were caring, warm, penetrating, and passionate. She was exotically
and ethereally beautiful, difficult to define and impossible to forget.
Hawazin was Mahmoud’s pretty young bride-to-be. She was intelligent,
perceptive, witty, and loved to laugh. Mahmoud’s father had died
when they were children, and it was clear from their reminiscences that


8
the emotional wounds still had not healed. His mother lived alone, surrounded
by several servants, in Saudi Arabia.
The times we spent together picnicking and touring the Bay area or
eating dinner at their apartment were the best I had had in a long time. We
did not discuss religion very much and when we did, it was almost always
in response to my questions. I did not push it, for I did not want it to interfere
with our friendship. My understanding was that they felt the same
way. And so I was astonished when I was given a translation of the Qur’an
and some books about Islam. I knew they had an attachment to their faith,
but their lives were not that religious, and I had not seen them taking such
an interest in anyone else.
I wondered who thought of it. Omar certainly had the spirituality,
Ragia the compassion, and, of course, Mahmoud knew me so well. Was it
so obvious that I was unhappy? In any case, I received it as a gift, a sharing
of something personal. In return, I would read it and try to understand.
You cannot simply read the Qur’an, not if you take it seriously. You
either have surrendered to it already or you fight it. It attacks tenaciously,
directly, personally; it debates, criticizes, shames, and challenges. From
the outset it draws the line of battle, and I was on the other side.
I was at a severe disadvantage, for it became clear that the Author
knew me better than I knew myself. Painters can make the eyes of a portrait
appear to be following you from one place to another, but what author
can write a scripture that anticipates your daily vicissitudes? The Qur’an
was always way ahead of my thinking; it was erasing barriers I had built
years ago and was addressing my queries.
Each night I would formulate questions and objections, and somehow
discover the answer the next day as I continued on in the accepted order.
It seemed that the Author was reading my ideas and writing in the
appropriate lines in time for my next reading. I had met myself in its pages,
and I was afraid of what I saw. I was being led, working my way into a
corner that contained only one choice.
I had to talk to someone—but not the Qandeels—to someone who did
not know me, so that there would be no expectations. That Saturday, while
I was in Golden Gate Park and heading back to Diamond Heights after my
daily walk, I settled on a solution: I would go to the local student-run
mosque on Monday.
St. Ignatius Church, located at the peak of Golden Gate Boulevard, is
a source of great pride to the University of San Francisco. The university
catalogue includes several shots of it from different angles. I have seen
more majestic churches, but when the fog rolls in and descends over it, its
steeples appear to be reaching into Heaven.


9
One clear, breezy Wednesday afternoon I stood outside the Harney
Science Center, where my office was located, and stared at the church. To
the rear of the church in its basement was the mosque (actually, it was a
small room that the Jesuits were letting the Muslim students use). Contrary
to my earlier plan, I had not yet visited the mosque. I was even beginning
to wonder whether my decision to visit it had been too hasty. Finally, I
decided to go ahead with my plan now, reassuring myself that I was only
going to ask a few questions.
I rehearsed my introduction as I headed across the church parking lot.
The stairway down to the mosque was up ahead and to the left of the statue
of St. Ignatius. An American student had pointed it out to me several
weeks earlier, with the joking comment: “The rumor is that they keep
corpses down there!”
I arrived at the top of the stairs and eyed the door below. The writing
on it was definitely Arabic. I could feel my heart racing as I stood there
hesitating, allowing my anxiety to grow. Then I thought I should ask somebody
in the church if this was the right place.
I went around to the side entrance. It was quite dark inside, and the
stained glass sent down bold pillars of colored light. To the left of the altar
I spied what had to be a janitor. As I darted over to him, I passed in front
of the crucifix without genuflecting. It’s amazing how those lessons get ingrained
in you.
“Can you tell me where the mosque is?” I asked. I must have looked
as unbalanced as I felt, for his expression was a combination of surprise
and indignation. I did not wait for an answer.
When I got outside, I drew a couple of deep breaths. What a relief it
was to be out in the sun again! I just needed to relax for a few minutes.
Then I circled the church to see if there were any other possible entrances
to the mosque. There was one, but the door was locked. And so I ended up
where I had begun, in front of the stairs by the statue.
I was anxious and felt a little nauseated as I started down them.
Midway to the door, my chest tightened and my heart was pounding.
Quickly I turned around and climbed back up the stairs.
“Wait a minute!” I scolded myself. “You go in and out of doors every
day at this university. There are only students in there, for goodness
sake!”
I took another deep breath and started back down the stairs. The midway
point was worse this time. When I reached the bottom, I felt constricted
and sick. My legs, which carried me seven miles each day on my
walk, were weakening. I reached for the doorknob. My hand was shaking,
I was shaking, I was sweating. I ran for the top of the stairs.
10
I froze there, with my back to the mosque. I did not know what to do.
I felt embarrassed and defeated. I considered returning to my office.
Several seconds passed. I was gazing at the sky. It was vast, mysterious,
comforting. I had fought the urge to pray for ten whole years. But now my
resistance was spent and I just let the feelings rise. “O God, if you want
me to go down those stairs, please give me the strength!”
I waited. Nothing; I felt nothing! I was hoping the ground might
shake, a bolt of light might surround me—at least goose bumps. But I did
not feel anything. I made a 180 degree turn, walked down the stairs, put
my hand on the doorknob, and pushed open the door.
“Are you looking for something?”
I had interrupted their conversation. They were standing directly ahead
of me near the left wall. They were both barefooted and considerably shorter
than I. One was dressed in what appeared to be traditional Eastern clothing,
with a round white cap on his head. The other wore Western clothing.
I had forgotten my lines. “Is Omar, Mahmoud here?” I managed to
say. I was getting nervous again.
“What’s their last name?” The one without the cap looked suspicious.
“Qandeel?” I tried. But it did not help.
“There’s nobody else here. Just us.”
This was not going to work. “I’m sorry. I must be in the wrong place.”
I started to turn around.
“Do you want to know about Islam?” the one with the cap called out.
“Yes, yes, I do!” I took a step toward them.
“Would you please take off your shoes? We pray here,” he explained.
The traditional fellow was doing the talking. The other had evidently decided
merely to observe something which was, judging from his expression,
unusual.
We sat on the floor in the left-hand corner. They let me choose the
place, and I positioned myself so that I was facing the door with my back
to the wall. There was a small washroom off to my right and a closet-sized
room for ladies off to my left.
Abdul Hannan, a student from Malaysia, was the young man with the
white cap. Muhammad Yusuf, the other student, was from Palestine. I told
them what I knew about Islam, and they were pleasantly surprised. We
talked for about fifteen minutes.
I asked some superficial questions, but nothing was as I had expected.
Abdul Hannan began saying something about angels beating the
souls of dead disbelievers and the tortures they would be subjected to in
the grave. I only pretended to listen. I said that I had an office hour to get
to (I didn’t, but that always works) and I thanked them for their time.
11
I was about to stand up to leave when the doorknob turned. It was now
late afternoon and the setting sun was stationed somewhat behind the door.
The lighting in the room was dim, so when the door opened the entrance
was engulfed in light. Standing there was this silhouette of a man with a
scraggly beard, ankle-high robe, sandals, turban, and a cane. He looked
like Moses returning from Mount Sinai; he was biblical and fascinating. I
had to stay.
He entered quietly and did not seem to notice us. He was whispering
what must have been a supplication with his head raised slightly and his
eyes almost shut. His hands were near his chest, his palms turned upwards
as if waiting for his share of something. When he finished, he asked
Muhammad something in Arabic and then walked unassumingly into the
washroom.
“That’s Brother Ghassan.” They were revived and optimistic. “He’s
the imam. He leads the prayers.”
I knew from my reading that Muslims had no official clergy. “Anyone
can lead,” Muhammad offered; Abdul Hannan, myself, anybody.” A moment
later Ghassan came into the room. His head was lowered meekly as
he came over to us. He had a slight, Ghandi-ish kind of frame. His complexion
was fair and his eyes and face were simultaneously peaceful and
desolate, as if he had resigned himself to some great personal tragedy.
As the other two students made room for him, he sat down next to me.
He put his hand on my knee.
“What’s your name?” He was the first to ask and, unlike Abdul
Hannan and Muhammad, he wanted to talk casually at first, apparently to
reduce the tension. I appreciated his attempt to put me at ease. His voice
was low-toned and strong, and had a certain special resonance that gave
him an aura of inspiration. His accent told me he was from Arabia. He was
somewhat shy and tried not to look straight into my eyes.
“Jeff Lang.”
“Are you a student at USF?” he asked. I looked much younger than
my age; in fact, earlier that semester, I had been asked to leave a teachers’
meeting because everyone thought I was a student.
“No, I’m a professor in the math department.”
His eyes widened and he glanced at the others. We spoke for a few
minutes, and then Ghassan asked me politely if I would excuse them while
they prayed the afternoon prayer. It was the first time I had seen Muslims
praying together. I used the break to stretch my legs, which by now were
stiff from sitting on the floor.
When they were done we returned to our former places. Ghassan resumed
the conversation. “So how did you become interested in Islam?”


12
I wondered if he knew the Qandeels but I said only, “I’ve been reading
about it.” Apparently that answer sufficed. We continued for a while
discussing mostly technical matters, but we were not really communicating.
I was running out of questions and he was running out of comments.
We were both disappointed, and I thought of getting back to the math
department.
“Do you have any other questions?”
“No, not really.” But then something popped into my mind. “I do have
one question.”
I paused, not sure how to formulate it. “Can you tell me what it feels
like to be a Muslim? I mean, how do you see your relationship with God?”
I could already see that Ghassan had the fantastic charisma and intuition
so indispensable for a spiritual leader. I would later discover that he
had a huge following, both here and abroad. Like Mahmoud, he was
acutely sensitive to your inner pain, but unlike Mahmoud, he would not
let you ignore it. He would magnify it in front of you and force you to
focus on it. This is a tremendous power that few possess. Every great religious
leader must have it, however, and, along with it, the accompanying
tremendous responsibilities and dangers.
His eyes met mine but he did not answer immediately. Maybe he was
surveying the source and the intent of the question. Then he lowered his
head, as if praying, summoning his spiritual energy. Slowly moving his
head from side to side, as people do when they want to indicate a negative
response, he began to speak.
The first word he said was both a prayer and a call: “Allaaahh!” He
paused and took a deep breath. “Is so great! And we are nothing compared
to Him, we are less than a single grain of sand.” As he spoke, his thumb
and index finger squeezed tightly a nonexistent speck of sand, which he
lowered to the floor and then released to reveal nothing, making his symbol
all the more effective. “And yet, He loves us more than a mother loves
her baby child!”
He was fighting back his feelings; his eyes were nearly closed and his
head still lowered. From this point on, until he finished his words, I would
see a spirit that was burning with fear, hope, and desire. Each remaining
sentence would be a wave of emotion, rising and then receding.
“And nothing happens except by the will of Allah! When we breathe
in”—he put his hand to his chest—it is by His will. And when we breathe
out, it is by His will. When we lift our foot to take a step, it is by the will
of Allah, and we would never be able to put that foot back on the ground
except by His command! When a leaf falls from a tree and twists and turns
on its journey to the ground, no segment of that journey takes place except


13
by Allah’s will. And when we pray and put our nose on the ground, we feel
a joy, a rest, a strength that is outside this world and that no words could
ever describe. You have to experience it to know.”
He remained quiet for several seconds, letting the words sink in. How
much I wished that he and I could change places, if only for a few minutes,
so that I could feel the desire, the passion, the anguish, the yearning
for his Lord! I wanted to know the serenity and the torment, the trust and
the fear, rising from insignificance, aspiring for surrender. I yearned to be
resuscitated from this spiritual death.
“So, would you like to become a Muslim?”
His words cracked the air, exploding in my consciousness. Why did he
have to say that? That wasn’t why I’d come here! I could see myself trying
to explain it to my family, colleagues, and friends. I was working at a
Jesuit university. What about my job?
Faces and voices crowded my mind: my ex-wife, old acquaintances, a
couple of them even dead, while I stumbled over excuses. I felt panicked
again; my lower back and the back of my neck were hot, my palms were
wet. What business was it of his, anyway? Why not just leave it alone and
let us both walk out of there? He wasn’t going to lose anything. I did my
best to conceal my anxiety and alarm. I suffocated all that turmoil and
spoke calmly: “No, not today, anyway. I really just wanted to ask a few
questions.”
How I hoped that would end it! I needed to get to my office. What was
I even doing here? My body was locked in tension, braced for the next attack.
I knew I would have to be firmer this time. But a part of me was
straining to hear him say it again. Groping! Reaching! Pleading! Begging!
Praying! “Don’t leave me, not after having come this far!”
Ghassan had been through this before and he knew better than to give
up easily. He tried again softly. “But I think you believe in it. Why don’t
you try?”
The voices and faces were gone. There was no need to get so upset. I
did not owe anything to anybody—not to Ghassan, my friends, no one.
The decision was mine alone. Then I remembered my parents and all those
lessons about being “German” that they had taught my four brothers and
me (every culture has the same lessons that it identifies as its own), and I
remembered one in particular: if you feel that something is right, then pursue
it, regardless of what other people think. “Follow your feelings,” my
mother would say. The first time I had applied that philosophy was when
I had changed undergraduate majors. In retrospect, that was so comparatively
easy. I looked at the three of them and nodded my head up and
down. “Yes, I think I’d like to become a Muslim.”


14
Their faces celebrated in jubilation and relief. They reminded me of
the NASA engineers after the successful moon landing. I wondered what
all the fuss was about; you’d think that they had converted to Islam.
Anyway, I had not officially converted yet. I still had to make the profession
of faith.
The doorknob turned again. There was another bolt of light, another
silhouette, and another prophetic image standing at the door in a robe, turban,
and beard. He was a little bigger and heavier than Ghassan.
“Mustafa!” Ghassan called. “This brother wants to become a
Muslim.”
Mustafa’s big, gentle, fatherly face (he looked a little like Burl Ives)
beamed gleefully. He ran over to hug me.
“Mustafa!” Ghassan interrupted. “He still has to say the Shahadah!”
He retreated softly, as if he had discovered something fragile and precious.
But Ghassan did not want to deprive him of his participation or excitement:
“Teach the brother what to say, Mustafa.”
Mustafa rehearsed the Shahadah in English for me so that I would understand
what I was about to say. His voice was hushed, as if he were talking
to a newborn. He then pronounced the Shahadah in Arabic, a word or
two at a time, which I repeated after him.
“Ashhadu,” said Mustafa.
“Ashhadu (I testify),” I repeated. I was struggling with the pronunciation,
trying to get it right. It was like learning how to talk again.
“An la ilaha,” said Mustafa.
“An la ilaha (that there is no god),” I repeated. My entire adult life up
to that day was a learning and confirmation of this fact. “There is no God.”
I had come to know firsthand the awesome truth of it and its terrible emptiness
and other consequences.
“Illa,” said Mustafa.
“Illa (except),” I repeated. Illa is a conjunctive, pointing to something
overlooked. A tiny word that had stood between me and the filling of that
emptiness, the tremendous vacuum that was my life, that had distanced me
from the reality I was always seeking.
“Allah,” said Mustafa.
“Allah (God),” I repeated. The words were like drops of clear water
being slowly dripped into the scorched throat of one who has nearly died
of thirst. I was regaining strength with each of them. I was coming to life
again.
“Wa ashhadu anna,” said Mustafa.
“Wa ashhadu anna (and I testify that),” I repeated. I was joining a fellowship
of prophets and followers of all periods of history, of all races and


15
colors by extending my hand in discipleship to one who had called to
mankind fourteen centuries ago.
“Muhammadan,” said Mustafa.
“Muhammadan (Muhammad),” I repeated. This was more than a mere
acknowledgment: it was a commitment to a way, time-honored and universal,
preached from the lips of the very first human message-bearers and
sealed in the revelation through Muhammad.
“Rasul,” said Mustafa.
“Rasul (is the Messenger),” I repeated. I felt protected, secure, and liberated.
I could love again and be loved by the One whose giving knows no
limits. I collapsed into the mercy that flowed from the supreme love. I had
come back home again!
“Allah!” said Mustafa.
“Allah (of God),” I repeated.
Two days later, I experienced my first Friday congregational prayer. It
was a beautiful warm sunny Indian summer day (in San Francisco that’s
the only summer there is). We were in the second of the two cycles of
prayer. Ghassan was reciting the Qur’an in his unique and distinctive style.
Most Qur’anic recitation is slow, melodic, and controlled, but Ghassan released
it from the deepness of his needs. He was an abandoned child calling
for his parents. He would pound out his pleas in a tense rhythmic
chant. We stood shoulder to shoulder, foot to foot behind him.
“Allahu akbar (God is the Most Great)!”
On hearing the command, we bowed with hands on knees, backs perpendicular
to our legs. I whispered the divine praise, “Subhana rabbi al
‘azim (Glory to my Lord, the Almighty). Thank You for bringing me
here.”
“Sami‘ Allahu li man hamidah (God hears those who praise Him).”
We all stood straight and responded, “Rabbana wa laka al hamd (Our
Lord, and to you is the praise).”
Now, standing in rows in tight formation, we had been moving as a
single body. I had prayed four of the prayers in the mosque on Thursday
but not with so many people. Now there must have been eighty worshippers
packed into the tiny room, young men from all over the world, representing
maybe twenty countries, celebrating our brotherhood.
“Allahu akbar!”
Fluidly and gracefully, we lowered ourselves to the floor, first to our
knees, then to all four limbs, and then we put our faces onto the carpet. I
recited quietly, “Subhanah rabbi al ‘ala (Glory be to my Lord, the Most
High),” repeating it several times. “Never let me turn away!”
“Allahu akbar!”


16
We sat back on our heels in our rows, following Ghassan. I was in the
third row.
“Allahu akbar!” We bowed down in prostration with our faces on the
red-and-white carpet. It was serene and quiet, as if the sound had been
turned off. And then we sat back on our heels again.
As I looked ahead, I could see Ghassan, off to my left, in the middle,
below the window that was flooding the room with light. He was alone,
without a row. He was wearing a long white gown and on his head was a
white scarf with a red design.
The dream! I screamed inwardly. The dream exactly! I had forgotten
it completely, and now I was stunned and frightened. Am I dreaming? I
wondered. Will I awaken? I tried to focus on what was happening to determine
whether I was asleep. A rush of cold flowed through my body,
making me shudder. My God, this is real! Then the coldness subsided, succeeded
by a gentle warmth radiating from within. Tears welled up in my
eyes.
“Al salamu ‘alaykum wa rahmat Allah (Peace be upon you and the
mercy of God).” We turned our heads to the right side as we said the
words.
“Al salamu ‘alaykum wa rahmat Allah (Peace be upon you and the
mercy of God!),” we repeated with our heads turned to the left.
The prayer had finished. I sat on the carpet studying the grayish-white
walls, trying to make sense of it all. Dreams are very strange and there is
so much that we do not know about them. But whatever the mechanism
behind them is, through this one I saw the pieces of my life—things I had
done, people I had met, opportunities I had had, choices I had made that at
the time did not make sense—leading to this prayer and culminating in
that prostration. I perceived that God was always near, directing my life,
creating the circumstances and opportunities to choose, yet always leaving
the crucial choices to me. I was awestruck by the realization of the intimacy
and love that reveals, not because we deserve it, but because it is
always there and all we have to do is turn to Him to receive it. I cannot say
with certainty what the meaning of that vision was, but I could not help
seeing in it a sign, a favor, and a new chance.
17
18
CHAPTER 2
The Qur’an
It were a bold assertion that the Koran is any less studied than it
used to be, or that its haunting rhythms have lost their power over
men’s minds.2
This appraisal, made by the orientalist Gibb in 1950, holds even more
true today. The Qur’an, in the minds of many Muslims, has met and risen
above the challenge of the West and is the driving force behind a worldwide
Muslim awakening. It continues to be, for approximately one billion
believers, “the ultimate manifestation of God’s grace to man, the ultimate
wisdom, and the ultimate beauty of expression: in short, the word of
God.”3
But what about the Western convert to Islam, who is far removed from
the cultures, traditions, and languages that this scripture helped to shape
and preserve—what does he or she find compelling about the Qur’an?
This is not an obvious or necessary question, for not every religion’s
converts are familiar with its scriptures. It probably would not be asked so
readily of converts to Buddhism or Hinduism or Christianity, for example.
Yet practically every Western convert to Islam speaks of the primacy of the
Qur’an in his or her life.
In reality, the common believer’s reliance on the Qur’an is built into
the religion because its recitation in the original Arabic is a compulsory
part of the five daily prayers. As a result, all new Muslims learn several
passages and their interpretation very quickly. This daily contact with the
Qur’an opens the way to further study, and large numbers of newcomers
report that they read some portion of the Qur’an in translation each day,
apart from reciting parts of it during the prayer. Many go on to learn a
good deal of Arabic, which, for Americans is quite atypical, and a few
have even produced new and original Qur’anic commentaries and interpretations.
4 Therefore, since the Qur’an is such an integral part of a Mus-
19
2H. A. R. Gibb, Wither Islam (New York: A. M. S. Press, l932), 350.
3Muhammad Asad, The Message of the Qur’an (Gibraltar: Dar al Andalus, l980), ii.
4Ibid.; Thomas B. Irving, The Qur’an: The First American Version (Brattleboro, VT:
Amana Books, l985); Marmaduke W. Pickthall, The Meaning of the Glorious Qur’an
(New York: The Muslim World League, l977).
lim’s personal religious experience, even though we would obtain a wide
range of answers to our initial question, at the same time we would expect
some prevalent responses.
Although Islam is spreading very rapidly in the West, its presence is
still something quite new. The number of Western Muslim authors remains
quite small. Some of the better known are Muhammad Asad, Marmaduke
Pickthall, Martin Lings, Maryam Jameelah, and Hamid Algar.5 Today,
there are numerous European and American Muslims who are spreading
their faith to others, and we are seeing an increasing number of Western
writers who are sympathetic to Islam.6 In their impressions, one discovers
oft-repeated themes. In this chapter, my aim is to highlight some of these
and also to describe, based on my own experience and the many discussions
that I have had with others, how these pieces might fit and work
together in guiding one to accept the message of the Qur’an. In other
words, I will attempt to present a model of conversion to Islam.
The initial recipients of this revelation were the inhabitants of seventh
century Arabia. When they heard it recited in their own tongue, its style
was so sublime and its language so powerful that, as the Qur’an points out,
even the disbelievers called its effect “spell-binding magic” (10:2; 38:4).
The Arab of that era did not have to struggle to translate the images he
was hearing into categories of thought to which he could relate, for he already
had an intimate and direct association with them.7 When the Qur’an
teaches us to ask God to “show us the straight path” (1:6), the Western
reader may understand this to refer to the delicate and subtle distinction
between truly serving God and someone or something else. Or perhaps he
may be asking to be guided to that fragile equilibrium between materialism
and spiritualism. The desert traveler of the seventh century may have
had a similar understanding, but it also must have provoked something of
a psychological reflex, because, in his travels, knowledge of the sometimes
illusive “straight path” was also a matter of life and death. The
20
5Muhammad Asad, The Road to Mecca (Gibraltar: Dar al Andalus, l980); Hamid Algar,
The Roots of the Islamic Revolution (Ontario: Open Press, l983); Irving The Qur’an;
Maryam Jameelah, Western Civilization Condemned by Itself (Lahore: Kazi Productions,
n.d.); Martin Lings, What is Sufism? (London: George Allen & Unwin, l983); Pickthall,
Meaning of the Glorious Qur’an.
6Maxime Rodinson, Islam and Capitalism (London: Penguin Books, l974); Frithjof
Schuon, Understanding Islam (London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1963), trans. D. M.
Matheson, l963; Fredrick Denny, An Introduction to Islam (New York: Macmillan, l985);
John L. Esposito, Islam: the Straight Path (New York: Oxford Press, l988).
7Toshihiko Izutsu has an excellent analysis of the Qur’an’s semantical structures in his
God and Man in the Koran (Salem, MA: Ayers Publishers, l964). Also see Kenneth
Cragg’s very insightful The Event of the Qur’an (London: George Allen & Unwin, l973).
Qur’an’s references to books, balances, debts, and rewards on the Day of
Judgment, the making of a loan to God that will be repaid with manifold
increase, and to the bargain that God has struck with the believers have
obvious links to the commercial lifestyle of Makkah, the center for trade
in Arabia during the lifetime of Muhammad. When the Qur’an compares
the state of disbelief with that of dying of thirst in the desert, or when it
draws a parallel between resurrection and the restoring of life to dead earth
after rain, or when it describes Paradise in vivid sensual terms, we can
imagine how immediate and alive these images must have been for those
who first heard them from the lips of the Prophet.
The Arabs of Muhammad’s time were not atheists or agnostics, but
neither were they deeply religious. Their attitude toward religion was a little
like that of many people today: religious faith was one part of a larger
tradition, a cultural appendage that had its limited time and place and
could be called upon when needed. In technical terms, they were idol
worshippers, for they believed in a plurality of more or less superhuman
deities who had a limited ability to affect an individual’s life. The Qur’an’s
problem with the Arabs was not their lack of belief in God, but that their
false beliefs about God permitted and fostered depravity.
The Qur’an sought to reform, not to destroy and start from scratch, to
salvage what was useful and then to modify and build on it. The task was
to get the Arabs to think about religion in a novel way, to inculcate in them
a new conceptual frame of reference, to transfer them from one worldview
to another, and higher, one. This process of transformation took them from
traditionalism to individualism, from impulsiveness to discipline, from
supernaturalism to science, from intuition to conscious reasoning and, in
the end, ideally, harmonized the whole.
In contemporary Western society, the situation is almost the exact opposite.
With theories of natural selection or evolution by chance, religion is
no longer needed to explain existence. The belief that modern psychology
has succeeded in showing that values, spiritual inclinations, virtues, and
morality are the result of social and evolutionary dynamics, and therefore
not “real” or “absolute” but only “relative” and mainly a product of our
imagination, is widespread. God is no longer necessary as an answer, for
science and logic can now fulfill this function. As a result, the Western convert
finds himself or herself traveling a path that is in many ways the opposite
to that followed by the initial Muslims fourteen hundred years ago.
Many attitudes toward religion are similar, but their origins are different.
Conversion to Islam today is often a journey from individualism to
traditionalism, from learning to illumination, from the sensible to the unseen,
from reason to intuition, in the end, ideally, harmonizing the whole.
21
INITIAL OBSERVATIONS
A Challenge to Reason
Dudley Woodbury of the Zwemmer Institute is a gifted and experienced
communicator of the Christian perspective in interfaith dialogues.
Recently, while lecturing to fellow Christian missionaries, he mentioned
that one of the first images one gets of Muslims is that they love to debate.
They will debate whether the Qur’an or the Bible is God’s word, or if Jesus
is God or man, or whether or not the coming of Muhammad is foretold in
the Bible, and on many other topics. But, Woodbury pointed out, if you ask
them to discuss their experience of faith, they are often taken aback. He
relates how one popular Muslim lecturer had challenged him to a public
debate. Woodbury responded that while debating did not appeal to him, he
would be very interested in a public sharing and exchanging of faith experiences.
The challenger had no interest in such an encounter, and so no
progress was made.
To Americans, the experience of faith is the crux, the validation, and
the purpose of religion. For myself, the most decisive moment in my
search for God was when the Muslim student leader explained to me, after
some deliberation, what it meant to him to be a Muslim. This book is my
attempt to do the same.
Such a perspective should not be taken to mean that belief in God
should be irrational, but rather that the emphasis is on feelings and spirituality.
“What does your belief do to and for you?” is a legitimate question.
However, it is also not the only question, for faith must be more than an
exercise in rational thinking or a spiritual encounter. To concentrate on
only one of these elements is to disregard a vital part of our humanity.
The Muslim inclination and preference for polemics in interfaith discourse
is better understood in light of two considerations. First, a Muslim
has no experience in dividing his or her life into “sacred” and “secular” aspects.
All of life is a sacred experience, as can be seen in the fact that even
the most mundane acts are consecrated by the almost ceaseless invocation
of the divine names. If this seems too formalistic to non-Muslims,
Muslims see it as appropriate and natural, for if God’s influence in our
lives is continuous and pervasive, how could it be otherwise? So when a
Muslim is asked to relate his or her experience of belief, he or she is being
asked to do something unfamiliar, to dissect and think about faith in a way
that is outside of the Islamic perspective. Second, Muslims believe that
religion must make sense, that there must be a wisdom and a rationale
behind every one of its elements. While admitting the limitations of human
22
thought, they nonetheless see reason as playing a vital role. The source of
this insistence is undoubtedly the Qur’an, which leads us to discuss one of
the most common first impressions readers have of the Muslim scripture.
A central Qur’anic concept is the extreme importance of reason and
contemplative thought in the attainment of faith. Almost every modernday
Western orientalist has noted this. For example, Rodinson writes:
The Koran continually expounds the rational proofs of Allah’s
omnipotence: the wonders of creation, such as the gestation of
animals, the movements of the heavenly bodies, atmospheric phenomena,
the variety of animal and vegetable life so marvelously
well adapted to man’s needs. All those things “are signs (ayat) for
those of insight.” (3:190)
And a little further on he adds:
Repeated about fifty times in the Koran is the verb aqala which
means “connect ideas together, reason, understand an intellectual
argument.” Thirteen times we come upon the refrain, after a piece
of reasoning: a fa-la taqilun—“have ye then no sense?” (2:41-44,
etc.) The infidels, those who remain insensible to Muhammad’s
preaching, are stigmatized as “a people of no intelligence,” persons
incapable of the intellectual effort needed to cast off routine
thinking (5:53-58, 102-103; 10:42-43; 22:45-46; 59:14). In this
respect they are like cattle (2:166-171; 25:44-46).8
H. Lammens wrote that the Qur’an “is not far from considering unbelief
as an infirmity of the human mind.”9
The Qur’anic term kafir, which interpreters most often render as “disbeliever,”
comes from the root kafara, which means “to cover or conceal.”
In Qur’anic usage, it has the general sense of one who conceals or rejects,
consciously or unconsciously, a divine gift, a divine favor, or truth. When
talking of such people, the Qur’an asks, almost incredulously, “Do they
not travel through the land, so that their hearts may thus learn wisdom?”
(22:44); “Do they not examine the earth?” (26:7); “Do they not travel
through the earth and see what was the end of those before them?” (30:9);
“Do they not look at the sky above them?” (50:6); “Do they not look at the
camels, how they are made?” (88:17); and “Have you not seen the seeds
23
8Rodinson, Islam and Capitalism, 79-80.
9H. Lammens, “Caracteristique de Mohomet d’apres le Qoran,” Recherches de science
religieuse 20 (l930), pp. 416-38, 430.
which you sow?” (56:63). The implication behind all these questions is
that evidence of the truth of this message is to be found in the study of history,
cultures, the earth, the cosmos, and nature, among others. The Qur’an
insists that it contains signs for those who “are wise” (2:269), “are knowledgeable”
(29:42-43), “are endowed with insight” (39:9), and who
“reflect” (45:13).
The very first revelation to Muhammad, consisting of the first five
verses of the ninety-sixth surah, stresses the acquisition and transmission
of knowledge in the human quest for advancement:
Read, in the name of your Lord, who created—created man from
a tiny thing that clings. Read, for your Lord is the Most Bountiful,
who taught [man] the use of the pen, taught man what he did not
know. (96:l-5)
Thus the first command revealed to mankind through the Prophet was,
quite literally, “Read!” And the ability to do so is proclaimed as one of the
great divine gifts. Asad comments:
“The pen” is used here as a symbol for the art of writing or, more
specifically, for all knowledge recorded by means of writing: and
this explains the symbolic summons “Read!” at the beginning of
verses l and 3. Man’s unique ability to transmit, by means of written
records, his thoughts, experiences and insights from individual
to individual, from generation to generation, and from one cultural
environment to another endows all human knowledge with a
cumulative character; and since, thanks to this God-given ability,
every human being partakes, in one way or another, in mankind’s
continuous accumulation of knowledge, man is spoken of as being
“taught by God” things which the individual does not—and, indeed,
cannot—know by himself. (This double stress on man’s
utter dependence on God, who creates man as a biological entity
and implants in him the will and ability to acquire knowledge,
receives its final accent, as it were in the next three verses) [which
read: No, truly, man is rebellious, seeing himself as independent.
Surely unto your Lord is the return. (96:6-8)]10
These last three verses characterize the attitude of modern man, who,
because of the achievements of science, has come to believe that he is
independent of the need for God. From the Qur’anic perspective, he
24
10Asad, The Message, 963-64.
“transgresses all bounds” in his abuse of the divine gift of intelligence. The
Qur’an’s dual challenge to test one’s own positions against those of the
Qur’an according to the standards of reason, coherence, and accepted
truths is well-suited to this attitude and, moreover, its acceptance has been
the first step for many who eventually converted to Islam. However,
before proceeding further, a note must be made concerning the style and
the translations of the Qur’an.
Interpretations and Distinctive Features of the Qur’an
When a Muslim reads the Qur’an in Arabic, he discovers transcendent
beauty, coherence, and wisdom. Many non-Muslim readers, relying on
translations, describe the Qur’an as incoherent, uninspiring, and profane.
One source of such radically different perceptions is that most of the previous
and present translators are either Western orientalists or scholars of
Arabic who have mastered Arabic grammar. For many of these translators,
Arabic never became a living language. And here is the source of the entire
problem, for mastery of grammar and acquaintance with Arabic literature
“cannot render the translator independent of that intangible communion
with the spirit of the language which can be achieved only by living with
and in it.”11
The Arabic of the Qur’an, with its frequent use of ellipticism (called
i‘jaz by Arab philologists), was preserved and understood most accurately
by the bedouins of the Arabian peninsula, both in the days of the Prophet
and in the centuries thereafter.12 As even Arab Muslims born outside of that
tradition struggle with many verses of their sacred scripture, the obstacles
encountered when trying to render the Qur’an in a foreign language are
compounded all the more. Asad’s interpretation of the Qur’an makes significant
progress in overcoming some of these difficulties, and Yusuf Ali’s
translation and commentary is perhaps the most widely read among
English-speaking Muslims. Many prefer Marmaduke Pickthall’s rendition,
since it stays very close to the literal Arabic. But for all Muslims, the
Qur’an represents the revealed word of God. Therefore, any translation of
it into another language is a priori imperfect and, in the final analysis, is
neither the Qur’an or a translation of it, but merely an interpretation.
A reader who comes from a Jewish or Christian background, as most
Western converts do, initially is faced with three significant features of the
Qur’an that contrast sharply with what he has come to regard as scripture.
25
11Ibid., iii.
12Muhammad H. Haykal, The Life of Muhammad, trans. Isma‘il al Faruqi (Indianapolis:
North American Trust Publications, l976), 52.
The first is that the Qur’an is a personal revelation, in the sense that, outside
of the first seven verses that form a petition for divine guidance, the
perspective of the Qur’an is always that of God addressing humanity. For
example: “O my servants who have sinned against yourselves, never despair
of the mercy of God” (39:53), and “By the bright morning light and
by the night when it is still, your Lord has not forsaken you nor is he displeased”
(93:1-3). Even when the Qur’an teaches the reader a supplication,
it most often begins by instructing him to literally “say” it, as in,
“Say: I seek refuge with the Lord of mankind” (114:1).
Another feature is that the Qur’an, unlike the Bible, has no specific
chronology. While the Bible contains history and biography, it is virtually
impossible to date or place Qur’anic passages without referring to outside
sources. One can read the Qur’an in nearly any order and, as long as all of
its contents are covered, a thorough understanding of its major precepts
can be obtained without additional references. Thus, in a practical sense,
the Qur’an has no real beginning or end. For Muslims, this is a very relevant
symbol demonstrating that the message contained in the Qur’an transcends
the limitations of space and time, and that it has existed in the
knowledge and wisdom of God beyond the confines of creation.
As Islam does not divide reality into “sacred” and “secular” compartments,
the Qur’an interweaves diverse facets of the human experience
throughout its discourse—the rise and fall of nations and individuals,
observation of the natural world, the making of society and
laws, and human psychology—both to guide the reader in this earthly
life and to enlighten him or her concerning the existence and the oneness
of God. As these elements merge together in life, so it is in the Qur’an.
It is as if all history, life, and creation is a witness to and convergence
toward a single supreme reality: that God is the Sustainer, Regulator, and
Master of it all. This is a major departure from the scriptures of all other
major religions.
Parallels with the Old and New Testament
The Qur’an asserts that, in the course of history, each nation has received
the same essential message through divinely inspired human beings:
that man must submit his will to God’s (42:13; 2:136; 7:69-78;
35:24). While differences existed in terms of ritual and law, according to
the exigencies of the individual communities, mankind would continue to
develop and progress until it was prepared to receive and preserve without
alteration a universal guidance—the Qur’an—that would be revealed
through Muhammad, the final prophet. This descendent of the patriarch
26
Abraham (the Makkan tribe of Quraysh, to which Muhammad belonged,
having long prided itself on its descent from the prophet Ishmael) is, according
to the Qur’an, the fulfillment of the divine promise and the longawaited
prophet “like unto Moses” from the “brethren” of the Hebrews
(2:129; 3:81; 7:157; Genesis 12:2-3; 17:20 and Deuteronomy 18:18).13
The Qur’an presents the mission of Muhammad as the restoration and
culmination of the missions of each prior prophet, and in so doing, narrates
various episodes from their lives. While it mentions prophets who were
indigenous to the Arabian peninsula and others who are of untraceable
identity and origin, the great majority are also found in the Bible.
One obvious reason for this is that most of the prophets, including
Muhammad, have a common ancestry through Abraham. More importantly,
because the Qur’an assumes at least a limited familiarity with many
of the Biblical prophets, we may surmise that some of their histories were
known to the Arabs, and consequently to many of those who would embrace
Islam in the years immediately following Muhammad’s death, many
of whom were originally Christians and Jews. Thus, these familiar accounts
were an effective means of catching and holding their attention.
In recent years, Muslim student groups at American universities have
sponsored many debates between Christian and Muslim speakers on the
topic of whether the Bible or the Qur’an is the word of God. The usual
Muslim position is that since the Old and New Testaments contain statements
(mostly numerical in nature) that contradict each other or that are
inconsistent with established facts, the Bible cannot be a divinely revealed
scripture. The evidence resorted to is almost entirely the product of centuries
of Western Biblical scholarship.
Most Christian participants have been willing to accept the premise
but not the conclusion, for each side has in mind a different conception of
revelation. When the Muslim speaks of revelation, he is usually referring
to the most direct kind: the Prophet is the human instrument through
whom God literally “speaks” or reveals His Will, as in the Biblical descriptions:
“I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like
unto thee, and I will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto
them all that I shall command them” (Deuteronomy 18:18), and “Howbeit
when he, the Spirit of Truth, is come, he will guide you unto all truth: for
he shall not speak of himself: but whatever he shall hear, that shall he
speak: and he shall show you things to come” (John 16:13). The Muslim
does acknowledge, however, that this is not the only type of divine
communication. It is stated in the Qur’an:
27
13The Holy Bible, King James Version (Thomas Nelson, Inc. l977).
And it is not given to any mortal that God should speak to him
except by inspiration, or from behind a veil, or by sending a messenger
to reveal, by His leave, whatever He wills: for, verily, He
is Exalted, Wise. (42:51)
The majority opinion of Christian scholars today is that the Bible is a
synthesis of different levels of holy inspiration. Bucaille notes:
The idea of a text of revelation—to be accepted without questioning
a single sentence—gave way to the notion of a text inspired
by God. The text of inspiration was written by mortal men
at different points in time, it took its cue from ideas of the day, and
included the traditions, myths and superstitions prevalent at the
time it was written.14
Concerning the New Testament, Cragg writes:
Though the Gospels undoubtedly contain verbatim accounts of
what Jesus said, there are many places, not the least in St. John,
where the evangelist merges imperceptibly into his material.
There is condensation and editing; there is choice, reproduction,
and witness. The Gospels have come through the minds of their
authors. They are history told out of the experience to which it
gave rise. This may be seen as eminently suitable, distinctly
appropriate.15
And concerning the Old Testament, in particular the Psalms, Cragg emphasizes
that
in their accumulative witness to the meaning of God in human life
they communicate the “felt” significance of the truth that God
willed humans to understand. As they wrestle with their situation
in the context of what they know of God, that knowledge is
enlarged and deepened by God and brought to light and life for all
who read. The revealing process, so to speak, enlists and allows
the mental and spiritual capacities of particular persons through
whom it addresses the minds and spirits of all persons.16
28
14Maurice Bucaille, What is the Origin of Man? (Paris: Seghers, l983), 10.
15Kenneth Cragg, The Call of the Minaret (Nigeria: Daystar Press, l985), 249.
16Ibid., 252.
From the Christian perspective then, the types of inconsistencies mentioned
above are to be expected, since they are a natural consequence of a
sometimes indirect revelatory experience. This position is difficult to test,
as it is meant to be, but both parties should agree that the truest measure
of the sacredness of a scripture is its efficacy in directing men’s hearts to
the one God and to save, reform, and guide them.
The usual Christian approach at these debates is to suggest that
Muhammad was, for the most part, a plagiarist who concocted Islam from
the various religious and ideological currents that existed in Arabia during
his time. While this concept has lost its currency among contemporary orientalists,
17 the interesting thing is that virtually every argument used
against Islam by Christians could be used with much greater force and effect
against Christianity.
One positive impression that does emerge from such confrontations is
that the Qur’an appears virtually devoid of factual inconsistencies. This is
not to say that the Qur’an avoids metaphors, legends, and allegories, for
this is not the case, as is explicitly stated (3:7), but that the kinds of contradictions
that led Christian scholars to reformulate their position on the
revelation of the Bible are extremely difficult—the Muslim would say impossible—
to find in the Qur’an.18 While the Muslim stance on the in-
29
17Many modern Western writers on Islam agree that Prophet Muhammad was completely
sincere in his conviction that the Qur’an was revealed to him by God Himself. See, for
example, H. A. R. Gibb, Muhammadanism (London: Oxford University Press, l962), 25,
where he states: “It is clear from Mohammed’s fervent denunciations of social injustice and
fraud that this was one of the deep inner causes of his unsettlement. But the ferment within
him did not break out in the preaching of social revolution; it was thrust instead into a
religious channel and issued in a deep and unshakable conviction that he was called by God
to proclaim to his fellow citizens the old warning of Semitic prophets: ‘Repent, for the
judgement of God is at hand.’”Also see E. Montgomery Watt’s Muhammad at Mecca
(London: Oxford University Press, l953), 80-85, where he describes the Qur’an as a “creative
irruption.”
18Christian opponents have discovered what they considered to be inconsistencies, but the
paucity (and frequently the frivolity) of such criticism is striking. Almost every Christian
speaker or writer resorts to the same scant evidence. The verse in the Qur’an where Mary,
the mother of Jesus, is addressed by her kinsmen as “sister of Aaron” (19:28) is cited universally
as a Qur’anic anachronism. The duplicity of this criticism is apparent to anyone
familiar with the New Testament, where Mary calls Elisabeth, her cousin, a “daughter of
Aaron.” In Semitic cultures and among Arabs and Muslims to this day, such expressions as
“daughter,” “brother,” “uncle,” “aunt,” and “son” are used with much greater liberality than
in the West. For example, the designations “Children of Israel,” “son of David,” and “my
Muslim brother” are seldom to be taken literally. If one accepts that Mary was a cousin of a
direct descendant of Aaron—Elisabeth—but she herself was not a direct paternal descendent
of Aaron, then the title “sister of Aaron” would be all the more appropriate. A frequently
used tactic is to assign an interpretation to a Qur’anic verse that is not implied in the =
errancy and infallibility of the Qur’an might seem extreme and perilous,
and a more moderate position less susceptible to attack, the Muslim is constrained
from changing his stance by the Qur’an itself:
Have they not considered this Qur’an? If it were not from God,
surely they would find in it many a contradiction. (4:82)
A colleague in the religious studies department viewed the Qur’an’s
coherence as testimony to the genius of Muhammad, who, in his opinion,
indeed “perfected” the Bible. By this he meant that as Muhammad drew
from Jewish and Christian sources, he was insightful enough to omit
qualifying and quantitative details, such as references to time, place,
number, that might reveal contradictions at some point in the future.
First, it must be admitted that the Qur’an does not merely retell
Biblical narratives after deleting certain details. In almost every parallel
account there are important, sometimes subtle, variations. For example,
the Qur’anic version of the story of Solomon rejects explicitly the charge
that this prophet, who was divinely chosen and guided throughout his life,
should have been a worshiper of idols (2:102; I Kings 11:4). In the Biblical
account of Abraham’s sacrificial offering of his son (Genesis 22:1-19),
God speaks directly to Abraham, commanding him to sacrifice his son
Isaac, who has no knowledge of his father’s plans. In the Qur’an, it is
Abraham’s interpretation of a dream that initiates this drama, and his son,
who is not identified, offers himself willingly and is saved by God’s direct
intervention (37:99-111).19 And one of the most critical differences between
corresponding Qur’anic and Biblical narratives is that the Qur’an
insists that the crucifixion of Jesus never took place.
But a more important observation is that the Qur’an will often correct
elements of Biblical accounts that were found to be problematic by
30
= original Arabic. I recall one speaker, who, in a desperate attempt to produce evidence of a
scientific incompatibility, stated that the annual flood of the Nile brought life to the
Egyptians, rather than rain, as the Qur’an states, as if the Qur’an excluded the benefits of
the yearly floods or as if rain were not important to Egyptian farmers. I should also mention
that some
critics who seek to disparage the Qur’an have exploited certain early Qur’anic commentaries,
such as that of Abu ‘Ubaydah, where grammatical irregularities in the Qur’an are
listed and explained. These irregularities include ellipses due to omission, plural verbs with
singular subjects, and variation in the treatment of the gender of nouns. The early Muslim
commentators explained that these were well-known rhetorical devices employed by early
Arab poets. Many of these remain in use to this day, although they are unknown to many
Western students of Arabic, who do not study the language in such depth.
19The sequence of the Qur’anic version indicates that Ishmael (Isma‘il) was the intended
sacrifice, but this was a much debated topic among early Muslim exegetes. See Firestone’s
discussion in Journeys in the Holy Land (New York
Western scholars centuries after the time of Muhammad.20 In the Biblical
story of Joseph, for example, Jacob’s sons travel the vast expanse of the
Sinai desert on donkeys (Genesis 42:26). However, donkeys are both unsuitable
for extended desert travel and also anomalous to the lifestyle of
nomads, which is what the descendants of Abraham were until they settled
in Egypt. In the Qur’anic account, they make this journey in camel caravans
(12:65, 70, 72, 82). In the same narrative, the Biblical version anticipates
an antagonism between Egyptians and Hebrews that did not develop
until much later. It has, for example, Joseph not dining with his brothers
“because the Egyptians might not eat bread with the Hebrews; for that is
an abomination unto the Egyptians” (Genesis 43:32). No such anachronism
appears in the Qur’anic version, where there is no indication of any
Egyptian prejudice toward Jacob’s family (12:58-93).
In Genesis 7:23, we read that in the Great Flood,
every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of
the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the
fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and
Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.
Based on the chronological data contained in old editions of the Bible,
this cataclysm would have had to have taken place no earlier than the
twenty-second century BC.21 But scientific evidence has proved that from
this period down to the present, there have always existed flourishing civilizations
in several parts of the globe, thus contradicting the Flood narrative
in the Bible. Concerning the extent of the Flood, the Qur’an mentions
only that the people of Noah were destroyed, which is not in conflict with
what we know now (25:37).
A most startling contrast exists between the two scriptures’ accounts
of the Days of Creation. Genesis gives the impression that these various
stages or periods in the creation of the earth consisted of twenty-four hour
periods or “days,” as we commonly understand them, by adding after the
completion of each successive stage, “And the evening and the morning of
the first (second, third, etc. . . ) day” (Genesis 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31). Of
course, this is exactly what was believed for many centuries until the discovery
that the periods of the earth’s development actually involved much
greater expanses of time. In the Qur’anic discussion of these same “days”
of creation, we find the following qualifying note: “in a day, where of the
31
20SeeMalik Bennabi, The Qur’anic Phenomena, trans. A. B. Kirkary (Indianapolis: American
Trust Publications, 1983) for a more detailed discussion.
21Bucaille, The Bible, the Qur’an and Science, 32-35.
measure is as a thousand years according to your reckoning” (32:5). This
indicates two facts: a) that these “days” are not to be understood in a literal
earthly sense, but that they involve much longer intervals of time; and
b) that when the Qur’an uses the word “day” in relation to God’s activity,
it is not necessarily to be understood as a fixed interval of time, as in the
verse, “in a day whereof the measure is as 50,000 years” (70:4).
Sometimes, when relating a story of a prophet, the Qur’an will include
a detail that is not found in the Bible and then call it to your attention by
stating that God made this person, people, or event a “sign” for later times.
This occurs in the brief account of the Flood mentioned above. One of the
most interesting cases of this occurs in the Qur’an’s narrative of the
Exodus:
And We brought the Children of Israel across the sea. Then
Pharaoh with his hosts pursued them in rebellion and hostility
until, when the fact of his drowning overtook him, he said: “I
believe there is no god except the one in whom the Children of
Israel believe, and I am of those who surrender to him.” God said:
“What—now, after you have rebelled and caused corruption? This
day We shall save you in your body so that you may be a sign for
those who come after you. But truly, many among mankind are
heedless of Our signs.” (10:90-92)
This is a curious reference in verse 92 to the saving of Pharaoh’s body
as a “sign” or evidence for people of later times. The identity of the
pharaoh of the Exodus has been the subject of much speculation. Bucaille,
after extensive study, argues convincingly in favor of the once held view
that Merneptah, the successor to Ramses II, was pharaoh at the time of the
Exodus. His mummified body, on which Bucaille performed a medical
examination in 1975, was discovered in 1898 in the King’s Valley at
Thebes.22 Bucaille speculates that verse 10:92 may be an allusion to this
discovery, almost thirteen centuries after the revelation of this verse. Since
the actual identity of this pharaoh is never divulged in the Qur’an, the designation
“pharaoh” may be a generic one, in which case 10:92 may be a
reference to the general practice by the Egyptians of mummifying, and
thus “saving,” their dead monarchs. Whatever the actual case may be, for
those who believe in the Qur’an, the finding of the preserved bodies of the
pharaohs is seen as another possible confirmation or “sign” of the truth of
its claims.
32
22Ibid., 219-41.
The Qur’an and Science
A topic that has received more attention from Muslim lecturers in the
West during the last two decades is the comparison of modern scientific
findings with Qur’anic references to natural phenomena. The work of two
non-Muslim scientists, Bucaille23 and (to a lesser extent) Moore,24 are most
often cited. However, this subject has been in vogue among Muslim writers
since the turn of the twentieth century.
Muslim religious scholars are somewhat wary of this topic, however.
This may in part be due to the fact that some have little education in modern
science. It may also be because they have a more critical and justifiable
concern: that although the Qur’an frequently invites us to consider
various facets of nature as an indication of God’s beneficence and wisdom,
it is far from being a textbook on science. I believe that many Muslim
scholars would agree with Schuon’s statement that God’s principal aim “is
to save, not to instruct, and His concern is with wisdom and immortality,
not with external knowledge, still less with satisfying human curiosity.”25
Accepting this caution, we cannot deny that these references to the workings
of nature are there and that they deserve consideration as “signs” or
evidences of the Qur’an’s divine origin.
There is also another reason for caution: the tendency to view the
Qur’an as anticipating almost every discovery and theory of modern science,
such as the splitting of the atom, Darwinian evolution, the discovery
of “black holes,” and the uniqueness of fingerprints. Often these arguments
involve assigning to certain Arabic words meanings that did not
exist at the time of the revelation. For example, the Arabic word dharrah,
occurring in 99:8, which originally meant “a tiny speck” or “a particle of
dust,” is frequently interpreted as “atom,” because it conveys the sense in
this verse of being the smallest particle of matter known to man. It is assigned
this meaning by interpreters for the benefit of the modern reader,
which is fine. Problems arise, however, when one employs this meaning in
the context of other passages to argue, for instance, based on 10:61, that
the Qur’an predicts the discovery of subatomic particles.26 These pitfalls
33
23Ibid.
24Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human, 3d ed. (Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders, 1982).
25Schuon,Understanding Islam, 45.
26This trend exists in other religious communities as well. A speaker once informed his
audience that the New Testament contains the Big Bang Theory of creation, for in the
Gospel of John it states that “in the beginning was the ‘word.’ ” Since a word is a single
entity in the universe of language that when voiced produces a vibration of sound, we
obtain, by some isomorphism to the physical universe, the theory of a single original point
mass of infinite density that explodes.
could be avoided by referring to such philological studies as those of al
Raghib al Isfahani27 and Lane28 in order to arrive at the original sense of the
terms in the Qur’an, and only to those discoveries of modern science that
we accept as facts. Even then, we should not insist on a particular understanding
of a Qur’anic passage because truly “none but God knows its
final meaning” (3:7).
As mentioned above, the first words revealed through Muhammad
were: “Read, in the name of your Lord, who created—created man from a
tiny thing that clings” (96:1-2). The Arabic word which I have translated
as “a tiny thing that clings” is ‘alaq. In many translations it is rendered as
“blood clot,” which a human being never is at any stage in his development
and which is not the original meaning of the term, although it has a
nice ring to it in English. Originally ‘alaq denoted a tiny leech-like creature
with the ability to attach itself by one of its ends to a surface. This is
an apt description of the fertilized egg during the initial stages of development,
a time when it literally implants itself in the womb:
The implantation of the egg in the uterus (womb) is the result of
the development of villosities, veritable elongations of the egg,
which, like roots in the soil, draw nourishment from the thickness
of the uterus necessary to the egg’s growth. These formations
make the egg literally cling to the uterus. This is a discovery of
modern times.29
After implantation, the embryo continues to grow until it looks to the
naked eye like a piece of chewed flesh. The bone structure then develops
inside this mass, followed by the development of muscle tissue that covers
the bones. This is well known to us today. We find this description in
the Qur’an:
We fashioned the thing which clings into a chewed lump of flesh
(mudghah) and We fashioned the chewed flesh into bones and We
enclothed the bones with intact flesh (lahm). (23:l)
One has to acknowledge a fascinating parallelism between the
Qur’anic description of a human being’s development and the recent discoveries
of embryology, especially when we consider the preponderance
34
27Abu al Qasim Husayn al Raghib al Isfahani (d. 503H.), al Mufradat fi Gharib al Qur'an.
28William E. Lane, Arabic-English Lexicon (London: 1863-93).
29Bucaille, The Bible, the Qur’an and Science, 204.
of mistaken notions concerning human development that persisted for over
a thousand years after its revelation.
In several places (7:54; 35:37; 31:29), the Qur’an directs us to consider
the alternation of night and day as another sign from the Almighty.
An interesting case is the following: “He wraps the night around the day
and He wraps the day around the night” (39:5). The Arabic verb kawwara,
translated above as “to wrap around,” has a more precise meaning. It
comes from the same root as the Arabic word for ball (kurah) and has the
definite connotation of wrapping or winding something around a spherical
object, such as winding a strand of yarn around its ball. From the perspective
of the planet earth, this is exactly what takes place in that a half sphere
of night followed by a half sphere of day is perpetually being wrapped
around its surface. This is due to the earth’s rotation and the sun’s relatively
stationary position in relation to the earth. The Qur’an’s phrasing in
this description is remarkable, unless one accepts its claim to being a revelation
from God.
Another example of subtle yet extraordinary precision in describing a
natural phenomenon occurs in 16:68: “And your Lord inspired the bee,
(saying,) “Take for yourself dwellings in hills, on trees, and in what they
(mankind) build.” The imperative “take” above is the translation of the
Arabic word attakhithi, which is a feminine form (for Arabic, unlike
English, differentiates between the sexes). The feminine form is used
when all of those it refers to are female, whereas the masculine is used
when a group consists of at least one male. Therefore the Qur’an is in fact
saying: “Take for yourself, you female bees, dwellings. . . .” A swarm of
bees is comprised of three types: a queen, the worker bees who collect
honey and build the hive, and the male drones, whose sole purpose is to
impregnate the queen and who are then killed off by the worker bees. The
latter type are females with underdeveloped sex organs. Thus, the phrasing
of this command is in agreement with the fact that male bees do not
participate in the construction of the hive or “dwelling,” which is the sole
work of the females.
Some verses seem to parallel the most modern discoveries. For example,
by studying the galactic spectrum, scientists have recently established
that the universe is expanding. In the Qur’an, we read: “The firmament,
We have built it with power. Verily, We are expanding it.”
(51:47). Arberry’s interpretation comes very close to this, for the word
sama‘ means firmament or heaven in the sense of the extra-terrestrial
world, and the word musi‘un is the present plural participle of the verb
awsa‘a, which means “to widen, to extend, to expand.”
35
In a similar example, we read:
Have not those who disbelieve seen that the heavens and the earth
were fused (ratq) and then We broke them apart (fataqa), and we
made every living thing out of water. Will they then not believe?
(21:30)
With the above verse in mind, another tenet of modern science becomes
quite intriguing. Scientists have postulated for some time that the
universe was originally a single primary mass of nearly infinite density
that subsequently split into multiple fragments after a tremendous explosion,
the “Big Bang.” It has also been established that all living cells are
made up mostly of water, which is the essential element for the existence
of life as we know it. This verse accords with these conceptions. But the
more interesting observation is that this challenge to unbelievers was proclaimed
in the seventh century. We may ask ourselves: Which unbelievers
are being addressed here? For the contemporaries of Muhammad, this
revelation had many compelling aspects, but this question could not have
made much sense to them unless there was some ancient, and presently
unknown, Arabian mythology to which they could relate it. Was it then
meant to be understood by people of a much later era who would be
familiar with modern scientific findings?
The last remark leads us to inquire how those Qur’an exegetes who
lived before the modern era understood these passages. First of all, with
perhaps a few exceptions, all of these verses could be comprehended on
some level by anyone according to his level of knowledge, for all languages,
especially those that are scriptural, contain words that have several
shades of meaning. Even if one does not know that the earth is spherical,
he is still aware of the alternation of night and day, and hence may only consider
the choice of words in 39:5 above peculiar. Also, commentators often
understood such words in a symbolic or esoteric sense, which is a reflection
of the fact that these verses have meanings and purposes on several
simultaneous levels, a subject that we will look into shortly. Sometimes
commentators would hazard scientific explanations that were, more often
than not, completely wrong; in other instances, their understandings were
quite close to what was discovered later. Most importantly, the “signs”
(ayat) appear as parts of larger passages whose primary emphasis is on the
guiding and saving of mankind, and therefore such technical significances
are likely to be missed by those not familiar with modern scientific thought.
It should be mentioned that there are expressions in the Qur’an that
seem to denote the possibility of future scientific explication. The mysterious
symbolic letters (al muqatta‘at) that appear at the beginning of many
36
surahs is one such example.30 Bucaille puts forth a conjecture concerning
the repeated reference in the Qur’an to “the heavens, and earth and everything
between them” in his book, The Bible, the Qur’an and Science.31
The Qur’an contains an intriguing description of the Day of Judgment:
The Day when We will roll up the heavens as written scrolls are
rolled up. As We brought into being the first creation, so shall We
bring it forth anew—a promise [which We have made binding]
upon Ourselves. Behold, We are able to do [all things]! (21:104)
From this reference to rolling up the heavens like scrolls as in the first
creation and our notions of the Big Bang spoken of above, is it possible to
infer that the universe continued to fragment and expand in an unscrolling
fashion after the Big Bang, revolving outwardly from some linear axis?
Will the end of this cosmos involve a reversal of that process? Of course,
this is only speculation, based on widely held conjectures, but it serves to
demonstrate the existence of verses having implications that might one
day be found to have a scientific basis. Here is still another example:
He Who created the seven heavens one above another. No fault
will you see in the creation of the Most Merciful. So turn your
vision again. Do you see any flaw? Again turn your vision, and
again your vision will come back to you, dazzled, defeated.
(67:3-4)
Although the inability of man to encompass the mysteries and complexity
of creation is expressed in this passage, it seems to point to various
natural phenomenon as well.
We are not taking this opportunity to assert that there are specific
Qur’anic verses that refer to specific scientific discoveries. We are merely
comparing Qur’anic statements that deal with the physical universe and
certain scientific notions. Often there appears to be profound similarities.
But, more notably, as Bucaille observes, the Qur’an is distinguished from
all other works of antiquity that describe or attempt to explain the workings
of nature in that it avoids mistaken concepts. For in the Qur’an,
“many subjects are referred to that have a bearing on modern knowledge,
37
30Rashad Khalifa claimed to have unveiled the mystery behind these symbolic letters. He
makes a connection between these letters and the number nineteen (19) mentioned in
74:30. Muslim scholars are rightly skeptical about his findings. See Rashad Khalifa,
Qur’an: The Final Testament (Tucson, AZ: Islamic Prod., 1989).
31Bucaille, The Bible, the Qur’an and Science, 148.
without one of them containing a statement that contradicts what has been
established by present-day science.”32
The “signs” accomplish exactly what their designation suggest: they
act as guideposts, capture one’s attention, assist in guiding one to deeper reflection,
and, sometimes, to belief. Their power lies not in giving explicit
and precise descriptions of natural phenomena, but in their ability to inspire
man’s curiosity and awe throughout the ages. Although we may argue about
the true meaning of any of these passages, the topics discussed thus far in
this chapter lead to the definite impression that the author of the Qur’an
anticipated an evolution in the mentality of man, culminating in an age
when reason and science would be viewed as the final criterion of truth.
CENTRAL CONSIDERATIONS
The above observations, to the dismay of many Muslims, are unlikely
to convince non-Muslims that the Qur’an is the word of God. Genius,
however great, is always mysterious but not necessarily divine. They may,
however, stimulate further investigation. At some stage the Qur’an must
arouse in the reader the eternal questions: “Is there a God, and if so, then
what is our relationship to Him and the purpose and meaning of life?”
Qur’anic Imagery
There is an undeniable loss of meaning when a sacred scripture is
translated. But if the translator is motivated by commitment and devotion,
there may survive something of divine effulgence that cannot be restrained
by human limitations. Though surely more powerful in the original, something
of the wonder and horror, the beauty and brilliance of the Qur’an’s
imagery and description may survive to provoke deeper reflection. The
graphic and terrifying visions of Hell, for example, that seem to outweigh
the descriptions of the glory and splendor of Paradise impel us to consider
its possibility. Due to this emphasis, some have seen the God portrayed
in the Qur’an as more vindictive than forgiving. However, within the total
context of the Qur’an, He emerges as more intent on saving than on reas-
38
32Bucaille, The Bible, the Qur’an and Science, 163. The author goes so far as to conclude
his study with the following remark: “In view of the level of knowledge in Muhammad’s
day, it is inconceivable that many statements in the Qur’an which are connected with science
could have been the work of a man. It is, moreover, perfectly legitimate, not only to
regard the Qur’an as an expression of Revelation, but also to award it a very special place,
on account of the guarantee of authenticity it provides and the presence in it of scientific
statements which, when studied today, appear as a challenge to explanation in human
terms.”
suring. Certainly this matter requires further investigation, which we will
take up later.
Although they are forced to depend on interpretations, I feel sure that
nearly all Western converts would characterize the literary style of the
Qur’an as its most compelling feature, for it infuses in the reader that intangible
sense that he/she is an active participant in divine revelation.
Denny’s testimony puts it best:
There comes a moment in the reading of the Qur’an, as for example
in personal study focused on understanding the meaning,
whether reciting out loud or reading it silently, when readers start
feeling an uncanny, sometimes frightening presence. Instead of
reading the Qur’an, the reader begins feeling the Qur’an is “reading”
the reader! This is a wonderfully disturbing experience, by no
means requiring a person to be a Muslim before it can be felt. This
expression of the Qur’an’s inherent power has been a major factor
in the spread of Islam, as well as Muslims’ continuing loyalty
to the Straight Path, as the Qur’an itself characterizes the religion.
33
Back to the “Signs”
We will show them Our signs (ayat) in the farthest reaches and
within themselves until it is clear to them that it is the truth. (41:53)
Signs do not only guide; they also confirm and validate our steps and
decisions. So it is with the ayat of the Qur’an in our journey from “the farthest
reaches” and within our own selves. Virtually all of the Qur’an’s
“signs” from nature appear amid reminders of man’s duty and accountability
to God, and the impending judgment. Each of those verses that
have already been cited can serve to illustrate this point. The following
have been selected primarily for their beauty.
A surah which We have sent down and which We have ordained.
In it, We sent down clear signs, in order that you may remember.
(24:1).
This begins Surat al Nur, one of the best-known surahs of the Qur’an
for both Muslim and non-Muslim writers. Ingeniously, Malik Bennabi discovered
what for him were “clear signs” in two magnificent passages:34
39
33Fredrick Denny, Islam (New York: Harper & Row, 1987), 88.
34Bennabi, The Qur’anic Phenomenon, 165-84.
God is the Light of the heavens and the earth. The likeness of His
Light is that of a niche wherein is a lamp. The lamp is enclosed in
glass. The glass is as it were a brilliant star, lit from a blessed tree,
an olive that is neither of the East nor of the West, whose oil wellnigh
would shine, even though no fire touched it. Light upon
Light. God guides to His Light whomever He wills. And God propounds
similitudes for men, and God has knowledge of all things.
In houses God has allowed to be raised up and His Name to be
commemorated therein, glorifying Him in the mornings and the
evenings, are men whom neither trade nor sale diverts from the
remembrance of God and the establishment of prayer, and paying
the zakah, fearing a day when the hearts and the eyes shall be
turned upside-down, in order that God may recompense them for
their best deeds and give them increase out of His bounty; and
God provides for whomsoever He wills without count. (24:35-38)
In the resplendent “Verse of Light,” Bennabi sees an intriguing presage.
The allegory invokes the image of a brightly shining light within a
container enclosed in glass, lit from a source unknown at the time of this
revelation, “neither of the East nor of the West,” that shines although no
flame touches it. This parable may indeed serve, as Bennabi suggests, as
the description of an electric light, at which, when brought to our attention,
we can only wonder. At first such speculation may seem to violate the
beauty of the passage, but it is not uncharacteristic of the Qur’an, in its
theme of harmony, to simultaneously relate mystical and temporal information,
with the former appropriately almost blinding us to the latter.
Two parables concerning disbelief and its destructive consequences
immediately follow this verse:
And those who disbelieve, their deeds are like a mirage in a desert,
which the thirsting one deems to be water, until, when he comes
to it, he finds it is nothing, and there indeed he finds God, and He
pays him his account in full; and God is swift in the reckoning. Or
like darkness in a deep sea; there covers him a wave, above which
is a wave, above which is a cloud—darknesses, one above another;
when he holds out his hand, he is barely able to see it. And the
one to whom God does not give light, he has no light. (24:39-40)
Bennabi points out that the first simile would be expected from a resident
of seventh century Makkah, but he sees the second, with its images
of dark clouds and billowing waves, as better suited to someone from the
40
northern coastal regions. He links the reference to the existence of layers
of waves upon waves in the ocean to what is now known in oceanography
as the phenomenon of superimposition of waves and the increasing darkness
one encounters at greater depths of the ocean to the discovery in the
field of optics of the absorption of light in water.
The obvious theme here is that a life dedicated mainly to worldly pursuits
ends in utter disillusionment and spiritual suffocation. We are more
likely to discern this from the verse than what Bennabi has derived.
However, the phraseology is notable. If I were to compare the state of disbelief
to drowning in the sea—and having grown up on the New England
coastline, I might—I would use “wave after wave” instead of “wave above
wave,” for one often thinks of waves existing only on the ocean’s surface
and as occurring sequentially, one after another. This is how it appears to
us, but the Qur’anic description is, in fact, more accurate. Also, unless I
had experienced deep-sea diving, it is unlikely that I would think of graduated
levels of darkness in the ocean depths, since in relatively shallow water—
a pool or lake—the degree of light is more or less constant.
Bennabi’s findings, if we accept them as valid, are obscured by the
more obvious messages of the passages into which they are woven, while
the majority of ayat are presented independently as evidences from human
experience or nature. They serve to illustrate one of the many ways by
which the Qur’an invites its own investigation and merges worldly into
spiritual considerations.
The Role of Reason
Will you not then use your reason? (2:44)
The Qur’an enjoins us to study critically our behavior and beliefs.
Salvation is obtained through searching out and surrendering to the truth.
One of the aims of the Qur’an is to teach us to approach religious questions
with discipline, to reason accurately, in order to uncover contradictions
and inconsistencies within ourselves. Embedded in many of the
Qur’an’s parables, stories, and admonitions are lessons that deal with correct
and incorrect reasoning. Characteristically, the Qur’an accentuates the
importance of proof and evidence in argument:
And they say: “No one will enter Paradise unless he is a Jew or a
Christian.” Those are their desires. Say: “Produce your proof if
you are truthful.” (2:111)
41
The idolaters will say: “If God had wished, we would not have ascribed
partners to Him, nor would our fathers, nor would we have
prohibited anything.” Thus did their ancestors argue falsely, until
they tasted Our might. Say: “Have you any (certain) knowledge?
If so, produce it for us. You follow nothing but conjecture.”
(6:148)
Or do they say: “He has invented it?” No, but they do not believe.
Then let them bring a discourse like it, if they speak truly. (52:33-
34)
Why did they not bring four witnesses to prove it? But since they
did not bring the witnesses, in God’s sight they are liars. (24:13)
In several places, the Qur’an exposes the logical flaws of some common
approaches to religious questions:
The Jews say the Christians have nothing to stand on, and the
Christians say the Jews have nothing to stand on, while both recite
the (same) Book! Thus, like what they say, say those who do not
know. (2:113)
When they are told, “Spend of that which God has provided you,”
the ungrateful say to those who believe, “Shall we feed those
whom, if God had willed, He would have fed (Himself)? You are
in nothing but manifest error.” (36:47)
The first of the above verses illustrates the “glass house syndrome,”
whereby arguments used against another religion apply equally to one’s
own. The implication in the second is that a response such as that quoted
not only denies man’s charitable impulse, but, if this reasoning is adopted,
there is no need to pursue any human endeavor, including self-preservation.
Surat al A‘raf presents a parable of how people stray from the truth
based on circumstantial evidence:
The similitude is that of a dog: if you attack it, it lolls out its
tongue, or if you leave it alone, it lolls out its tongue. That is an
example of [how] people reject the truth.35 (7:176)
42
35Gary Miller brought this example to my attention.
The tendency to lose oneself in senseless arguments over insignificant
details is criticized in Surat al Kahf:
Some say they were three, the dog being the fourth among them.
Others say they were five, the dog being the sixth, guessing at the
unseen. Yet others say seven, the dog being the eighth. Say: “My
Lord knows best their number, and none knows them but a few.
Therefore, do not enter into controversies concerning them,
except on a matter that is clear, and do not ask of anyone to make
a pronouncement concerning them.” (18:22)
There are marvelous lessons in wisdom in the Qur’anic narratives. As
the tale of Moses and the sage unfolds (18:60-82), the reader finds himself
attempting to anticipate the solution of a timeless riddle: how can ostensibly
evil things serve a greater good? As he tries in his own mind to resolve
it, he is in fact teaching himself about divine justice and the nature of good
and evil. Similarly, in Surat Yusuf, we learn about the subtle workings of
God’s will and the meaning and purpose behind life’s adversities. In the
story of David and Solomon (21:78-79), we are given a lesson in sound
judgment. With the Qur’an’s persistent attack on errors of disbelief, either
directly or in its many accounts of believers—disbeliever showdowns, the
reader, regardless of his position, becomes engaged in an ongoing debate.
He is in fact receiving instruction by almost reliving critical episodes in
other people’s lives.
Another important device to make us ponder more deeply on fundamental
issues is the intentional contradiction. On the question of good and
evil, we are told:
Say: “All things are from God.” But what is amiss with these people
that they fail to understand a single fact? Whatever happens to
you of good is from God, but whatever happens to you of evil is
from yourself. (4:78-79)
Here we are learning the distinction between acts that belong “to God”
and those that come “from God.”36 While we are the authors of our own
actions, our potential for and our ability to do evil comes “from God.”
Thus the evil act itself is attributable “to us” and not “to God.” But with a
little deeper reflection, we come to understand the relativity of evil, for the
evil that exists in this world is not absolute but serves a greater good.
43
36Murtaza Mutahhari, Fundamentals of Islamic Thought, trans. R. Campbell (Berkeley:
Mizan Press, l985), 106-12.
Unavoidably, this brings us to a discussion of one of the great barriers
between faith and unfaith, and it looms as large today as ever—the age-old
conflict of “faith and reason.”
Faith and Reason
If God is all-merciful and all-compassionate, why does He expose us
to suffering? If all-knowing, why does He test us? If self-sufficient, why
does He require us to worship Him? What value is prayer if all is predetermined?
How does one reconcile divine justice and predestination, or divine
love with punishment?
These questions of course are not new. They have plagued religion
since man first became conscious of the divine; they have led to schism,
violence, and disbelief. Although every orthodox belief system provides
an answer, the laity has been discouraged, and often forbidden, to delve
into such matters. There have been brilliant attempts in the past—among
Muslim philosophers, most notably that of Ibn Sina.37 In today’s world, in
particular in academia, such questions remain for many the biggest obstacle
to belief in God. We preface our investigation of these issues with a
discussion of two important aspects of the Qur’an.
Allegory
Asad submits that “the key-phrase of all its [the Qur’an’s] key-phrases”
is the statement in verse 7 of Al ‘Imran:38
He it is who has bestowed upon you from on high this divine writ,
containing messages clear in and of themselves (ayat muhkamat)—
and these are the essence of the divine writ—as well as
others that are allegorical (mutashabihat). Now, those whose
hearts are given to swerving from the truth go after that part of it
which has been expressed in allegory, seeking out confusion, and
seeking its final meaning, but none save God knows its final
meaning.
Exactly which verses are symbolic and which are to be taken literally
has been the subject of differing opinions. In his The Message of the
Qur’an, Asad offers the extremely plausible explanation that the verses
that are to be understood in a symbolic sense correspond to those aspects
44
37Arthur J. Arberry, Avicenna on Theology (London: J. Murray, 1951).
38Asad, The Message, 989-91.
of reality that are beyond the reach of human experience and perception,
which the Qur’an designates as al ghayb (the hidden, unseen, or imperceptible).
He argues that the human mind can operate only on the basis of previously
realized experiences and, once this is admitted,
we are faced by a weighty question: Since the metaphysical ideas
of religion relate, by virtue of their nature, to a realm beyond the
reach of human perception or experience—how can they be successfully
conveyed to us? How can we be expected to grasp ideas
that have no counterpart, not even a fractional one in any of the
apperceptions which we have arrived at empirically?39
A poor analogy might be seen in an attempt at describing a cloud to
someone who is blind, or, as in Abbott’s book Flatland, three dimensional
space to a being who exists entirely in two dimensions.40 Asad maintains
that from this consideration, the answer is self-evident. We can come to an
intuitive appreciation of realities beyond the reach of our perception
By means of loan images derived from our actual—physical or
mental—experiences; or as Zamakhshari phrases it in his
commentary on 13:35, “through a parabolic illustration, by means
of something which we know from our experience, of something
that is beyond the reach of our perception. . . .” Thus, the Qur’an
tells us clearly that many of its passages and expressions must be
understood in an allegorical sense for the simple reason that, being
intended for human understanding, they could not have been conveyed
in any other way. It follows, therefore, that if we were to
take every Qur’anic passage, statement or expression in its outward,
literal sense and disregard the possibility of allegory, a
metaphor or a parable, we would be offending against the very
spirit of the divine writ.41
Thus we find in the Qur’an very carnal descriptions of Paradise that
are particularly suited to the seventh-century Arabs, while at the same time
32:17 informs us that “no soul knows what delights of the eye are kept hidden
for them [the believers] as a reward for their deeds.” Similarly, although
God is “glorified and exalted above whatever they ascribe to Him”
(6:100), and “there is nothing like Him” (42:11) and “nothing that can be
45
39Ibid., pp. 989-90.
40Edwin A. Abbott, Flatland (New York: Dover, 1952).
41Asad, The Message, 989-91.
compared to Him” (112:4), we still have the need to relate to Him and His
activity. This human need is realized by the employment of allegory and
symbolism, so that in describing God’s attributes, the Day of Judgment,
Paradise and Hell, and other subjects of this kind, the ayat mutashabihat
do not define nor fully explicate these realities, but suggest to us, due to
the limitations of human thought and language, something similar from
within the realm of our experience. This explains
the use of expressions which at first sight have an almost anthropomorphic
hue, for instance, God’s “wrath” (ghadab) or “condemnation”;
His “pleasure” at good deeds or “love” for His creatures;
or His being “oblivious” of a sinner who was oblivious of
Him; or “asking” a wrongdoer on Resurrection Day about his
wrongdoing; and so forth. All such verbal “translations” of God’s
activity into human terminology are unavoidable as long as we are
expected to conform to ethical principals revealed to us by means
of a human language; but there can be no greater mistake than to
think that these “translations” could ever enable us to define the
Undefinable.42
Satans and Jinn
The Qur’anic terms shaytan and jinn are often translated as “satan”
and “genie,” respectively. In the Western mind, the word “satan” conjures
up the image of a supernatural being, half-man, half-animal, with
horns on his head and a tail and pitchfork. A genie is a similar demon
who lives in a bottle. Our understanding is largely influenced by the
folklore that grew around these words in the Middle East and the Far
East, where in time “they became personified into fantastic forms.”43
Due to such misconceptions, we will need to discuss their original connotation.
The word jinn is derived from the root janna, which means “to cover,
conceal, hide, or protect.” Hence, originally, the word jinn denoted “a being
that cannot be perceived with the senses.”44 Thus, Yusuf Ali opines that
it designates “a spirit or an invisible or hidden force.”45 The Arabs, as
pointed out by Muhammad Ali, would commonly use the term jinn to refer
to humans. He quotes Arabic lexicologists who explain that it could be
46
42Ibid., 989-91.
43Ali, The Meaning of the Holy Qur’an, footnote 929.
44MuhammadAli, The Religion of Islam (New Delhi: S. Chand & Co., n.d.), 188.
45Ali, The Meaning of the Holy Qur’an, footnote 929.
used to designate mu‘zam al nas, i.e., “the main body of men or the bulk
of mankind.”46
In the mouth of an Arab, the main body of men would mean the
non-Arab world. They called all foreigners jinn because they were
concealed from their eyes.47
Therefore jinn, in its most general connotation, is an imperceptible
being or force.
Concerning the word “Shaytan,” in his commentary on the Qur’an, al-
Tabari asserts that
Shaytan in the speech of the Arabs is every rebel among the jinn,
mankind, beasts, and everything. . . .The rebel among every kind
of thing is called a shaytan, because its behavior and actions differ
from those of the rest of its kind, and it is far from good.48
The word “Shaytan” derives its meaning from an Arabic root which
means “to be remote or banished.”
It is said that the word is derived from [the use of the lst form verb
shatana] in the expression shatana dari min darik (my home was
far from yours).49
Once again, this term can be used to refer to humans. Commenting on
2:14, al Tabari quotes Ibn ‘Abbas:
There were some Jewish men who, when they met one or several
of the Companions of the Prophet, may God bless him and grant
him peace, would say; “We follow your religion,” but when they
went in seclusion to their own companions, who were their satans,
they would say: “We are with you, we were only mocking.”50
He also quotes Qatadah and Mujahid, who claimed that these satans
were “their leaders in evil” and “their companions among the hypocrites
and polytheists.”
47
46Ali, Religion of Islam,191.
47Ibid., 191.
48Al-Tabari: The Commentary on the Qur’an, vol. I, trans. J. Cooper (London: Oxford
University Press, l987), 47.
49Ibid., 47.
49Ibid., 131.
The Qur’an, as well as certain sayings of Muhammad, certainly suggests
the existence of beings and even worlds beyond our perception. But
the words shaytan and jinn should not be construed only in this sense, both
because of the folklore attached to the terms “satan” and “genie,” and
because they do not express the more general meaning of the original
Arabic. To avoid confusion, I will sometimes employ phrases such as “spiritual
beings/forces” or “unseen beings” when discussing them below.
Time and Eternity
The concepts of time and eternity and their relationship to God have
been subjected to diverse philosophical speculations throughout the history
of religion. This is demonstrated amply in Muhammad Iqbal’s
Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam,51 in which he attempts a
new interpretation in conformity with modern thought and the doctrinal
sources of Islam. The attempt itself has received considerable praise from
Muslim and non-Muslim scholars, despite considerable disagreement on
both sides about the validity of his ideas.52 In the words of Iqbal, we
should not underestimate the importance of such efforts, since many theological
paradoxes arise from our understanding of these concepts. On the
one hand, we cannot resist, as the scriptures themselves cannot, relating
time to God. On the other hand—and this is more important—we must
alert ourselves to the deficiencies in our understanding.
The greatest perplexities arise from attributing human limitations to
God when dealing with time. As God transcends space, we naturally do
not associate with Him any spatial limitations. For instance, we would not
say that God literally descends to earth or walks in the garden; equally, we
would not insist that God is a three-dimensional being or that He travels
from one point to another in space. In the same way, we should not demand
that God have a past, a present, and a future, for this assumes that
His existence is, like ours, in time. Again, this conflicts with His infinite
transcendence.
We have little difficulty accepting the idea that God’s knowledge can
encompass two different points in space simultaneously. This is perhaps
because we assume that the attribute of transcending space implies a
unique vantage point. We could compare it, however imperfectly, to the
experience of being high above the ground and hence having simultaneous
48
51Muhammad Iqbal, The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam (Lahore: S. H.
Muhammad Ashraf Publ., 1982).
52Hafeez Malik, Iqbal: Poet Philosopher of Pakistan (New York: Columbia University
Press, 1971).
knowledge of very distant events. But unlike space, with respect to time,
we are immobile: we cannot travel forward or backward in time. An hour
from now, we will be at an hour from now, a fact that cannot be changed.
Therefore, it is more difficult to comprehend that God’s existence is independent
of or beyond time, as indeed it must be, for it is impossible to believe
that His existence is contained within or constrained by any of the
dimensions of the space-time environment which He created for us to live
and grow in. Once again, because of His unique vantage point, His knowledge
encompasses all events, regardless of their distance in space or time.
Another key point, one that is well-established in the Qur’an, is that
our perception of time is not objectively real. The Day of Judgment, for
example, is portrayed as belonging to a different ordering of time, one in
which we will comprehend suddenly that our former perceptions of time
are no longer valid and were not absolute.
The Day they see it, (it will be) as if they had stayed only a single
evening, or the morning following it (79:46)
And the Day He will gather them all together, it will be as if they
had stayed only an hour of a day. (10:45)
It will be on a Day when He will call you, and you will answer
with His praise, and you will think that you stayed only a little
while. (17:52)
In whispers they will consult each other: “You stayed not longer
than ten (days).” (20:103)
“You stayed not longer than a day.” (20:104)
He will say: “What number of years did you stay on earth?” They
will say, “We stayed a day or part of a day: ask those who keep
account.” He will say: “You stayed only a little, if you had but
known!” (23:112-114)
On the Day that the Hour will be established, the transgressors
will swear that they stayed only an hour: thus were they used to
being deluded. (30:55)
Interpreters will always render all references to the Day of Judgment
in the future tense, because, from our perspective, that is when it will take
place. However, several of the passages actually use the past tense. Commentators
assume, quite correctly, that this is a literary device that stress-
49
es the inevitability of these happenings. The use of the present and past
tenses in referring to the Day of Judgment also reinforces the idea that it
will take place in a very different environment, one in which our current
conceptions of time and space will no longer apply. The illusory character
of time is further supported by the comparisons of the “days of God” with
earthly days, in which a “day” of God’s is said to be “as a thousand years
of your reckoning” (32:5) and like “50,000 years” (70:4).
No attempt has been made here to provide a model or to interpret the
precise relationship between God and time. Rather, I want to suggest the
futility of such an endeavor. It cannot be otherwise, since our perceptions
of time are not objectively real. Conflicts arise precisely because a given
interpretation is assumed.
The question, “What is the value of prayer if God has already predestined
the future?” assumes that in some way God has a future. That is, it
assumes that God is situated in time and peering into a preordained future
as we pray. But in order to have a future, one’s existence must be contained
within time and, as a result, finite. The reason this question leads to contradictions
is that it assumes a contradiction in the first place—that God
both transcends and is finite in time. Any question that assumes two mutually
incompatible premises will always result in conflicting conclusions.
Assume, for example, that a circle is a square. With this assumption in
mind, we can ask if a circle has corners. If we emphasize the circle’s
roundness, then the answer is no. If we concentrate on the properties of a
square, the answer is yes. When the consideration of a question inevitably
ends in contradiction, it should be asked if the question itself makes sense.
The word “predestination” alone is problematic. If it is used to mean
that at some time in the past God programmed all events for the future, the
underlying assumption is that God exists in time. If we mean that God’s
wisdom and knowledge encompass all and that nothing in creation can
conflict with that, then it has to be admitted. But that is not the primary
sense of the word “predestine,” which means “to determine in advance.”
It also does not conflict with the idea that God responds to our prayers.
For many Muslim and orientalist scholars, the Qur’anic words qadar
and taqdir have come to mean the “absolute decree of good and evil by
God”—in other words, that God has preordained all of our acts, even our
moral choices. But as Muhammad Ali argues, this doctrine is “neither
known to the Holy Qur’an nor even to Arabic lexicology. The doctrine of
predestination is of later growth, and seems to have been the result of the
clash of Islam with Persian religious thought.”53
50
53Ali, Religion of Islam, 317-18.
According to al Raghib al Isfahani, the words qadar and taqdir mean
“the making manifest of the measure of a thing,” or simply “measure.” In
the Qur’an, they signify the divine laws regulating and balancing creation:
Glorify the name of your Lord, the Most High, Who creates, then
makes complete, and Who makes things according to a measure
(qaddara, from taqdir), then guides them to their goal. (87:1-3)
Who created everything, then ordained for it a measure (qadar).
(54:49)
And the sun runs on to a term appointed for it; that is the ordaining
(taqdir) of the Mighty, the Knowing. And as for the moon, We
ordained (qaddarnahu, from taqdir) for it stages. (36:38-39)
Of what thing did He create him [man]? Of a small life-germ He
created him, then He made him according to a measure (qaddarahu).
(80:18-9)
This is not to claim that God subjected the universe to certain natural
laws and then abandoned it to let it run its course. No reader of the Qur’an
receives this impression. In the Qur’an, God is al Rabb: the Sustainer,
Cherisher, Regulator, and Governor of all. He is the omnipresent source of
the harmony and balance of nature.
Man’s Purpose in Life
We may admit that there are existents beyond our perception or that
time is illusory, but to accept that our virtues and ethics are delusive and
tell us nothing about God is either to deny His existence or to say that our
surrender to Him has no real purpose. If we are to believe in God, then we
must assume that our perceptions of justice, love, compassion, forgiveness,
truth, and mercy are perhaps imperfect but are nevertheless composed
of something real that emanates from God. This is why life, with all
of its suffering and adversity, trial and error, is so antilogical. What possible
purpose can such difficulties serve? Why did life not begin in
Paradise? And yet the Qur’an insists that, in the design of God, our earthly
life is a necessary stage in human existence:
Those [are believers] who remember God standing and sitting and
lying down, and reflect upon the creation of the heavens and the
earth, [saying]: “Our Lord, you did not create all this in vain.”
(3:191)
51
We did not create the heavens and the earth and all that is between
them in vain. (44:38)
And We did not create the heaven and the earth and whatever is
between them as a game. If We wished to take a pastime, We
would have taken it by Ourselves, if We were to do that at all!
(21:16-17)
Do you think that We created you for nothing and that you will not
be returned to Us? The true Sovereign is too exalted above that.
(23:115-116)
It is reported that Prophet Muhammad said, “Your deeds will be
judged according to your intentions.”54 We have our first intimation concerning
the purpose of life when this understanding is combined with the
Qur’anic affirmation of the inextricable interdependence of true belief and
good works, and happiness in this life and hereafter (19:59-63; 92:17-21;
95:6; 99:7-8). Faith should produce good works and abiding happiness;
righteous deeds, when performed with pure intentions, should nurture
deeper faith, peace, and well-being. God does not need our works, and salvation
is not obtained by mere adherence to rituals and formalism. In
human relations, true faith translates into deep concern for fellow man and
social activism:
It is not righteousness that you turn your faces toward the East or
the West; but it is righteousness to believe in God and the Last
Day, and the angels, and the Book and the messengers; to spend
of your sustenance, out of love for Him, for your kin, for orphans,
for the needy, for the wayfarer, for those who ask, and the ransom
of slaves; to be steadfast in prayer, and to give the zakah; to fulfill
the covenants you have made; and to be firm and patient in pain
and adversity and peril. These are they who are true, those are the
God-conscious. (2:177)
The sacrificial camels We have made for you as among the rites
of God; in them is good for you. Then pronounce the name of God
over them as they line up (for sacrifice). When they are down on
their sides (after slaughter), eat thereof and feed the beggar and
52
54Sahih al Bukhari, trans. Muhammad Muhsin Khan (Beirut: Islamic University, al Dar al
Arabia Publishers, n.d.), vol. 5.
the needy one who does not beg. Thus have We made them
[domestic animals] subject to you, in order that you may be grateful.
Their meat and their flesh do not reach God, but rather Godconsciousness
from you reaches Him. (22:36-37)
You are the best community brought forth for mankind: you enjoin
what is right and forbid that which is wrong, and you believe
in God. (3:110)
And if anyone strives, he strives only for himself. Indeed, God is
free of need from all creation. (29:6)
Truly, those who believe and do righteous deeds, will the Most
Merciful endow with love; and only to this end have We made this
easy to understand, in your own tongue, so that you might convey
thereby a glad tiding to the God-conscious and warn thereby those
given to contention. (l9:96-97)
The Qur’an ties our happiness or suffering, both in the present and in
the hereafter, to our beliefs and to their actualization in our human
relationships. Thus, we find trials and tests in every aspect of our lives: in
our spouses, children, parents, kindred, the indigent, the orphan, the wayfarer,
our wealth, and our conflicts. We know that it is better to give than
receive, to forgive than to seek vengeance, to love than to hate, to have
compassion, to be just, for these are the things that bring us real happiness
and serenity. The Qur’an maintains that, although our attachment to material
things is necessary, we should not lose sight of the fact that “the most
beautiful of all goals is with God.”
Attractive to man is the love of things they covet—spouses and
sons, and heaped up piles of gold and silver, and horses of mark
and cattle and cultivated lands. That is stuff of the life of this
world—but the most beautiful of all goals is with God. Say: “Shall
I tell you of better things than those?” (3:14-15)
The Qur’an then goes on to describe the bliss of the next life for
the patient and the truthful and the devout and those who are generous
and those who pray for forgiveness from their innermost
hearts. (3:17)
53
When I was a child, I asked my father if he thought heaven were possible.
He replied that he could not conceive of it, because man could never
overcome the jealousy, hate, greed, and anger that is in his heart. To some
extent I believe he was right, for one can neither experience nor even exist
in a heaven or paradise unless he or she progresses to a high level of goodness.
This does not mean that one must become perfect, but at least perfect
enough so that when the actuality and purpose of earthly life is revealed to
him or her, all remaining imperfections will be overcome and effaced:
And We shall remove whatever of enmity is in their breasts. (7:43)
Those who believe and work righteous deeds, We shall surely efface
their sins and shall reward them according to the best of what
they were doing. (29:7)
And so the purpose of life begins to emerge. We are to grow in virtue,
wisdom, justice, mercy, forgiveness, righteousness, concern and love of
our fellow man, compassion, patience, and generosity through our personal
striving, and struggling. In the Qur’an, these qualities are mentioned
as being among the attributes of true faith. We are to pursue them
not only to make the world a better place, but out of the conviction that
they exist as transcendent realities that emanate from the One and Only
Eternal Absolute—God. By developing such attributes, we simultaneously
grow in our ability to receive and experience God’s mercy, forgiveness,
compassion, justice, and love. In this way, we are increasing in nearness
to God.
Take love as an example. The more we taste of human love, the more
we can experience the love of God. I understand that my child’s experience
of my love is greater than my dog’s experience of my love, which is greater
than that of my fish, because a child comes to know love at a higher level
than a dog and a dog at a higher level than a fish. And I believe that my love
for my parents today is greater than the love I had for them when I was a
child, for by having my own children I have come to better know and feel
the power of the love given to me by my mother and father. Thus, the more
we increase in the above attributes, the greater will be our experience of the
majesty and beauty of God, both here and infinitely more hereafter.
The Day of Judgment is depicted in the Qur’an as a moment of immeasurable
intensity, when the reality of our earthly striving becomes
clear. On that day we will face the truth of what we have become, as all
temporal distractions and illusions are stripped away and we are left alone
with only our core beliefs and moral-spiritual achievements:
54
Then anyone who has done an atom’s weight of good will see it.
And anyone who has done an atom’s weight of evil will see it.
(99:7-8)
If, to use Qur’anic terminology, in the “balance” we are good, we will
experience extreme joy and well-being. If we are essentially evil, then ours
will be terrible loss and suffering. This joy or suffering is not arbitrary, but
is intimately connected to our spiritual-moral growth. Just as there are differing
levels of piety and goodness, wrong-doing and evil, so do the
Qur’an and the Prophet’s sayings assert that there are varied levels of
Heaven and Hell. As the growth of the fetus in the womb decidedly effects
the next stage of its existence, our moral-spiritual evolution in this life is
bound inseparably to our condition in the next. Then, obviously, “no one
will be able to bear another’s burden” (17:15).
Life contains experiences that give a fraction of a hint of the bliss of
Paradise. Unselfish, self-sacrificing love has its highest human manifestation
in the love of a parent for his or her child. When I look at my three little
girls sleeping at night, I find myself overwhelmed by such tender feelings
of affection that tears fill my eyes. My wife and I will stand there embracing,
flooded with feelings of warmth and love that are, as Muslims
would say, “worth more than the world and all it contains.”
With this great potential for growth and happiness comes the parallel
danger of moral decay and suffering. But why? One may admit that love,
compassion, truth, and other qualities bring the greatest joy—so why were
we not created with these qualities from the start? It seems that we have
arrived at where we began. Why were we not put into Paradise from the
start? Why were these virtues not simply programmed into us?
The answer is almost obvious: virtue, if programmed, is not true
virtue; it is always something less. You can program a computer to never
make an incorrect statement but it does not thereby become a truthful
computer; nor does a CAT scanner possess compassion, although it is
made to help the sick. The Qur’an presents angels as non-discriminating
beings (66:6), while man is a potentially much greater and alternatively
much worse creature (2:30-34). It emphasizes three essential components
of this stage of man’s moral-spiritual evolution: Free will, or the ability to
choose; intellect, the tool for weighing the consequences of one’s choices
and learning from them; and third and equally important, an environment
of adversity.
Returning to the previous two examples, to learn to be truthful requires
the option to lie, and hence the ability to choose and discern. A higher level
of honesty is attained if we insist on speaking the truth in adversity, say at
55
the threat of physical or material loss. To grow in compassion, there must
be suffering and the choice to ignore it. And so it is with all the virtues:
love, charity, justice, forgiveness, and the like. To grow in each of them, we
must have the alternative to do otherwise and the possibility for the existence
of hate, indifference, greed, vengeance, and, obviously, suffering.
Of course, we must have at least an inclination toward goodness from
the start, at least the seed of virtue and piety when we come into this world.
This is precisely how Muslim exegetes understood the statement of the
Qur’an that God “breathed into him (man) something of His spirit”
(15:29) and the saying of Muhammad that every human being is born with
a natural inclination (fitrah) toward self-surrender to God.55
This idea of the necessity of suffering, adversity, and struggle to
prompt our quest for moral-spiritual evolution, as well as our need to remember
life’s ultimate purpose in difficult times, recurs throughout the
Qur’an.
Assuredly We will try you with something of danger and hunger
and the loss of worldly goods, and of lives and the fruits of your
labor. But give glad tidings to those who are patient in adversity—
those who, when calamity befalls them, say, “Truly, to God we
belong and, truly, to Him we shall return.” (2:155-156)
Do you think that you can enter Paradise without having suffered
like those who passed away before you? Misfortune and hardship
befell them, and they were so shaken that the messenger and the
believers with him said, “When will God’s help come?” Oh, truly,
God’s help is always near. (2:214)
You will certainly be tried in your possessions and yourselves.
(3:186)
O man, truly you have been toiling toward your Lord in painful
toil; but you will meet Him! (84:6)
Oh you who believe! Be patient in adversity, and vie with one
another in perseverance, and be ever ready, and remain conscious
of God, so that you may attain success.(3:200)
Thus, life is a continuous process of growth and decay. Although God
presents us with innumerable opportunities to receive guidance, He also
56
55Ibid., (23:80, 93).
allows us to err and stray (16:9). It is by trial and error, and by realizing
and rising above our mistakes, that we learn and progress to higher levels
of goodness. In this way, error, if realized and repented of sincerely, can
lead ultimately to a higher state: “Excepting the one who repents and believes
and does righteous deeds—then for those, God will change their evil
deeds into good deeds, for God is Most Forgiving, Most Merciful.”
(25:70).
Denial of God, for example, is no doubt one of the gravest sins, but to
have done that and known the terrible loss and emptiness, to have been
crippled by that error and then to have found faith, is an extremely valuable
albeit painful experience, for the consequence of rejecting belief has
now become more than warnings—it has become internalized lessons. Our
spirituality would stagnate without the potential for error, realization, and
reform. So vital are these to our development in this earthly stage, that the
Prophet reported that if mankind ceased sinning, God would replace it by
another creation that would continue to sin and repent and gain His forgiveness.
(Muslim)56
In the Qur’an we read that “God guides whomsoever He will and leads
astray whomsoever He will” (18:17; 35:8; 39:23). Goldziher argues that
such statements
do not mean that God directly leads the latter into error. The decisive
verb (adalla) is not, in this context, to be understood as “lead
astray,” but rather as “allow to go astray,” that is, not to care about
someone, not to show him the way out of his predicament. “We let
them (nadharuhum) stray in disobedience” (6:110). We must
imagine a solitary traveler in the desert: that image stands behind
the Qur’an’s manner of speaking about guidance and error. The
traveler wanders, drifts in limitless space, on the watch for his true
destination and goal. Such a traveler is man on the journey of
life.57
The notion of straying and receiving guidance is understood better in
light of the more numerous assertions that God guides us according to our
choices and predisposition. We find that “God does not guide the unjust
ones,” “God does not guide the transgressors,” and God guides aright
those who “listen,” are “sincere,” and “fear God” (2:26, 258, 264; 3:86;
57
56Gardens of the Righteous: Translation of Riyad al Salihin of Imam Nawawi, trans.
Muhammad Zafrullah Khan (London: Curzon Press Ltd., l975), 95.
57Ignaz Goldziher, Introduction to Islamic Theology and Law (Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press, l98l), 79-80.
5:16, 51, 67, 108; 6:88, 144; 9:19, 21, 37, 80, 109; 12:52; 13:27, 16:37,
107; 28:50; 39:3; 40:28; 42:13; 46:10; 47:8; 61:5, 7; 62:5; 63:6). Also,
“when they went crooked, God bent their hearts crooked” (61:5).58 This
shows that one’s being guided by God is affected by sincerity, disposition,
and willingness. And surely God is responsive to those who seek Him:
“And If my servants call on Me, surely I am near. I heed the call of every
caller. So let them with a will call unto Me and let them believe in Me, in
order that they may be guided aright” (2:186). For Muslims, one of the
most cherished sayings of Muhammad is: “When you approach God by
an arm’s length, He approaches you by two, and if you come to Him
walking, He comes to you running.”59
According to the Qur’an, the principal beneficiary of our seeking
guidance and of our good deeds, as well as the primary casualty of our evil
acts, is no one but ourselves:
And the one who strives, he strives only for himself. Surely God
is independent of all creation. (29:6)
Evidences have come to you from your Lord. Then the one who
sees does so for his own soul, and the one who is blind, it is upon
himself. (6:104)
We have revealed to you the Book for mankind with the truth.
Then the one who is guided, it is for his own soul, and the one who
strays, his straying is only upon himself. (39:41)
As we can see from the above, Islam views sin as an act of self-destruction,
of rebellion against one’s true nature. Finally, it is not God who
wrongs us; it is we who destroy ourselves:
Taste the punishment of the burning. This is on account of what
your own hands have sent on ahead, and God does not do the least
wrong to His creatures. (3:181-182; 8:50-51)
They have lost their own souls, and whatever they invented has
led them astray. (7:53)
And they did not do injustice to Us, but rather they wronged their
own souls. (7:160)
58
58I am indebted to Fazlur Rahman’s observations on this matter in his book, Major Themes
of the Quran (Bibliotheca Islamica, 1980).
59Gardens of the Righteous, trans. Muhammad Zafrullah Khan, 28.
And so it was not God who wronged them, but rather it was they
who wronged themselves. (9:70)
O My servants who have sinned against yourselves, never despair
of God’s mercy. Surely God forgives all sins. (39:53)
The Arabic word for “sin,” which appears in the recurrent phrase “they
sinned against themselves,” is zulm. It comes from the verb zalama, which
means “to do injustice, to oppress, to deprive one of what is rightfully his
or hers,” which accents further the idea of sin as self-destruction. When
we, as the Qur’an so often says, commit zulm against ourselves, in reality
we are doing injustice and violence to ourselves by oppressing and robbing
ourselves of our spiritual ascent.
The Straight Path
Sigmund Freud identified three influences on the human psyche: the
id, the ego, and the superego. In general terms, the id is that source of psychic
energy that excites those animalistic tendencies that work for the
individual’s biological survival, such as greed, power, lust, envy, and
pride. The superego is the source of our sense of virtue, morality, and
guilt. It urges us to what we consider higher and nobler efforts. The ego
is essentially the intellect, which regulates, controls, and balances the
needs of the id with the demands of society and of the superego. Freud
believed that a healthy personality is one in which the ego balances the
other two forces effectively, for if one should dominate the other(s) completely,
the individual may become either socially destructive or selfdestructive.
Freud’s conception led to many attempts to identify the origin
of these influences.
In Islamic thought, these three forces are very real and are embodied
in the concepts of the satanic, the self (al nafs), and the angelic. The
satans are those creations of God that whisper subtle suggestions into our
hearts or minds (114:4-6) in an attempt to excite our base desires. The
angels, among other things,60 inspire magnanimity and self-sacrifice. The
self is the human personality that must manage and balance these influences.
Each of these has a fundamental purpose, which, if controlled effectively,
could work to the individual’s benefit. Thus, the Prophet stated that
every human being is created with a companion satan, who excites his
lower passions, and a companion angel, who inspires him with good and
noble ideas. When Muhammad’s audience asked if he had a companion
59
60 Ali, Religion of Islam, l69-99.
satan, he responded: “Yes, but God helped me to overcome him, so that he
has submitted and does not command me to anything but good.”61
The spiritual as well as the physical world is composed of obverse
forces, a reality that we find expressed in the Qur’an: “We have created everything
in pairs” (13:3).62 Together these forces make up a universe of
complements, held in tension according to a “balance” (55:7) and a “law”
willed by God Himself (qadar). The Muslim strives to find and keep to the
“middle way” (2:143) between the extremes of creation—between the
spiritual and material, the lofty and the base—through guidance, work,
struggle, and trial and error. He attempts to grow in what the Qur’an calls
taqwa, which is usually translated as “fear” but has the literal meaning of
“vigilance” or “defensiveness” and, in terms of Islam, a state of self-critical
awareness and readiness to submit to the demands of faith.63
In its many depictions of hypocrites, liars, cowards, and misers, the
Qur’an warns the believer of his potential for ruin. The underlying intent
of these admonitions is that the believer take an honest accounting of himself,
checking his true intentions. It is also a “reminder” (21:84; 69:48;
74:31) that awakens the reader to his real self.
When Muhammad described his first experience of the Revelation, he
said that an angel had appeared to him and overwhelmed him in an almost
crushing embrace, commanding him, “Read!” He replied that he could not
read or recite, for he was unlettered. Again the angel overwhelmed him in
his embrace and repeated the same command. In desperation, Muhammad’s
response was the same. After the third time, the angel dictated to
him what he was to read—the first four verses of the ninety-sixth surah.64
This episode in the life of the Prophet is much like the experience of
reading the Qur’an: in some passages it illuminates, in others it threatens,
and in others it embraces and assures.
The ritual prayers (salah), fasting, paying one’s financial obligation
(zakah), and pilgrimage support the individual throughout his life’s journey.
They remind him of his purpose and help him build the inner strength,
resolve, and character needed to see it through. For when a person raised
in the West first becomes a Muslim, he or she often feels like crawling into
a corner somewhere. Suddenly one has to face the incredulity, the shock,
even sometimes the rejection, of family, friends, and colleagues. While
60
61Ibn Hanbal, Musnad (Cairo: al Maimanah Press, n.d.), 1:385, 397, 401.
62See, Rahman, Major Themes, for a fuller discussion of this topic. Also see 31:10; 36:6;
42:ll; 43:l2; 51:49; 53:45.
63Lane, Arabic-English Lexicon.
64Sahih Al Bukhari, trans. Muhammad Muhsin Khan, “The Book of How Divine Revelation
Started” (1), Hadith no. 3.
this is no doubt due to centuries of Western misunderstanding and antagonism
toward Islam and the generally negative image presented by the
media, it is by far one of the most difficult challenges for a new convert.
For myself, I found the prayers to be a great help and comfort. The
dawn prayer (fajr) is the most demanding, and I found it impossible to drag
myself out of bed every morning at 5:00 a.m. until I finally discovered a
scheme that worked.65 I spaced three alarm clocks, set five minutes apart,
between my bed and the bathroom. When the first rang by the side of my
bed at 4:50 a.m., I would hit the shut-off button and, as usual, fall back to
sleep. Five minutes later, the one midway between my bed and the bathroom
would sound, and I would practically crawl over to it to turn it off and
then fall asleep beside it. When the final one by the bathroom sounded five
minutes later, I would struggle over to it, turn it off, and, since I was so
close to the sink anyway, I would get up and wash for the prayer.
I found that conquering my desire to sleep morning after morning was
a great source of strength; it made me feel better prepared to face my insecurities.
I would tell friends that, regardless of your beliefs, if you can discipline
yourself to get out of bed every morning at five o’clock, you begin
to feel that no challenge is too great. As it turned out, after a few weeks I
needed only two alarm clocks, and a short time later I had reduced it to
only one. After that, even if I forgot to set it, I would still get up on time.
And while all of the Islamic rituals have this element of character testing
and building, there is much more to them than that.
After the first euphoria of conversion, there comes a stage where the
rituals become routine and burdensome. As I said earlier, new believers
will report that they find them to be a powerful test and strengthener of
will. Later, they will say, the rituals become less of a discipline and more
of an experience of peace, and this becomes their primary motivator in
praying, fasting, and observing other aspects. At a further stage, and this
is in conjunction with their persistent daily striving to better themselves,
they will say that the rituals, especially the prayers, have become a very
powerful emotional and spiritual encounter—a time during which they
are acutely alert to God’s presence, wherein the ritual is more an act of
love, a divine embrace, and it is that love that comes to dominate their
lives. For Muslims, the rituals are a door to a breath of life, a life more
real and meaningful than anything on earth, and eventually this thirst for
divine life and love conquers them.
61
65 To me, praying the dawn prayer in the mosque is one of the most beautiful and moving
rituals in Islam. There is something mystical in arising while everyone else sleeps to hear
the music of the Qur’an filling the darkness. It is as if you temporarily leave this world
and commune with the angels in extolling God’s praises at dawn.
However, worship in Islam extends beyond the rituals. As with so
many Islamic concepts, its essence is contained in its Arabic root form.
The Islamic term for worship is ‘abada, which comes from the root ‘abd
(lit. “slave”). The goal of worship is a total commitment to serving God.
The vital implications of this are revealed in its negation. Shirk, the acceptance
of anything other than God as an object of worship, is to enslave
oneself to that which is other than the Creator, and its consequences are
self-ruination. When the Qur’an says “Have you seen the one who takes
his desires to be his god?” (25:43), it is describing a person who has become
the slave of his passions. It presents many similar examples of individuals
who have become enslaved to power, greed, tradition, pride,
wealth, lusts of various types, as well as to human lords. To be enslaved to
any of these false deities, to let the desire for these rival the worship due
to God alone, is to turn away from growth and fulfillment, and begin moving
toward self-oppression and destruction. Man’s true peace and happiness
lies in channeling his potential toward the service of God, and in
never losing sight of this goal.
A Muslim does not view his or her surrender to God as a defeat or a
humiliation; he or she sees it as the only way to real freedom and becoming
a human being in the full sense of the word. Thus, for the Muslim,
Islam is more than a religion. It is a system of guidance: inward toward his
true self and outward toward his fellow creatures, with his return to his
Lord as his ultimate goal. At least seventeen times a day in the course of
the five daily prayers the Muslim asks God to “show us the straight
path”—the middle way which leads to inner peace. If it is found, then a
passage is unveiled to a powerful, beautiful, and serene felicity in this life
and to an infinitely greater one in the next. Man’s life is a struggle and a
search for a wonderful, sublime, and most sweet surrender, and fortunate
are those who attain that, for every human personality, whether it realizes
it or not, yearns for submission—that is, Islam.
INNER CONSIDERATIONS
Scriptures have a discomfiting way of exposing us, of disclosing our
secrets and weaknesses. They can be painful to read, imposing questions
on us that we would prefer to ignore or postpone. Gradually and imperceptibly,
the Qur’an begins to weaken our resistance. Unexpectedly, those
verses that reveal our humanity begin to take their toll:
And those who reject faith, their deeds are like a mirage in a
desert, which the thirsting one deems to be water, until, when he
62
comes to it, he finds it is nothing, and there indeed he finds God,
and He pays him his account in full; and God is swift in the reckoning.
Or like darkness in a deep sea; there covers him a wave,
above which is a wave, above which is a cloud—darknesses, one
above another; when he holds out his hand, he is barely able to see
it. And the one to whom God does not give light, he has no light.
(24:39-40)
The atheist well recognizes this desperate searcher. His life is a futile
quest for happiness in pursuit of one empty illusion after another, with
each frustration only increasing his thirst as he grasps at darkness and
drowns in temporality. He rationalizes and argues his case with conviction
and challenges God in the process. Though he swears that he has the noblest
of aims, he continues to hurt and be hurt. He is being enveloped slowly,
encompassed by his own ruin.
And among people there are some whose speech concerning the
life of this world pleases you, and he calls upon God to witness
what is in his heart, while he is most adept at argument. And when
he turns away, he hastens about the earth, to work corruption upon
it. (2:204-205)
Should he enter the race to accumulate more than he can consume? To
what end? Is there the perfect romance, family, or endeavor that will meet
his needs? He longs for perfection, as if he contains an infinite void that
no earthly pleasure can fill. The Qur’an assures him that he will come to
realize the fruits of his striving at the moment of death, and then more
keenly when he is resurrected. But if he could see now with the vision of
reality, he would certainly see the hell he is already in:
The rivalry for worldly gain diverts you until you come to the
graves. No, but you will soon know; thereafter you will soon
know! No, but if you could only know with the knowledge of certainty,
you will see Hell-fire; thereafter, you will see it with the
eye of certainty! Then you will be questioned, upon that Day, concerning
the favors (of God to you). (102:1-6)
When the Qur’an describes the coward, the hypocrite, the arrogant denier
of truth, the tyrant and his cronies, the one who desires to be seen by
men in his worship while he ignores the suffering of the needy, the reader
knows that each of these, to some degree, lives within him. We read how
63
the hypocrites, when it is time to pray, do so only grudgingly (4:142), and
how there are those who pray but refuse acts of charity and ignore the
needs of the poor (107:1-7), and we see a mirror of our own selfishness
and lust for glory. When it comes to those who try to find excuses when
asked to fight in a just cause, we have to admit to ourselves how often we
have turned our back on the despair of others.
What ails you that you do not fight in the cause of God and the
helpless men, women, and children who say, “O our Lord, bring
us out of this land whose people are oppressors, and appoint for
us from Yourself a protector, and appoint for us from Yourself a
helper.” (4:75)
In these we discover our worst potentialities. They measure and reveal
us to ourselves.
We are given examples of the best that man can be: the prophets
Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad; such women as Mary, the mother
of Jesus, Asiya, the wife of the oppressive Pharaoh, and the Queen of
Sheba, who converted from paganism to belief in one God; the repentant
magicians of Pharaoh, who announced publicly their belief in the God of
Moses at the risk of crucifixion; the stranger among the Egyptians who
emerged to defend the truth of the message of Moses; and the People of
the Pit, who were thrown into the fire for their beliefs. They are young, like
the People of the Cave, and old, like the aged Jacob in Surat Yusuf. We see
men and women, parents and children, and husbands and wives, of both
believers and disbelievers—practically every type of social perspective is
seen in the unveiling of an unending conflict and the mandatory choice:
“Will I surrender to what is right, or will I turn away?”
These narratives develop at a rapid pace. We are thrust into a confrontation
between a denier and a defender of the truth. The tension builds
to the point at which a decision must be reached quickly, for a life is in the
balance. In almost all these showdowns, there looms the threat of persecution
and violence to the believer. The Qur’an covers these conflicts from
differing views: that of the prophet and those who believe in him, that of
the tyrant and his followers, giving each other support and justification
(7:109-110; 20:62), and that of the man in the street (40:28-44).
Unavoidably, we begin to ask: “Where would I fit in? Which of these people
am I?”
As one reads the Qur’an’s descriptions of how people think and act,
the state of spiritual loss of most of humanity, and the stories of so many
different kinds of individuals, a remarkable transformation takes place.
64
From the Qur’an’s images, verses, and surahs a more vivid picture starts
to emerge. There begins to dawn, with increasing clarity, a sharp and penetrating
view—of yourself. The Qur’an has somehow sneaked up on you
and has become a mirror in which you see your flaws, weaknesses, pain
and loss, potentials and failures. Peering deeply within yourself, you come
to recognize something that you have always really known: that there is no
god but God—La ilaha illa Allah.
However, recognition is not the same as commitment; there is still a
barrier of fear and apprehension separating belief from submission. But
there are verses in the Qur’an that come to the aid of one wrestling with
this choice. Like a hand from Heaven reaching out to a stricken heart, they
speak as much for the soul as to it. When you need most to know that God
is with you, that He hears you, He confirms it:
And if my servants call on Me, tell them that I am near. That I
heed the call of every caller. So let them hear my call. And believe
in Me, that they may walk in the right way.(2:l86)
When you doubt, He assures you that there is always hope:
O My servants who have sinned against yourselves, do not despair
of the mercy of God. Surely God forgives all sins. Indeed, He is
the Most Forgiving, the Most Merciful. (39:53)
And at that moment of surrender, as you call out to your Lord from the
depths of your anguish, He embraces you:
Our Lord, we have heard the call of one calling to faith, “Believe
in your Lord,” and we have believed. Our Lord, forgive us our
sins, blot out from us our iniquities, and take to Yourself our souls
in the company of the righteous. Our Lord, grant us what You did
promise us through Your messengers, and save us from shame on
the Day of Judgment: for you never break Your promise.
And their Lord accepted of them their prayer, and answered:
“Never will I suffer to be lost the work of any of you, be he male
or female. You are members one of another. Those who have left
their homes, Or were driven out there from, or suffered harm in
My cause, or fought or were slain—Truly, I will blot out from
them their iniquities, and admit them into gardens with rivers
flowing underneath; Areward from the presence of God, and from
His presence is the best of rewards.(3:195)
65
There are also verses that unblock the way to spiritual cleansing and
repentance, such as:
On no soul does God place a burden greater than it can bear. For
it is every good that it earns and against it is every ill that it earns.
Our Lord, do not take us to task if we forget or make a mistake.
Our Lord, do not lay upon us a burden like that which You laid
upon those before us. Our Lord, do not lay upon us what we do
not have strength to bear. And pardon us and forgive us and have
mercy on us. You are our Protector; then defend us against the
people who disbelieve. (2:286)
And there are others that comfort and reassure one that God does not
abandon those who seek Him. The first time I read the ninety-third surah
of the Qur’an, I was so struck with its promise of God’s nurturing love that
I wept for what had to be at least a half hour. I felt like a lost child who
had finally been rescued by his mother, for it tells us that through the
brightest and darkest times, God does not forsake us, if we only turn to
Him:
By the glorious morning light, and the night when it is still and
dark, your Guardian-Lord has not forsaken you, nor is He displeased.
And the promise of the hereafter is greater than the
promise of the present. And soon your Guardian Lord will give
you (that with which) you will be well pleased. Did He not find
you like an orphan and shelter you? And He found you lost and
He guided you? And He found you in need and nurtured
you?(93:l-8)
Earlier I had remarked that, in effect, the Qur’an has no beginning or
end, that its fundamental concepts can be ascertained regardless of the order
in which it is read. But for one who is about to respond to its call, the
arrangement of the Qur’an is pivotal, for the further you progress through
it, in the correct order, the more intense and emotive is its expression. As
a result, the closer one comes to conversion, the more magnetic is the summons.
The short surahs at the end of the Qur’an recapitulate its major themes
and intensify the exhortation. After one last reminder of the awful price of
arrogance and a stubborn rejection of faith, one arrives at the last three
surahs, which literally teach the reader what to say, placing the words before
him that he yearns to speak to his Lord. Three consecutive times, sep-
66
arated by a few lines, the reader is urged to announce his or her faith: “Say:
He is God, the One” (112:1), “Say: I seek refuge with the Lord of the dawn”
(113:1), and “Say: I seek refuge in the Lord of mankind” (114:1).
The reader has now been brought to the edge of a new life and commitment,
expressed, as I did years ago in the student mosque, in the words,
Ashhadu an la ilaha illa Allah, wa ashhadu anna Muhammadan Rasul
Allah—I bear witness that there is no deity except God, and I bear witness
that Muhammad is the Messenger of God
For those whom Islam has embraced, the greatest witness to God’s unremitting,
pursuing, sustaining, and guiding love is the Qur’an. Like a
vast, magnificent ocean, it lures you deeper and deeper into its dazzling
waves until you are swept into it. But instead of drowning in a sea of darkness,
as described above, you find yourself immersed in an ocean of divine
light and mercy.66
In the days after becoming a Muslim, I tried to attend every congregational
prayer at the mosque, but I was drawn especially to the dawn (Fajr),
sunset (Maghrib), and evening (‘Isha’) prayers, because during these three
the Qur’an is recited aloud rather than silently, as in the other two. This
soon caught the attention of one member of the congregation, who was curious
as to why I made an extra effort to come to these prayers, as he considered
them to be by far the more taxing and as the recitation was in a language
that was totally foreign to me.
I had never given the matter any thought, but I responded almost instinctively,
“Why is a baby comforted by his mother’s voice?” For even
though an infant does not know the words, it is a familiar voice that
soothes, a voice that he feels he has known in a distant past and that has
always known him.
There were times when I wished I could live within the protection of
that voice forever, but the new believer must live and grow in faith in the
real world.
67
66Schuon employs this simile in his Understanding Islam.
68
CHAPTER 3
Rasul Allah
The Prophet is closer to the believers than their own selves, and
his wives are their mothers. (Qur’an 33:6)
The rumor was spreading rapidly through the city, and the crowd
swelling in the courtyard was growing more restive by the minute. Even
though there had been plenty of signs during the past few days, they were
now in shock and on the edge of panic. Maybe this would be their greatest
trial, greater than the suffering, the immigrations, the fighting, and the
dying; for he had always been there—with his sure and steady leadership,
his tremendous spirituality and compassion, his reassuring smile, and his
kindly sense of humor.
“Awake, O Father of the Dust!” he had joked, as he brushed off the
dirt from his startled cousin. And out of the deepest humility and respect,
he had spread his mantle and made a place for the poor old woman to sit.
How could they forget that rugged, determined gait of his, as if he was
striding uphill, or his granddaughter riding on his shoulders when he led
them in the prayer? And God was always with him: in the cave and on the
field of Uhud and on the pulpit. It cannot be true! they thought. What are
we going to do now?
‘Umar bolted from his quarters into the courtyard. “They are lying!”
he cried to the crowd, promising to cut down with his sword the pernicious
fabricators. Towering over his audience, he was more fierce than ever, and
his enraged eyes guaranteed his threat. He used to say that at the sight of
‘Umar, Satan himself would reverse direction and flee!
At first they were relieved, for ‘Umar had seen him only minutes earlier
in the apartment. But they could still hear the crying of his wives inside
their rooms, and there was something eerie and unreal in ‘Umar’s
protest—like that of a boy that refuses to accept his father’s demise. O
God, it’s true, they gasped. Our Lord, help us. Muhammad is gone!
Abu Bakr, his horse sweating and panting hard as he guided it toward
the mosque, dismounted hastily and made his way toward his daughter’s
apartment. Parting the curtain, he asked permission to enter. “No need to
ask today,” was the reply.
69
He walked over to the mat where his son-in-law lay, his face covered
with a cloak. Their friendship went back so many years—to long before he
was a prophet, even before his marriage to Khadijah, back to when they
were both bright young prospects in Makkan society. He bent down and
kissed the face of his beloved: “Sweet you were in life, and sweet you are
in death.” He lifted his head gently between his hands while his tears fell
onto the Prophet’s face. “O my friend, my chosen one, dearer to me than
my father and my mother, the death that God has decreed for you, you
have now tasted. After this no death shall ever come to you.” With great
care, he lowered the Prophet’s head onto his pillow, bent again to kiss his
face, drew the cover over him, and left the room.
Abu Bakr, who was short, slight of frame, and best known for his tender
heart and clemency, did not appear to be a natural leader. In fact, his
own daughter had once disqualified him from leading the prayer because
of his emotional nature. However, the Prophet had seen deeper into him.
Reentering the courtyard, Abu Bakr went to the front of the crowd. He
called for the people’s attention, but ‘Umar, who was still haranguing
them, would not allow himself to be interrupted.
The crowd shifted its attention, for the people wanted to hear what
Abu Bakr had to say. “For those who worshipped Muhammad. . .” he
began loudly. ‘Umar now turned toward him, and both he and the crowd
fell silent. “Know that Muhammad is dead.” He continued firmly: “But for
those who worship God, know that God lives and never dies!” His voice
rose in intensity as he recited
Muhammad is but a messenger. Messengers passed away before
him; if he dies or is killed, will you turn back on your heels? And
whoever turns back on his heels will do no harm to God, and God
will reward those who are grateful. (3:144)
‘Umar, stunned by the realization that the Prophet was really dead, fell
to his knees, releasing the bereavement that he had refused to accept. In
the future, he would recount how, when Abu Bakr recited those divine
words, it had seemed that they were hearing them for the first time.
Although it would not become official until the next day, the question of
who would succeed Muhammad politically (there could be no successor to
his prophethood) was answered at that very moment in the hearts of many.
Abu Bakr’s role was limited, for he died two years later. It was, however,
the most sensitive time of all, for he had to steer the new Muslim
community through one of its most difficult phases of development. The
Revelation had been completed, its application had been demonstrated,
70
71
and it was now time for the ummah to be cut loose from the security of life
in the Prophet’s company and to apply the Message in new and uncharted
domains. The task was made easier by the fact that the outlook and personalities
of the Prophet’s closest companions had been molded by the
events of the past twenty years. The Qur’an and Muhammad’s example
were not yet two separate bodies of knowledge that they had to study and
research, for they were a part of their lives. But two gigantic dangers,
which would forever challenge the community, confronted Abu Bakr from
the start: sectarianism and the human tendency to elevate saints and heroes
to divine rank, even those who were sent to combat that tendency.
The Western convert of today has to face these same issues, although
from a somewhat different perspective. Somehow he must find his place
in a community whose traditions and perspectives, at this time in his life,
are largely alien to him. During the same process, he must also come to
terms with the person of the Prophet Muhammad.
Beginning with the Qur’an
At present there are very few books in English dealing with the basic
Islamic beliefs and practices.67 As a result, most American Muslims’ first
contact with the person of the Prophet is through an English translation of
the Qur’an with a commentary. And this is certainly appropriate, for the
Qur’an has always been the principal fount of faith for the Muslim community.
For those from a Judeo-Christian background, the natural initial
expectation is that the Muslim scripture should be, for the most part,
about Muhammad and his community. However, this is not the case. The
name “Muhammad,” for instance, appears only four times in the entire
text, while the name “Jesus” appears twenty-five times and that of
“Moses” one hundred-and-thirty-six.68 As discussed in the preceding
chapter, the Qur’an is concerned mainly with those who read it and their
relationship with God. It is true that one can find allusions to historical
events related to the Prophet’s time, but the references appear to be purposely
vague so that the struggles and challenges referred to can be
applied to the lives of almost any people of any time. Nonetheless, there
67Of an introductory nature: Hammudah Abdalati, Islam in Focus (Indianapolis: American
Trust Publications, l975); Sayyid Abul A‘ala Maududi, Towards Understanding Islam,
trans. Khurshid Ahmad (Indianapolis, Islamic Teaching Center, 1977); Muhammad
Hamidullah, Introduction to Islam (Paris: Islamic Cultural Center, 1969).
68Hanna E. Kassis, A Concordance of the Qur’an (Berkeley: University of California
Press, 1983).
are enough Qur’anic references to Muhammad’s thoughts and feelings,
hopes and disappointments, to allow us to form some picture of his personality.
Our approach to the Prophet will differ from that of the non-Muslim
scholars of Islam, who search for material or psychological motives behind
the revelations. We will attempt to come to know Muhammad from
the standpoint of one who has become convinced of the Qur’an as the divinely
revealed word of God, for this is the usual path taken by the convert:
his convictions about the Qur’an develop more rapidly than his perceptions
of the Prophet Muhammad. In addition to this, we will try to discern
how the Qur’an wishes the believer to regard him.
The most salient point made by the Qur’an about Muhammad is that,
although he was the recipient of the revelation and therefore possesses
special qualifications, he is nothing more than a man. There is very little
in the Qur’an that can be used to make more of the Messenger than the
Message. We have already seen the verse quoted by Abu Bakr to announce
the Prophet’s death to the community. There are several others that make
the same point:
Say [O Muhammad]: “I have no power to harm or to benefit
myself except as God wills.” (10:49)
We sent messengers before you, and appointed for them wives and
children, and it was not for any messenger to bring a sign except
by Allah’s leave. (13:38)
And they say: “We shall not believe in you until you cause a
spring to gush forth for us from the earth, or you have a garden of
date trees and vines, and cause rivers to gush forth in their midst,
carrying abundant water; or cause the sky to fall upon us in pieces,
as you say [will happen] ; or you bring God and the angels before
[us] face to face; or you have a house adorned with gold, or you
mount a ladder to the skies. No, we will not even believe in your
mounting until you send down to us a book that we can read.”
Say: “Glory be to God! Am I anything but a mortal, a messenger?”
And nothing kept men from believing when guidance came to
them except that they said, “Has God sent a mortal as a messenger?”
(17:90-94)
And they say: “What sort of messenger is this, who eats food and
walks through the streets?” (25:7)
72
73
And if We had not made you firm, you would have come close to
inclining to them somewhat. In that case, We would have made
you taste double [the punishment] in life, and double in death, and
you would have found no helper against Us. (17:74-75)
The Qur’an parallels Muhammad’s mission and struggles with those of
former prophets, who are presented as equally human (14:11). They are
tempted by sexual passion (12:24; 12:33), cherish earthly things (38:31-
33), may seek out others of superior knowledge (18:60-82), and may be
swayed by their emotions and act rashly (28:14-21; 7:150). They are also
fallible (38:24-25; 37:139-144), subject to self-doubts (28:33-35), and seek
God’s guidance and forgiveness (7:151, 28:16; 38:24-25; 38:35; 6:77).
Muhammad’s mortality is shown most effectively in the verses that
address his psychological and spiritual needs, as well as in those that address
the ordinary events of his daily life. While Muslim scholars search
for eternal lessons in these, they also help to reduce the distance between
the Prophet and ourselves. It would be unrealistic to expect a person who
is subjected suddenly to overpowering spiritual illumination not to call his
own sanity into question. Therefore, in the early stages of his mission, we
find such assurances as: “Your Lord has not forsaken you, nor is He displeased”
(93:3), “Have We not expanded for you your breast, and removed
from you the burden which weighed down your back, and raised high your
esteem?” (94:1-4), and “You are not, by the grace of your Lord, mad or
possessed. No, truly for you is an unfailing reward, and you (stand) on an
exalted standard of character” (68:2-4). We also see him being corrected
in strong terms on a number of occasions—for example, when, in his
attempt to fight the pre-Islamic prejudice attached to marrying former
slaves, he persistently urged his cousin Zainab and his freedman Zaid to
avoid divorce despite their mutual dissatisfaction with their marriage,69 or
when he disdainfully turned away from his blind disciple in his zeal to
convert some Makkan aristocrats,70 or when he imposed on his wives and
69Haykal, Life of Muhammad, 285-98. At that occasion, the following verses were
revealed: And when you said to the one to whom God had shown favor and to whom you
had shown favor, “Keep your wife with you and fear God,” and you hid within yourself
that which God was about to make manifest for you feared the people, but God has more
right that you should fear Him. (33:37)
70The relevant verses are as follows: He frowned and turned away because the blind man
came to him. But what could tell you but that he might be purified, or that he might be
reminded and the reminder might benefit him. But to him who regards himself as self-sufficient,
to him you give [full] attention, although his purification does not rest with you.
But as for him who came to you in earnestness and who has fear, of him you were unmindful.
No, but it is surely a reminder! Then let whomever wills be reminded. (80:1-12)
74
himself an unduly harsh restriction as a result of intermarital quarrels.
(66:1).71 Despite cultural differences, married readers should be able to
recognize and appreciate the several allusions in the Qur’an to domestic
tensions in Muhammad’s life (33: 28-34, 50-55, 59; 66:1-6).
The affinity between ourselves and the prophets is counterbalanced in
the Qur’an by the fact that although they are simply people, they are nevertheless
truly exceptional ones. They are God’s elect (38:47), raised to the
highest degrees of human excellence (6:83), doers of good (6:84), in the
ranks of the righteous (6:85), purified with qualities most pure (38:46),
devoted and sincere (12:24; 19:52), and preferred above all other people
(6:86). Muhammad in particular is described as being a most beautiful example
(33:21) and as having an exalted standard of character (68:4). He
deserves our respect (2:104; 4:46, 9:61) and God and the angels send down
salutations upon him (33:56).
Even when a prophet is censured or repents, his error cannot be classified
as an act of deliberate rebellion or transgression against the will of
God, but rather it is a temporary mixing of his divine mission with his personal
feelings and aspirations. This would seem almost unavoidable and,
for an ordinary person, certainly excusable. While God demands the highest
standard of conduct from a prophet, the Qur’an shows clearly how thin
the line is between these two. Thus, Solomon blames himself for being distracted
by the allurements of wealth and power (38:31-33), and David
repents for allowing his personal feelings to impair his judgment (38:22-
35). When Moses angrily accuses his brother of laxness (7:141) or Jonah
abandons his people (37:139-147),72 it is because of their intense emotional
involvement in their missions and their terrible disappointment when it
is stalled. And we would not be prone to fault Muhammad for his attempts
to eliminate prejudice, or for his enthusiasm to deliver the message, or for
trying to settle a family quarrel in an equitable way.
The Qur’anic depiction of God’s messengers is midway between the
Jewish and Christian understandings. They are exonerated of the gross sins
attributed to them in the Old Testament, but are not raised to that level of
divine perfection as Jesus often is in popular Christianity, despite his very
71Haykal, Life of Muhamad, pp. 438-42. The verses dealing with this incident are the following:
“O Prophet, why do you forbid [for yourself] that which God has made lawful to
you, seeking to please your wives?” (66:1)
72Muslim exegetes, relying heavily on Jewish and Christian sources, have attempted to
produce explicit and detailed accounts of these incidents, which are alluded to only briefly
in the Qur’an. Personally, I prefer the purposeful vagueness of the Qur'’an, which includes
only the basic outline, thus highlighting the most important lessons to be learned while
preserving the utmost generality.
human image in the Gospels. Both of these tendencies may lead to excessive
negativism and pessimism, for in the first, the examples are hardly
worth following, and in the second, such an attempt would not be realistic.
Islam has been criticized as being unrealistically positive and as not
acknowledging adequately man’s inherent weaknesses and proclivities
towards evil. But, as argued in the preceding chapter, Islam, and in particular
the Qur’an, takes into full account man’s inclination towards self-ruin,
although such a concern is not the whole message. The design of the
Revelation is not limited to making us aware of our failings or informing
us of God’s grace and forgiveness; it is also to encourage and direct us to
strive to overcome our defects and to reform ourselves. While this is never
easy, the final verdict of the Qur’an is that we must never cease trying or
give up hope. Surrender to God is not a single step; it is a continuous struggle.
In the Qur’an, God does not insist that we reach infallibility or immunity
from temptation, attributes that were not demanded of His elect.
Rather, we are assured of the fact that God loves His servants and wants
all individuals to submit themselves voluntarily to His will.
A frequent observation made by Western converts to Islam is that the
Muhammad of the Qur’an is quite different from the Muhammad one encounters
in the collections of Prophetic traditions, biographies, or in the
usual Friday sermons at the weekly congregational prayer. This is not to
say that one obtains an entirely incompatible view, but that the Qur’an appears
to accentuate different qualities of the Prophet. In the sermons, stories,
and traditions, much is made of the victories in battle, the miraculous
happenings, the brilliant leadership, the unflinching obedience of his
Companions, the promulgation of laws and rules, and the Prophet’s great
spirituality. These are aspects that would naturally impress people, especially
the early Muslims, because for them they were proof that he is indeed
God’s Messenger.
When we read the Qur’an, however, much of that fades into obscurity,
as does the character of the Prophet himself. What remains is a man
who is very reluctant to insult his guests when they have stayed too long
(33:53), who deals gently with his followers after their failure at Uhud
(3:159), who perhaps too readily excuses others (9:43), and who prays for
the forgiveness for his enemies (9:80). He is described as kind and compassionate
(9:128), and as a “mercy” to believers (9:61) and to all beings
(21:107). His anxiety and concern for the success of his mission and the
fate of his fellow man (16:37; 16:127; 18:6) is such that he has to be reminded
frequently that his duty is only to deliver the Message (6:107;
11:12), that only God guides people (2:272), and that it is not in his power
to guide those he loves if God has decided differently (28:56). This is only
75
76
a partial glimpse of Muhammad, but it is significant that this is the side of
his character that is exposed in the Qur’an.
The desire to know him better, more intimately, is nearly irrepressible;
especially if one had been raised on the Bible, where the prophets
occupy center stage. The Qur’an refrains from dramatizing
Muhammad’s inner conflicts, leaving us instead with only brief hints and
clues. We do not come to see so directly and vividly the fears, anguish,
and doubts, as we do in Jesus, for example, when he fights temptation in
the desert (Matthew: 4; Luke: 4), or during the night in Gethsamane
before his arrest (Matthew: 26; Mark: 14; Luke: 22), or in his final agony
on the cross (Matthew: 27; Mark: 15; Luke: 23). Even in the other Islamic
sources of sirah and hadith, which will be discussed below, we learn of
his statements and reactions, but seldom of his inner and private thoughts.
By this I mean that we are seldom alone with the Prophet and given privileged
access to his feelings. Instead, we always learn of him through an
intermediary, whether it be God Himself or a Companion of the Prophet.
Perhaps we were not meant to know Muhammad on such a personal level,
so that we would no longer feel any need for a human object of veneration
but direct all of our spiritual longings entirely to the All-Merciful.
This may explain, in part, why Prophet Muhammad is most frequently
referred to by his function in the divine scheme: the nearly anonymous
designations of al Rasul [the Messenger] and al Nabi [the Prophet].73
In the Mosque
Almost a year had past since I said the Shahadah, and Mahmoud and
I had become much more than friends; we were brothers in Islam. We
drove together to Fairfield to hear a lecture sponsored by one of the
Muslim student groups at the local masjid, which was a small house that
had been converted into a place of prayer. We stood out in the large audience,
not only because I was the sole American but because we were practically
the only ones wearing Western clothing. Not long after we had
found a space to sit on the floor, the first speaker began. Seeking to remind
his listeners of the impotence of their faith as compared to that of the
Prophet’s Companions, he told the following story.
The Prophet met a bedouin in the desert and invited him to Islam.
The bedouin was resistive and demanded proof of his claims.
73Later, we will see that the Qur’an does recognize the need for a human exemplar. Islam,
however recognizes that this need, if unbridled, could lead to a form of idolatry. The tension
between the two is maintained throughout the Qur’an.
77
Muhammad then asked if a witness would do. “We’re in the middle
of nowhere! There isn’t another man for miles. Who could
possibly serve as your witness?” The Prophet pointed to a nearby
tree. “This will be my witness.” At that moment the tree tore one
side of its trunk out of the ground and took a step toward the two
men; then it ripped the other side of its base from the ground and
came another step closer. The bedouin watched in terror and then
shouted, “I testify that there is no god but Allah, and I testify that
Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah!”
Mahmoud saw the discomfort in my face and tried to redress the damage
after the lecture. Of course, he was correct in saying that the audience
was not representative of all Muslims and that the value of such a story lies
not in its historicity but in its ability to inspire greater awe and consciousness
of God. Indeed, many in the audience had listened transfixed to that
and similar stories during the lecture, always following them with outbursts
of praise. But I felt that Mahmoud’s argument was more of a
Western apology than an Islamic one. In my opinion, such stories violate
the Qur’an’s appeal to reason and its de-emphasis on the supernatural in
favor of the wonders of nature and creation. However, Mahmoud, with his
usual diplomacy, drove home a significant point: who are we to deny the
legitimacy of another perspective simply because it disagrees with ours?
I now knew that, for my own sake, I needed a better understanding of
the place of hadith (the Prophetic traditions) in the life of my new community.
I was about to enter a maze of confusion, distortion, suspicion, and
dogma, a field to be explored only submissively and superficially, in
which there is little room for misgiving.
It is to this science that orientalism directs its most formidable criticism.
Unfortunately, the literature written by Muslim scholars, whether
originally in English or translated from other languages, to counteract this
attack has been an entirely inadequate response.74 And the need for an effective
response is urgent for Muslims living in the West, because this subject
plays an important role in directing and binding the community, and
in meeting the challenge of self-maintenance in a radically foreign environment.
74There are a few very important exceptions: Nabia Abbott, Studies in Arabic Literary
Papyri, vol. I: “Historic Texts” (Chicago: 1957), and vol. II: “Qur’anic Commentary and
Tradition” (Chicago: l967);Suhaib H. Abdul Ghafar, Criticism of Hadith among Muslims
with Reference to Sunan Ibn Majah (IFTA: 1984); Muhammad M. Azmi, Studies in Early
Hadith Literature (Beirut: l968); Muhammad Z. Siddiqi, Hadith Literature (Calcutta:
Calcutta University, l961).
78
A convert to Islam quickly discovers the need to adopt a position on
the role of the Sunnah and the hadith in his or her life. The problem is that
the options presented are so extreme that many converts soon come to feel
estranged from the community they have joined. In my opinion, this situation
could be avoided if there were a real chance for honest and open discussion
on this subject. Although I lack the expertise to rectify this problem,
I will try to put forth, from my limited perspective, some of the main
issues.
Let us begin by establishing some key terms.
Hadith, Sunnah, and Sirah
‘Abd Allah ibn Salam related, on the authority of al Zubaydi: ‘Abd al
Rahman ibn al Qasim said: My father, al Qasim, informed me that
‘A’ishah said: The Prophet raised his eyes and said three times: “In the
highest company. . .” 75
The above is an example of a hadith (plural, ahadith), which collectively
comprise an area of knowledge that has been the subject of intense
study by both Muslim and non-Muslim scholars since the earliest days of
Islam. The primary meaning of the word hadith is “new.” When it is applied
to a verbal communication, it is usually classified as “news”—an account
or report of what someone said or something that happened which was
reported by witnesses or those who heard of it through reliable sources. In
Islamic scholarship, the science of hadith is confined to the study of the
words and deeds of Prophet Muhammad, which Muslims consider to be the
second eternal source of guidance in their lives (the Qur’an being the first).
The word “sunnah” literally means “a way” or “a traveled path.”
When used in reference to the Prophet, it stands for his life example and
his model behavior. It is therefore connected closely with the hadith literature,
for it is chiefly through the latter that we come to know Muhammad’s
actions and sayings.
The many biographies of Muhammad are referred to as sirah (literally,
biography). But for the moment, we will concentrate on the subject
of hadith.
As in the above example, every hadith consists of two parts: the
isnad (the chain of authorities through whom it has been transmitted, and
the matn (the actual text). Muslim specialists in this area attach extreme
importance to both elements. For example, two ahadith with the same
matn but different isnads will be classified differently in terms of their
75Muhammad Asad, Sahih al Bukhari: The Early Years (Gibraltar: Dar al Andalus Publishers,
1981), p. 33.
79
authenticity. One may also note in the isnad the careful attention given
to the precise method of transmission at each stage, which for Muslims
testifies to the exactitude, integrity, and reliability of the individuals who
were included in the process through which traditions made their way
into the canonical collections of ahadith. This impression finds support
in the many accounts of the great piety of the most respected collectors
of ahadith, such as al Bukhari and Muslim, who often traveled great distances
and underwent serious hardships to investigate new ahadith and
substantiate the wording of the texts and the links in the chains of the
already known ones. The canonical collections, produced in the third
century of the Islamic era, are named after the scholars who compiled
them: Sahih al Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Sunan Abu Daud, Jami‘ al
Tirmidhi, Sunan al Nasa’i, and Sunan Ibn Majah. While there are many
other respected collections, such as Sunan al Daraqutni and Sunan al
Darimi, most Muslim specialists regard these six as the most reliable,
with the collections of al Bukhari and Muslim holding the highest claims
to authenticity.
The work of these great muhaddithun (scholars of hadith, usually rendered
as “traditionists”) was necessitated in part by the prominent place
the Prophetic traditions had gained in legal argumentation toward the end
of the second Islamic century,76 and by the ineludible fact that thousands
of traditions had been fabricated for political, factional, pious, prejudicial,
personal, and even seditious purposes.77 The extent to which forgery occurred
may be ascertained by the fact that, out of the six hundred thousand
traditions examined by al Bukhari, he accepted only 2,602 (not counting
repetitions) for his collection, al Sahih.78 This is somewhat misleading,
however, for al Bukhari never claimed that there were no authentic traditions
outside of his collection. Moreover, the number six hundred thousand
does not correspond to the number of distinct reports, but includes all the
different channels by which reported ahadith came to him, including repetitions.
When al Bukhari accepted a specific hadith, he would often reject
many others with an identical matn on the ground that their isnad did not
meet his standards. For him and for all muhaddithun, the authenticity of a
hadith was determined principally by its isnad, while the matn was considered
only secondarily.79 For a hadith to be accepted as authentic, it had
to have a continuous chain of reliable and trustworthy authorities and have
76J. Schacht, The Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence (Oxford: l953), 41-57.
77Abdul Ghafar, Criticism of Hadith among Muslims, 33-48.
78Azmi, Studies in Early Hadith Literature, 301.
79Ibid., 305.
80
no hidden defects. For example, a hadith would be rejected if it was known
that a link in the chain of transmitters contained two persons that never had
the opportunity to meet.
During the second Islamic century, this need to establish the reliability
of isnad engendered the collection and compilation of volumes of biographical
data on the narrators of traditions, as well as criticisms of their
character, veracity, and intelligence.80 This literature, known as the asma‘
al rijal (literally, “the names of the men), developed into an almost independent
science of its own of such magnitude and richness that Sprenger
calls it “the glory of Muhammadan literature.”81
The science of hadith divides traditions into three classes: genuine
(sahih), fair (hasan), and weak (da‘if). This latter group is subdivided
further: suspended (mu‘allaq), interrupted (maqtu‘ ), broken (munqati‘
), incomplete (mursal), forged (mawdu‘ ), and having an error in
the isnad or the matn (musahhaf). They are also divided according to
the number of their transmitters during the first three generations of
Muslims. The mutawatir ahadith were transmitted through the first
three generations by such a large number of transmitters that there is
little doubt as to their authenticity.82 The minimum number of required
transmitters varies, depending on the scholar, from as few as seven to
as many as seventy. There are very few ahadith in this class. The
mashhur ahadith, which are far more numerous, were transmitted by
two to four transmitters in the first generation and a large number in
the next two. These two groups have occupied an important position
in Islamic law since its earliest days. The ahad traditions were transmitted
in the first three generations by four or fewer transmitters and,
due largely to the arguments of Imam al Shafi‘i,83 they became, together
with the mutawatir and mashhur traditions, the second source
of Islamic law for Sunni (commonly called the “orthodox” by orientalists)
jurists.
From this short introduction, one can get a feel for the immensity and
complexity of this classical Islamic science that, unfortunately, can boast
only a very few true experts today. As Siddiqi remarks:
As a matter of fact, the whole system of teaching, particularly of
Hadith, in India and (so far as I know) in the whole Islamic world
80Siddiqi, Hadith Literature, 126-27.
81Ibid., cited on page 170.
82G. H. A. Juynboll, The Authenticity of the Tradition Literature: Discussions in Modern
Egypt (Lieden: E. J. Brill, 1969), 96-129. Here, he challenges this conception.
83Schacht, Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence, 11-20.
81
has been reduced to mere formality. Very few of the teachers possess
any knowledge of the Asma’ al-Rijal—a subject so essential
for a study of Hadith.84
Converts to Islam, whose access to the hadith literature is much less
direct than their access to the Qur’an, often find themselves in a bind regarding
this field. In the absence of readily available experts, certain traditions
are cited indiscriminately by the Muslim masses to justify almost any
idea or behavior. The matter is further complicated by the convert’s background.
If he or she has come from the Judeo-Christian tradition, which has
been rejected to some degree, he or she has already rejected a parallel heritage
of testimonies that, at least until recently, were believed to have been
faithfully preserved. It is also difficult to ignore the criticism of Western
scholarship, which has so successfully exposed human intermeddling in the
Jewish and Christian scriptures, and has arrived at similar conclusions
regarding the traditions of Muhammad. It is also hard not to question the
authenticity of those accounts that seem incompatible with what one might
expect of a prophet or that endorse something that seems to be extreme and
unreasonable behavior. On top of all this, a Muslim is expected to accept
the assertion that all the ahadith accepted by the majority of earlier and contemporary
Muslim specialists are true and accurate reports of Prophet
Muhammad’s statements and actions. This places many converts in the
uncomfortable position of having to rationalize and then yield to a dogma
that, because one is not supposed to question it, is very hard to believe in
and often forces a compromise of one’s commitment to the truth.
We will take up each of these issues one at a time, beginning with contrasts
between the hadith and the Bible.
The New Testament and the Hadith
Most Muslim and non-Muslim writers consider the Qur’an and the
Bible to be dissimilar scriptures, especially in terms of literary style, authenticity,
and the manner in which they have come down to our own time.
The same can be said of the collections of hadith and the Old Testament,
for although the differences are perhaps not as great in this case as in the
former, they are substantial enough to discourage comparisons.
While writers have suggested similarities between the canonical
hadith collections and the New Testament,85 a close examination uncovers
many important differences. Admittedly, both serve to guide their respec-
84Siddiqi, Hadith Literature, 139.
85Kenneth Cragg, Jesus and the Muslims (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1985), 91.
82
tive communities in religious matters and contain teachings attributed to
a divinely chosen messenger. In addition, each canon was established
more than three centuries into the lives of their communities and depends
on earlier transmitted testimonies. But the first two contrasts are very
general, since almost all sacred writings share these attributes, and the last
two are somewhat superficial, because different motives and methods
were behind their compilation.
There were three principle impulses behind the collection of ahadith.
First, Muhammad and his mission made such a deep impression on his
contemporaries, and indeed all of human history, that it was only natural
for the early Muslims to gather as much information as they could about
him and his revolutionary movement. Second, his sayings were an important
source of information for interpreting the Qur’an. Third, with the passage
of time and as their empire expanded, the legal problems facing
Muslim jurists grew in number and complexity. Jurists began to distrust
their legal and moral instincts, with the result that the demand for explicit
or analogous Prophetic precedents increased.
The New Testament writings were motivated by somewhat different
circumstances. In common with all prophets, Jesus preached radical
change. As best as we can tell, however, its direction was moral and spiritual
and did not include the actual rules and institutions for governing his
society. He demanded reform, but not a recasting of the existing social order.
We could speculate as to what direction he would have taken had he
lived longer, but this would only be conjecture. Perhaps it was due to his
emphasis on the individual’s inner spirituality over outward observances
or the brevity of his mission, but for some reason almost no records of his
sayings and actions were preserved. To the best of our knowledge, Jesus
left no new scripture to interpret. As the early Christian churches were
mainly concerned with organization and survival under a hostile government,
and with teaching the new faith and correcting certain abuses, no
real effort to construct a formal and comprehensive system of law based
on the teachings of Jesus was undertaken. In their effort to shape the new
community, early Christian writers made almost no references to the
actual sayings of Jesus.
By the start of the third Islamic century, the science of hadith had become
so prominent and influential that, at least in the sphere of law, authentic
ahadith were fast becoming second in authority only to the Qur’an,
taking precedence over argument from analogy (qiyas) and independent
reasoning (ra’y).86 The authors of the six canonical hadith collections, as
86Schacht, Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence, 98-137.
83
well as many other muhaddithun, responded to this development by arranging
their material by topic, which facilitated legal investigation, and
by approaching the authenticity of these reports with great care and caution.
We thus possess abundant and detailed information regarding the
development of this science and, in particular, on the reasons and methods
of selection behind the formation of the canonical collections. As stated in
the New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha, the same cannot be
said of the New Testament:
Why, how, and when the present books of the New Testament
were finally gathered into one collection are questions difficult to
answer because of the lack of explicit information.87
This highlights a basic difference between the two canons: the formation
of the canonical hadith literature in the third Islamic century represents
the culmination of a systematic and critical scholarly investigation,
while a comparable examination of the New Testament was not undertaken
until approximately fifteen hundred years after its compilation.
Nonetheless, orientalists have questioned the accuracy of the findings of
Muslim scholars, an issue that we will discuss shortly.
The contents and forms of these two collections are also quite different.
The New Testament can be divided into two distinctive sub-sections:
the Gospels and the Epistles (or Letters). The New Testament letters were
written by various teachers in the early Christian Church to provide instruction
and encouragement to growing communities, and also sometimes
to individuals. The letters fall into two main groups: those attributed to
Paul and those attributed to other writers. Although it is now commonly
accepted that Paul did not write all the letters ascribed to him by tradition,88
undoubtedly the majority of them were his, allowing of course for later
alterations by scribes. Paul’s letters are probably the earliest New Testament
writings, for his epistles and several of the other letters predate the
Gospels. Collectively, the epistles contain only a handful of Jesus’ sayings
and a few very brief references to his life. However, such important Christian
doctrines as Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection, vicarious atonement,
and the New Covenant replacing the Abrahamic Covenant are already present.
The four Gospels of the New Testament, written in the last third of the
first century, are designated by the pseudonyms of Matthew, Mark, Luke,
87Herbert G. May and Bruce M. Metzger, The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the
Apocrypha (Oxford University Press, l977), 1169.
88Ibid. See the introductions to 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus.
84
and John; the names of their actual authors are unknown. Mark, written in
approximately 70 AC, is considered to be the earliest, and the Gospels of
Matthew and Luke are believed to be based mostly on this Gospel and a
no longer extant source of the sayings of Jesus called the Q-source.89 The
Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke have so much in common that they
are called the Synoptic Gospels (from the Greek synopsis: a seeing together).
The mystical Gospel of John, which places a heavy emphasis on
symbols and mysteries, stands apart from the Synoptic Gospels and, one
can safely say, is the most popular of the four. The literary style of the
Gospels is biographical and concentrates mainly on the last few months of
Jesus’ life and his public preaching. The books of the New Testament were
written in the common Greek of that time, which was known and used by
the peoples of the Roman Empire to whom the first Christian missionaries
carried their message.
The canonical hadith collections are arranged according to their subject
matter. Thus, they resemble more closely the recently discovered
Gospel of Thomas, which consists of a listing of the sayings of Jesus with
only the barest minimum of introduction.90 The hadith are not arranged
chronologically and contain practically no commentary or instructions
from their authors to the Muslim community, although certain legal and
religious positions can be ascertained from the chapter headings and the
selection and arrangement of material. The six canonical hadith collections
have many traditions in common, as individual traditionists often subjected
those hadith accepted by a predecessor to their own critical standards.
Another major difference is the language in which the texts were written.
The language of the hadith is always Arabic, which was the language
of Muhammad. In the case of the New Testament, however, every specialist
agrees that it was written in a language—Greek—that Jesus did not
speak. The original language of his teachings was Aramaic, the common
language of Palestine in his time.91 This disparity between the spoken and
written languages meant that one of the overriding goals of the writers of
the Gospels and the Epistles of the New Testament was to translate the
meaning of Jesus’ life into another culture and language.
Thus, the hadith literature, in particular the six canonical collections,
differs fundamentally from the New Testament writings in the ways they
were collected, written, studied, and used. This being the case, it is rather
89Ibid., 1167.
90Jean Doresse, The Secret Books of the Egyptian Gnostics (New York: Viking Press,
1960).
91May and Metzger, The New Oxford Annotated Bible, 1442.
85
useless to suspect one of these on the basis of the other. However, it is the
case that if one comes from a non-Muslim religious heritage, particularly
a Christian one, then he or she is likely to already have definite expectations
as to what is and is not saintly conduct, and these will at times conflict
with the depictions of Prophet Muhammad in the hadith and the sirah
literature.
Expectations
For my generation, the late sixties and early seventies was the era of
peace and love. Young men grew their hair long and placed flowers in it,
wore tattered clothes and disheveled beards, and walked barefooted. I think
it was more than simply coincidence that we resembled closely the pictures
of Jesus that we grew up with—the ones we saw in prayer books, paintings,
icons, stained glass windows, and movies. If you used drugs, you could
even get that sort of glazed, other-worldly look in your eyes. Those who
openly professed the identification were known as “Jesus freaks,” but most
of the young were not interested in religion.
Yet I feel that the Jesus mystique was definitely there, affecting even
the irreligious, not only in the way young people looked but in the calls for
peace, love, and a new world order. Jesus was the ultimate activist-passivist:
defending the meek and oppressed (especially women), denouncing
the hypocrisy of the Establishment, taking on its persecution and, in the
end, refusing revenge. There are recent challenges to the historicity of this
perception, but for nearly two thousand years this is what he has been to
Christians. In Western eyes, at least, it is the most alluring and sympathetic
portrait in history—not because he was the greatest leader, politician, warrior,
or orator, but because he loved and forgave like no other man or
woman.
It is a portrait hard to match and, for Muslims, there is no need to try—
although attempts have been made92—for the Qur’an has the believers say:
“We make no distinction between one and another of His messengers”
(2:285). The cardinal concern of the Qur’an is not with the messengers but
with man’s need to surrender himself to God alone.
If this were the end of the matter, potential converts would regard it as
a positive point on the side of Islam. But it is not the end of the matter. By
this I mean that one has to reconcile one’s preconceptions of what is true
saintliness with accounts in the biographies and traditions that portray the
Prophet endorsing assassinations of poets who derided him, allowing the
92Sulaiman S. Nadwi, Muhammad: The Ideal Prophet, trans. Mohiuddin Ahmad (Lucknow,
India: Islamic Research and Publications, 1977).
86
execution of the men of the Banu Qurayzah and the sale of their survivors
into slavery, marrying the daughter of a tribal chief whom his forces had
just killed, or pressuring women to hand over their jewelry for the war effort
by reminding them of the inferiority of their sex and that they would
be the majority of the inhabitants of Hell.93
Needless to say, in the very same sources there are a far greater number
of exalting accounts. For instance, Watt’s assessment of Muham-mad’s
life at the end of his book Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman includes
the following perceptions that come very close to Muslim feelings:
Of the many stories illustrating his gentleness and tenderness of
feeling, some at least are worthy of credence. The widow of his
cousin Jafar ibn Abi Talib herself told her granddaughter how he
broke the news of Jafar’s death. She had been busy one morning
with her household duties, which included tanning forty hides and
kneading dough, when Muhammad called. She collected her children—
she had three sons by Jafar—washed their faces and anointed
them. When Muhammad entered, he asked for the sons of Jafar.
She brought them, and Muhammad put his arms around them and
smelt them, as a mother would a baby. Then his eyes filled with
tears and he burst out weeping. “Have you heard something about
Jafar?” she asked, and he told her he had been killed. Later he
instructed some of his people to prepare food for Jafar’s household,
“for they are too busy today to think about themselves.”
He seems to have been specially fond of children and to have got
on well with them. Perhaps it was the yearning of a man who saw
all his sons die as infants. Much of his paternal affection went to
his adopted son Zayd. He was also attached to his younger cousin
Ali ibn Abi Talib, who had been a member of his household for a
time; but he doubtless realized that Ali had not the makings of a
successful statesman. For a time a grand-daughter called Umamah
was a favorite. He would carry her on his shoulder during
public prayers, setting her down when he bowed or prostrated,
then picking her up again. On one occasion he teased his wives
by showing them a necklace and saying he would give it to the
one who was dearest to him; when he thought their feelings were
sufficiently agitated, he presented it not to any of them, but to
Umamah.
93Sahih al Bukhari, trans. Muhammad Muhsin Khan, vol. 2, “The Book of Zakah” (24),
Hadith no. 541.
87
He was able to enter into childish games and had many friends
among children. He had fun with the children who came back
from Abyssinia and spoke Abyssinian. In one house in Madinah
there was a small boy with whom he was accustomed to have
jokes. One day he found the small boy looking very sad, and
asked what was the matter. When he was told that his pet nightingale
had died, he did what he could to comfort him. His kindness
extended even to animals, which is remarkable for Muhammad’s
century and part of the world. As his men marched towards Mecca
just before the conquest they passed a bitch with puppies; and
Muhammad not merely gave orders that they were not to be disturbed,
but posted a man to see that the orders were carried out.
These are interesting sidelights on the personality of Muhammad,
and fill out the picture formed of him from his conduct of public
affairs. He gained men’s respect and confidence by the religious
bases of his activity and by qualities such as courage, resoluteness,
impartiality and firmness inclining to severity but tempered by
generosity. In addition to these he had the charm of manner which
won their affection and secured their devotion.94
But it would be hard to say that the overall picture of Muhammad obtained
from the hadith and sirah literature is more appealing than that of
Jesus in the Gospels. Certainly a true search for God should be based on
more than a competition between personalities, as these may not be represented
historically. Still, incidents such as those that I first listed above are
discomfiting, as evidenced by the fact that Muslim apologists have devoted
considerable effort to rationalizing or glossing over them,95 as was
done by those who tried to respond to The Life of Muhammad by the orientalist
William Muir, 96 in which his cultural and religious prejudices were
quite conspicuous.
The defense by Muslim writers brought up many valid objections and,
over the years, has caused Western writers to reassess earlier orientalist
works and the career of the Prophet. These Muslim authors demonstrated
that the orientalists had relied heavily on accounts that Muslims judged to
be unreliable and that they had left key facts and historical considerations
94W. Montgomery Watt, Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman (London: Oxford University
Press, 1978), 229-31.
95See, for example, Muhammad Ali, Muhammad the Prophet (Lahore: l984); Haykal, Life
of Muhammad.
96William Muir, Life of Mahomet, 2d ed. (London: l894).
88
out of their presentations. One example, mentioned above and which we
will discuss below in a different context,97 is the issue of the so-called six
assassinations, whereby Muhammad is supposed to have ordered the elimination
of persons who composed poetry against him. Ali argues that four
of these accounts are based on traditions that Muslim scholarship considers
either weak or fabricated, and the other two involved cases of high
treason committed during war by citizens of the city-state of Madinah.98
With such examples, Muslim apologists were able to argue that earlier orientalists
had exploited Muslim sources, however weak, when it suited
their purposes, and ignored information that Muslims considered reliable
when it was contrary to them. Such attitudes and behavior have caused
many Muslims to consider orientalists as “enemies of Islam.” More modern
orientalist scholarship has tried to achieve a greater objectivity, but
Muslims still approach the works of Western Islamists with considerable
suspicion.
Apart from the issue of the veracity of sources is the problem of historical
and cultural perspective: what is unacceptable in one place and time
may be perfectly admissible, even desirable, in another. For Muhammad
to offer his hand in marriage to the daughter of a slain chieftain seems terribly
insensitive in our view, but in an era when intertribal skirmishing
(raziyyah) was, as Watt points out,99 a “normal feature of desert life” and
something of an Arabian “sport,” for Muhammad to do otherwise would
have been less than chivalrous and somewhat dishonorable. Moreover, this
was the customary way in Arabia of establishing bonds of peace and
alliance with another tribe.
The work of Goldziher has shed much light on this matter.100 He
shows, through his extensive study of pre-Islamic poetry, that the seventhcentury
Arabs considered forgivingness of one’s enemies a tribal liability
and an invitation to future attacks, and that the most respected chief was
the one who was the most swift and terrible in retaliation. On two earlier
occasions, Muhammad had been willing to punish Jewish treachery with
mere exile from Madinah, but during the Battle of the Ditch, when the perfidy
of the Banu Qurayzah threatened the very existence of the city-state,
he permitted their male combatants to be executed for treason.
In the same work, Goldziher includes a lengthy discussion of the tribal
poets in pre-Islamic times.101 He demonstrates the vital role they played
97See the discussion of apostasy in chapter 4.
98Ali, Muhammad the Prophet, 325-44.
99Watt, Muhammad, 104.
100Ignaz Goldziher, Muslim Studies I (London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1967), 24-27.
101Ibid., 45-54.
89
in times of war, when a highly skilled poet was worth more than a multitude
of seasoned soldiers, which may also explain why the poets mentioned
above may have posed such a grave threat to the early Muslims,
notwithstanding Muhammad Ali’s argument.
In the United States, we consider slavery as one of the vilest of institutions,
while Muslim jurists, basing themselves on the Qur’an and the sayings
of Muhammad, sought to enact laws that insured fair and kind treatment
of slaves. In many places, the Qur’an enjoins the freeing of slaves,
going as far as to order the allocation of community funds to purchase their
freedom. But, it does not ban slavery altogether, for this institution was
necessary for dealing with prisoners of war in a humane way.102
Another example of this is the Qur’anic statement that, under certain
conditions, a man can have up to four wives simultaneously. In modern
times, such an institution is generally held by Westerners to be a means
of subjugating woman, a less-than-obvious conclusion. But in seventhcentury
Arabia, there were specific needs that had to be met: due to the
continuous intertribal wars, a higher infant mortality rate among males
than females, and men’s greater and more frequent exposure to danger,
there were more women than men. Polygyny was a natural way to manage
the imbalance and to insure the protection and maintenance of a
tribe’s women.103
Finally, it must be remembered that the message of the Qur’an is comprehensive
and that it was more than simply revealed: it was framed in the
lives and trials of Muhammad and the early Muslims. It taught the meaning
of suffering, and the need for forgiveness and patience under persecution.
In the years before the emigration to Makkah, the early Muslim community
presented one of history’s most stirring responses to this lesson.
Even those unimpressed by Islam would have to credit Muhammad and
his Companions during this period, for we have an instinctive empathy for
the oppressed and humbled. In this sense, it is easier to be the victim than
the victor. Many times we have to fight to defend ourselves or others from
the Pharaohs and Quraysh of our time who deny basic human rights.
Sometimes we win and gain authority, and consequently Islam is equally
concerned with that part of our lives. It therefore instructs us in what is
morally correct in such matters as fighting, law, justice, and punishment.
While these have less of a romantic appeal than some others, they are at
least as important. The mission of Muhammad was to live both lives, and,
for Muslims, no man in history ever did it better.
102Muhammad Qutub, Islam: The Misunderstood Religion (Kuwait: IIFSO, l982).
103See discussion on men’s and women’s roles in chapter 4.
90
This is more than simply sentiment on the part of most Muslims, for
it has to do with their commitment to the second half of the Shahadah. To
testify that Muhammad is the Messenger of God is to accept the Prophet’s
life-example as one’s touchstone, and to affirm that his actions set the standard
for mankind’s conduct without regard to time and place. Therefore, if
Muslims are to convince Western civilization that Islam provides a better
way, they will have to either soften their commitment to Muhammad’s
example or invest the time and effort to argue this case convincingly. The
first alternative is suicidal, and the second demands sincere and critical
scholarship.
Western Criticism of the Traditions
When it comes to historicity, orientalist and Muslim scholars alike
agree that the Qur’an presents the authentic utterances of Muhammad
under what he assumed to be divine inspiration. Gibb writes that “it
seems reasonably well established that no material changes were introduced
[into the Qur’an] and that the original form of Mohammed’s discourses
were preserved with scrupulous precision.”104 Moreover, for
many years, orientalists accepted the Muslim version of the development
of hadith: that the study of hadith was an area of intensive activity while
the Prophet was still alive, that fabrication began very early on, and that
the institution of isnad was created, adopted, and formalized within a
few decades of his death in order to deal with this problem. Orientalists
were also willing to accept that, although this institution evolved during
the succeeding years, it basically remained unchanged.105 If this view is
accepted, then Muir’s conclusion that undetected fabrications would almost
have had to occurred in the first Islamic century seems justified.106
Goldziher, in his landmark work entitled Muhammedanische
Studien II, challenged the classical description of this science’s development
and the integrity of all of the hadith compilations, including the
canonical ones.107With few exceptions, virtually all subsequent Western
studies of this subject support his conclusions. Modern critical methods
of literary and historical research have led Western scholars to conclude
that:
104Gibb, Mohammedanism, 50.
105Muhammad Zubayr Siddiqi, Hadith Literature (Calcutta: Calcutta University, l961),
l34, in which several Western scholars who agree with this view are cited: Leone Caetani,
J. Horovitz, and J. Robson.
106Muir, Life of Mahomet, xxxvii.
107Ignaz Goldziher, Muslim Studies II (London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1971).
91
(a) The hadith literature is based largely on mere oral transmission for
more than a century and that the hadith collections that have come down
to us do not refer to any records of ahadith that may have been made at an
earlier period.
(b) The number of ahadith in the later collections is much larger than
the number of those contained in the earlier collections or in the earlier
works on Islamic law. This, according to such scholars, shows that most of
the hadith are of doubtful character.
(c) The ahadith reported by the younger Companions are far more
numerous than those related by the older Companions, which, they assert,
shows that the isnad are not quite reliable.
(d) The system of isnad was applied arbitrarily to hadith after the end
of the first Islamic century. Therefore, it does not prove the genuineness of
the tradition to which it is attached.
(e) Many of the ahadith contradict one another.
(f) There is definite evidence of large-scale forgery of isnad as well as
of texts of ahadith.
(g) Muslim critics confined their criticism of hadith only to the isnad
but never criticized texts.108
These and other criticisms have been addressed by Muslim and some
Western scholars. The most widely-quoted books in English are those of
Azmi, Abbott, Siddiqi, and Abdul Ghafar.109 Some of these points can be
defended in a natural way. For instance, (b) can be attributed to the process
of passing the hadith from one generation to the next: the original
transmitter reports it to his contemporaries, who then relate it to several of
his younger listeners of the next generation, and so on. We would expect
that the Companions who lived longest after the death of Muhammad
would narrate more information concerning him than those, like Abu Bakr
and ‘Umar, who died soon after him; thus (c). Since the hadith record the
Prophet’s actions over a twenty-three year period which saw many transitions,
and because he was dealing with a great variety of personalities and
problems, it would not be unusual to discover disparities in his behavior;
hence (e).
108Siddiqi, Hadith Literature, xxi-xxviii.
109Abbott, Studies in Arabic Literary Papyri, vols. I and II; Abdul Ghafar, Criticism of
Hadith among Muslims; Azmi, Studies in Early Hadith Literature; Siddiqi, Hadith Literature.
92
Abbott and Azmi have argued convincingly concerning (a) and (d),
and Muslim traditionists have been aware of (f) for fourteen centuries, as
this was the reason behind their labor.110 Although Muslim scholarship laid
greater stress on the isnad, Siddiqui and Abdul Ghafar111 document that (g)
is simply untrue. Abdul Ghafar, for example, demonstrates that early traditionists
would often reject a report if one of the transmitters was known
to have certain personal motives which were supported by the tradition’s
text. In such cases, the matn and isnad were considered together. But in
reality, examining the isnad with the tools developed by Muslim traditionists
is to this day the more objective test of a hadith’s genuineness, for
how one judges the matn depends a great deal on personal predilections (a
twentieth-century science student is more likely to distrust reports of miracles
and prophecies than his seventh-century counterpart, for example),
interpretation, and context. It is noteworthy that the greater part of current
western hadith criticism concentrates on the isnad.
Many important issues that deserve further and careful consideration
on both sides are obscured by such a brief summary. Orientalists are often
so committed to the idea of the hadith literature’s total unreliability that
they appear to be blind to evidence that contradicts this and to other possible,
sometimes more natural, interpretations of the data. There is a pronounced
tendency to label all conflicting data as “unauthentic,” “unreliable,”
or “unhistorical” without explanation, apparently because it does
not fit with their views. The fact is that to discount Muslim scholarship so
completely, almost all Muslims associated with the study of traditions
have to be implicated, a view that is propounded by Goldziher and, to an
110See Abbott, Studies in Arabic Literary Papyri, vols. I and II; Azmi, Studies in Early Hadith
Literature, 28-106. Here the authors provide extensive documentation of pre-classical
hadith literature. Western critics have charged Muslim scholars with being naive in accepting
the authenticity of the (abundant) early Islamic texts that they use to support their view
of the development of hadith science. But such a criticism allows for a strange double standard
on their part: the orientalists’ arguments are also, out of necessity, built on studies of
early Muslim texts. Thus, it seems that they expect their audience to accept the texts and the
related interpretations that support their theories. Without a doubt, Muslim scholarship, like
any other, has not been flawless. However, it must be realized that the Muslim understanding
fits much better with all the data that has come down to us than does its Western counterpart.
Of course, one could simply dismiss all early Muslim texts as a huge effort at fabrication
that had the support, cooperation, and connivance of all of the proponents of the varied
and divergent points of view of the first four Islamic centuries. However, this does not
appear to be either humanly possible nor in accord with human nature. In addition, such a
dismissal deprives Western scholarship on this subject of any claims to legitimacy.
111Siddiqi, Hadith Literature, 199-204; Abdul Ghafar, Criticism of Hadith among Muslims,
30-50.
93
every greater degree, by Schacht.112 Such theories are nearly impossible for
Muslims to accept, for they reveal an attitude toward religion that has not
yet infected the Muslim mind.
Certain “specialists,” seeking to judge the authenticity of the
hadith, suppose that they can establish the following criteria, disregarding
thirteen centuries of Muslim scholarship. First, if a
hadith can be interpreted as favouring a particular group or school,
it has most likely been fabricated. If it favors the spiritual life, for
example, the Sufis must have invented it. If it provides an argument
for literalists hostile to spirituality, then the literalists fabricated
it. Second, the more complete its isnad, the greater the
chance that it is false. The reason for this, according to them, is
that the need of proof grows in proportion to the lapse of time.
Such arguments are truly diabolical for, taken as a whole, they
amount to this reasoning: if you bring me no proof it is because
you are wrong, but if you do bring proof it means you need it, and
so again you are wrong. How can these orientalists believe that
countless Muslim learned men—men who feared God and hell—
could have deliberately fabricated sayings of the Prophet? It
would lead one to suppose bad faith to be the most natural thing
in the world, were it not that “specialists” have almost no feelings
for psychological incompatibilities.113
Gibb, writing in the same vein but with less passion, focuses on the
difficulty, at least after the first few generations, of passing on fabricated
traditions:
To Western scholars the technique of Hadith criticism by the
examination of the chain of authorities seems to present some
grave defects. A frequent criticism is that it is as easy for forgers
to invent an isnad as to tamper with or fabricate a text. But this
overlooks the difficulty that the forger would have in getting the
isnad (with his name at the end of it) accepted and passed on by
scholars of honest repute. And that the Muslim critics of tradition
were generally honest and pious men must be allowed, even if
some Muslims have themselves asserted the contrary. Amore fun-
112Goldziher, Muslim Studies II; Schacht, The Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence.
113Titus Burckhardt, An Introduction to Sufi Doctrine, trans. D. M. Matheson (Wellingborough,
UK: Thorsons Publ., 1976), 41.
94
damental criticism is that the isnad technique was elaborated only
in the second century.
Following up this statement a little later on he concludes:
The judgements and criteria of the early traditionists, whatever
may be regarded as defects in their method, seem at least to have
effectively excluded most of the propagandist traditions of the
first century and all those of the second, such as those which supported
the doctrines of the Shi‘a or the claims of the ‘Abbasids, or
which foretold the coming of the Mahdi.114
Theories are often formulated in the extreme and inspired by definite
biases. The researcher, based on certain hunches, begins with the strongest
possible conjecture that the fragments of evidence allow and then presents
it to his peers and the experts, either to be rejected or to be chiseled and
smoothed into a better approximation of the truth as further research presents
new considerations. At least this is how it is supposed to be. Naturally
imperfect, there could be important observations in the initial findings and
formulations to which we should be alert. Juynboll, after an assiduous study
of modern Muslim discussions on the authenticity of the hadith literature,
discovered in his later research what he believed to be a middle position
between the Muslim and the Western scholars on this subject.115 He includes
in his work discussions of some conjectures by Goldziher and Schacht that
are supported by his own investigations, together with quite a few new discoveries.
Juynboll’s presentation is detailed, thorough, cogent, and addresses
the complaint of Muslim specialists that Western theories are built
on studies of hadith that were judged spurious by Muslim scholars centuries
ago.116 Juynboll relies heavily on “authenticated” traditions to argue his
views. What follows is a summary of a few of his conclusions:
114H. A. R. Gibb, Mohammedanism (London: Oxford University Press, 1969), 82, 85.
115Juynboll, Muslim Tradition. I must admit that ultimately I did not see Juynboll's position
as a middle one. It appeared to me to be a significant attempt at salvaging and defending
the main conclusions of Goldziher and Schacht in light of the works of Azmi and Abbott.
116Juynboll, The Authenticity of the Tradition Literature. While this objection has definite
validity, some underlying assumptions in the methodology are not entirely unsound. For
instance, once it is accepted that a large class of traditions are suspect, such as those dealing
with the coming of the Mahdi, we may have reason to doubt other traditions of the
same genre. Although the great traditionists were aware of the possibility of fabrication,
as is evident from the scarcity of suspect traditions in the canonical collections, one may
attempt to discover some flaw that they may have missed or deemed insufficient. On the
other hand, if a large number of traditions in a certain class did not meet the standards =
95
1) Juynboll, after a careful survey of the role of the early judges (qadis)
in the major centers of legal thought during the first three Islamic centuries,
agrees with Goldziher’s and Schacht’s statement that during the first
Islamic century, legal decision making, whether done by the ruling authority
or by the Muslim jurists, was based on what they believed to be the spirit
of Muhammad’s teachings rather than a meticulous copying of his
actions. At that time, a need for an explicit Prophetic precedent was not usually
felt or sought. He also argues forcefully against the imputation that second-
century judges were wont to fabricate traditions whenever it suited
them.117
2) Juynboll argues in favor of Schacht’s claim that “isnads have a tendency
to grow backwards,” meaning that legal decisions and maxims first
arrived at by jurists were later projected back to the Prophet with complete
isnads. He offers as an example the legal opinions of Sa‘id ibn al Musayyab
(d. 94 AC), showing how many traditions that appear in later collections
with isnads containing his name can be found in other sources as his
own sayings and not linked to persons older than himself. Muslim scholars
account for such a phenomenon by explaining that the opinions of Ibn
al Musayyab are based on previous examples set by either the Prophet or
his Companions; they support this by the fact that there exist completely
independent isnads of the highest quality that go back to the Prophet and
do not involve Ibn al Mussayab at all. If, this argument goes, an opinion
of Ibn al Mussayab were projected back to the Prophet, how did the fabricators
get all the other transmitters of all the other chains, who belonged
to rival and competing centers of law, to collude in falsely ascribing the
statement to Muhammad?
While not addressing this most weighty question, Juynboll counters:
The reason why these legal decisions should be considered, in the
first instance, as being Sa‘id’s own juridical insight, rather than as
being traceable back to previously set examples, lies in the mere
fact of them being quoted as Sa‘id’s decision at all. A legal decision
that indeed does go back to the Prophet or one of his
Companions simply does not require being put into the mouth of
Sa‘id as also being the product of the latter’s reasoning. The numerous
instances where Sa‘id is credited with juridical opinions
= of Muslim specialists, one cannot automatically assume that all traditions of that genre
are fabricated. Also, if we put aside the matter of authenticity, the proliferation of various
traditions may tell us something about the mind set of the early Muslim communities.
117Ibid., 77-95.
96
definitely point to one conclusion only. He thought of the problem
in these terms first, before this decision was moulded into a saying
attributed to authorities preceding Sa‘id. There is indeed no
necessity whatsoever for crediting Sa‘id with merely having
repeated a legal opinion of his predecessors, be they the Prophet
or one of his Companions.118
Juynboll also mentions that there are many references in the early rijal
works to the phenomenon of “raising” a report of a Companion or a Successor
(Tabi‘i) “to the level” of a Prophetic saying. Thus, this practice was
known to Muslim experts. Juynboll lists several transmitters, among
dozens of others mentioned in the rijal works in connection with this practice,
who have traditions occurring in the canonical collections.119
3) He believes that the great majority of hadith claimed to have been
narrated by Anas ibn Malik—approximately two thousand three hundred—
are suspect. He states that if one compares those that originated in Madinah
with those that originated in Baghdad, one finds a considerable dichotomy.
We would expect that such a highly respected and prolific figure would narrate
pretty much the same reports when he traveled to both centers, but
Juynboll finds that there is minimal overlapping in the traditions narrated in
his name in these two centers. Juynboll uses similar reasoning in criticizing
the traditions claimed to have been narrated by Abu Hurayrah.120
4) One device that Juynboll believes helped fabricators construct perfectly
sound isnads was what he calls the “age trick,” or the ascribing of
fantastic ages to transmitters to give isnads greater authority. This could be
used, for example, when two successive transmitters in an isnad were
known to have lived sometimes as much as a century apart. The apparent
conflict could be smoothed over by noting that the elder one had lived an
extremely long life, often long past a century. He believes that this technique
was also used to raise some transmitters to the status of “Com-panions,”
hence giving them and their traditions greater authority. Juynboll
notes:
The following Successors, otherwise not such important transmitters,
supposedly reached incredible ages: Qays b. Abi Hazim (died
84-98/703-16 at the age of well over one hundred), Ziyad b. ‘Ilaqa
118Ibid., 15-16. Emphasis is the author’s.
119Ibid., 31-32.
120Ibid., 62-64, 104.
97
(died l35/752 at the age of almost one hundred; another report has
it that he was born in the Jahiliyyah), Abu ‘Amr Sa‘d b. Iyas (died
95-98/7l4-717 at the age of l20), al Ma‘rur b. Suwayd (when al
A‘mash saw him he believed him to be l20), Suwayd b. Ghafala
(died 80-82/699-701 at the age of 120 or 130; he claimed to be just
as old as the Prophet), Zirr b. Hubaysh (died 81-83/700-702 at the
age of 127), etc. The tarajim devoted to these centenarians in the
rijal works are on the whole very favorable without a shadow of a
doubt being cast on theages they claimed to have reached. This
must have greatly facilitated the manipulation with isnads, whether
they did that themselves or whether this occurred at the hands
of anonymous people. Furthermore, traditions supported by isnads
including their names occur, without exception, in all the canonical
collections.121
5) Goldziher,122 in Muslim Studies II, asserts that the mutawatir ahadith
in which the Prophet is reported to have said that the one who falsely
ascribed anything to him had made his place in Hell, and other similar sayings,
were fabricated in order to put a stop to such fabrication. Muslim
scholars have cited this as an example of the unsubstantiated claims that
orientalists have made in the past, for Goldziher supplied no supporting
evidence. Juynboll includes a lengthy discussion of these traditions and
produces evidence in favor of Goldziher’s position. He also uses this example
to argue that the characterization of mutawatir is no guarantee of a
hadith’s authenticity.123
6) Finally, we should mention that Schacht’s “common link theory”
is also given a careful treatment.124 This theory posits that one can detect
both the fabrication and the time of fabrication of a particular tradition if
its different isnads intersect at a common intermediary point, a “common
link.” Schacht gives an example125 of a hadith with three different chains
of authorities that have the same narrator at precisely the third link in the
chains and then differ elsewhere. According to his theory, this common
link is either the fabricator or the point at which the fabrication was
made.
121Ibid., 46-8, 61-2.
122Goldziher, Muslim Studies II, 131.
123Juynboll, Muslim Tradition, 96-129.
124Ibid., 206-17.
125Schacht, The Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence. Schacht seems to sense this concerning
his own investigation (page 228).
98
I chose to cite Juynboll’s work because it is more recent and thorough,
and for its clear exposition. I sketched findings of his that seemed to me
most significant, and yet are either unknown to or dealt with inadequately
by Muslim authors in English. Let me, as a layman, share a few impressions
that came to me immediately, beginning with (2), since finding (l) is
unlikely to excite much Muslim opposition.
Schacht’s “projecting back” theory is given a full treatment only in
Azmi’s text. Although Azmi does not discuss in detail all of Schacht’s examples
or anticipate explicitly the objection of Juynboll, he does make use
of some general strategies against Western hadith criticism that apply to
this theory and many others. He demonstrates consistently that the conclusions
of orientalist hadith critics are often: (a) far from necessary; (b)
based on fragmentary data that conflicts with the bulk of available evidence;
and (c) founded on a fundamentally faulty approach.
Concerning (c), he makes a relevant observation that Juynboll did not
take fully into account: that Western theories depend on comparisons of
legal and hadith literature. These two disciplines have always been related
yet autonomous sciences, for the subject of hadith science is exclusively
what the Prophet said and did, while the ultimate interest of Islamic law,
although it applied the conclusions of the former science, is to develop
systems of law. The standards of the traditionists were naturally more exacting
than those of the legal scholars when it came to traditions. One has
to be cautious when drawing conclusions about one of these sciences
based on a study of the other. In the twentieth century, for example, it
would be inappropriate to theorize on the development and standards of
mathematical research by concentrating on advances and methods employed
in the related science of physics. This, Azmi holds, is the fundamental
error in all recent Western investigations.126
In their arguments in favor of “projecting back,” Western writers exhibit
a disquieting impreciseness in their terminology. We discover frequent
mixing and equating of such key words as “alike,” “identical,” and
“similar” with regard to the texts. The impression given is that the opinions
of scholars, which are identically formulated, are projected back to
Prophetic sayings. But when we compare the two, they frequently involve
different phrasings altogether. In these instances, the scholar’s statement
could easily be taken as an opinion based on previous examples or on a
practice that was well-established at that time. In regard to this, it may be
helpful to understand why chains of transmission of scholarly opinions
were preserved at all. In other words, why was the trouble taken to trace
126Azmi, Studies in Early Hadith Literature, 221.
statements back to any authority other than the Prophet or his
Companions?
At a time when statements from authorities were used in legal circles,
it seems to have been necessary to establish a chain of transmitters back to
the original source, regardless of who the authority was, for it to be accepted
as evidence. Today we can quote a publication, but that luxury was
not available in the past. Juynboll’s retort then really boils down to: Why
did jurists quote authorities other than the Prophet when the statements of
their opinions were either similar or identical to statements made by
Muhammad? A number of explanations are possible.
It is often more convenient to quote an opinion of a respected authority
than to refer back to his original arguments and evidence. Argument
from authority is a common tactic and is only one of many strategies used
to argue a case. A position is supported by demonstrating that an expert,
after considering the evidence available to him, has arrived at the same
conclusions. For example, if someone were to ask me—as people often
do—whether, based on 2:34, a husband has the right to slap his wife in the
face because she does not obey him in some matter, I might reply, “No. In
Islam, a husband should never use physical force against his wife, except
under the most extreme circumstances. Even then, he is not permitted to
strike her in the face.”
In the back of my mind I have several sayings, similarly phrased, of
the Prophet commenting on this verse. However, I may or may not resort
to quoting them to support my reply, depending on the circumstances and
the questioner. As a matter of fact, contemporary Muslim speakers most
often quote the opinion of the third-century scholar al Tabari, who based
his judgment on reported sayings of the Prophet, on this issue. The fact
that my understanding conforms to some sayings of Muhammad, even if I
arrived at it independently, says nothing about the authenticity of the related
saying, since I am discussing an immediate, practical behavioral
problem.
This may explain the case when a scholar’s statement has a similar
sense as a saying of the Prophet’s. But what of those statements traced back
to a scholar whose wording is identical to a statement of the Prophet’s in a
hadith? Juynboll’s remark in (2) cannot be so easily dismissed here, as such
cases arise most frequently as statements of legal maxims or slogans.
Indeed, why would persons make the effort to trace a statement back to a
jurist when, in fact, it originated with the Prophet?
It is conceivable that legal scholars did not always specify that the
legal maxim employed originated with the Prophet, even when they were
aware that it had. When it comes to establishing rules of behavior, Muslim
99
speakers and writers to this day do not always establish the source of the
practices that they enjoin.
A convert can find this quite frustrating. What will invalidate your
prayer? When is ritual washing (wudu) required? What does one do if one
joins a congregational prayer already in progress? Who can inherit from a
Muslim? These are just a few of the multitudinous regulations that we are
taught, often without being informed of any explicit corresponding Prophetic
precedent, for the simple reason that these practices are so wellestablished
and accepted that the writer or speaker sees no need to provide
this information. The new convert soon finds himself/herself searching for
the source of every new ordinance he/she hears, because for all he/she
knows this practice could be nothing more than the opinion of the writer
or speaker.
Also, as Azmi avers, not every Muslim lecturer of the first three Islamic
centuries was an al Shafi’i and not every student was an al Bukhari. Some
were extremely exacting in their scholarship, while others were less stringent.
Thus, some were likely to mix Prophetic statements with scholarly
opinions. This happens even today. For example, one often hears or reads
that Muhammad said: “Work as if you will never die and pray as if you will
die tomorrow.” It is known that the Prophet never said this, but uninformed
speakers and writers often ascribe these words to him. Therefore, in cases
in which a statement linked to someone other than Muhammad comes very
close to a Prophetic saying, it does not exclude the possibility that the originator
of the statement was misunderstood, that the lecturer assumed the audience’s
familiarity with the report, or that he had made sure to specify his
source on other occasions.
Above all, we should not forget, as orientalists are eager to point out,
that during the first century-and-a-half of the Islamic era, in most centers
of legal thought it was deemed sufficient in legal disputes to demonstrate
that a particular regulation was the established local practice from the time
of the Prophet. It was not until the end of the second Islamic century that
explicit Prophetic precedents became necessary. Until that time, it was
enough for those involved in legal argumentation to establish a maxim by
quoting a local authority without having to trace its origins. This fact is
well established in orientalist literature. Later advances in the science of
hadith and other factors brought about a change in the criteria of arguing
legal cases. Once again, Azmi’s caution against making inferences about
one science by studying the development of another applies.
As Juynboll observes, Muslim traditionists were well-aware that even
honest transmitters could be mistaken in attributing a statement to the Prophet
when it had in fact originated with someone else at a later period.
100
101
However, they did not always assume, as does the “projecting back” theory,
that someone, usually assumed to be a jurist or traditionist, consciously
completed a chain in order to falsify information. They saw that
the most effective means to check for possible mistakes was to compare
and cross reference all of the known data on the matter. The traditionists
felt that the methods of isnad criticism were the most effective guard
against errors of this type.
Juynboll’s conclusion concerning Anas ibn Malik and Abu Hurayrah,
as stated in (3), is unconvincing. In his examination of some thirty-six traditions
reported by Anas that appear in the Muwatta’, he realized that those
of Madinan origin and those narrated through his Iraqi students did not
show, in his own judgment, a “considerable overlap.”127 This surprises
Juynboll, for, in his opinion, the information narrated by Anas in Madinah
should be more or less the same as what he narrated during his stays in
Basrah.
Putting aside the question of exactly what would constitute a “considerable
overlap,” why should we expect such an overlap in the first place?
How and what a teacher teaches over the years depends on the individual
and many other factors. Unfortunately, we do not have such precise information
about Anas, but I would hope that my own work would not be
considered as fabricated by a future researcher just because I lectured on
different problems at different stages in my career. More importantly, while
Anas is credited with some twenty-three hundred narrations, Juynboll
derives his opinion after studying only thirty-six that are found in the
Muwatta’. Such a small sampling raises the question of whether those traditions
studied are at all representative of the others. Juynboll’s discussion
of Abu Hurayrah is even more cloudy, for he indicates neither the percentage
of the traditions that he studied nor the percentage of those that ended
up in the canonical compilations.128
The “age trick” theory mentioned in (4) is, to my knowledge, original.
Unfortunately, only ten examples of it are given: four other explicit illustrations
in addition to the six I quoted above. Since there are approximately
ten thousand biographies in the extant rijal works,129 it is difficult
to place confidence in a theory based on so few examples. But in all fairness,
any modern student of ancient Islamic literature cannot help but be
skeptical of the advanced ages attached to so many individuals. Many
Muslim writers have attributed this to the notorious imprecision with
which those living in the Middle East, especially the Arabs, kept track of
127Juynboll, Muslim Tradition, 67-8.
128Ibid., 204.
129Siddiqi, Hadith Literature, 165-88.
102
a relative’s or even their own ages. The use of the lunar calendar and the
almost complete non-commemoration of birthdays and deaths throughout
much of the Muslim world may also contribute to this phenomenon.
Strangely enough, however, almost every Middle Eastern friend of mine
knows a family member who has lived more than a century.
Muslim scholars generally consider the birth and death dates found in
the biographical works to be very rough estimates. In addition, this consideration
is only one of a multitude of other factors considered by traditionists.
Azmi shows the large disparity in life span estimates in the various
biographical works and, due to the fact that very often no estimates are provided
at all, he has to guess as to the person’s dates of birth and death.130 The
biographical literature makes no pretense at perfection, for its purpose was
to present all of the available data concerning individuals involved in the
transmission of hadith that Muslim scholars felt could be of use.
My major objection to the “age trick” theory and, for that matter,
much of the Western research done on the traditions, is what I like to call
a fabrication phobia. By this I mean the obsession with sifting through
the mass of data collected by the Muslim specialists working in this area
and to label as a fabrication every peculiarity or inconsistency, rather
than entertaining the possibility that they might arise as a result of estimates
or human error. I wonder if this compulsion to see dishonesty or
stupidity wherever possible is not a reflection of the type of underlying
Western prejudice and arrogance discussed by Edward Said in his book,
Orientalism.131
Juynboll admits that his arguments against the authenticity of two mutawatir
traditions (5 above) generally are considered weak by historians.132
Here and throughout his text, almost all of his crucial arguments are argumenta
e silentio. The premise is that, if a number of scholars omitted what
eventually would become a widely-accepted hadith from their own collections
of traditions, this may indicate something negative about its
authenticity. Muslim authors continue to be exasperated by this type of
argument, since it assumes that each scholar would have heard of and collected
all the traditions in existence at his time. This view, in effect, makes
no allowances for human limitations and outside constraints. One of Juynboll’s
key sources is Malik’s Muwatta’, even though it is known that Malik
was first and foremost a jurist and not a traditionist. While his Muwatta’
does contain a fair number of traditions, it was not intended to serve as a
collection of hadith. Also, it must be remembered that Juynboll himself, on
130Azmi, Studies in Early Hadith Literature, 32-3.
131Edward Said, Orientalism (New York: Pantheon Books, 1978).
132Juynboll, Muslim Tradition, 98.
103
a number of occasions, stresses the incompleteness of his sources. Thus,
Juynboll’s arguments cannot be taken as conclusive.
Schacht’s “common link” theory (6) has been bypassed in most subsequent
Western and Muslims investigations of traditions and is, once again,
based on scant evidence. Let us assume that we have several ahadith with
identical texts and isnads that all contain a common transmitter at some
intermediary stage. In such a case, Schacht sees “a strong indication in
favour of its [the hadith’s] having originated in the time [of the common
transmitter].”133 There are only a handful of illustrations of this so-called
“common link” in Western orientalist literature; one is given by Schacht134
and a few others by Juynboll,135 who mentions that this phenomenon is relatively
rare. Schacht’s example is shown to be inappropriate by Azmi,136
and the explanation of this phenomenon by both Schacht and Juynboll is
by no means the only, or the most obvious, one. In cases where the tradition
is known to have been fabricated, as in the cases discussed by Juynboll,
the common link would certainly suggest a possible time of falsification.
In general, however, the existence of a common link did not necessarily
imply a fabrication. Muslim scholars, who were aware of this phenomenon
centuries ago, allowed for other possible interpretations. For
example, certain scholars were known to have investigated all the current
sources of a given saying of Muhammad’s, sometimes quite obscure
sources. As a result, every once in a while we find a scholar who, at a particular
point in time, has a saying from several sources and, especially if
his knowledge is in demand, passes it on to his many students. As Juynboll
shows, it is likely that Muslim traditionists were aware of the possibility
that a common link could indicate a fabrication,137 but, unlike
Schacht, they required additional evidence before making such a claim.
In conclusion, I must say that I do not find Juynboll’s views on the authenticity
of hadith literature to be midway between the orientalist and
Muslim positions. He seemed, at least to me, to belong quite comfortably
to the Goldziher-Schacht school. Although his exposition is more careful
and lucid than Goldziher’s and Schacht’s, I do not see in what way his approach
and discoveries departed fundamentally from theirs, or why argu-
133Schacht, The Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence, 172.
134Ibid., 171-5.
135Juynboll, Muslim Tradition, 206-17.
136Azmi, Studies in Early Hadith Literature, 232-6.
137Juynboll, Muslim Tradition, 214-6. Juynboll views this need for corroborating evidence
on the part of traditionists in a negative light, but to my mind it should be seen as an
attempt to consider all of the available data and arguments.
ments against their theories could not be applied with equal effect against
his. In my opinion, Juynboll’s study does not contribute to a lessening of
the distance between the Muslim and Western viewpoints on this area of
study.
As a new Muslim, for reasons I mentioned earlier, I was extremely
suspicious of the Prophetic traditions. It was not until four years after my
conversion that I came across a book in English on hadith criticism by a
Muslim author. Many Muslim writers briefly touch on this subject, but
their presentations are usually very dogmatic; moreover, I had read orientalist
works that were more scholarly and persuasive. Yet even though their
judgments supported my skepticism, I was actually less sure of my doubts
after studying them. The orientalists’ conjectures were daring and interesting,
but the overall picture presented lacked coherence, and, like Titus
Burkhart whom I quoted above, I found their conclusions unrealistically
cynical.
Some time later, through a lot of digging and some good luck, I found
scholarly writers who defended classical hadith scholarship and whose accounts
of its development seemed more sober and had fewer contradictions
and psychological leaps than those of the orientalists. I also came to
appreciate the immensity of the Muslim effort in collating great volumes
of material on the Prophet and his Companions. In addition, I came to respect
the statement that the authenticated hadith are, after the Qur’an, the
most faithful source of information ever compiled on the life of any
prophet or teacher of any of the great world religions. But more importantly,
I discovered that the claim of the early Muslim experts was not to
have arrived at a flawless record of Muhammad’s sayings and deeds, but
rather to have collected a body of information whose authority for deriving
rules of Muslim conduct is second to the Qur’an. We will come back
to this point shortly.
I do not wish to leave the impression that Western hadith scholarship
is useless or unimportant. All the authors I cited above, who defend the
integrity of this classical Muslim science, maintain otherwise. Although I
do not agree with every Western criticism, I learned much from Western
writings that I could not find in Muslim sources about the science of hadith.
Moreover, Western scholars have made significant contributions to
its study. They are reviving interest in the classical rijal and awa’il (reports
containing information about who was the first to do something, or when
certain institutions were first introduced) works, and such important legal
texts as Imam Malik’s al Muwatta’, Imam al Shafi‘i’s al Risalah, and
Imam Ibn Hanbal’s Musnad are being translated into European languages.
The Concordance and Indices of Muslim Tradition, which represents the
104
combined effort of about forty scholars from different countries spanning
more than half of this century, is of immense value. It consists of all of the
important expressions occurring in the six canonical collections, as well as
the Sunan al Darimi, Imam Malik’s al Muwatta’, Ibn Hanbal’s Musnad,
arranged in alphabetical order. In addition, new critical methods that may
be of use to Muslim scholars, and which they should assess, have been
developed.
A Question of Need
Obey God and the Messenger. (3:32; 3:132; 5:92; 8:1; 8:46; 9:71;
24:54; 33:33; 58:13)
Whoever obeys God and His Messenger, He will admit him into
Gardens. (4:13)
O believers, obey God and obey the Messenger. (4:59; 8:20; 47:33)
And whoever obeys God and the Messenger. . . (4:69; 24:52;
33:31; 33:71; 48:17)
Whoever obeys the Messenger, obeys God. (4:80)
And if they had referred it to the Messenger and to those in
authority. . . (4:83)
You have in God’s Messenger a beautiful example. (33:21)
Whatever the Messenger gives you, take. (59:7)
A messenger from among themselves, . . .teaching them the Book
and the Wisdom. (2:129)
A messenger from among yourselves, . . .teaching you the Book
and the Wisdom. (2:151; 62:2)
An unlettered messenger from among themselves, . . .teaching
them the Book and the Wisdom. (3:164)
God has sent down upon you the Book and the Wisdom. (4:113)
It is only for the Messenger to deliver the clear Message. ( 24:54;
29:l8; 64:12)
105
Grant had only a half an hour for lunch. He had to use the bathroom,
wash, pray, and eat. He made for the men’s room, remembering to recite
the correct formula as he entered it with his left foot—or should it have
been his right? He was not sure; it had something to do with the possibility
of tripping and falling dead.
He sat down to urinate, doing his best not to soil himself or his clothes.
If only his ex-Marine buddies could see him now, going to the toilet like a
woman! He tried not to think any thoughts about religion, but trying not to
was self-defeating. As he left the stall, he recited another supplication and
then headed for the sink. He quickly took off his shoes and socks, careful
to step on the coarse brown paper towels he had placed on the floor by the
sink so that no part of his feet would touch the bathroom floor. He turned
on the water and recited another invocation.
He began the ablution ritual, repeating each action three times: washing
his hands, gargling with water, sniffing water in and out of his nostrils,
washing his face, washing his right and then his left arm up to the elbow,
wiping the inside of his right ear with his wet right index finger, followed
by the left, wiping the top of his head and the back of his neck with his wet
hands, and finally, washing his right foot and then his left up to the ankle,
each time returning his foot to the paper towel from which it came. He
recited another supplication. Time was running out, so he picked up his
shoes and socks and, making certain that his feet were still on the paper
towels, started scuffling on them towards the door.
Just at that moment his manager came into the bathroom. The two men
stood face to face: Grant, his bare feet resting on two paper towels and
water dripping from his face and arms, and his manager, wide-eyed and
dumbfounded. Grant suddenly noticed the coolness of the bathroom floor
underneath the heel of his right foot; in the encounter, he had inadvertently
let it slide slightly off the paper towel. He gritted his teeth and threw back
his head in frustration: now he would have to repeat his ablution.
Of all believers, converts can be the most severe and rigid in their
ideas and practices. The new force in which they are immersed and the
inner struggles to make sense of it and to respond to it can easily precipitate
excesses. Established believers are likely to see them as paradigms of
true faith, while they are keenly cognizant of their own weaknesses and
temptations. The dual needs to be accepted and to be honest with oneself
and others will frequently pull them in opposite directions and will be at
the root of many compromises and contradictions. It seems almost unfair
that the most dramatic tests of faith come so quickly. The most common
reaction is to become a cardboard cut-out Muslim; that is, in outward
106
actions and behavior to adopt what one hears and sees around oneself. This
is not born of insincerity but of insecurity, of the need for a new identity,
assumed in totality according to the norms of the adopted community. And
there is plenty of idiosyncratic behavior—little pieces of advice, kindly
shared—to integrate into one’s practice, more often then not loosely tied
to the Prophet’s Sunnah.
As one who has lived through it, the best advice that I can offer a new
Muslim is not to adopt any behavior or position unless and until you feel
certain of its necessity. Otherwise, you may end up trapping yourself in a
corner, unable to be yourself and unable to unload the burdensome behavior
without attracting disappointment and suspicion—not only from others
but from yourself as well. The escape is usually to leave the community—
not to renounce Islam, but to exist anonymously on its fringes. The justification
and target of the anger and the feelings of failure is the Sunnah and
hadith, or more precisely, the importance that Muslims attach to them. The
result is that one has gone from one extreme to another.
How a believer applies the example of Muhammad to his/her own life
is almost entirely a personal matter, since very few Muslims are going to be
jurists who will contribute to the formulation of rules of conduct for the
wider Islamic community. For the common Muslim, the Sunnah guides his
or her moral, ethical, and spiritual conduct: the way one relates to one’s
children and parents, other relatives, friends and neighbors, performs one’s
prayers and other rituals, and conducts one’s business. How successfully it
shapes one’s life, how great a benefit or burden it yields, depends on individual
interpretation and application. For some, the Sunnah requires the
wholesale adoption of all of the recorded practices of the Prophet, without
considerations of context—his and theirs—to be followed as precisely as
possible. As a result, American Muslims can sometimes be found making
supplications in Arabic, having practically no idea of what they are saying,
or can be seen wearing turbans, robes, and sandals on American city streets.
For them, even the most minute detail of the Prophet’s example has a spiritual
or ritualistic significance, and they testify to the well-springs of faith
that they discover in imitating him. For others, the Sunnah is interpreted
with the utmost liberality and is disregarded unless it conforms to preconceived
ideas. For these, the Prophet was no more than a tool who, for all
practical purposes, was to be ignored after the revelation was completed.
Between these two, there are a myriad of responses to Muhammad’s
example, but almost universally the first approach is adopted towards the
rituals. This is in part because the rituals are seen as the believer’s door to
the Unseen and to mystical converse with the Almighty. Since we are not
privy to the realities and truths that Muhammad was shown, we
107
acknowledge, especially in spiritual matters, our blindness and dependence
on his prophetic vision. Also, the rituals are the great leveler of the
Muslim community, transcending time and place, race and language.
While standing in all humility before God, together with fellow Muslims,
the ritual of each disciple of Muhammad is the same as that of every other
one throughout history, an acknowledgment of the essential spiritual
equality with which each of us has entered this world. But a fair number
of American Muslims have questioned even this role of the Prophet’s
example.
On the community level, the Prophet’s Sunnah has supported differing
interpretations and applications. As the career of Muhammad saw a great
diversity of trials and opportunities, Muslim communities have stressed
different aspects of his life example according to their circumstances. In
this respect, the extent of Muhammad’s Sunnah has been wide enough to
meet the needs of diverse Muslim groups and flexible enough to serve approaches
as dissimilar as the literalist and the Sufi. In the United States,
the atmosphere in the Islamic centers located in such big cities as New
York and Chicago, which serve the indigenous communities, is quite different
from that found in centers run by Muslim student groups at
American universities. It would be wrong to conclude from this that, in
reality, Muslims are unaffected by the Sunnah, for, despite differences of
understanding, the Qur’an and the Sunnah (and both must be included in
this) have stamped the character and bearing of all Muslims, regardless of
time and place, with qualities and outlooks that are readily recognized as
distinctively Islamic. Denny gives a simple and poignant example:
They were Japanese, about twenty men and women, all dressed in
white and standing in straight rows behind a stocky, older man with
close-cropped hair. This leader recited the first chapter of the
Qur’an in perfect Arabic with a resonant voice. The setting was
Karachi, Pakistan’s international airport transit lounge during the
Muslim pilgrimage season, when believers from all over the world
make their way to Mecca, in Arabia. The little group of Japanese
Muslims was waiting to board the plane for the final leg of their
long journey to Jedda, the Red Sea port of entry for the Holy city
of Mecca. The Japanese performed their prayers in a small mosque
in the terminal, near duty free shops and refreshment stands.
Japan does not have many Muslims, of either Japanese or other
descent. But the Japanese Muslims I saw at prayer in Karachi were
clearly Japanese—in language, manner, and physical appearance
108
109
—but they were also something else. That “something else” is a
special style or pattern of behavior and comportment that sets
observant Muslims apart from other people, regardless of ethnic,
linguistic, cultural, or racial identity.138
The upshot of this discussion is that there is no need to see the Prophet’s
Sunnah as a millstone. People will differ in their understanding of
it according to their experiences and circumstances. This may be frustrating
for Western converts, since they constitute only a tiny minority in
a huge Muslim melting pot. As the Muslim community, especially in the
West, combines so many different cultures and traditions, a great deal of
maturity and sophistication is needed when dealing with the question of
respecting the viewpoints of others. From my own observations, the Western
convert is often among the least tolerant.
It is now time to ask the principle question, which I have tried to
avoid: Why does the Qur’an need a supplement? We can esteem the labor
of the traditionists and the adaptability of the Sunnah, but why complicate
our lives with an additional source of guidance? Is not part of the purpose
of the Revelation to provide the essentials of guidance and to leave the rest
open to the time-bound changes that are certain to occur? By including the
Sunnah, are we not narrowing the Qur’an’s applicability? Does not the
Qur’an itself insist that “it is only for the Messenger to deliver the clear
Message”(24:54; 29:l8;64:12)?
The answers will depend on one’s approach to the Qur’an, for that is
where the question originates. Muslim exegetes uphold the importance of
knowing the occasion of a particular revelation—the historic incident(s)
that the verses of the Qur’an addressed—in order to gain a fuller understanding
of its message. But this has not prevented them from reading additional
meanings (that is, levels of meaning) that reach far beyond the
occasions that gave rise to them. This is supported by the personal experience
of the believer, who, in his/her daily reading of the Qur’an, discovers
new directions and import in passages read many times before.
Traditionally, Muslims have been extremely cautious about attaching a final
meaning or set of meanings to any verse, for “None but God knows
its final meaning (4:134)” and “Though all the trees in the earth were
pens, and the sea were ink, with seven seas after it to replenish it, the
words of God would never be exhausted, for God is All-Mighty, All-
Wise” (31:27, 18:109). Based on this understanding, Muslims have been
opposed to the idea that the Qur’an contains verses that are outdated.
138Fredrick Denny, Islam and the Muslim Community (San Francisco: Harper & Row,
1987), 5-6.
Even those who assume the theory of abrogation (i.e., that some verses
annul others) usually say that this means that certain verses focus or narrow
the meaning of other verses on the same subject, and then admit the
possibility of additional lessons, meanings, and interpretations to be
drawn from them.
The idea that verses of the Qur’an are obsolete, in the sense of not having
any application beyond the historic incident addressed, is a hazardous
one. If we assume that there are Qur’anic passages that have no relation to
the present or the future, then the wisdom of God and the concept of the
Qur’an as universal guidance is diminished. That God would include obsolete
information within the final Revelation imposes limitations on His
power and knowledge. In addition, it would be up to each individual or
community to decide what parts of the Revelation to ignore or apply. In this
way, humanity would guide the Qur’an instead of the Qur’an’s guiding
man. Since Islam has no clerical hierarchy, it goes without saying that with
such an approach the unity of the Muslim community would be jeopardized.
The alternative is to assume that the Qur’an is a universal message
in its entirety, and that each generation of believers is duty bound to seek,
interpret, and apply its lessons and directives. This approach is difficult,
although appealing. But, it must be asked, does it stand up to scrutiny?
There are Qur’anic passages that, at first glance, appear historically,
culturally, or geographically fixed. However, a deeper analysis reveals that
the Qur’an instructs in a very natural way, imparting lessons of general
import by considering concrete examples, such as those that relate to the
following verses:
1. Make ready for them whatever force and bands of steeds you can
muster, that you may strike terror in the enemies of God and your
own, and others beside them not known to you, but known to God.
(8:60)
2. O Prophet, why do you forbid [for yourself] what God has made
permissible for you, seeking to please your wives? Yet God is
forgiving and kind. Surely God has made permissible for you the
dissolution of your vows. And God is your Protector, and He is the
All-Knowing, the All-Wise. And when the Prophet confided a
matter to one of his wives and when she disclosed it, and Allah
made it open to him, he made known part of it to her and avoided
part of it. Then when he told her about it, she said: “Who has told
you about this?” He said, “I was told by the All-Knowing, the All-
Aware.” . .O you who believe, save yourselves and your families
from the Fire whose fuel is men and stones. . . . (66:1-3, 6)
110
111
3. O you who believe, let your dependents and those who have not
yet reached the age of puberty, ask permission [to enter your presence]
on three occasions: before the dawn prayer; when you disrobe
for the midday siesta; and after prayer at night. These are the
three times of nakedness for you.(24:58)
4. The expiation for it [breaking an oath] is feeding ten poor people
with such average food as you feed your own families, or clothing
them, or freeing a slave. (5:89)
5. Have you not seen how your Lord dealt with the People of the
Elephant? Did He not make their plans go astray, and sent against
them hordes of birds, pelting them with stones of hardened clay,
and made them like eaten-up stubble? (105:1-5)
6. For the journeys of the Quraysh, their journeys by winter and summer:
then let them worship the Lord of this House, who feeds them
against hunger and gives them security against fear. (l06:1-4)139
In the first passage, Muslims understand that, although God helps those
who struggle in the cause of right, they should not engage in battle unprepared.
Rather, they should seek and employ weapons and strategy that will
give them a military advantage, such as, for the early Muslim community,
a skilled cavalry. The aim is more than to secure victory: it is to create a
deterrent, to “strike terror” in the hearts of potential enemies, whether
known or unknown, in order to discourage aggression and bloodshed.
The second example, related to the Prophet’s family life, demonstrates
vividly that our families provide one of the greatest and most challenging
opportunities for growth and decline, as well as one of the most difficult
tests of the intention to serve only God. First of all, the Prophet is criticized
for forswearing any contact with his wives, apparently too drastic a response
to what had taken place. His wives are reprimanded severely for
violating their husband’s confidence, thereby giving rise to petty and damaging
domestic tension. Throughout, God reminds us of His forgiveness,
for these trials are bound to occur. The general admonition follows.
From the third passage we discern that although not all cultures observe
an afternoon siesta, we should follow certain principles of privacy and
modesty within our families. As for the fourth passage, many Qur’anic reg-
139See Asad, The Message, 22-23, for an argument against the theory of abrogation. See also
Ali, The Religion of Islam, 31-45; John Burton, The Collection of the Qur’an (London:
Cambridge University Press, l977), pp. 234-40.
ulations clearly allude to the abolition of slavery, and the Muslim community
will forever have to live with the embarrassment of its being the last to
formally dissolve this institution. While slavery has finally been eliminated,
many modern Muslim writers have read in the verses enjoining the freeing
of slaves the analogous requirement to free a fellow human being from
the bondage of severe debt as one means of atoning for breaking an oath.
Finally, regarding the fifth and sixth examples, surahs 105 and 106
may seem to have little relevance today, but these are among those most
often recollected by pilgrims as they proceed along the dusty roads of
Makkah toward the Holy Shrine. Surrounded by that stark and threatening
landscape stands the simple yet exquisite Ka‘bah, like a beautiful jewel set
in stone, prepared, preserved, and protected by God Almighty, in the most
unlikely of places, to be visited and shared by all pilgrims. Here, the Muslim
comes to experience personally and poignantly the sense of being truly
a part of God’s eternal plan.
Muslims have always been able to read the verses of the Qur’an into
their lives—not only out of desire but also out of deep necessity, for its
message penetrates faithfully and profoundly into their immediate needs
and ordeals. Hence we find that as the temporal separation of Muslim
commentators from seventh-century Arabia increases, the more they stress
the transcendence and coherence of the Qur’an in its entirety.
If this approach is taken, then how does one react to the verses with
which I began this section? For the relatively small but significant hard core
of pious enthusiasts in the first generations of Islam, it is hard to imagine
how they could have responded in a way that differs substantially from that
recorded by history: the zealous collection of thousands of major and minute
details concerning the Prophet’s life and conduct. This was the most
natural and obvious response for those inclined to scholarly investigation at
that time.
The Qur’an itself appears to foresee this early development, and not
only in the verses I have quoted. Take, for instance, the following somewhat
back-handed references:
O wives of the Prophet, you are not like any other women. If
you are mindful of God, do not be too soft in your speech, so that
the one in whose heart there is disease feels desire, but speak honorable
words. And stay in your houses, and do not deck yourselves
out as did the pagans of old. (33:32-33)
O Prophet, We have made permissible to you your wives to whom
you have given their dower and those whom your right hand possesses
out of what God has assigned to you [from among the
112
female prisoners of war], and the daughters of your paternal
uncles and paternal aunts, and the daughters of your maternal uncles
and your maternal aunts who migrated with you, and any
believing woman who bestows herself [in marriage] to the
Prophet if the Prophet desires to marry her. This is for you exclusively—
apart from the believers. We know what We have ordained
for them about their wives and what their right hands possess.
(33:50)
Both of these verses seem to anticipate the idealization of Muhammad’s
example, while at the same time cautioning that this should be done
carefully and intelligently and with due consideration of the special status
of Muhammad, his family, his nearest Companions, and his times. As for
the verses that assert that it is “only for the Messenger to convey the clear
Message,” they follow exhortations to obey God and the Messenger, and
stern warnings to those who do otherwise: “And if you turn your backs, it
is only for the Messenger to deliver the clear Message,” indicating that the
responsibility for one’s future course is solely upon one’s own shoulders,
now that the Message has been communicated clearly.
These verses should be understood in the context of the more abundant
references stressing obedience to the Messenger and the several statements
designating Muhammad as being charged with teaching and receiving
the revelation of “the Book and the Wisdom.” Teaching involves more
than transferring a text: it requires explanation and demonstration as well.
In general, Muslims have considered the example and teachings of
Muhammad as part of his guiding legacy, and they view the need to study
and understand that heritage as being just as important now as it was to
earlier generations. This approach is, I feel, the most consistent with the
Qur’an, which, while warning against the deification of men, appears to
acknowledge the need for a human exemplar. Yet there remains another
related question: Is every hadith adjudged to be authentic by scholarly
consensus really true?
A Question of Truth
“I find it hard to believe that the Prophet said that.”
“But, brother, that hadith is sahih!”
“Yes, I know, but do you think it’s really true?”
“It’s sahih! If you don’t accept a hadith that has been classified as
sahih, you’re not a Muslim.”
“Why didn’t anyone tell me that before I converted?”
113
114
Most new Muslims soon learn that to harbor any doubt about the veracity
of a hadith accepted by the consensus of scholarly opinion is tantamount
to a breach in faith. In this way, they are pushed to rationalize too
severe a doctrine. It is a radical tenet that no error whatsoever could have
slipped by Muslim traditionists in their centuries of research, and it comes
close to equating the integrity of their human effort with that of the revelation
of the Qur’an. Strangely enough, the notion of the inerrancy of sahih
traditions is countered by both the formal doctrines and actions of Muslim
jurists and scholars throughout Islamic history.
The very fact that those who specialize in Islamic jurisprudence consider
the authority of the authenticated traditions as second to that of the
Qur’an admits the possibility of imperfections in the traditions. Equally
significant is the fact that although the sahih traditions enjoy a position of
high honor in Islam, qualified experts have felt the right to challenge those
traditions generally believed to be genuine without jeopardizing their
Islam. This continues until this day.
For example, Abu al Hasan ‘Ali al Daraqutni (d. 385 AH), in his Criticism
and Investigation, challenged the reliability of two hundred tradtions
in the canonical collections. The incident of the “satanic verses,” in
which Muhammad supposedly compromised his message to suit the pagans
of Makkah, has been judged by Muslim orthodoxy as entirely fictitious,
even though it appears in Sahih al Bukhari. Such eminent scholars
as al Baqil-lani, al Juwayni, and al Ghazali reject a saying in Sahih al
Bukhari and label it untrue.140 Ibn al Mulaqqin (d. 804 AH) said of a certain
tradition in al Bukhari’s collection: “This is a strange saying. If al
Bukhari had spared his book this, it might have been better.”141 Recently,
Muhammad ‘Ali challenged the hadith in Sahih al Bukhari that deals with
the stoning of adulterers.142 Fazlur Rahman attacked the tradition, found in
the same source, about women being the majority of the inhabitants of
Hell.143Yet none of these scholars is viewed as having renounced Islam due
to their criticisms.
The inerrancy of the traditions is a popular belief among the Muslim
masses. It could be a legacy of the era of taqlid (imitation), when the
doors to independent reasoning in jurisprudence were closed in favor of
the unquestioning adoption of legal decisions arrived at by the four
140Al Qastallani, 7:173.
141Ibid., 8:40.
142Ali, The Religion of Islam, 756-58.
143Fazlur Rahman, Health and Medicine in the Islamic Tradition (New York: Crossroad
Pub., 1987), 105-106.
115
schools of Islamic law.144 However this came to be, the fact remains that
Muslim scholarship always has exercised the freedom to challenge individual
authenticated sayings, while recognizing the overall high integrity
of those hadith that have been classified as sahih.
Given the above, one can with some legitimacy raise the following
questions: If we admit that there are possible flaws in the canon of
hadith, does it not decrease their validity as a source of guidance? Does
such a possibility not open the way to errors based on inaccurate information?
First of all, we must accept that any response by human beings to divine
revelation runs the risk of being flawed, simply because of our inherent
limitations. In conjunction with this, we must realize that the massive
and vigorous action of Muslim scholars, undertaken since the earliest days
of the community, to collect, disseminate, and test information on the
Prophet’s example was indeed a response to the Qur’an, particularly the
injuction to “obey God and the Prophet.” This was not a scattered and individual
reaction, but a collective response that incorporated cross-examination,
comparison, and criticism. Certainly not one of us, if we had lived
during the first few centuries of the Islamic era, would have doubted that
this effort was valid and in harmony with the Revelation.
That early response to “obey God and the Prophet” decidedly affects
us today, for we have inherited the methods, tools, and results of the early
scholars, and because no interpretation that avoids careful consideration of
that first response can be taken seriously. Classical Islamic law was aware
of the above objection and thus formulated a hierarchy of approaches to
the decision-making process. It gave priority to the Qur’an, then to
Muham-mad’s Sunnah, then to analogies drawn from these, and, lastly, to
independent opinion (ra’y). The lines between these priorities are sometimes
obscured in practice, as there is some overlap. Moreover, the
Muslims of one generation will criticize and review the activities and conclusions
of scholars of preceding generations with regard to their application
of this model. But by this hierarchy, they understood that there was a
gradation of means to get to and follow the spirit of the Revelation, and
that the observance of these precedents was the best possible insurance
against error. This formulation became the standard Islamic praxis in the
beginning of the third Islamic century and has held sway ever since by
force of argument, for it was the one that comformed most perfectly to a
coherent approach to the Qur’an and to the history of the Muslim community’s
response to it.
144Ibid., 115-16.
116
Who Is Muhammad?
This chapter shares some ideas on the implications of this question for
all Muslims and how it may be approached by new converts.
In order to emulate the qualities and behavior of another, we have to
be able to identify with him to some extent. Such an identification is so
tied to our personality and his, that answers to this question will depend
on the believer and the stage that his/her life has reached. All answers
may intersect in a common understanding, but many unique perceptions
will continue to exist. Certainly my own perceptions of Muhammad are
deeper and perhaps more real than they were eight years ago, although I
am sure there is yet much more to understand.
Right now, I would say that if I were to describe the Prophet, my description
would be close to that of Watt quoted above. My guess is that
for Muhammad to have won the great respect of his followers, they
must have seen him as the most perfect personification of the traditional
ideal of what it meant to be an Arab leader: one who “keeps good
relations with kith and kin, helps the poor and the destitute, serves his
guests generously and assists the deserving calamity-afflicted ones.”145
He must have been, as tradition reports, a man of great integrity, forbearance,
and courage, for the Arabs could have accepted no less. His
word must have been as hard as steel to have captured his Companions’
total confidence. When he decided on a course of action he unwaveringly
saw it through.
But to have been the elect of God, to have won the love of his disciples
so effortlessly, to have changed society and history to the extent he
did, he was surely much greater than merely the Arab ideal. He must
have possessed the kind of concern, compassion, and spirituality that we
can only poorly approximate in ourselves. To be sure, he was no flower
child: he would dispense God’s law swiftly and impartially. When some
of his Companions pleaded that he make an exception in the law for a
noble woman who committed theft, he responded that if his most cherished
daughter Fatimah did the same, he would see to it personally that
her hand were amputated.146 On the other hand, when there was the smallest
room for doubt or excuse, or a way open for forgiveness, he would
seize it, as when he gave an adulterer three opportunities to withdraw his
145Asad, Sahih al Bukhari, 207. This is Ibn al Daghinnah's description of Abu Bakr. But
Khadijah, the wife of the Prophet, comforted him in identical terms after he had received
the first revelation. Apparently this was a commonly held definition in pre-Islamic times
of an “upright man.”
146Sahih al Bukhari, trans. Muhammad Muhsin Khan, vol. 5, “The Book of Military
Expeditions” (59), Hadith no. 597.
117
confession or when he declared a general amnesty after his conquest of
Makkah.147
Muhammad also had the sensitivity to know when and how to
upraise and humble those around him, including himself, with perfect
honesty. After the victory at Hunayn, it came to his attention that the
Ansar, who had given refuge and support to him when no other community
would and who had risked their lives defending his Message
during the most critical years, felt slighted when the Prophet “bypassed”
them in favor of the newly-converted Makkans, who had been
his most implacable foes, in the distribution of spoils. The feeling
spread among them that after this final victory, Muhammad’s attention
and affection would return completely to his Makkan kinsfolk. At that,
he immediately called for a private meeting with the Ansar and addressed
them thus:
“I have been told that you are dissatisfied at my ostensible partiality
towards the Quraysh chiefs.” “Yes,” they replied, “there
are some amongst us who are talking like that.” Then the Prophet
said: “Is it not true that I came in your midst while you were misguided;
so God guided you to the right path. You were indigent;
God made you prosperous. You were ever at daggers drawn with
one another; God created mutual affection in your hearts.”
Lowering their heads in embarrassment, they replied that all that
was true. “You could also reply differently and you would be justified.
You could say that I came over to you when I was belied
and rejected by my own people and you accepted me. I came to
you when no one would help me, and you stood by me. I was
turned out of my home, and you gave me shelter. O Ansar! Did it
make you suspicious that I gave a portion of worldly riches for
the purpose of conciliation, thinking that Islam was already
ample reward for you? O Ansar! Are you not satisfied to take
home with you the Messenger of God, while others drive home
goats and camels? By God, in whose hands is my soul, if all the
people go one way and the Ansar take another, I will tread the
path of the Ansar!” Needless to say, the moment he finished,
there was a spontaneous outburst of joy and tears in the audience.
148
147Ali, Religion of Islam, 214-21.
148Sahih al Bukhari, trans. Muhammad Muhsin Khan, vol. 5, “The book of Military
Expeditions, (59), Hadith nos. 614-25.; Ali, The Religion of Islam, 227-28.
After eight years, these are among the perceptions of Muhammad that
have become a part of me. If his wives are like mothers to the believers,
then maybe the Prophet is like a father to them. This would be, at least for
me, the most appropriate one word symbol for the combined feelings of
respect, awe, and love that I have come to hold for Muhammad, the
Messenger of God.
118
CHAPTER 4
The Ummah
And hold fast, all of you together, to the rope of Allah and do not
be divided. And recall Allah’s favor upon you: how you were enemies
and He brought about reconciliation between your hearts so
that you became, by His grace, brothers; and you were on the
brink of an abyss of fire and He saved you from it. (3:103)
It was nearing the end of summer and I would soon be going off to college
for the first time. I sat in the school yard by the fence, waiting for my
team to play the winners of an ongoing half-court game. On an average
night, there would be around fifty kids from our mostly Italian neighborhood
hanging out at Sheridan school. Tonight there were about ten. A
young black boy rode up to me on his bicycle. “You better go home, Jeff.
There’s gonna be trouble tonight.”
I needed no further explanation. Three days earlier, several young
men from our neighborhood had attacked a black teenager from Beardsley
Terrace in retaliation for the night during which one of ours was jumped
and had his nose broken. It was our turn to face requital—and then it
would be theirs, and then ours, and then theirs again, going back and forth
forever. I couldn’t wait to escape from all this.
Maybe our urban areas have always been a dumping ground for the
waste products of our society’s unrelenting greed and neglect, for a refuse
that is incinerated in the fear, violence, and rage of our cities’ children,
and which our nation isolates and contains rather than corrects, due to
economic considerations. I have heard it said many times that these kids
are hardly children—they are criminals. But what did we possibly expect?
For have they not been robbed of their childhoods, raped of their innocence,
hardened by our dereliction? Someone has to pay the price. How
many times does the Qur’an warn us of the needs of the yatim, the poor
lost and abandoned children?
Hastily I tried to talk one of my teammates into leaving. But it was too
late. The fences and walls surrounding the schoolyard were now being
scaled adeptly by lean young black warriors numbering more than one
hundred. The idea in such situations is to try to drastically outpower the
other side, to catch its members off guard. Tonight we miscued. Several
119
cars screeched to a halt in front of the playground fence. Car doors and
trunks flew open. A shout of “We got fire and we know how to use it!” rang
out in the darkness.
Guns were tossed into nervous hands, their barrels gleaming beneath
the street lights. At moments like this, fear is not the right word; numbness
and shock are closer to the mark. You aren’t thinking of getting hurt because
you are now relying on your instincts. It was not yet time to run since
running too early could spark a nervous reaction that could be fatal. We
were centered around the basketball net. It would all be over soon.
Furman Jackson, the victim of last week’s assault, defiantly marched
into the schoolyard. He was pointing out his attackers: “It was him, and
him, and him!”
His judgment was precise and accurate. City violence is usually very
efficient. There’s no use in creating new enemies and vendettas. But how
bizarre this all was! I remembered how these same kids, who were about
to face their judgment, a few months earlier had initiated a new Jewish fellow
into our neighborhood by beating and kicking him, leaving him lying
and crying in the snow, begging and pleading while they cackled and
jeered. They say that what goes around comes around.
Furman turned toward me. I had known him since fourth grade, and
even then he was always trouble. Children have a natural affinity and attraction
to each other, but already, in fourth grade, we had sensed out the
barriers that barred us from one another. Somehow I saw in his face the
boy of eleven that I could never get to know. I wonder what he saw in mine.
“He’s all right!”
I stepped slowly backwards, making my way toward the only exit.
Dennis, another of the vindicated, followed close to me. The crowd parted
and let us through. No one wanted to be there. We have to overcome all
kinds of resistance and compassion in situations like this, to dig down once
again into a deep reserve of brutality. It may look easy but it actually takes
considerable practice.
When I stepped outside the gate, I turned around. There was movement
in the crowd, something like a dancing motion, like a swirling breeze
rustling through tall grass, as they maneuvered for position. Then came a
loud clapping sound and within seconds, an angry cyclone had ripped
through, leaving several bodies uprooted on the hot schoolyard tar. I ran—
like everyone else, I ran. Running, scattering. From the police? From the
pain? From the horror? Who knows? We all ran!
That night, and other days and nights like it, kept coming back to me
while I listened to ‘Abd al ‘Alim Musa’s lecture to the Muslim students at
the University of San Francisco. Confused emotions—learned reflexes—
120
were colliding with my impressions of the speaker. He was a tall, strong,
imposing black American, clever and sharp-witted. Ten years earlier, he
could have been a dangerous opponent. I was told that once he had been
a member of the Black Panthers and that he had gone to prison because
of it. It was hard to see that in this man, who was so much at peace with
himself and others.
A few questions into the question-and-answer period, he was asked,
“Do you feel Islam has affected your life?”
His expression changed, as if he were surprised or impatient with the
question, like when I have to explain an idea to one of my students for the
tenth time.
“People just don’t realize—they really can’t believe the power of
Islam,” he said, shaking his head. Then he aimed his finger at Grant and
me on the other side of the room and proclaimed: “The very fact that you
have white men like these sitting together with black men like us” (referring
to the Afro-American Muslims who had accompanied him from
Oakland) “as brothers, when just ten years ago we were killing each other
in the streets, tells you how much impact Islam can have on a life!”
It was as if he were reading my mind.
‘Abd al ‘Alim walked over to me after the program and extended his
hand. I could not remember the last time I had shaken hands with a black
man—I mean, really shaken hands, with warmth and love. Had I ever?
And it hurt deeply, because it hurts to release our pains, for we first have
to wrench them out and face them again. And pains that we have gotten
used to—that we have even come to depend on—can be difficult to release
and forget.
At that time, I had only been a Muslim for about a month. I would
learn a great deal from ‘Abd al ‘Alim during the next five years that I spent
in San Francisco. However, the deepest lesson I took from him was of the
brotherhood of man.
There is great celebration in the Muslim community at the news of a
new believer, something like when a family receives a newborn. That comparison
is made frequently, for a new Muslim is reminded repeatedly that
his/her past sins are now behind him and that his/her soul is white as snow,
like that of a baby at birth. One Muslim friend used to tell me how fortunate
I was and that he was even a little bit jealous of me. The outpouring of
affection could be overwhelming at times, as is the lengths to which the
community will go sometimes to help you make the transition successfully.
Just like a child, the newcomer is bombarded with advice, tips, and instruction.
He/she has adopted and been adopted by a new family and has
121
122
acquired brothers and sisters from all corners of the world—from very different
cultures like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Malaysia; from such “enemy”
lands as Iran, Iraq, Libya, and Palestine; and from such unknown places as
Mali, Tanzania, Yemen, and Nepal. And he/she begins to empathize with
their triumphs, sufferings, and dreams as they become more and more
his/her own. The Prophet once said that the believers are like a person’s
body: if one of its members get sick, the whole body suffers.149 So when a
Palestinian home is demolished, or an earthquake kills thousands in Iran,
or Muslims die fighting in Afghanistan, the believers everywhere feel
insult and anguish, because “the believers are indeed brothers of each
other” (49:10) and “the believing men and believing women are protectors
of one another” (9:71). This sense of mutual responsibility is fortified by
the sayings of Muhammad, among which we find: “You do not truly
believe unless you love for your brother, what you love for yourself,”150
“No one may call himself a believer who eats his fill while his neighbor
remains hungry,”151 and “You should help your brother whether he is
wronged or doing wrong. If he is wronged defend him, and if he is doing
wrong prevent him.”152
Islam has long been recognized for its egalitarianism, and many occidental
scholars have attributed the relatively recent peaceful spread of
Islam throughout Africa to it. For upon entering the ummah, one discovers
that a single standard applies to all members and, beyond that, to all
humanity:
O mankind! Lo! We have created you male and female and have
made you nations and tribes that you may know one another. Lo!
the noblest among you in the sight of God is he who is best in conduct.
(49:l3)
This verse succinctly summarizes the Qur’an’s universalism. It begins
—as the Qur’an so often does—by addressing all humanity. The summons,
“O mankind!” appears about twenty-five times throughout the
Qur’an and indicates that the call is intended for all. The next sentence
maintains the essential equality of all people, whether male or female. In
many places, the Qur’an tells us that in our families and close relations
there are critical opportunities for personal and spiritual growth. This verse
rounds out that idea by informing us that human diversity provides us with
149Sahih al Bukhari, trans. Muhammad Muhsin Khan, vol. 8, “The Book of Good Manners”
(71), Hadith no. 40.
150Ibid., 3:6.
151Asad, Road to Mecca, 297.
152Sahih al Bukhari, trans. Muhammad Muhsin Khan, vol. 3, “The Book of Oppressions”
(43), Hadith nos. 623-24.
important tests as well, for justice, love, and compassion grow in another
dimension when applied to those we view as different from ourselves. This
concept can also be found in 30:22.
Such concepts presented the greatest challenge to Muhammad’s pagan
contemporaries, who were convinced that nobility depended only on one’s
descent. In pre-Islamic Arabia, one of the main features of the annual pilgrimage
was the holding of poetry contests so that the participants could
boast of their tribal and ancestral greatness, as well as their family’s name,
which, albeit with less emphasis, still plays a considerable role in determining
one’s status and opportunities in Arabian society. Thus, 2:200 admonishes
the Arabs to remember God at the pilgrimage with as much devotion
as they remember their ancestors, or even more than that. The principle
that nobility depends on piety, and that tribal, national, racial, and linguistic
differences are not reasons for division and hatred among individuals
and groups (30:22), was certain to upset the entire established order
of pre-Islamic society, especially if there were enough individuals daring
enough to put it into practice.
This is why the Prophet’s exodus to Yathrib (the pre-Islamic name of
Madinah) and his subsequent establishment of the city-state of Madinah
posed such a serious threat to pagan Arabia. It must have been clear to astute
minds that the two systems—tribal and egalitarian—could not coexist.
For twelve years in Makkah, this conflict had expressed itself primarily
as a war of words and wills, as Muhammad and his followers were
persecuted and boycotted by the powerful Quraysh. Then, when the
representatives of the two opposing systems met on the battlefield of Badr
one year after the migration to Madinah, sons fought against fathers,
nephews against uncles, cousins against cousin—something unthinkable
in tribal society. At the conclusion of the battle, after the Muslims had
repulsed an army three times the size of their own, all of Arabia realized
that the winds of change had arrived.
For Muslims, the community of believers is where Islam’s equalitarian
principles are to be implemented in practice, where those committed to
its worldview are to participate—through faith, government, and law—in
translating them into a socio-political order. But Islam’s concern is not exclusively
with its adherents, it extends to all mankind. It is important to
observe that when the Qur’an enjoins giving charity to the needy, caring
for orphans and widows, dealing justly, defending the oppressed, freeing
slaves, and helping the wayfarer, no mention is made of the sufferers’ religion.
The Qur’an describes the Muslim ummah as the “best community”
(3:110). For serving the one God? For worship? For believing in the correct
dogma? No. They should be the “best community brought forth for
123
mankind”: defending right, opposing wrong, and fighting against tyranny
and oppression as servants of God.
What ails you that you do not fight in the cause of God and the
helpless men, women and children who say, “O our Lord, bring us
out of this land whose people are oppressors, and appoint for us
from Yourself a protector, and appoint for us from Yourself a
helper.” (4:75)
In the words of the Qur’an (i.e., 2:30; 6:165; l0:14; 27:62; 35:39),
human beings are the khulafa’ (vicegerents) of God on earth and are to
look after the unfortunate and oppressed.
The five pillars of the Islamic faith, which are the ritual embodiment
of Islam’s ideology, conspicuously unite humanity’s duty to God and the
individual’s obligations to humanity. The Shahadah, the testimony of faith
that an individual must repeat before being considered a Muslim, has always
represented for Muslims much more than a statement of belief; it is
a socio-political commitment as well and hence must be witnessed by at
least two members of the community. The Shahadah also represents a person’s
acknowledgment and acceptance of the divine trust of acting as
God’s vicegerent on earth.
The zakah, usually translated as a poor-tax and consisting of a fixed
percentage of a Muslim’s wealth, must be given every year to those entitled
to it: those in various kinds of need. The humanitarian concern behind
such an institution is obvious. The month long fast of Ramadan, during
which Muslims abstain from food, drink, and sex between dawn and sunset,
creates intense feelings of solidarity among the believers. But it also
has another purpose: to produce in each Muslim a strong sympathy for the
world’s poor and hungry, and an incentive to translate that sympathy into
action. Two examples will suffice to make this point.
This past Ramadan, as I was out walking just before sunset, I heard a
voice yell from a passing car, “Hey, Jeff! How’s the fasting going?” It was
another American Muslim—and to be honest, it was not going very well
that day at all, for it was a very hot day and I was terribly thirsty. I called
out, “I’m hanging in there!” As he drove away he held a thumbs-up outside
his window. This gave me a big emotional boost and made me feel
very close, not only to this man but to all Muslims, because it reminded
me that several hundred million Muslims around the world were “hanging
in there” with me that day as well.
One day during another Ramadan, I had overslept a bit and hence had
missed the time of the light pre-dawn meal. Therefore, I would, in effect,
124
have to go for twenty-four hours without food or drink. While this is not
the end of the world, it is not easy, especially on a work day, as this was.
I grew increasingly thirsty and fatigued as the hours of the day crawled
along, and, at about five in the afternoon, I began to have some soreness
in my stomach and a headache. By eight o’clock, a little more than an hour
before sunset, I was nauseated and my head was pounding. My eyes
burned as if someone had knotted them in their sockets. I lay down and
tried to nap the last remaining hour but I was too uncomfortable. It was too
painful to open my eyes, yet I could not sleep. Through the last half hour
of the fast, I was counting every minute. Finally, it was 9:15 p.m. But even
then I could not eat; I was too sick.
My wife brought me a small cup of light broth, and I began to sip it a
little at a time. Sure enough, my headache began to dissipate, my stomach
returned to normal, and my eyes slowly unwound. Within several minutes
I felt perfectly normal. We were watching the news while eating, and there
was a report on the starvation in Ethiopia and Somalia. The pictures of the
gaunt, near-dead victims reminded me of the films we see of the Holocaust.
I thought of how simple it had been for me to end my anguish, while
men and women my age had to live in infinitely greater, permanent agony
with no relief in sight and to stand by helplessly while their naked infants
with bloated, ulcerated stomachs lay kicking weakly in the dust. Maybe at
that moment I should have felt blessed, but I saw in their terrible suffering
that I had failed a test.
Hajj, the pilgrimage to Makkah, has changed many a Muslim’s life.
Perhaps the most dramatic day is when the mass of pilgrims throng to the
Plain of ‘Arafat. There they gather, clad in the identical pilgrim’s garb,
speaking hundreds of languages, in the often blinding heat, rededicating
themselves to their faith and humanity. It is a foreshadowing of the Day of
Judgment, when all human beings, of every time and place, will be gathered
on an endless plain, to face what they have truly become in this earthly
life. For Malcom X, the Hajj represented a tremendous turning point,
which he expressed in these words:
For the last week, I have been utterly speechless and spellbound
by the graciousness I see displayed all around me by people of all
colors. . . You may be shocked by these words coming from me.
But on this pilgrimage, what I have seen, and experienced, has
forced me to rearrange much of my thought patterns previously
held, and to toss aside some of my previous conclusions . . .
Perhaps if white Americans could accept the Oneness of God, then
perhaps, too, they could accept in reality the Oneness of Man—
125
126
and cease to measure and hinder and harm others in terms of their
“differences” in color. . . Each hour in the Holy Land [Arabia]
enables me to have greater spiritual insights into what is happening
in America between black and white.153
The only pillar still left unmentioned is the ritual prayer (salah). While
individual prayer is encouraged, congregational prayer has priority. Of
course, communal prayer, as Jesus is reported to have stated in the Bible,
can be performed as much for show as for true piety.154 Although the
Qur’an warns of such hypocrisy (4:142, l07:1-7), the Prophet told his followers
that prayer observed in congregation has over twenty times the
value of prayer performed alone, a statement that stresses once again the
importance of the community.155
The members of the congregation arrange themselves in tight formation,
standing shoulder to shoulder and foot to foot at the start of the
prayer, which consists of a number of cycles of standing, bowing, sitting,
and prostrating. In the first two cycles (rak‘ats) of the dawn, sunset, and
evening prayers, the Qur’an is recited aloud by the prayer leader (imam),
while in the remaining cycles of these three prayers (the dawn prayer has
two cycles, the sunset three, and the evening four), as well as in all the cycles
of the noon and afternoon prayer, the imam and the members of the
congregation recite the Qur’an silently. Typically, the movements of the
worshippers are slightly out of synchronization in the first cycle, but with
each additional cycle they become more fluid and uniform, so that by the
last cycle the worshippers seem to unconsciously anticipate one other’s
movements and the entire congregation moves as one. The experience is
close to hypnotic. The prayer ends with the greeting of peace to those on
one’s right and left. Thus the Islamic prayer is a glorious and graceful confluence
of recitation, instruction, movement, rhythm, and ritual, drawing
the believer first outward to the community, then inward to private communication
with God, and then back outside again with the greeting of
peace at the prayer’s end. In fact, that rhythm of mystical converse and
community interdependence is maintained throughout the salah in the synchronous
movements of the congregation.
A Muslim student I knew in San Francisco found that aspect of the
Islamic prayer disturbing. “Why do we have to pray so close together, in
153CharrisWaddy, The Muslim Mind (London: Longman, n.d.), 113-16.
154May and Metzger, The New Oxford Annotated Bible. See the Sermon on the Mount, in
Matthew 6:5-8.
155Sahih al Bukhari, trans. Muhammad Muhsin Khan, vol. 1, “The Book of the Call to
Prayer” (11), Hadith no. 618.
such close proximity to each other? Here I am, trying to concentrate all my
attention on God, and yet I am constantly conscious of someone’s body
brushing against me on my right and left!”
I told him that I thought he had arrived at an important observation
that uncovers a fundamental precept of Islam: even in your most intense
worship, you are not to forget your brother or sister on your right and on
your left. In other words, your personal and spiritual welfare and salvation
is inseparably linked to your response to your fellow human beings.
Recently a great deal of literature has been published in the West on the
current Islamic “resurgence,” with attempts to explain the underlying causes.
The effects of modernization, colonialism, neocolonialism, the defeat
and partition of the Ottoman empire, and the Muslims’ frustration and Third
World status are frequently cited. Undoubtedly these have played a role.
But the current global Islamic revival is fueled mostly by young people, for
whom the above-mentioned historical experiences are part of a distant past
in their homelands. To understand the present calls for pan-Islamism and
the establishment of Islamic states, it has to be understood that most of
these longings are now being born and nurtured in the Islamic centers and
student-run mosques in the United States and Europe.
If we listen to the Friday sermons, we can see that at the heart of these
aspirations is the Qur’anic vision of the unity of humanity under the unity
of God. In these Muslim communities, believers from numerous and diverse
cultures have had to cooperate in building an Islamic lifestyle in the
West. Tensions often are high due to disagreement over the ways this
should be done and old prejudices surface every now and then. But the
communities stick together, for the vision of Islamic brotherhood is more
powerful than the racial and cultural obstacles. And through it all, Muslims
have come to know that somehow that Islamic vision could become a reality,
and that the chance to make it one may be greater now than it has been
for several centuries.
And those who came after them say: “Our Lord, forgive us and
our brothers [and sisters] who preceded us in faith, and let there
not be in our hearts any ill-will toward those who have believed.
Our Lord, You are most kind, most merciful.” (59:10)
QUESTIONS
Her young voice echoed over the loud-speaker in the huge auditorium:
“Many Muslim women feel that the separation of the sexes at conferences
like this does more harm than good. The sisters are trapped back
up here in the balcony, two thousand feet from the stage, while the men
127
occupy the main floor. Therefore we have unequal access to the speaker
and we have to fight to get our questions heard and addressed. This is
the situation regardless of whether the lecturer is male or female. It
leaves us with a feeling of inferiority and secondary status. My question
to each of the speakers is: Do you not feel that, in our present day, the
detriments of segregation outweigh the benefits, and does there exist
enough room in Islam to allow, at meetings like this, the men and women
to sit on the same floor, trusting them to observe modest and respectful
behavior?”
The audience at the youth session tensed, so much so that you could
here the moderator’s breathing in the microphone. The three young male
American Muslim speakers, sitting behind the table on the stage, looked at
each other to see who would take the question. The two on the extreme
ends of the table shook their heads, passing the burden to the moderator.
He cleared his throat and began slowly and cautiously.
“This is more. . . a question that. . . should be decided in your local
masjid (mosque). Uh. . . uh . . . by a scholar. I remember one time we tried
to run a session like that at a conference and because of the behavior of a
few of the men, some sisters got really angry. Are there any more questions?”
“I thought the purpose of the youth conference is to open questions
and discussions.” It was the same faceless voice from above. “How are we
ever going to find answers to our problems if we don’t discuss them, and
why is this a question for our local communities when it has to do with
practices at our nationwide gatherings? What I am trying. . . .”
“I’m sorry, sister, but we don’t have much more time, and we have another
question on the floor!”
The youth sessions at the many Islamic conferences held throughout
the year are by far the most exciting and interesting of all the programs
offered. Questions of vital importance to the future of Islam in
the West are put forth boldly and courageously, more often than not by
the young women. This may be because the future of the Muslim community
rests so heavily on the convergence of those two forces: women
and children.
While the duty of Muslim men has been primarily to protect and
maintain the system, the shape of tomorrow’s Islamic society depends
ultimately on the Muslim mother and child. I always come away from
the youth sessions reinvigorated with hope, because they demonstrate
that many of our young people are not afraid to stand up and raise issues
that need to be raised. But I am also aware that this hope may be unwar-
128
ranted, for intrepidity is a characteristic of youth, which could give way
in adulthood, as this incident also shows, to the impulse to protect one’s
position by avoiding sensitive issues and thereby upholding the status
quo.
The intention of this chapter is to confront some of the problems facing
American Muslims. The selection of topics is based on the many communications,
both by letter and conversation, that I have had with fellow
American believers. I have tried to stick to the issues that arise most frequently,
but the order in which they appear is more or less random. And I
have agonized over two concerns. First, I wondered if I should discuss
some of these problems at all, because any conclusions that are reached are
bound to upset a good number of Muslim readers. This led naturally to my
second concern: Should I present any conclusions? Would it not be better
simply to list the different sides of a given controversy and omit any personal
opinions?
My decision is contained in my reflections on the youth conference.
We cannot continue to avoid discussing matters of current concern, for this
very avoidance might cause the Muslim community to adopt the most convenient
solutions to its problems, even if they were not developed in an
Islamic context. We can then expect two divergent trends among our
scholars and thinkers: liberal interpretation that rationalizes established
Western cultural practices on religious grounds, and the formulation of
“ideal” Islamic solutions that are far-removed from the daily realities of
the Muslim masses. Both of these are certain to occur anyhow to some
extent, as has happened frequently in the past, because, firstly, religion has
a certain flexibility that allows for its adaptation to different cultures, and,
secondly, because it is necessary to have an ideal in mind to which the
community aspires. But, there is a danger of taking these trends too far,
and this must be guarded against by all Muslims. This is why we must discuss
sensitive issues openly now, especially during this rooting stage of
Islam in the West.
Similarly, I feel that as Muslims we have to be willing to take and defend
positions. No one wants to be subject to doubt and criticism, but this
is the most effective and honest way to confront issues. It is true that very
few of us have the authority to render a decisive judgment, and the more
we are aware of this the better off we are, because in this way we will be
forced to solve our community problems collectively by employing the
Islamic principles of shura (mutual consultation) and ijma‘ (consensus).
With this in mind, I remind the reader that this author is not a scholar of
Islam, and that it is my hope that my opinions will be challenged freely
and critically.
129
130
FAMILY
The best of you is the best to his family and I am the best among
you to my family.156
The most perfect believers are the best in conduct, and the best of
you are those who are best to their spouses. (Tirmidhi)157
“We aren’t going to let you starve, mom. I know Kansas isn’t paradise,
but you can always come and live with us.”
I found it awkward trying to console my mother over the phone.
Consoling others had always been her role. She had seen her husband and
five sons through terrible troubles. Time and time again she had shouldered
our anxieties and failures with undaunting mercy and self-sacrifice.
Maybe once too often, for it appeared that overnight her sixty-five years
had caught up with and overtaken this once young and vibrant woman.
This was the first time that I had felt hopelessness in her voice.
“Mom, we love you! You have to trust that.”
The intervals of silence were killing me. I wished she would say something.
“We’re your sons! It’s our duty to take care of you now. And it’s more
than that. It’s a gift from God that we have the opportunity to help the people
that we love most.”
I could hear her now, faintly. She was crying, a punishing, silent cry
that tries to hide, that rains down in tears over clenched lips, that aches
out in heart-stricken sighs.
“I have to go now, son.”
“I love you, mom!”
“I know you do.”
My mother is obsessed with the idea of never letting herself become a
burden to her five sons, so much so that she will not even allow herself to
cry in front of them. She is horrified at the idea of having to some day depend
on her children. “You have your own families now,” she will say.
“But you are our family too!” I will counter. “Doesn’t raising five children
count for something?” I think that, for my mother, it is more than just
having to depend on us financially, although that alone is a scary predica-
156Gamal Badawi, The Status of Woman in Islam (Indianapolis: American Trust Publ.,
1972), 18. This saying of Muhammad was quoted by Dr. Badawi.
157Quoted from the collection of Tirmidhi (l0:11) in Muhammad Ali, A Manual of Hadith
(London: Curzon Press, 1977).
ment, because it is far from clear that we can really be depended on now
that our parents need us. It has to do with admitting that she has entered
the class of the “elderly”—that awful word that signifies feebleness, uselessness,
utter dependence, and isolation; the ones who get in the way;
who move and think too slowly.
My mother knows their plight better than most. She worked for
twenty years as a nurse in a health facility, a home for the “elderly” or
“aged” or “senior citizens” (we cannot seem to find a word for old people
that has a positive ring to it). It serves a wealthy clientele and is one
of the finest retirement homes in the area, although by the time its residents
make their way to the hospital wing to spend their final days, not
much can be done to make it pleasant. To be sure, the nurses do their best,
but they cannot eliminate the ever-present sense of death closing in, and,
above all, they cannot become the family that never comes to visit.
My mother used to remind us again and again of the horrible loneliness
of her patients as they faced death by themselves, and how her prayer
was to die as her father did: on his feet, working, self-sufficient. But her
health has taken a bad turn and her doctors doubt that she will ever return
to work.
My father has also been forced into retirement. My parents now rely
on social security, a third of which goes to pay their property taxes, and the
precarious help of their sons. My father suggested selling the house they
have lived in for almost forty years, but my mother could not deal with that
nightmare. Their “golden years” are reduced to a daily struggle to subsist,
and they are very conscious that if either of them should require extended
medical care, their financial reserves could disappear.
Cultures much poorer than ours treat their elderly with more dignity
and respect than we do. Of course, socio-economic factors have to be
taken into consideration. In traditional cultures, the extended family
strengthens mutual ties and feelings of responsibility for its members. The
nuclearizing of the family unit, which began in the West and is becoming
a global reality, was brought about mostly by unavoidable social transformations;
industrialization, for example, played a big part. But natural and
necessary changes in social structures do not account fully for the sad
predicament of our aged, nor for the disintegration of the Western family.
We have to concede a prominent place to plain old-fashioned selfishness
and greed.
Parents of American converts usually have many reservations about
their children’s new commitment, but a frequently mentioned positive
side effect is that the bond between them and their child has grown
noticeably stronger after their acceptance of the faith. Indeed, after
131
132
becoming a Muslim, I was consistently advised by fellow believers of my
obligations to my parents.
This was more than the sharing of a traditional cultural perspective,
for, as mentioned in a number of places previously, Islam places a great
deal of importance on one’s relations with one’s family members. The
paramountcy assigned to the family unit, including grandparents, aunts,
uncles, and cousins, in the making of Muslim society can be grasped by
considering that copious volumes on Islamic law are dedicated to interfamily
relations. And while governments in Muslim lands were often willing
throughout history to ignore much of classical Islamic law, Islamic
family law was usually enforced.158
Modern society is said to be youth oriented, for its fashion, food, music,
art, advertising, and many other elements cater to the young. It tries to
stay abreast of the latest youthful trends, from which it gains abundant energy,
fluidity, and vitality. This is certain to grate against cultures that depend
upon tradition, in particular Islamic culture, which cannot possiblybe conceived of as youth-oriented, at least not in the way I have just described.
To be sure, the vast majority of Muhammad’s earliest disciples
were young men and women, mostly in their twenties,159 and the Qur’an
sharply censures those who blindly follow destructive cultural conventions
(2:l70; 5:104; 7:28; 21:53-54; 31:21). But the wisdom and experience of
Muhammad and of such older Companions as Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, and
‘Uthman were indispensable to the movement’s success.
Furthermore, the Qur’an puts great stock in wise and correct traditions,
as it traces the essence of its message back through history to all of the
prophets. Islam ended many degenerate cultural practices, such as infanticide,
usury, and drinking, but it also modified certain other practices (for
example, the pilgrimage, polygamy, divorce, and rules of inheritance) and
endorsed still others. In this last category is the obligation to treat one’s elders
with the greatest respect, especially parents. In common with Judaism
and Christianity, honoring one’s parents is an Islamic requirement and exhibiting
the slightest impatience or annoyance towards them is forbidden:
And worship Allah and do not associate anything with Him, and
be good to parents and relatives. . . (4:36)
And your Lord has decreed that you worship none but Him and
that you be good to parents. If one or both of them reach old age
by your side, do not say “Uff!”[an expression of impatience] to
158Esposito, Islam: The Straight Path, 88-89, 149-52.
159Watt, Muhammad at Mecca, 86-99.
133
them nor repulse them, but address them with gracious words,
and, out of kindness, lower to them the wing of humility and say,
“My Lord, have mercy on them, as they cared for me in childhood.
(l7:23-24)
Show gratitude to Me and to your parents. To Me is [your final]
goal. But if they strive to make you join in worship with Me things
of which you have no knowledge, do not obey them, but keep
them company in this life with goodness. (31:14-15)
As already noted, on joining the Muslim community I was quite astonished
that so much emphasis was put on my relationship with my parents.
Here are a few of the many sayings of Muhammad on this subject to which
I was exposed almost immediately:
He said: “May his nose be rubbed in the dust! May his nose be
rubbed in the dust” [an Arabic expression denoting degradation]!
When the Prophet was asked whom he meant by this, he
replied: “The one who sees his parents, one or both, during their
old age but he does not enter Paradise [by doing good to them].”
(Muslim)
A man came to Muhammad and asked permission to go to battle.
The Prophet asked him, “Are your parents alive?” The man said,
“Yes.” The Prophet responded, “Then strive to serve them.” (al
Bukhari and Muslim)
When asked which action is most acceptable to God, Muhammad
answered, “Performing the salah at its due time.” When asked
what next, he responded, “Showing kindness to parents.” When
asked what next, he replied, “Fighting in the cause of God.” (al
Bukhari and Muslim)160
It would be difficult to assess the esteem in which motherhood was
held by the pre-Islamic Arabs. Available evidence gives us no clear idea,
but it is almost certain that the Arab mother had her portion of parental
respect. The verse referred to earlier (2:200) concerning the pilgrimage,
and the fact that female infanticide was practiced more regularly than
male infanticide, would lead us to believe that pre-Islamic Arabia, like
160Riyad al Salihin of Imam Nawawi, trans. Muhammad Zafrulla Khan, 73-76.
134
other cultures at that time, generally saw men as superior to women and
the father as more honored than the mother. Moreover, a comparison
with Jewish, Christian, and Persian writings of that period would support
this conjecture.161 If this be the case, then Islam not only enjoined respect
and responsibility towards one’s parents, but added an important dimension
by singling out the mother for the larger share.
And We have enjoined upon man goodness toward parents. His
mother carries him in distress and gives birth to him in distress.
(46:15)
And We have enjoined on man concerning his parents—his mother
carried him in weakness upon weakness, and his weaning was
in two years: “Be thankful to Me and to your parents. To Me is the
[final] destination.” (31:14)
Aman came to the Prophet and asked, “Who among people is most
entitled to kind treatment from me?” He answered, “Your mother.”
The man asked, “Then who?” He said, “Your mother.” “Then
who?” the man insisted. The Prophet replied, “Your mother.” The
man asked, “Then who?” The Prophet said, “Then your father.”162
(al Bukhari and Muslim)
Any truly religious society depends heavily on tradition, and it is the
responsibility of the parents to pass on its traditions and teachings to the
next generation. In such a system, deference towards parents and elders is
a natural requirement, as it is with Islam. We would not expect an Islamic
system to have the same fluidity as present-day Western culture, which
Muslims tend to interpret as social instability rather than something positive.
Islamic society seeks continuity and harmony with its past and with
what is permanent and immutable. The bridge between its past and future
are its parents and their young children, and thus they are charged with the
heaviest burden. They must insure dignity and honor for their elders and
pass on enduring guiding principles to their young. Such an effort demands
of them a selfless involvement in the lives of both, and there is little
place for “me first.”
161Badawi, Status of Woman in Islam; Afzalur Rahman, Role of Muslim Women in Society
(London: Seerah Foundation, l986); Nabia Abbott, Aishah: The Beloved of Muhammad
(Chicago: University of Chicago, l942).
162Sahih al Bukhari, trans. by Muhammad Muhsin Khan, vol. 8, “The Book of Good
Manners” (71), Hadith no. 2.
Having already discussed the believer’s relationship with parents, I
will say a few words on his/her duty to children. There are few direct pronouncements
in the Qur’an concerned exclusively with parental behavior
towards children. Rather, such obligations are contained in the many exhortations
to be responsive to the needs of kinsmen in general. That the
welfare of children is a community responsibility is unmistakable in the
Qur’an’s persistent warning to all believers not to ignore the needs of poor
children and orphans. But it is mainly through example that the Qur’an instills
in the reader deep-seated feelings of urgency about his/her children’s
future.
When such holy personages as the mother of Mary (3:35) or Zakariya
(3:38) or Abraham (l4:35; l4:41) ask God for a child or pray for their offspring,
their first plea is for righteous and God-fearing children. The Qur’an
presents several examples of parents urging their children to commit themselves
to God and sharing with them moral lessons (2:132; 11:43; 12:18;
12:64-67; 12:98). A most tender instance is the conversation between
Luqman and his son:
And when Luqman said to his son, advising him: “O my dear son,
do not ascribe any partner to God; surely ascribing partners to
Him is the worst of wrongs. . . .O my dear son, if there were but
the weight of a mustard seed, and it were hidden in a rock or in the
heavens or the earth, God would bring it forth; truly, God is Most
Subtle, All-Aware. O my dear son, establish the salah and enjoin
goodness, and be patient in whatever may befall you; that surely
pertains to steadfastness in [dealing with] affairs. And do not turn
your cheek in scorn toward people, nor walk insolently upon the
earth; truly, God does not love the braggart boaster. And be modest
in your bearing and lower your voice; surely the harshest of all
sounds is the sound of the donkey.” (31:13-19)
In the Qur’an we see that believing parents, in contrast to such nonbelievers
as Abraham’s father, are not harsh or impatient with their children.
Instead, they are forbearing, caring, and ever-mindful of their children’s
progress in faith. The religious quality of their parental love and
concern arouses in Muslim readers the same pressing sense of responsibility
toward their own offspring, echoed in the Qur’anic warning: “O you
who believe, save yourselves and your families from a Fire whose fuel is
men and stones” (66:6).
Already mentioned is the fact that Muhammad’s example was one of
great tenderness toward children. Once a bedouin said to him that his peo-
135
136
ple never used to kiss their children. The Prophet’s response was: “I cannot
put mercy in your heart if God has taken it away.”163
From several references in the Qur’an, we obtain a mixed message as
to how pre-Islamic Arabian society viewed parenting. The Qur’an contains
passages that comment on parental sentiments, which would indicate that,
like people of all times, they cared very much for their children. There are
also many places in the Qur’an that reveal that, for Muhammad’s contemporaries,
the size of one’s family was a measure of a man’s prowess and
success (3:10, 14; 9:55; 18:46; 19:77; 26:88; 34:35). It seems that this
pride was based only on the number of sons without reference to daughters,
for several verses indicate that female offspring were considered a liability.
The following two references bring this out clearly. The first derides
the pagan belief that the angels were “daughters of God,” although
the pagans themselves viewed the birth of a female as contemptible, while
the second condemns both this attitude and one of its darkest manifestations:
female infanticide.
What! Has He taken daughters from among what He creates, but
chosen sons for you? When news is brought to one of them of [the
birth of] what he sets up as a likeness to the Most Merciful, his face
is covered with darkness and he is grieved inwardly.(43:16-17)
And when one of them is given news of [the birth of] a female, his
face is covered with darkness and he is grieved inwardly. He hides
himself from the people because of the evil of that which he has
received tidings. Shall he keep her in contempt, or bury her in the
dust? Ah, how evil is what they decide on! (16:58-59)
This inequity is the theme of several sayings of the Prophet. Although
in many Muslim cultures the birth of a male is still more celebrated than
that of a female, the last traces of this favoritism may finally be disappearing
in this century’s Muslim reawakening, at least among the educated.
Muhammad is reported to have said:
Whoever is blessed with two daughters or is taking care of two
sisters, and treats them well and patiently, he and I shall be in
Paradise like these . . .,” gesturing with his index and middle fingers.
164 (Muslim).
and
163Ibid., 78:18.
164Badawi, Status of Woman in Islam, 15.
137
Whoever has a daughter and he does not insult her, and does not
favor his son over her, God will enter him into Paradise.165 (Ibn
Hanbal, No. l957)
In this vein, I have been reminded on countless occasions by fellow
Muslims of how fortunate I am to have three daughters.
The great importance placed on family relations in Islam is a natural
corollary of the precept that faith is acted out and matures within society.
Since the family exacts the largest investment of our emotional and material
resources, it becomes the key setting for teaching and learning justice
and virtue. Little wonder that Prophet Muhammad called marriage “half of
one’s faith”166 and that the Qur’an enjoins the believers to “marry the single
among you” (24:32).
All of this, we might say, sounds well and good, perhaps ideal, but
how does it stand against the values of contemporary society, Western society
in particular? Is it practical, even possible, for young adults to invest
themselves so fully in the lives of their children and parents? Exactly
where would this lead? Today many couples feel the need for two-career
households. The bottom line is: “Toward what changes or sacrifices, if
any, are we heading?”
PERSPECTIVES
I am not leaving a greater trial for men than women. (al Bukhari
and Muslim)167
Our viewpoints do not originate in a vacuum; they are a synthesis of
our environment, background, experience, and personality. These are reflected
in any human attempt to derive comprehensive guidelines for
society, for the applicable results are always limited to a certain time and
place. One of the miracles of divine revelation is that it communicates,
through a particular community, a message that is relevant to very different
peoples. Our part is not restricted to learning how earlier communities
understood the divine word, for we are expected to communicate it
visibly by how we live and conduct our affairs. To do any less would be
to ignore its universal character and to distance ourselves—and even
165Ibid., 15.
166Ali, Religion of Islam, 603.
167Sahih al Bukhari, trans. Muhammad Muhsin Khan, vol. 8, “The Book of Wedlock” (62),
Hadith no. 33.
more, all succeeding generations—from the revelation’s perpetual relevance.
I am very much aware of the fact that my views on the roles of men
and women in Muslim society, and indeed on all the topics I have been discussing,
are affected a great deal by my peculiar circumstances, as is true
of anyone. And this is exactly why the process of review and interpretation
must never cease. Virtually all Muslim revivalists, whether traditionalist or
modernist, are convinced that through the ages many superfluous, burdensome,
and cultural accretions have infiltrated Muslim thought and practice,
and that we must reestablish the “true” Islam. Most insist on a return
to the Qur’an and the Hadith. However, this also involves interpretation,
and we are bound to differ on how we read them. So how are we to separate
the true interpretations from the mistaken or false, the legitimate from
the illegitimate, the admissible from the inadmissible?
Those who come from traditional Muslim societies have an extremely
important role to play here because they have witnessed from inside the
debilitating effects of the contamination, and because they have also experienced
the adoption of Islam, admittedly imperfect, on a societal level.
Thus they have a better understanding of the consequences of implementing
different perceived aspects of Islam.
But coming from within the Muslim world also has certain disadvantages,
for those who originate in it are in part a product of the society that
they are attempting to purify, a fact that makes objectivity difficult.
Criticism from outsiders might be valuable (I have the work of Western
Islamists in mind here), but they are often prejudiced and, even when they
are less so, they lack the most essential ingredient for understanding Islam:
any personal experience with it, for Islam is a way of life and it must be
lived to be truly understood. This is where the convert comes in, as he has
come in frequently in Islamic history, for such a person combines commitment
with skepticism, sometimes leading to important and inspiring
insights. Since converts are not grounded in the traditions of the faith, they
are also likely to bring with them radical, alien ideas that will be tested by
the larger community.
In no sphere of Muslim life is this tension between traditional and
modern ideas so pronounced as in that of the roles of men and women.
Most commentators who discuss Muhammad’s saying, “I am not leaving
a greater trial for men than women,” believe that it refers exclusively to
sensual temptation. But this may be too limited an understanding. Many
modern Muslim thinkers lament that the rights of Muslim women have
been obstructed by powerful cultural forces. If this is so, then perhaps
Muhammad had this in mind as well, for, without a doubt, the issue of the
138
status of woman in Islam stands today as the biggest barrier between Islam
and its acceptance in the West. In addition, many Western converts will
live apart from the Muslim community until this matter is resolved to their
satisfaction.
Before my conversion, I had given some half-hearted support to a few
campaigns of the national women’s movement, but for the most part, like
many of my contemporaries, I was straggling along with all kinds of illdefined
and contradictory notions about contemporary sex roles. I knew
that there was something wrong with the way things had been formerly,
but there were no clear or practical alternatives. The women’s movement
gradually went the way of so many movements of the sixties and seventies:
it generated a lot of initial excitement and some important and positive
results, but then everybody got tired of it and it withered away. For
many, it was too extreme, for it appeared to advocate not only equal rights
but total equality.
Many theories were constructed to explain that there are no essential
differences between the sexes, although daily experience suggested otherwise.
Maybe the women’s movement failed to communicate its message
effectively, or perhaps there was a lack of consensus on what the message
was. It sounded like a call for some sort of sexual communism, a forced
homogenization of men and women, that involved women becoming like
men more than the converse. Even though the women’s movement failed
to provide direction, it argued convincingly that society oppresses women,
a position of which I was convinced when I became a Muslim in l982.
I did not know too much about Muslim male-female relations back
then. I knew about polygamy, veiling, and segregation, but these did not
necessarily imply oppression. In segregation, for example, each sex may
prefer to restrict intermixing, and if women are barred from male functions,
the opposite is equally true. Besides, I knew that these practices
could be based more on culture than on religion. Nevertheless, I did believe
that Muslim women were among the most male dominated in the
world. This is simply a given in contemporary Western thought; it was the
understanding in the past, as portrayed in novels set in Muslim lands, and
it is accepted today in movies and television.
There is a scene in a recent movie in which Goldie Hawn, a representative
of the American liberated woman, takes a group of beautiful (of
course!) doe-eyed, veiled Middle Eastern women on a tour of the nation’s
capital, culminating in her reading to them, accompanied by inspirational
music in the background, the Constitution of the United States.
That scene may result in a false picture of Middle Eastern women but
it accurately represents the average American’s perception. Now, even if
139
you are conscious that what you are presented is not reality, it does have
an effect, and if you are presented with no alternative view, you are likely
to believe that there must be some truth to it. In any case, I entered the
Muslim community with low expectations on this score.
Eight years of daily involvement in the community and travel to the
Middle East has forced me to entertain other perspectives. While for
Americans the veiling of Muslim women is a sign of male domination,
Muslims, on the other hand, view women’s dress in the United States as
exploitative. Since many Muslim women prefer to be housewives, they
must be oppressed/since many American women work full time, they must
be unprotected. Families have too much to say in the marriage of young
people in the Muslim world/American families treat their children irresponsibly.
Thus what one side interprets as subjugation, the other sees as
freedom. That in itself is not difficult to understand. But what if you are
caught between the two cultures?
TO THE ISLAMIC CENTER
“A few weeks after my conversion, I decided to go to the Islamic center
for the first time in order to celebrate my new-found faith with people
whom I knew would understand. I took great pains to dress appropriately
and rehearsed the opening chapter of the Qur’an as I drove across town.
“I quickly found a place in the big parking lot. The main door opened
to the rear of a large prayer room. The floor was covered with what had
to be at least one hundred oriental rugs. The walls were freshly painted
white and reached up some forty feet to a beautiful expansive white-domed
ceiling. The front wall contained a prayer niche decorated with calligraphy.
This is how I had always imagined it should be!
“The faces that turned to see me looked astonished. They were clearly
uncomfortable, so I did not advance any further. I sat down about twenty
feet behind them, thinking I would give them the chance to make the first
move. No one did. Not one introduced himself; not even an “Al salamu
alaikum” or a smile. I wondered if I had done something wrong.
“As the rest of the congregation, which consisted only of men, arrived,
various individuals embraced each other and sat down, joking and talking.
Yet no one gave me more than a single glance. I felt as though I had
leprosy.
“Then the call to prayer was made. We prayed—but I prayed alone,
where I had been sitting. When we had finished, I walked toward the front
of the room in order to exit by a side door. I tried to make eye contact with
some of the “brothers” to get a response, but they turned their heads.
140
“I could not believe it! I thought perhaps more time was needed to
break the ice; after all, I was clearly different from the rest and a stranger.
I returned to the center on two other occasions. Each time the response
was the same. I decided never to go back again.”
This, of course, was not my experience. It was shared with me by a
forty-five year old American divorcee with two young adult Christian
children. I have heard similar tales from other American women too
many times, but there were several aspects of Nicky’s account that were
unusual.
Most converts come to Islam searching for something because they
are unhappy with their lives and the act of conversion is a huge emotional
leap. Nicky told me that she had not been unhappy at all. She had a
wonderful career and home in Santa Barbara, and an extremely close
relationship with her two daughters; she enjoyed being single and did not
feel the need for a male companion at this stage in her life. She had
formed a close friendship with a Saudi woman living in Santa Barbara
and had come to believe in her religion. She entered joyfully, full of great
expectations. Her ordeal at the Islamic center has not dampened her spirits
nor her joy at being a Muslim. She has since met some other American
Muslims and some less conservative Middle Eastern friends, who have
together formed their own little Islamic community: meeting, fasting, and
praying together regularly.
The congregation that Nicky encountered was certainly not trying to
be mean. They were simply reacting in the way they had always been
taught to react in such a situation: when a covered Muslim lady comes to
the mosque, one does not look at her or approach her. In other words, it is
proper to ignore her. Not every congregation in North America would have
behaved this way, for much would depend on how deeply rooted its members
were in American culture. But more often than not, the impression
relayed to me by American Muslim women, converts or otherwise, is that
they are not wanted in the mosque.
My daughter, now four years old, has already gotten this impression.
Our neighbors, who are Christians, have a little girl of approximately the
same age, and Jameelah and she are good friends. Her friend tells about
how her family attends church together, how they sing, and where she sits
with her mom and dad, and so forth. The little girl went so far as to innocently
invite my daughter to one of their Sunday services. When Jameelah
and I discussed the issue, she inquired, “Why aren’t ladies allowed in our
mosque, daddy?” I told her that they are, but had a difficult time explaining
why they don’t actually come.
141
I am not sure how or when the mosque acquired an atmosphere just
barely tolerant of women; it obviously happened in another time and different
cultural context. Other cultures may provide other avenues for enriching
the faith of Muslim women. However, in this culture, to offer
women an alternative to attending prayers at the mosque, such as a weekly
women’s gathering, is to offer them second-class status. If we do not encourage
women to come and participate in our community meetings on
equal footing with men, the existing atmosphere in our mosques is likely to
change very slowly, and we are almost certain to lose many of our children.
I am not advocating changing the forms of the rituals; I am advocating that
we encourage, facilitate, and welcome family participation in all of our
community functions.
WOMEN IN THE QUR’AN
And their Lord answered them: “Truly I will never cause the
work of any of you to be lost, whether male or female. You are of
another.” (3:195)
And the believing men and believing women are protectors of
each other. They enjoin the right and forbid the wrong, and they
observe regular salah and give zakah, and obey God and His
Messenger. On them God will have mercy. Truly, God is All-
Mighty, All-Wise. (9:71)
Whoever works righteousness, whether male or female, and is a
believer, We shall give him [or her] a good life, and We will give
them their reward according to the best of what they did. (16:97)
Truly, the surrendered men and surrendered women, and the
believing men and believing women, and the devout men and the
devout women, the patient men and the patient women, and the
humble men and humble women, and the charitable men and the
charitable women, and the men who fast and the women who fast,
and the men who guard their private parts and the women who
guard [their private parts], and the men who remember God much
and the women who remember [God much]—for them God has
promised forgiveness and a tremendous reward. (33:35)
The tone of the Bible as regards women is set from the start in the allegory
of the first man and woman. Eve, the temptress, is held more ac-
142
143
countable than Adam and must therefore bear the curse of childbirth. It
was she who first surrendered to the evil prompting of Satan and then
helped him to seduce Adam. No match for this alliance, Adam learned the
bitter lesson that man must always maintain authority over woman and be
on guard against her guile.168
This ancient symbol of the relationship between the sexes reflects a
definite male bias and the dominance of religious institutions; no doubt it
would accurately represent the relative positions of men and women in
most world societies over several thousand years. This male bias and control
is also evident in the commentaries of past Muslim scholars on the parallel
accounts contained in the Qur’an, commentaries which suggest
strong Jewish and Christian influences.169
From the vantage point of the twentieth century, we are in a fairly
good position to distinguish between what the Qur’an says about the sexes
and what past commentators assumed. Yet orientalists in the recent past
have often confused the two and, when filtered through their own preconceptions,
concluded that Islam takes an abject view of womanhood.
Fortunately, this is slowly changing. For example, in her introduction to
Margaret Smith’s Rabi‘a the Mystic, Anne Marie Schimmel writes:
The Western reader who is inclined to accept uncritically
Margaret Smith’s remark on p. 127 that “Islam is responsible for
the degradation of Muslim women” should understand that the
“degradation” was more the result of social forces than of Islam
itself. or the Qur’an speaks repeatedly of the muslimun wa muslimat,
mu‘minun wa mu‘minat, “Muslim men and women, believing
men and women,” and the same injunctions are valid for men
and women when it comes to prayer, fasting, pilgrimage, etc. The
oft-repeated claim that women in Islam have no soul cannot be
verified from the Qur’an nor from the traditions.170
The Qur’anic version of the story of the first man and woman (2:35-
39; 7:19-25) is distinguished as much by what it does not say as by what
it does. No mention is made of Eve’s tempting Adam, or that childbirth is
a punishment for women, or that this incident is the basis for man’s “rule
over” woman, or that woman was created for man. The issue of who was
168May and Metzger, The New Oxford Annotated Bible, 1169.
169Gordon D. Newby, The Making of the Last Prophet (University of South Carolina Press,
l989,) 1-28.
170Margaret Smith, Rabi‘a the Mystic (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press,
1984), xxvi-xxvii.
144
created first seems to have been avoided on purpose. The Qur’an states
that both Adam and his wife were tempted and sinned, and that they both
repented and were forgiven. Based in part on this account and on such
verses as those above that explicitly uphold the spiritual equality of men
and women, contemporary Muslim writers have been able to argue convincingly
that Islam recognizes no sexual differences as regards virtue and
piety.
Unfortunately, there are two disturbing considerations that are frequently
glossed over or ignored. The first is that this equality has not always
been upheld by Muslim scholars.171 Even today, there are Muslims who
claim that women, because of their inherently weaker nature, are more
prone to sin. This thinking is not too difficult to dismiss as a deviation antithetical
to clear affirmations in the Qur’an, and it can find support only if
verses of a practical legislative nature are employed to infer something negative
about feminine spirituality. The second consideration is that there are
a small number of authenticated prophetic traditions that present a contrary
picture. I have already mentioned one of the most influential of these:
The Prophet once passed by some women and said, “O you
women! You must be extra careful to be good for I have seen most
of you in Hell. I have not seen a creature more lacking in reason
and religious observance than you, who yet overpowers the wits
of a man of sound reason.” “How are we lacking in religious
observance?” one of the women in the group insisted, and got the
reply, “Is it not the case that when you menstruate, you are required
neither to pray nor to fast?” “Yes,” she said, “but how are
we lacking in reason?” “Is not the evidence of one of you half that
of a male’s?” “Yes,” she replied.172
Of all of the traditions of Muhammad, this is the one that American
Muslims questioned me about more than any other. One convert told me
that it caused him considerable pain and greatly deflated his faith.
Some Muslim scholars, such as Jamal Badawi, who have confronted
this hadith, maintain that what the Prophet intended here was not a judgment
on women’s spirituality, but rather an exhortation to work harder on
their faith due to certain disadvantages.173 Badawi points out that Islam’s
requirement that women not observe the salah or fast during menstruation
171Abdelwahab Bouhdiba, Sexuality in Islam, trans. by Alan Sheridan (London: Routledge
and Kegan Paul, 1985), pp. 116-40; Smith, Rabi‘a the Mystic, 111-36.
172Rahman, Health and Medicine in the Islamic Tradition, 105.
173Jamal Badawi, Islamic Teaching Series, Halifax, NS, Canada.
145
and the forty days after childbirth is a compassionate concession of temporary
immunity from these demands (2:222 characterizes menstruation as a
hurtful condition). Badawi also mentions that women are encouraged to
make private supplications during these times.
The reference to two female witnesses being equal to one male witness
in business transactions is a reflection of the fact that, according to
Badawi, women generally have less aptitude for business dealings than
men, especially, in his opinion, in a Muslim setting, where their talents will
generally be diverted to other societal needs.
Thus, Badawi sees Islam’s concession to women during menstruation
and the ruling on witnessing a contract not as statements of
female inferiority, but as a tender gesture in the first case and an acknowledgment
of distinctive male and female strengths in the second.
However, this seems to strain against the tenor of the hadith, which
appears to be saying that these stipulations exist because of certain flaws
in the feminine character that make a woman a more likely candidate for
Hell. It could be argued, and I understood as much from Badawi’s remarks,
that such a negative conclusion results from forcing a too literal
interpretation. Indeed, the Prophet’s descriptions of his Night Journey to
Heaven (the Mi‘raj, which included this vision of Hell) may not have
been meant to provide empirical data on the Unseen, but rather to encourage
and warn.
Fazlur Rahman, in his Health and Medicine in the Islamic Tradition,
is more critical of this hadith.174 He finds it opposed to the Qur’an’s position
on the spiritual equality of men and women, and believes it was imposed
on Islam, via the hadith, from the ethos of the non-Arab cultures that
entered Islam after their conquest. The statement that speaks of the evidentiary
value of female testimony as being half that of a man’s, he posits,
presupposes the later development of the law of evidence in Islam. Like
Badawi, he argues that the corresponding reference in the Qur’an speaks
specifically about a business transaction and is not enacting a general law.
The Prophetic saying, he continues, appears to be upholding the later formulated
generalization.
While I admit that the wording in the saying does appear to be general,
it is impossible to prove that that is what was intended. We will continue
the discussion of a woman’s testimony shortly. For the present, we
will simply agree that one of these viewpoints is probably correct, for the
weight of evidence from the Qur’an and other authentic traditions is indisputably
in favor of male-female equality.
174Rahman, Health and Medicine in the Islamic Tradition, 105-6.
146
Another important way to discover Qur’anic viewpoints is to study its
dramatizations. In other words, when people are portrayed in the Qur’an—
for example, when we see them praying, talking, or acting—we may ask
what elements of their character are highlighted. We used this approach
earlier when we discussed parenting.
Some of the most sympathetic and gripping personality portraits in the
Qur’an are of women: the Queen of Sheba, the exemplary leader; the
mother of Moses, about to surrender her son to the will of God; the wife
of Pharaoh, begging God’s protection from the oppression of her husband;
and the mother of Mary, dedicating her unborn child to the service of God.
The story of Mary, mother of Jesus, is one of the most arresting, so much
so that the surah in which it appears is named after her.
An interesting observation is that while the men portrayed in the
Qur’an range from utterly despicable disbelievers to noble prophets, all of
the dramatizations involving women are ultimately positive. Now, I am
not referring to a mere statement of fact—for example, that Abu Lahab’s
wife will suffer damnation or that Noah’s and Lot’s spouses were disbelievers,
for we are not shown these women’s personalities. I am referring
to what we are shown of a specific character at some moment in his or her
life. Whenever this occurs with a woman in the Qur’an, she is a believer;
indeed, in all cases but one, they are unswerving believers, but even this
exception, the woman in the story of Yusuf (Joseph), eventually repents
and mends her ways. In comparison to the scriptures of other religions,
this stands as a unique and remarkable feature of the Qur’an.175
175Verses 12:29 and 43:16-18 are sometimes cited to show that the Qur’an places women
on a lower intellectual and moral plane than men. They read: This is from the cunning of
you [women]. Truly, your cunning is great! (12:29) What! Has He taken daughters from
among what He creates, but chosen sons for you? When news is brought to one of them of
[the birth of] what he sets up as a likeness to the Most Merciful, his face darkens and he is
grieved inwardly. Then, is one brought up among finery and unclear in argument [to be
likened to God]? (43:16-18)
Unfortunately, I have heard Muslim men use this argument on many occasions. The
word kayda, translated above as “cunning,” means the ability to outwit, outmaneuver mentally,
or deceive through subtlety. The second verse describes a woman as someone who,
when involved in an argument or a verbal dispute is unclear (ghayr mubin; lit., other than
clear). Thus we are presented with two somewhat contrary statements about feminine intelligence.
If we take these statements at face value, they need to be reconciled. But this poses
no problem if one simply considers the context of their occurrence.
The first statement is uttered by Potiphar, whose wife has just attempted to seduce
Joseph. The second is presented as the insidious thinking of the pagan Arabs, which, in
another verse (16:58-59) is associated with the crime of female infanticide. To ignore the
contexts of these would be similar to arguing that the Qur’an is nothing more than poetry,
since such an assertion, on the part of non-Muslims, appears in the text. =
147
The Male and the Female
And the male is not like the female. (3:36)
Each one of you is a trustee [lit., shepherd] and is accountable for
that which is entrusted to him. A ruler is a trustee and is accountable
for his trust, a man is a trustee in respect of his family, a
woman is a trustee in respect of her husband’s house and children.
Thus, everyone is a trustee and is accountable for that which is
entrusted to him.176 (al Bukhari and Muslim)
In the past, it was clear to men everywhere that, as a general rule,
males were more intelligent, more rational, and less emotional than
women. In the recent minute ensuing interval of history during which
women have been granted equal access to education and political life,
we have seen many of these ancient assumptions challenged. Today in
the United States, the differences in national test scores between males
and females are negligible. Although a slight advantage goes to women
in verbal skills and to men in mathematical skills, even this trend may
be changing as more women are now preparing for careers in the sciences.
Women have infiltrated the worlds of politics, business, higher
education, medicine, and other formerly male-only domains with
remarkable speed and success. And it is now frequently argued that men
are not less emotional than women, but that they display their feelings
= In the story of Yusuf, when the husband of his seductress learns of Yusuf’s innocence
and his spouse's guilt, he does not initiate any action against her, which he would be totally
justified in doing. Rather, in order to avoid a public scandal and jeopardize his high standing
in society, he simply excuses the entire matter with the above exclamation. Later, when
his wife’s passion for Yusuf is blatantly obvious, he imprisons Yusuf to avoid embarrassment.
Such early Muslim commentators as al Tabari, who viewed Potiphar as an example of
moral impotence, saw his character as most reprehensible and far from the ideal of true manliness.
Thus they would often weave legends around the story that detailed what they saw as
a rather despicable personality. Hence many accounts connect his moral weakness with his
sexual impotence. The same commentaries tended to be very sympathetic to Potiphar's wife
and defended her attraction to Yusuf because of her husband’s failings.
Whatever the actual case may be, the Qur’an seems to present two common and opposing
attitudes that are used by men against women to justify their own moral shortcomings.
Both statements are connected to patently unjust deeds, and this should not be overlooked
when interpreting them. It is quite unfortunate and remarkable that Muslim men still quote
these verses out of context in an effort to denigrate women. I am not denying that women
can often outwit and mentally outmaneuver men—this is stated elsewhere in the same
surah—but men should not use this fact as an excuse for their own weaknesses.
176Sahih al Bukhari, trans. Muhammad Muhsin Khan, vol. 2, “The Book of Friday” (13),
Hadith no. 18.
in different ways: resorting to violence and shouting more often. Men
commit many more violent crimes and crimes of passion, for example,
than women.
Yet, with all the changes in roles and perceptions that have taken place
in modern society, it does not appear that men and women relate to each
other on a personal level very much differently than did their parents or
grandparents. Men, I believe, still search for partners who are warm, nurturing,
supportive, and gentle—what are traditionally held to be feminine
characteristics—and women, for male companions that are self-confident,
stable, strong, and dependable—so-called masculine qualities. Sensitivity
in men is highly valued by today’s women, but I am frequently told that
this is rarely found.
Despite the experiments of the sixties and seventies, students inform
me that the young man is now once again expected to pay the bills on a
date—something I never had to worry about when I was in my teens and
early twenties. In marriage, wives have become less economically dependent
on their husbands, but they have also had to pay a price for this: if the
couple is to have a lifestyle similar to that of their parents, often both must
contribute to the maintenance of the family.
This in itself could be viewed positively, except for the fact that
very often the burden of care for the household and children continues
to fall almost entirely on the wife. The idea that women are better suited
to care for young children endures in Western society. This is strongly
reflected in various laws and customs: for instance, the mother is
generally given custody of her children in a divorce situation and parents
almost always prefer female baby-sitters. Therefore it appears that
when it comes to sex roles, Western society may continue to be in a
state of transition, searching for definition. This is even more true of
Muslim society, which, in its confrontation with the West, has had to
reexamine its positions.
Muslim authors often make the case that pre-Islamic Arabia was
submerged in barbarism and ignorance and that Islam radically inverted
the entire socio-political structure of the peninsula. In addition, it is
claimed that, at that time in history, a more depraved environment could
not be found to receive the revolutionary ideals of Islam. While it must
be admitted that the pre-Islamic Arabs were unrefined and that signs of
higher civilization were scarce, I believe that the simplicity of their lives
and their codes of honor, nobility, and freedom made them prime candidates
for the reception of the ideas contained in the Qur’an. The ideals
of democracy, fraternity, equality, and magnanimity were firmly implanted
in tribal values that now needed to be extended beyond the
148
149
tribe.177 The precept that one could become a full-fledged citizen by mere
acceptance of an ideology would have met stiffer and better organized
resistance in the powerful neighboring Persian and Roman empires.
Thus, while the message of Islam was indeed revolutionary, I feel that
the Arabian peninsula was the most fertile soil for its advance, in particular
with reference to the status of woman.
It is easy to document that the position of woman in ancient Hindu,
Greek, Roman, and Persian culture was one of utter subservience.178 Deprived
of an independent legal status, she was treated as a minor under
the tutelage of her nearest male guardian. The situation of women in
pre-Islamic Arabia was considerably better in comparison. From the
Prophetic traditions, we learn that there were Arab women who inherited,
initiated divorce, proposed marriage, participated in battle, and conducted
business. These rights were apparently not uniformly recognized
in Arabia, for the Qur’an had to enforce many of them. However, this
shows that precedents for many Qur’anic enactments protecting women
did exist at that time. The existence of numerous examples of women
possessing a measure of independence exceeding that of their counterparts
in neighboring lands would lead one to believe that the Qur’anic
reforms might have been accepted more easily in Arabia than elsewhere.
At the center of Islam’s conception of the male-female relationship is
the statement in Surat Maryam that “the male is not like the female”
(3:36). This pronouncement is made after the mother of Mary expresses
disappointment at having given birth to a daughter, after her prayer for a
son. God then issues a mild rebuke, informing her that He knows full well
what was to be born and that the male and the female are not the same—
and, implicitly, that they were not meant to be.
It is interesting that this criticism of male favoritism should appear in
the story of Mary, the mother of Jesus, one of the Qur’an’s most exalted
personalities. Thus, at one and the same time, and through an explicit
statement and an example, emphasis is placed on the differing natures of
men and women and on the potential of women to surpass men in excellence.
In the divine scheme, men and women were not meant to be the same,
but to complement and support each other. This is expressed in a variety
of ways in the Qur’an.
177Asad, Sahih al Bukhari; Goldziher, Muslim Studies II.
178Badawi, Status of Woman in Islam, 5-11; Rahman, Role of Muslim Women in Society,
237-47.
They [your spouses] are your garments and you are their garments.
(2:187)
And the believing men and believing women are protectors of
each other. They enjoin the right and forbid the wrong, and they
observe regular salah and give zakah, and obey God and His
Messenger. On them God will have mercy. Truly, God is All-
Mighty, All-Wise. (9:71)
And among of His signs is that He created for you, of your kind,
spouses, that you may find repose in them, and He has put
between you love and mercy. Truly, in that are signs for people
who reflect. (30:21)
This concept is fundamental to Islam’s treatment of the roles of men
and women. The idea is that men and women do not have to be coerced
into accepting a certain pattern of relationship, but rather that they have
been created in such a manner that they will generally relate to one
another according to definite behavioral patterns. The Qur’an and sayings
of Muhammad do not need to insist that husbands adopt a particular
posture of authority in the family, for the clear assumption is that
most often the husband, because of various strengths and weaknesses
that exist in both partners, will have greater freedom and authority in
marriage than the wife. To be sure, a man will be inclined to resort to
what he perceives as his advantage by brute force when he sees fit.
Knowing this to be the case, Islam then proceeds to curtail male authority
and protect women from its abuse, while at the same time stressing
the minimal obligations owed by both sexes. Thus, when Muhammad
stated that men are the shepherds of their families and women of their
households, he was not introducing a rearrangement of authority in the
family; rather, he was assuming a general pattern and pointing out that
each in his/her role was responsible for his/her dependents. In other
words, he was emphasizing obligations and responsibilities, not advantages.
The axiomatic declaration of distinctive male and female personality
types is made without assigning superiority to either one, thus leaving the
issue of exactly how the female differs from the male mysteriously open.
We are told that men and women protect each other, are garments for one
another, and fulfill each other’s need for mercy and love. This reciprocity
is a small part of a universal balance (55:7; 57:25) that runs through all
creation. The Qur’an informs us that everything is created in pairs (36:36;
150
43:12; 51:49). In fact, the Arabic word for “pair” (zawj ) is the same word
as that used for “spouse.” Hence the relationship between the sexes is a
single element in the vast and complex systems of parities. Islam claims
to facilitate this harmonizing of male and female forces, and the themes
of complementarity and balance stand out in its approach to men’s and
women’s rights.
Rights and Responsibilities
And for them [women] is the like of what they [men] have over
them with kindness, but men have a degree over them (2:228)
While the Qur’an most often addresses the believers collectively
with the words, “O you who believe,” at times it make a special point to
address both men and women, as in (33:35). However, in several passages,
pronouncements are directed specifically either at men or at
women, although in these cases there are usually parallel statements for
the other gendeßr close at hand. In Surat al Nur, modest behavior is prescribed:
Say to the believing men that they should lower their gaze and
guard their private parts: that is more pure for them. Surely God is
well-acquainted with whatever you do. And say to the believing
women that they should lower their gaze and guard their private
parts, and that they should not display of their adornment except
what [ordinarily] appears thereof, and that they should draw their
head coverings over their breasts and not display their adornment.
(24:30-31)
When the Prophet was asked to elaborate on these verses, he explained
that to “lower one’s gaze” was to “avoid the lustful look.” It is worth noting
that both men and women are commanded to do so, for during certain
phases of Western history women were believed to be lacking in sexual
desire or even to be asexual.
When I was an undergraduate student, research was undertaken to disprove
this assumption. But the Qur’an and sayings of Muhammad are
quite frank in admitting a powerful sexual drive in women. Consider, for
example, the reaction of the Egyptian women when they saw the prophet
Joseph (12:30-34). One also notes in 24:31 that the command to women
includes stipulations on proper dress, and this occurs in two other passages,
namely, 24:60 and 33:59. There are no similar statements directed
151
152
towards men. The concern of the Qur’an here appears to be that society is
more likely to exploit a woman’s sexuality than a man’s.
The problem of how to react to a spouse’s immoral conduct is taken
up in two places in the fourth surah of the Qur’an. The first discusses the
case of a degenerate wife:
As for those [women] on whose part you fear rebellion [nushuz],
admonish them; then refuse to share their beds; then beat them.
But if they return to obedience, do not seek a way against them.
Truly, God is Most High, Most Great. (4:34)
All authorities on the Arabic language agree that the verse lists a
prioritized series of steps which are not to be taken simultaneously, and
that the rebellion (nushuz) must be of an extreme and criminal nature.
Most jurists cite promiscuousness as an example, but such other violations
of Islamic law as drunkenness may be included. That the rebellion is
against God’s will and not merely the whim of the husband is proven by
the fact that the same word (nushuz) is used in 4:128 to describe the steps
a wife should take in cases of rebellion on the part of a husband. Muslim
scholars (i.e., al Tabari, al Razi, and al Shafi‘i) have always agreed that the
third step, beating, is just barely permissible and should preferably be
avoided. Due to the limits imposed by the Prophet, they understood that
this action, if resorted to at all, should be more or less symbolic. The earliest
authorities saw this reference more as a strong signal of the extreme
repugnancy of immoral acts, not as a license for husbands to strike their
wives, which all traditions testify, was never the practice of the Prophet
and which he strongly discouraged.179
Instructions for wives in similar circumstances also are provided:
And if a woman fears rebellion (nushuz) or desertion from her husband,
there is no blame on them if they arrange an amicable settlement
between themselves. And amicable settlement is best, but
greed is ever-present within oneself. (4:128).
As is clear from 4:130, in addition to trying to work out the problem
with her husband, a wife is reminded of her option to seek a dissolution
of marriage. Indeed, many jurists hold the opinion that if the husband persists
in his reprehensible behavior, this may actually be required of her. A
woman’s options in this parallel situation are different from a man’s for
179Rahman, Role of Muslim Women in Society, 407-408.
obvious reasons. Since he may already have another wife, and because he
can remarry immediately, while a woman must complete a waiting period
of three months before remarriage, it would not be to her advantage to
threaten a cessation of conjugal relations or, for that matter, physical punishment,
even if it were only symbolic in nature. Her best alternative, if
her husband proves recalcitrant, may be to begin the process of dissolution.
Since the first step, according to 4:35, involves bringing in family
members from both sides to help mediate the crisis, the best interests of
both individuals may be served by her taking this initiative.
The Qur’an’s treatment of inheritance reflects its concern for insuring
a large degree of autonomy to women, while balancing their needs and responsibilities
with those of men.
God directs you as regards your children: for the male is a portion
equal to that of two females (4:11)
And do not covet that of which God has given more to one than
the other. Men shall have a portion of what they earn and women
shall have a portion of what they earn. And ask from God out of
His bounty; truly, God has full knowledge of all things. And for
all We have appointed heirs from whatever is left by parents and
relatives. And to those with whom your right hands have made a
covenant, give them their portion; truly, God is witness over
everything. Therefore men are charged with the full maintenance
of women in that God has given more to the one than to the other
and in that they support [them] from their means. Therefore the
righteous women are obedient, and protect in his absence as God
has protected them. (4:32-34)
Inheritance allocations are shown here to be a key feature in the economic
arrangement of the Muslim family. Although there are some exceptions,
in general a woman’s share of inheritance is half that of a man’s.
The next passage connects this rule of inheritance to family responsibilities.
According to Islamic law, the husband is entirely responsible for his
family’s maintenance. Although his wife is guaranteed her inheritance and
may have several other sources of income, she is not expected to assist him
in providing for either herself or her children. In addition, he cannot try to
force her into doing so. Thus, in marriage and society, Muslim women are
assured an independent economic status.
This is also true of men, but with some modification. Islam recognizes
a husband’s independent ownership of wealth and property, but it is sub-
153
154
ject to greater limitations. For example, he is legally obliged to provide for
all his family’s needs. His wife, out of necessity, is given some say as to
how his money and property are used, especially in his absence. At the
same time, she is reminded that, in her husband’s absence, she should remain
obedient to God in the most general sense and, in particular, not misuse
her husband’s property or violate his express wishes concerning it.
While both men and women are likely to see that this arrangement in some
ways favors the other sex (in early Islamic history, men felt that it placed
them at an economic disadvantage180), the Qur’an warns each not to covet
what God has given the other, since in the end a workable balance is
achieved.
It is hard to say how far such a system can be implemented in the
United States. More career opportunities are available to women than ever
before, and a woman’s financial independence is widely accepted and acclaimed.
Moreover, it is almost impossible for most one-income families
to survive. Indeed, American couples are accustomed to viewing marriage
as a union and a joint venture.
In traditional Muslim cultures, couples have less difficulty with this
notion. The wife of an Egyptian friend of mine runs a successful catering
business here in Lawrence, the profits of which she is using to buy a condominium
that she intends to rent. She is completely comfortable with the
fact that her income, which may be beginning to exceed her husband’s, is
entirely her own and not to be spent on her family. And this example is not
atypical.
If couples, out of necessity or otherwise, were to combine their incomes,
some of the protections built into this arrangement would certainly
weaken. The economic autonomy of the wife is supposed to be a safeguard
in case of a crisis, such as divorce or death. Hence, if couples consider their
incomes as joint, arrangements should be made to provide equivalent reasonable
and practical legal protection to each of the spouses.
At this point, it might be useful to consider how medieval Muslim jurists
envisioned the minimal requirements of a Muslim husband and wife
toward each other. In my opinion, it seems that these scholars often limited
the privileges of women as much as the texts would permit, while extending
the rights of men as far as possible without blatantly contradicting
the textual sources. Coming from a different viewpoint, one would expect
—and this is currently happening—that today’s Muslim thinkers would to
some degree reverse this trend.
180 A. R. I. Doi, Shari‘ah in the 15th Century of the Hijrah (Islamic Trust Pub., n.d.). See
the chapter on inheritance.
155
Nonetheless, aside from the fact that in the past the husband was usually
given nearly incontestable control over where his wife could go and
whom she could see, it is quite illuminating to discover the paucity of explicit
obligations imposed upon each partner. Both had conjugal rights
over the other, with some advantage going to the husband. The husband
had to provide full maintenance for his wife and children, and sometimes
his near relatives as well, while the wife’s income was her own. She was
not obliged to do housework, cook, or even care for her children. Moreover,
if it were within her husband’s means, he had to provide his spouse
with a housekeeper (to this day, women in the Arabian peninsula assume
what practically amounts to a legal claim to having a housekeeper or servant
when they marry). It was also the husband’s duty to pay for his
spouse’s religious instruction.181 The wife was to manage her husband’s
estate responsibly and according to his wishes in his absence. She was not
to invite onto his property individuals, especially males, of whom he disapproved.
Although I do not feel that Muslim American couples will agree
that blanket control by a husband over his wife’s comings and goings or
choice of friends is something necessary or desirable, they may be surprised
by early Islamic opinions on domestic duties.
Beginnings and Endings
Their friendship had reached the stage where they could be straightforward,
and so the business woman unleashed in her questions all the
resentment and annoyance that she had held back for so long.
“Why do you wear that horrible scarf?”
“Because of my faith. And I don’t believe that women should be sexually
exploited.”
“You have a bachelor’s in mathematics. You should have a career.”
“I do have one, and my education helped prepare me for it. I’m a
mother and I’m raising three children.”
“I meant something useful, something you could earn money with.”
“What’s of greater value than love? You can’t see it or measure it, but
it grows inside yourself and between you and those you love.”
“But if you worked, you’d be more independent financially.”
“I do work very hard, and my husband gives me ten percent of his
take-home salary to use as I like. He also pays for a housekeeper who
comes twice a week.”
181For discussions on this topic, see: Rahman. Role of Muslim Women in Society; Keith
Hodkinson, Muslim Family Law (London: Croom Helm Ltd., 1984).
“If you had a paying job, you wouldn’t have to depend upon his generosity.”
“But that money is mine. It and the maid are part of our marriage
agreement. Even though I love my children and my home, my efforts are
valuable and I deserve what we agreed upon!”
“But if you had more money, you could do more. For instance, you
could travel more often.”
“My goal in life isn’t Europe.”
The Muslim approach to marriage is boldly pragmatic. After the candidates
have given their required consent, family representatives from both
sides will get together to iron out the details and draft a contract. If all parties
agree, the groom will give the bride an agreed-upon marriage gift
(mahr). Abrief religious ceremony will then take place, to be followed soon
thereafter by a joyous celebration.
Among Arab Muslims, the practice is that quite often the young people
will not live together immediately: each will continue to reside with his
or her own family for a while as they get to know each other better, hopefully
allowing stronger bonds of affection to grow. At this stage, the bride
and the groom, for obvious reasons, are encouraged not to consummate
their union. However, they would not be in violation of the religious law
if they did, for they are now legally married. Much of the romance of marriage,
as it is conceived of in the West, is removed by the formal and strict
legal proceedings leading up to the union. The candidates, however, especially
if they are young, will frequently base their choices on more or less
romantic considerations. It is then the task of the family representatives to
take up the harder negotiations. The rationale is to consider at the very outset
the difficulties that may arise later and to agree before the marriage is
finalized on a future divorce settlement if this unwanted action were to
become unavoidable. That the possible dissolution of the marriage is taken
into consideration during these negotiations is seen clearly in the two
Islamic institutions of the dower or marriage gift (mahr) and the marriage
contract.
And if you divorce them before consummation, but after fixing of
a dower for them, then the half of the dower [is due to them]
unless they remit it. (2:237)
And it is not permissible for you [men] to take back anything of
what you have given to them [your wives], except if both parties
fear that they will be unable to keep the limits ordained by God.
156
157
And if you fear that they will be unable to keep the limits ordained
by God, there is no blame on either of them concerning what she
gives [him back of his gifts] to secure her release. (2:229)
But if you decide to take one wife in place of another, even if you
have given one of them a treasure for dower, do not take back the
least bit of it. Would you take it back by slander and a manifest
wrong? (4:20)
In these verses concerning the marriage gift that a man gives to his future
wife, the possibility of divorce is clearly anticipated. Accordingly,
Muslims have recognized two kinds of dowry that are to be settled upon
during marriage contract negotiations: an initial dowry, to be paid before
the couple wed, and a deferred dowry, to be paid in installments or in full
on demand if the husband violates his part of the contract (4:20). If he
seeks divorce before consummation, he is only obliged to pay half of what
was originally agreed upon (2:237). If the wife should seek dissolution,
she may be required to return some or all of her dowry, depending on the
degree of blame the court attaches to her husband (2:29).182
Very often, the dowry is in the form of something that will appreciate
in value, such as jewelry or real estate. The dowry settlement can, as
4:20 suggests, be quite large. As an example, an American friend, who
married a woman from Egypt, bought his bride, as part of her dowry, an
apartment in Cairo that she rents out; the money that she accumulates is
reinvested. Another friend from Saudi Arabia recently negotiated a marriage
contract giving his wife one hundred thousand dollars worth of diamonds.
Similarly, deferred dowries may involve some arrangement that takes
into account inflation, such as a fixed percentage of the husband’s annual
salary for a number of years and/or some fraction of his accumulated estate.
For example, the wife might be entitled to half of his immovable
property. Interestingly, I am often asked by young foreign Muslim men if
I know any American Muslim women who are interested in getting married.
When I advise them that it may be easier to find someone in their
home country, I am frequently told that American women ask for much
smaller dowries. Personally, I am not comfortable with introducing my
friends to men who wish to take advantage of their unfamiliarity with this
institution.
182For discussions on this topic, see Rahman, Role of Muslim Women in Society, and
Hodkinson, Muslim Family Law.
158
The dower is only one factor that must be settled by the marriage contract,
which is the chief means of protecting the rights and needs of both
partners. In the contract, each partner may specify any demand as long as
it is not in opposition to some aspect of Islamic law. Thus, a woman can
insist on the right to have a career outside the home, to have her husband
fund her education, to have a servant for the housework, or to have a nanny
for the children. Jurists in Pakistan acknowledge that she could require that
her permission be obtained in case her husband wants to take another
wife.183 It may appear superfluous to claim privileges that the law already
allows, but the marriage contract attempts to settle from the start possible
points of contention, and, in case of divorce, rather than remaining a neutral
consideration in the eyes of a judge, a breach of the contract will work
against the guilty party.
For a Muslim, divorce, especially if children are involved, should be
avoided at all costs. Not even under the best of conditions is divorce truly
fair to those it touches. The Prophet is reported to have said that in the eyes
of God it is the most hated of all permissible things.184 Islam’s attitude
toward divorce is similar to its attitude toward war: at times it may be necessary,
but only as a last resort. This is why family mediators are to be
called in (4:35) and why divorce should be pronounced on three separate
occasions, following a three-month waiting period before the divorce becomes
irrevocable:
Divorce is [only permissible] twice, after which [the parties
should either] stay together in a goodly manner or separate with
kindness. And it is not permissible for you [men] to take back anything
of what you have given to them [your wives], except if both
parties fear that they will be unable to keep the limits ordained by
God. And if you fear that they will be unable to keep the limits ordained
by God, there is no blame on either of them concerning
what she gives [him back of his gifts] to secure her release. These
are the limits ordained by God, so do not transgress them. And if
anyone transgresses the limits ordained by God, then those are
wrong-doers. Then if he divorces her [irrevocably for the third
time], she is not lawful for him thereafter until after she has married
someone other than him. Then if he [the second husband]
divorces her, there is no blame on either of them that they come
together again if they think they can keep the limits ordained by
God; He makes them clear for people to know. (2:229-30)
183Hodkinson, Muslim Family Law, 150-51.
184Ali, Manual of Hadith, no. 284, from the collection of Abu Dawud.
159
After three unsuccessful attempts, the wife is told to put her marriage
behind her and sincerely seek another marriage. This may result in a more
harmonious union, and at the same time it forces each partner to consider
soberly their decision to end the first marriage. As the dissolution of any
marriage is usually charged with mixed passions and emotions, there is
always the danger that individuals will attempt to violate the spirit of these
commands while obeying the letter. This explains why a woman’s new
husband must initiate divorce before she may return to her former spouse
(2:230), for this will insure genuineness on her part in seeking a second
marriage.
Ironically, in the past, many Muslim jurists have allowed a husband to
divorce his wife irrevocably by issuing three divorce pronouncements on
a single occasion, which is clearly opposed to the intent of the Qur’an. In
many Muslim countries, in an effort to forestall such abuses, governments
now require all marriages and dissolutions to be officially registered. This
may be seen as a positive action, in conformity with the Qur’an’s admonition
not to “make a mockery of God’s revelations” (2:131) which occurs
in the midst of a lengthy discussion of divorce.
Based on 2:229 and several incidents occurring during the time of the
Prophet, Islamic lawyers have always recognized a woman’s right to divorce
her husband. In legal manuals, the technical term for divorce at the
instance of the husband is talaq, and for divorce at the instance of the wife
it is khul‘.185 The following case is often cited:
Jameelah bint Salul complained to the Prophet about her husband,
“By God! I do not dislike him for any fault in his character or faith,
but I dislike his ugliness. By God! If I had no fear of God, I would
have spat in his face when he came to me. O Messenger of God!
You see how beautiful I am and that Thabit is an ugly man. I don’t
blame him for his faith or character, but I fear disbelief in Islam.”
Muhammad then inquired, “Will you return his garden that he gave
you?” She answered, “Oh Messenger of God! If he asks for more,
I am prepared to give him even more.” The Prophet said, “Not
more, but return the garden.” Then he ordered that Thabit should
accept the garden and the separation.186 (al Bukhari)
Unfortunately, even though the evidence could plainly be interpreted
liberally, many jurists did the opposite and chose to restrict a woman’s
185Hodkinson, Muslim Family Law, 275-76.
186Rahman, Role of Muslim Women in Society, 150-52.
rights in this regard as much as possible. It is a widespread practice in
some places not to allow a woman to exercise this privilege unless she requests
it in her marriage contract, and, in other places, unless her husband
commits one of a very limited number of extreme abuses.
The Qur’an’s regulations concerning divorce—and this is true of
men’s and women’s rights in general—are not the same for both sexes.
For example, women must observe a waiting period of three months
before remarrying in order to determine if conception has occurred and
to establish paternity if it has, while men can remarry immediately. It
does assure, however, that equivalence and equity prevail. Once again,
this is one of the fascinating aspects of the Qur’an: it is alert to challenges
that were unlikely to be raised at the time of the Revelation and,
indeed, for centuries thereafter. In the seventh century, it was simply
unnecessary to justify any disparity between the sexes as regards religious
regulations, beyond the argument that men are innately superior to
women. Yet the Qur’an offers this defense at the end of a passage on
divorce:
And for them [women] is the like of what they [men] have over
them with kindness, but men have a degree over them (2:228)
And we have the previously mentioned verse:
And do not covet that of which God has given more to the one
than to the other. Men shall have a portion of what they earn and
women shall have a portion of what they earn. And ask from God
out of His bounty; truly, God has full knowledge of all things. And
for all We have appointed heirs from whatever is left by parents
and relatives. And to those with whom your right hands have
made a covenant, give them their portion; truly, God is witness
over everything. Men are charged with the full maintenance of
women in that God has given more to the one than to the other and
in that they support [them] from their means. (4:32-34)
Thus we sense a cognizance on the part of the Qur’an that Muslim
women’s rights will remain as a point of contention. Its answer seems to
be that one must consider the larger context within which the individual
pronouncements are made. If Muslim men and women have almost identical
rights and obligations, while men have been given a somewhat larger
degree of both, it is because the Author has taken into account the whole
temper of society.
160
161
Ways to Paradise
I stood watching the two of them as they found each other again. They
took such soothing comfort in their rejoining that it seemed as if the torture
they had just survived had never been, and that they were long accustomed
to the love they were now sharing. If God does give us something of
His spirit, I thought, women must have gotten the greater share of mercy
and compassion. It was right then, seconds after the birth of my third
daughter, that I felt that I had been granted a special glimpse of the great
creative impulse that brings us into being.
The Qur’an is unequivocal in affirming that men and women are of the
same spiritual essence and that neither has an advantage over the other in
terms of goodness. Yet, also in this area, Islam recognizes differences in
the ways which best suit the spiritual progress of each. My mother always
insisted that there is no love on earth like the love of a mother for her children,
and this opinion of hers surely finds support in Islam.
We have already observed that, in a number of places, the Qur’an couples
man’s dependency on God with a child’s dependency on its mother
(31:14; 46:15), and that there are several sayings of Muhammad’s that
compare God’s love to the love of a mother for her children. On one occasion,
he pointed to a women caressing her infant and asked his Com-panions
if they thought she would ever throw her baby into a fire. When they
naturally said that that was impossible, he told them “And God loves you
even more than that.”187
Not only may it be that a mother’s love is the nearest thing on earth to
God’s love, but it may also be her greatest strength and one of her main
roads to spiritual excellence. The saying of Muhammad that “Paradise is
under the feet of the mother”188 might well be rephrased as “Motherhood
is a woman’s steppingstone to Paradise.” And while we should not be misled
into believing that fatherhood plays a minor role in a man’s moral
development, for there are verses in the Qur’an and sayings of the Prophet
that underline its importance, it would have to be said that the same
sources hold the risking of his life for a just cause to be the greatest act of
self-surrender for a man and his main avenue to perfection.
A closer look at 31:14 and 46:15 suggests a profound mystical parallel
between the God—man and the mother—child relationships. In our
minds, we seldom associate our love and attachment to our mothers with
the two great crises recalled in these passages: the act of birth and our
187Riyad al Salihin of Imam Nawawi, trans. Zafrulla Khan, 94, no.421.
188Badawi, Status of Woman in Islam, 21. Quoted from al Nasa’i, Ibn Majah, and Ahmad.
weaning from the breast. But psychologists maintain that these cataclysms
in every individual’s life are fundamental to personality growth. The lifelong
tension—more unconscious then conscious—between the desire to
return to the comfort of the womb and breast, and the need to strike out
independently on one’s own, is a primal catalyst for the development of
the self. These two unavoidable upheavals in our lives originate through
an irrepressible will to love. Similarly, our earthly separation from God
and the inner conflict that creates between our spiritual, often unconscious,
desire to return to Him and our innate drive for personal autonomy, fuels
the development of our spirituality and total personality. It is in this way
that the sacred love of a mother and child is a sign of the supreme mercy
that brought us into this world.
As a system, Islam is extremely confident that a mere reminder of the
eminence and importance of motherhood is a sufficient encouragement to
Muslim women to have and care for children; otherwise it would not grant
women an independent economic and legal identity, nor the right to divorce
and inherit. And although these days many Muslim families in the
West are struggling hard to secure this option for Muslim mothers, the difficulties
are continually increasing.
Beyond Husband and Wife
Thus far we have been discussing the relationship of men and women
within the family—primarily that of husband and wife. In theory, however,
the marriage relationship might involve more than a partnership, since
Islamic law allows a man to have up to four wives.
When first proclaimed, this regulation was actually a limitation, for
the pre-Islamic Arabs were subject to no restrictions as to the number of
spouses a man might have. The reaction of today’s Muslims is mixed,
ranging from insisting that Islam enjoins monogamy to upholding the notion
that men are polygynous by nature and will consequently be compelled
to seek illicit ways of satisfying this need if polygyny is banned.
This subject is often discussed by non-Muslims from a purely secular
standpoint. Public Television recently aired a program investigating whether
or not men were innately polygamous and women innately monogamous.
In l987, the student newspaper at the University of California,
Berkeley, polled approximately ten students, asking whether they thought
men should be legally permitted to have more than one spouse in response
to a perceived shortage of male marriage candidates in California. The poll
was not scientific, but it was surprising that almost all of those polled
approved of the idea. One of the women even stated that a polygamous
162
163
marriage would meet her emotional and sexual needs, and at the same time
give her greater freedom than a monogamous union. Since Berkeley is
well-known for its radicalism, the same reaction would hardly be expected
of students on other college campuses. However, the idea of polygyny as a
solution to certain social dilemmas accords with the aims of the Qur’an.
And if you fear that you will not be just to the orphans, then marry
what is good for you among the women—two, three, or four. But
if you fear that you will not be just [to them], then only one, or [a
captive] whom your right hands possess. Thus it is more likely
that you will not do injustice. (4:3)
There was some disagreement among the Companions of the Prophet
as to the exact interpretation and occasion for this verse,189 but there was
unanimity in that it restricts the number of wives a man may have to no
more than four. There is also agreement among Qur’anic exegetes that this
revelation responded to the steady increase through war in the population
of widows and orphans in the Muslim city-state of Madinah. Many commentators
believe that this verse is proposing the marriage of the orphaned
females as a solution to this crisis.
While there is no doubt that such an action would be within the purpose
of the Revelation, its intent is certainly more general, since the concerns
of all the orphans, not only female, are addressed, as the masculine
plural for “orphans” is employed here (the masculine plural in Arabic includes
both male and female, while the feminine plural is used exclusively
when only females are designated). Thus it would seem that to solve the
problem of fatherless households, the Qur’an is encouraging men to take
into their care the destitute families by marrying the eligible widows and
female orphans who are victims of such a tragedy.
Common sense would indicate that, under normal circumstances,
monogamy is preferable. Barring a crisis of the type mentioned in this
verse, and if the population of eligible men and women is nearly equal,
monogamous match-making would be the most efficient response to the
prescription to “marry the single among you” (24:31-32). It is also expected
that there will likely be greater tension in a polygamous family setting.
Many modern Muslims argue that monogamy is preferable, citing as
their rationale, “You will not be able to be just between women, even if
you desire to, but do not turn away [from any of them] altogether so as to
leave her hanging in suspense” (4:129). As this verse appears in a differ-
189Asad, The Message.
164
ent context—that of a marriage on the brink of divorce—it should probably
not be taken as a direct comment on 4:2-5; nevertheless, that does not
preclude using it to help elucidate the passage. The fact that the verses 4:2-
5 voice concern about injustice would in itself argue that the marriage of
more than one wife should be undertaken with utmost caution. In Pakistan,
for example, in an attempt to lower the level of abuse, the government now
requires proof that a husband can meet the needs of all wives equally
before it will grant permission for a plural marriage.190
Unfortunately, at almost any given time and place, crises of the kind
mentioned in the verse on four wives (4:129) are likely to exist. Today in
the United States, the population of single Muslim mothers with children
is quite large, and frequently one finds in Muslim magazines pleas on their
part for another family to take them in. The concern of such mothers is
principally for their children, as it is with the Qur’an, for 4:3 begins with
the phrase, “And if you fear that you will not be just to the orphans.”
The two main barriers to acquiring a second family in the United
States are the law and Americans’ cultural aversion towards polygyny. In
addition, most American males feel that they can barely support one family,
much less two. Men wishing to marry for the first time are understandably
reluctant to adopt a family that has suffered a tragedy, most men
preferring that their first marriage, at least, begin under more favorable
conditions. This may explain why the Qur’an says, “Then marry two or
three or four” (4:3), for in addition to imposing a ceiling on the number of
wives, it may be suggesting that men of means, who already have families,
have a greater responsibility to take the destitute families into their care;
the wording of this phrase may actually be encouraging them to do so. At
any rate, unless and until American Muslims can overcome the obstructions
to polygyny, they should at least establish community funds to assist
single mothers.191
Outside of the marriage relationship, questions about the place of
women in business, politics, education, and related topics of dress and segregation
are currently generating a great deal of debate. We will conclude
this discussion of the position of women in the Muslim community by
190 Hodkinson, Muslim Family Law, 95-100.
191Occasionally Muslim communities have faced the problem of having more bachelors
than potential brides. For example, at the time of the Muslim community’s exodus to
Madinah and during the Muslim conquests, the conquered territories contained virtually no
Muslim women. In cases of temporary need, the Prophet encouraged Muslims to fast as a
way of curbing sexual desire. Another option available to Muslim men is that they are permitted
to marry women of the People of the Book (i.e., Jews and Christians), although in
general marriage to non-Muslims is not encouraged.
165
briefly touching on these. Since a Muslim woman’s inferior status as a witness
has often served arguments limiting her access to the civil and civic
arenas, we will start by re-examining this topic.
AWoman’s Witness
O you who believe, when you deal with each other, in transactions
involving future obligations for a fixed period of time, put
them in writing, and let a scribe write down faithfully as between
the parties and let not the scribe refuse to write: as God has taught
him, let him write. Let him who incurs the liability dictate, but let
him fear God, his Lord, and not diminish anything of what he
owes. And if the liable party is mentally deficient or weak or unable
to dictate, let his guardian dictate faithfully. And let there
witness [it] two witnesses from among your men, and if not
two men, then a man and two women, such as you choose for
witnesses, so that if one of them errs, the other will remind
her. (2:282)
This verse has been used as an argument for the exclusion of women
from political and civil offices, for her intellectual and consequent moral
inferiority, and even for the inadmissibility of women’s testimony in all
cases outside of business transactions.192 Fortunately, as Badawi demonstrates,
such opinions were not universally held by earlier Muslim scholars,
and today’s scholars seem to be slowly moving in the opposite direction.
193 What one observes immediately is that the principal objective of the
passage in question—and I have only quoted half of it—is the protection
of business agreements and the avoidance of later contention. Facing
widespread illiteracy, Islam set strict standards to guarantee the terms of a
business contract and, in so doing, reduced the possibility of deception and
misunderstanding that often, at least in the past, would have been settled
violently. At that time, and for centuries to come in almost all societies,
women were in general less educated and less proficient in financial dealings
than men, and consequently the Qur’an required the witness of two
men or a man and two women.
In eight places (2:282; 4:6; 4:15; 5:109; 5:110; 24:4; 24:6-9; 65:2), the
Qur’an has issued instructions relating to the giving of testimony. Two of
these refer only to swearing an oath and not to testifying in general, while
192Rahman, Role of Muslim Women in Society, 260-70, 347-57.
193Badawi, Status of Woman in Islam, 22-25; Rahman, Role of Muslim Women in Society,
260-70.
166
the other six refer to testifying. In all cases except 2:282, no specification
on the sex of the witnesses is made. There are many examples in the hadith
collections in which women’s testimony is accepted without corroboration
and, sometimes, where the testimony of a single female witness
overrides the witness of several men.194 Additionally, many of Muhammad’s
sayings are accepted in the canonical collections as authentic in
spite of the fact that they have only a single woman as their source. From
these observations, many modern writers contend that verse 2:282 was
never meant to be a general stipulation. Various rationalizations are presented
for this requirement in the case of business transactions: woman’s
greater temperamentality, emotional instability caused by the menstrual
cycle and, a man’s greater natural aptitude for business and mathematics.
If one accepts that 2:282 should not be generalized to non-financial matters,
which is the prevailing opinion in the West, then only the last explanation
is worth consideration, since the others, if valid, would argue
more strongly against a woman’s testimony in other situations, such as
criminal hearings.
In the United States and Europe, and other societies as well, women
are proving that they can compete with men in the financial world. The
majority of leaders in big business are still men, but women are making
their mark and are gaining influence; thus the claim that men have a
greater aptitude for business than women is becoming harder to defend. It
has been contended that, in a truly Islamic society, the skills of women
would of necessity be channeled into other careers, which would once
again cause the world of finance to become an almost exclusively male
domain. But utopian arguments depend on one’s vision of the “true” society,
and there are bound to be many different opinions about what that
actually is.
The crux of the matter comes back to the Qur’anic stipulation of “if
not two men, then a man and two women.” As so often when reading the
divine Word, we are forced to match current experience with revelation.
Some will insist on a simple submission to the text, while others will advocate
interpretation in the light of changed circumstances. As an example,
since the Qur’an has set certain standards for the treatment of slaves
(i.e., a female slave guilty of adultery receives half the punishment of a
free woman), we might ask whether a Muslim government is ever allowed
to proscribe slavery. Most will contend that the Qur’an promotes the eventual
abolition of slavery and will argue in favor of its end. In a similar way,
some will also insist that Islam promotes equal opportunity for men and
194Rahman, Role of Muslim Women in Society, 266-70.
167
women in education and business. Should this be achieved and differences
dissolve, is it any longer necessary to consider the sex of the witnesses in
business dealings? Fazlur Rahman answers in the negative:
Because the case the Qur’an is speaking of is that of a financial
transaction and because most women in those days did not deal
with finances or with business in general, the Qur’an thought it
better to have two women [witnesses] instead of one—if one had
to have women. This means, of course, that if women should get
education equal to men’s and also become conversant with business
and finance, the law must change accordingly.195
The Muslim will almost automatically flinch at such enterprising deliberation,
for to him/her the Qur’an is not simply a by-product of holy
inspiration. It is pure, direct Revelation. Bold interpretation of this kind
departs from conforming to prescriptions, for it presumes the divine intention
and, if done carelessly, could be a means of self-indulgence and of
evading what God has commanded. Yet all interpretation, even literalist
interpretation, involves some speculation, for it presumes that considerations
of temporal context were never intended. Therefore, on this point I
am inclined to agree with Rahman, because I accept his premise that one
goal of Islam is to bring about equal opportunity in learning and business
for men and women and that, in the meantime, the Qur’an took fully into
account existing disparities in order to protect financial contracts.
Of course, we have to be aware that advances in technology have
made possible a greater intersection of male and female roles and have
also produced a society whose financial structures are more complex than
those of seventh century Arabia. As the business world grows in complexity,
more ingenious methods of deception are continually discovered, and
financial and legal institutions are forced to impose ever stricter standards
to safeguard their dealings. In the United States, if the purchase of a house,
long-term loans, or the making of a will are to have legal force, they must
almost always pass the review of a number of departments of several institutions
and then usually become a matter of public record. Since the
Qur’an attaches so much importance to the making and protection of contracts,
I contend that existing legal safeguards of financial transactions,
which surpass the requirements of the verse in question, are often in the
public interest and necessary.
195Rahman, Health and Medicine in the Islamic Tradition, 105-106. Emphasis is the
author’s.
168
Leadership
The election of Benazir Bhutto to the post of Pakistan’s prime minister
has engendered a great deal of discussion as to the possibility of women
holding positions of leadership in Muslim society. This also has implications
for American Muslims, as so many converts are women who are
skilled and trained in organization and leadership, talents that are badly
needed in their communities. The Qur’an contains no direct statement
against electing female leaders, and the only example given of a woman
ruler—that of the Queen of Sheba—is exemplary.196 The Qur’an shows her
to be a wise, thoughtful, democratic leader whose main concern is the
well-being of her people and who, through the influence of Solomon,
eventually guides her nation to belief in one God. Due to the absence of
any Qur’anic prohibition of this possibility, and because the only example
provided of female rule is positive, we might expect that the idea of a
woman chief of state would be acceptable to Muslims. But, in general, this
is not the case.
One argument against it is that a woman is incapable of discharging
all the duties that were carried out by Prophet Muhammad and his immediate
four political successors. For example, Prophet Muhammad and
these four caliphs led the congregational prayer and if men are present,
the prayer ritual must be led by a man. Similarly, they were also military
leaders who took troops into battle, and it would seem that women would
generally be less qualified to fulfill this aspect of leadership. Since the
leadership of the Prophet and his immediate four political successors is
accepted by Muslims as the norm, a woman would therefore be disqualified
from high office.
Today, however, it is unrealistic to insist that a leader should be able
to undertake all of the functions performed by the early Muslim rulers.
Government is much more complex and, although we would likely favor
a candidate thoroughly schooled in Islamic law, military science, economics,
and administration, we are satisfied to create various government
institutions that specialize in such areas. As a result, the head of state can
direct from the periphery. We do not expect our political leaders to go to
war, nor need we demand that they have the requisite knowledge and training
to qualify them for leading the rituals. Indeed, classical Sunni Islamic
law, as contrasted with the Shi‘ah view, had lesser expectations of the head
of state, whose essential duties were administrative. As long as he could
196Abbott, Aishah: The Beloved of Muhammad, 176.
169
direct the defense of the state effectively and enforce the Shari‘ah (Islamic
law), the citizens owed him their allegiance.197
A more serious objection might be the statement of the Prophet: “A
people who choose a woman as their ruler are unsuccessful.” This saying
belongs to al Bukhari’s compilation,198 and there are slight variations in
other collections, such as the said people being “unfortunate” or “unhappy.”
The authenticity of this hadith has recently been questioned, but
the great majority of Muslim scholars accept it. Technically speaking,
there does not seem to be any special reason to suspect this tradition, since
the narrator, a man called Abu Bakrah, also known by the name of Nafi ibn
Masruh, is believed to have been the freedman of Muhammad and the
source of a number of accepted traditions.199 Also, the close correlation
between the details of the narration and the complex political developments
of that era add further credibility. If one wanted to disparage female
leadership, simpler avenues were available.
About six years into Muhammad’s mission, corresponding to 615-16
CE, the thirtieth surah was revealed. Up until that time, a steady stream of
Persian conquests against Byzantium had brought the Christian empire to
the edge of total defeat, with the loss of Jerusalem signaling the beginning
of the end. The pagan Quraysh exulted over this development, since they
saw it as a blow to monotheism. The beginning of this surah then predicted
an almost inconceivable reversal:
The Roman empire has been defeated in a land close by, but they,
after the defeat of theirs, will soon be victorious within a few
years. With God is the decision in the past and in the future.
(30:2-4)
History records that the fortunes of the Persians began to turn shortly
thereafter. In the interval between 622 and 627, the Roman empire was
able to recover its lost territory through a sequence of brilliant victories
and penetrate deeply into Persian territories. In 628, the government of
the Persian empire collapsed, and Khusrau, the Persian monarch, was
imprisoned and then executed. In the chaos of the next three years, at least
ten different individuals ascended the throne of the tottering empire,
including one of Khusrau’s daughters. Her reign lasted little more than a
year and represented the first time in the history of Persia that a woman
197John L. Esposito, Islam and Politics (Syracuse: l987), 26-29.
198Abbott, Aishah: The Beloved of Muhammad, 175-76.
199Ibid. 175.
170
had assumed the leadership of the empire.200 When the Muslims, who
were carefully watching the political events taking place in Persia to see
whether the Qur’anic prophecy would be fulfilled, heard that a woman
had become the ruler, they naturally took the news to the Prophet, who
then made the above comment.
Whether he meant that as a general principle or as a comment on current
political developments is difficult to say. Isolated from its historical
context, it may be taken as a permanent injunction against women assuming
positions of leadership. On the other hand, he may have been confirming
the Qur’anic prediction, assuring his followers that the Persian empire
would not recover by such a move and that so radical a departure from its
past was further evidence of its impending downfall. The decision as to
what the Prophet meant by this saying thus depends on recourse to other
evidence. Due to the Qur’an’s positive portrayal of the Queen of Sheba,
and because the record of woman leaders in the past and present has been
rather good, in addition to the fact that this is now a widely accepted idea
in Western culture, I would be very surprised if American Muslims were
to disqualify women from political leadership.
AWoman’s Dress
The invitation of the young, petite Malaysian women was too genuine
and kind for Karen to refuse. In the few weeks since she had accepted
Islam, the only Muslims she had met were those who, like her, attended the
nightly prayers, and with one exception, these were all men. So she looked
forward to the opportunity to gather with fellow Muslim women at their
meeting.
Karen was somewhat surprised to find that she was the only one present
not in traditional Muslim dress, since she had observed other Muslim
women on campus wearing Western fashions. But she was even more
astonished when she learned that the theme of the lecture that night would
be the Islamic dress code, for it was obvious that all of these women met
its requirements. Consequently, she felt as if she was on trial, subjected to
a holy inquisition.
The women present wore solemn, sanctimonious expressions as the
American convert who was giving the lecture spoke of the “dangers,” the
“sickness,” the “cheap and immoral desires” of Western society and especially
of its women, who tantalize themselves and others with their “half
naked display of flesh.” Even fingernail polish was included in her dia-
200Ehsan Yarshater, The Cambridge History of Iran (Cambridge University Press, 1983),
3(1):170-71.
171
tribe as an “evil.” Karen wanted to hide her hands behind her back, to slip
out of there, to tell them all to get lost, to mind their own business. Her
very first lecture on Islam, and it concentrates on—of all things—the
essentials of wearing a scarf!
“I wish you had let me know about their invitation in advance,” I told
her later. “I hate to see you so hurt like this.”
Practically all Muslim women at some time or other agonize over the
decision to conform to what is usually referred to as the Islamic code of
dress. By “Muslim women” I am not referring only to American or Western
women, for in my travels to Saudi Arabia I have discovered that
many, if not most, Saudi women abide by the standard only in public and
because of government enforcement. In their homes, they typically wear
Western fashions, even in the presence of unfamiliar men. Yet at the same
time, these same women—and this holds true for Muslim women in every
culture—will invariably insist that a Muslim female must abide by the
code after reaching puberty, while attributing their own remission to a
weakness of commitment.201 Since the Arabian peninsula is by far the
most traditional and conservative Muslim culture, a smaller proportion of
women should be expected to observe traditional Muslim dress in other
places.
Difficulties are intensified for Muslim women in the West, and even
more for converts, for several reasons. In addition to joining a system of
belief that many of their countrymen see as threatening or strange, the
Mus-lim community encourage them to discard their birth names in favor
of Arabic ones and to employ several standard Arabic expressions in everyday
conversation. Any one of these might seem incidental and in some
ways beneficial, but their cumulative effect could result in something of
a identity crisis. The issue is aggravated by the fact that although Muslim
men technically have a code of dress, it is much more flexible and less
obvious than women’s, and has lent itself to much freer interpretation. For
instance, the ‘awrah (the area of the body that must be covered) of a man
has always been defined as that part of the body between the navel and
knees. Recently, scholars in Saudi Arabia, after reviewing the legal
sources, have redefined the male ‘awrah as the area between the navel
and upper thigh. Hence a Western man can convert to Islam and remain,
as far as his faith goes, visually anonymous, while the same does not hold
true for a woman who does not wish to compromise a religious requirement.
201Soraya Altorki, Women in Saudi Arabia (Columbia Press: l986), 35-38.
172
The Qur’an is undoubtedly unequal in its treatment of men’s and
women’s modesty. It contains no explicit prescriptions on modest dress for
men, while it has three direct statements with regard to women.
And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze
and guard their private parts, and that they should not display of
their adornment except what [ordinarily] appears thereof, and that
they should draw their head coverings over their breasts and not
display their adornment. . . . And that they should not strike their
feet in order to make apparent what is hidden of their adornment.
(24:31)
And the elderly among women who have no hope of marriage—
there is no blame on them if they lay aside their outer garments
without displaying their adornment; but to be modest is better for
them. (24:60)
O Prophet, say to your wives and daughters and the believing
women that they should draw over themselves something of their
outer garments [min jalabibihinna]; that is more conducive to
their being known and not molested. (33:59)
In pre-Islamic times, the customary attire of the Arab tribal woman
consisted of an ornamental head covering that hung down her back and
showed her hair in front, a loosely worn tunic that was cut low in front
leaving her breasts in view, and a skirt tied at the waist, together with various
pieces of jewelry, such as rings, earrings, arm and ankle bracelets.202
This style of dress, which was not only alluring but also compensated for
the intense desert heat, could still be found among certain bedouin women
in Arabia up to the turn of this century and was photographed by certain
European travelers.203 The Qur’an’s instruction to the believing women to
draw their head coverings (khimar; plural, khumur) over their bosoms
(24:31) and to put on their outer garments when they were in public
(33:59), imposed, with the minimum of inconvenience, a modest standard
of dress for Muslim women. As 24:31 goes on to say, they can resume the
customary attire in their own homes in the presence of their immediate
families and household servants. It becomes clear from the Prophetic traditions
associated with these verses, in particular those related to (33:59),
202Yusuf al Qaradawi, The Lawful and the Prohibited in Islam (Indianapolis: American
Trust Pub., n.d.), 160; Asad, The Message, 538-39.
203Wilfred Thesiger, Arabian Sands (New York: E. P. Dutton & Co., 1959), 192.
173
that sexual abuse is the concern here. And since society is always more apt
to exploit women sexually rather than men, special emphasis is placed on
the dress of the former.
Over time, jurists elaborated a strict dress code for Muslim women.
However, the wearing of the khimar as described in 24:31, when combined
with an outer garment of the kind mentioned in 33:59, probably closely
approximated later elaborations. The earliest records of juristic discussion
on this matter, going back to the generations of the Prophet’s Companions
and their successors, centered on the debate of whether a woman had to
veil her face in public, or if it was appropriate for her hands and face to
show.204
The latter was the majority opinion and has remained the standard
ever since, but this does not mean that all women in the Islamic world
recognize a single canonical attire, for there is considerable variation. For
example, many Egyptian women cover their hair but allow their necks to
show; Malaysian women sometimes wear pants underneath a long bib;
Saudi ladies wrap one end of the head-covering loosely around the neck
several times; and Iranian women frequently wear their scarves low on
their foreheads so that their eyebrows cannot be seen. However, there is a
nearly universal acceptance that only a woman’s face and hands may be
seen. This is not to imply that there are no dissenting opinions, for one can
easily imagine the hardships encountered by Muslim ladies traveling and
living in non-Muslim societies.
To date, the strongest and most obvious argument for greater flexibility
comes from Muhammad Asad:
Although the traditional exponents of Islamic law have for centuries
been inclined to restrict the definition of “what may [decently]
be apparent” to a woman’s face, hands and feet—and
sometimes less than that—we may safely assume that the meaning
of illa ma zahara minha is much wider, and that the deliberate
vagueness of the phrase is meant to allow for all time-bound
changes that are necessary for man’s moral and social growth. The
pivotal clause in the above injunction is the demand, addressed in
identical terms to men as well as to women, to “lower their gaze
and be mindful of their chastity”: and this determines the extent of
what, at any given time, may legitimately—i.e., in consonance
with Qur’anic principles of social morality—be considered
“decent” or “indecent” in a person’s outward appearance. . . .
204al Qaradawi, The Lawful and the Prohibited in Islam, 155-59.
174
Hence, the injunction to cover the bosom with a khimar (a term
so familiar to the contemporaries of the Prophet) does not necessarily
relate to the use of a khimar as such but is, rather, meant to
make it clear that a woman’s breasts are not included in the concept
of “what may decently be apparent” of her body and should
not, therefore be displayed. . . .
The specific time-bound formulation of the above verse [33:59]
(evident by the reference to the wives and daughters of the Prophet),
as well as the deliberate vagueness of the recommendation
that women “should draw upon themselves some of their outer
garments (min jalabibihinna)” when in public, makes it clear that
the verse was not meant to be an injunction (hukm) in the general,
timeless sense of this term but, rather, a moral guideline to be
observed against the ever changing background of time and social
environment. This finding is reinforced by the concluding reference
to God’s forgiveness and grace.205
The cogency of Asad’s argument is somewhat diminished by his assertion
that the restriction against a woman baring her breast is timeless, for
if one “covering” has eternal validity, why not the other? The charge of
eclecticism will surely be raised, and indeed whenever a new interpretation
is advocated in light of changed circumstances, such a charge has to
be expected. The vagueness of the verses on certain points definitely provides
room for different cultural adaptations and, as already shown, there
have been many. But the issue at hand is one of extent.
So far, on matters like these, I and other writers have advocated that
those involved try to discern the overall direction of the Qur’an when responding
to a given verse. For instance, as remarked previously, Muslims
no longer insist upon gathering up horses in preparation for battle, even
though that is the explicit dictate of 8:60, because it would not advance the
larger objective of making adequate preparations for war. Therefore, in the
present case, we might first determine whether or not the Muslim community
should observe at least some minimal standard of modesty in dress.
Probably all believers, based on 24:31, will concede this much, as does
Muhammad Asad in his commentary on the passage. They would also most
likely agree that the dress code inherited from the earliest Muslim community
and handed down from one generation to the next was certainly appropriate
in the past and in conformity with the injunctions of the Qur’an.
205Asad, The Message, 538-539 (notes 37 and 38) and 651 (note 75).
175
It then might be asked, at what stage did it become advisable or allowable
for Muslims to assume Western norms. It would be hard to find a
moral or psychological justification for such a change. In fact, in Islam at
the Crossroads, Asad himself urged Muslims at the early part of this century
not to adopt Western standards.206 In a revised edition that appeared a
half of century later, he made no apology for that view and held that it was
appropriate in its time. But, he stated, in the years since then, the Muslim
people had so absorbed Western cultural values that to attempt to return to
earlier norms would be as senseless as the original adoption of Western
styles. In his opinion, it would amount to no more than “another act of sterile
and undignified imitation: in this case, the imitation of a dead and unreturnable
past.” In other words, the social mores, for better or worse, have
in fact changed as an inevitable consequence of encountering a more powerful
civilization. As a result, what was considered as exploitive or indecent
dress in the past is simply no longer considered so today.
Many Muslims will not be persuaded by this argument, for it is a main
part of the believer’s perception that religion sets moral standards for society
and not the converse. Furthermore, even though in practice women
often do not conform to the traditional dress code, this very code, as an
ideal, is upheld almost universally by Muslims of both sexes; recently the
global Muslim community has even witnessed the reappearance of traditional
women’s dress on a large scale. Finally, the traditional dress of
women conforms to the spirit of the Qur’an and fourteen centuries of custom,
and would deter what Muslims view as the sexual exploitation of
women in the West.
I therefore feel that the case for any real revision on this matter is not
entirely convincing. On the other hand, there is a desperate need for the
community to exercise sympathy and understanding toward those who
are grappling with this problem, in particular Muslim women living in the
West. The difficulties and hardships—emotional, social, employmentwise—
encountered in conforming to this code vary from individual to
individual, and the approach of the Muslim should be conciliatory and
accommodating rather than accusatory and reproachful. The utmost allowances
must be made so that Muslim women are not dissuaded from
community participation. Muslim men should also show the greatest sensitivity
and propriety in this regard. It was not long ago that I witnessed
the absurd spectacle of Muslim women, fully dressed, languishing at a
picnic table under the hot summer sun while their spouses frolicked in the
sand and waves amidst American sunbathers.
206Asad, Islam at the Crossroads, 78-9.
176
It will be some time before American and European Muslim women
find fashions that harmonize with their culture and religion. But if the demand
should grow, then this will surely happen. For now, I would suggest
a community attitude on this matter in line with the evocation that concludes
33:59, which reminds the reader of God’s forgiveness and compassion.
Perhaps this is, as Asad suggests, an acknowledgment of the future
difficulties that Muslims will meet in this area and a call for clemency on
the part of believers in their efforts to surmount them, for truly “God does
not burden any soul beyond its capacity” (2:233).
Education and Segregation
Muslim scholars and jurists have insisted that education is not only a
right but also a religious obligation on all Muslim men and women. The
Arabic word ‘ilm, which means science, knowledge, and/or education, appears
in the Qur’an 854 times. It “has never been used to deprive women
of education. On the contrary, it has been used to persuade them to educate
themselves.”207 Throughout the greater part of Islamic history, Muslim
women, much like women in other cultures, contributed little to the development
of the natural sciences but exerted considerable influence on the
evolution of literature and the legal sciences.208 The part played by women
in the science of hadith is well-documented. Siddiqi states that through the
first several Islamic centuries, women were equal partners with men in this
field and that:
This partnership of the women with men in the cultivation of
Hadith continued throughout its history. All the important compilers
of traditions since its earliest history received many of them
from the women shuyukh. Every important collection of traditions
contains the names of many women as immediate authorities of
the author. After the compilation of the various collections of
traditions, however, the women traditionists acquired mastery of
many of these works and delivered lectures on them which were
attended by a large number of students (men as well as women),
and many important men traditionists sat at their feet and secured
their certificates.209
207Adnan A. Algadi, Utilization of Human Resources: The Case of Women in Saudi Arabia
(Sacramento: California State University, 1979), p. 56.
208Rahman, Role of Muslim Women in Society, 56-64; Soha Abdel Kader, Social Science
Research and Women in the Arab World (Paris: UNESCO, 1984), 140-41.
209Siddiqi, Hadith Literature, 184.
177
Later on, he states:
These fair traditionists of Islam, as one may see from what has
been said, did not confine their activities to a personal study of traditions
or to the private coaching of a few individuals in it, but
they took their seats as students as well as teachers in public educational
institutions—side by side with their brethren. They
attended general classes which were attended by men as well as
women students. The colophons of many manuscripts which are
still preserved in many libraries show them both as students attending
large lecture classes, and also as teachers delivering regular
courses of lectures to them.210
Judging from Siddiqi’s recounting of the contribution of women in
this field, we note a steady decline in women’s activity that coincides with
the more general cultural decline that had set in by the tenth Islamic century,
albeit at a seemingly accelerated rate. It would be interesting to investigate
this change and what effects, if any, it has had on modern Muslim
viewpoints concerning the ways and means of educating women. This
may shed some light on the dilemma facing so many American Muslim
communities: on the one hand, women are reminded of their sacred duty
to obtain knowledge, especially of their religion, while on the other, they
are presented with unequal and grossly inferior opportunities, when these
are compared with men’s.
This is due mainly to segregation of the sexes, for the main source of
learning in Muslim communities in the West is the mosque, just as it was
in the earliest days of Islam. But unlike those times, contemporary Muslim
women are discouraged from even attending congregational prayers. It is
true that they can learn through books and tapes, and hear an occasional
lecture that is usually open to the general non-Muslim public, but such
resources and opportunities are scarce, require considerable personal initiative
and investment, and in no way compensate for the opportunities to
learn and observe the implementation of Islam on the community level
that are available to men.
I am not saying that segregation by sex is inherently wrong or that it
subjugates women, for this, I believe, depends on the cultural context.
Cultures in which segregation is still practiced usually have developed
very distinct roles for men and women, and different domains over which
they have and exercise power. Most often, they give men even less access
210Ibid., 152-53.
178
to the women’s domain than women have to the men’s.211 Research indicates
that the great majority of women in these cultures do not view themselves
as oppressed and that they are perhaps more relaxed and confident
of themselves than are women in the West.212 Once, when I told my wife
that her culture oppresses women because they do not share in the political
process, she retorted, “So what? Men play little or no part in many
functions of our society, like arranging marriages and running homes.
Besides, Saudi women have no desire to be mayors and governors!”
Without question, an American is in a poor position to decide if segregation
by sex is right or wrong in Yemen or Saudi Arabia, because that has
to be determined subjectively and within the societies themselves. However,
it is my place to argue that the seclusion and exclusion of women is
wrong in the West. The history and culture of Western peoples is very different
from that of traditional societies, and although segregation by sex
can be put into practice in the West, the history, culture, and worldview
from which it emerged can not be transferred here. Moreover, the related
cultural alternatives that may exist for women in traditional cultures are
not found in the West. The subjective reality is that for most American men
and women, segregation, be it racial or sexual, is subjugation and oppression,
and prevents many Americans—including children from Muslim
families—from considering Islam as a viable alternative.
But cannot the same reasoning be used against the Muslim dress code?
There are some key differences.
In the first place, there is no explicit prescription in either the Qur’an
or the hadith for adopting segregation on the community level. Afzular
Rahman states the case clearly:
Similarly, the custom of seclusion (harem or purdah) was found to
have been in practice in ancient Byzantium and Persia, and from
there, it made its way to the court of Baghdad and eventually found
common acceptance in most Muslim lands. It cannot, however, be
said that these practices are based on Islamic edicts. In fact, there
is no religious edict, or at least nothing in the Holy Qur’an which
would justify such an inference. The Holy Qur’an only stresses
that they (the women) “draw their veils over their bosoms and not
display their beauty.” The historical origin of the custom of seclu-
211Abdel Kader, Social Science Research and Women in the Arab World, 147-48; Carka
Makhlouf, Changing Veils (Austin: University Of Texas Press, l979), 25-28, 44, 96-97;
Amal Rassam, Social Science Research and Women in the Arab World (Paris: UNESCO,
l984), 124-28.
212Makhlouf, Changing Veils, 25-30.
179
sion of women dates much further back, before the advent of
Islam. The restrictions on the scope of the woman’s mobility came
to gradually superimpose onto the Islamic society through the
absorption of local customs and it is this which has made them
more and more dependent psychologically, economically and
socially on their men-folk, and not the religion itself. The seclusion
of women eventually began to be regarded as a status symbol
amongst the middle and upper classes, whose economic conditions
did not necessitate the employment of women outside the home.
Her preoccupation with the family, which by now considerably
extended and served as a self-sufficient economic unit in an agrarian
economy, tended to enforce her seclusion with the family and
to limit her potentiality as a contributor towards the main stream of
life.213
The hadith literature also indicates that seclusion was at most a limited
practice in the first century of the Islamic era—probably, as Rahman
mentions, restricted to certain aristocratic families influenced by Persian
and Byzantine customs. In the most authoritative hadith compilations,
there are accounts of the Prophet and his Companions going to unrelated
(non-mahram) women to have lice removed from their hair,214 of a woman
from outside Muhammad’s family eating from the same dish as the Prophet,
215 of the wife of a Companion serving his male guests,216 of the
Prophet’s visiting a married couple in his community and conversing with
the woman about a dream from which he had just awakened,217 of a visit
to a female Companion by two male Companions and their mourning
over Muhammad’s recent death.218 The evidence leads to Abdel Kadir’s
and Levy’s conclusions that:
Veiling [of the face] and seclusion did not exist in early Arabia.
All historical accounts point to the fact that women in the early
days of Islam in Arabia and the countries that came under the
influence of the Arabs played an active role in the social and political
community. A study of the Koran and the Prophet’s Hadiths
213Rahman, Role of Muslim Women in Society, 342-33.
214Sahih al Bukhari, trans. Muhammad Muhsin Khan, vol. 2, “The Book of Hajj” (26),
Hadith no. 782 and “The Book of Jihad” (52), Hadith no. 47.
215Ibid., 65:10.
216Ibid., 62:78.
217Ibid., 74:41.
218Quoted from Sahih Muslim by Imam Nawawi, Riyad al Salihin, trans. Muhammad
Zafrulla Khan.
180
shows that there is no particular injunction that indicates that
women should be veiled or secluded from participation in public
life. . . .219 And that it was approximately one hundred and fifty
years after the death of the Prophet that the system [of seclusion
of women] was fully established. . . in which, among richer classes,
the women were shut off from the rest of the household under
the charge of eunuchs.220
The Qur’anic verses 33:33 and 33:53 are often cited as a prescription
for the general segregation of men and women. There is reason to doubt
that the limits adopted by the Prophet’s family in response to these verses
were as severe as those adhered to by present-day conservative Muslim
families. Going as far back as the third Islamic century, we find al Tabari,
in his famous Tafsir, interpreting these as a proscription against the type of
loose intermixing of the sexes that was common in pre-Islamic times, and
not as a prohibition preventing the Prophet’s wives from community participation.
221
When 33:33 was used against Aishah (one of Muhammad’s wives) for
her leading an army against Ali in the Battle of the Camel, she did not accept
her accusers’ interpretation.222 Yet even if the Prophet’s family did
adopt a severe form of segregation in response to it, one has to remember
that the verses direct themselves specifically to the Prophet and his family,
and that the same surah contains a number of edicts exclusive for them.
For example, the Prophet was allowed to keep more than four wives, was
prevented at some stage from ever divorcing them, and his wives were ordered
not to remarry after his demise. The very personal nature of these
prescripts is emphasized by the surah’s statement that the wives of the
Prophet “are not like other women” (33:32). Thus, if individuals choose to
impose upon themselves a severe form of sexual segregation, the most that
they can claim is that they are imitating what is known among Muslims as
a Sunnah, a behavior or usage of the Prophet, which, if not related to an
explicit prescript, cannot be taken as a general regulation and should not
be forced upon the Muslim public at large.223
219Abdel Kader, Social Science Research and Women in the Arab World, 145-46.
220R. Levy, "The Status of Women in Islam," in The Social Structure of Islam (New York:
Cambridge University Press, 1965), 91-134.
221Rahman, Role of Muslim Women in Society, 342.
222Abbott, Aishah: The Beloved of Muhammad, 128-76.
223Mention should be made here of the argument that the separation of men and women in
the ritual prayer attests to a general segregation. One simply has to note that in other
Muslim rituals, for example, the pilgrimage rites, no separation exists.
It is true that Islam disapproves of the indiscriminate intermixing of
the sexes, but the opposite of segregation is not promiscuity. Most converts
have personally observed that family participation in lectures and
Muslim social gatherings are the most unfavorable breeding grounds for
profligacy. Indeed, in both Makkah and Madinah, groups of families sit
together between the ritual prayers, separate into male and female groups
when the prayer is announced, and resume their places after its conclusion.
It would seem that the many moral admonitions found in the Qur’an and
the traditions, the adoption of modest dress, and the existence—at least in
theory—of severe penalties for adultery, should serve as a sufficient deterrent
to moral degeneracy, especially at religious meetings. These will not
guarantee prevention, but there are other kinds of sexual perversions that
seclusion could engender.
And, more importantly, sexual immorality is not the only nor necessarily
the greatest danger to society. The risks of squandering a great and vital
resource of knowledge and insight, of providing women with inadequate
opportunities for learning and practicing their faith, of women becoming
ignorant of their rights and of those rights being abused by male bias, are
too grave to be overlooked. As one woman convert told me, “Western
women have struggled long and hard to gain some control over their lives,
and I am not about to entrust my well-being to the good nature and judgment
of men.” Which brings us to the second major difference between a
dress code and seclusion: modest dress at this point may require a considerable
personal adjustment, but, strictly speaking, it should not hinder
women from full participation in the religious community. It may even
enhance the possibility, for although a Muslim woman’s dress is certainly
sexual, it is not sexy; it deemphasizes much of her physical or external
beauty—as the Qur’an says, “her adornment”—and accentuates her innate
strengths. In public interactions, this might place her on a more equal footing
with men.
The Woman’s Complaint
And they ask you for a judgment concerning women. Say: “God
gives you [believers] a judgment concerning them. (4:127)
And they would continue to ask up to the present. Throughout history,
religion has not been kind to women, for male-dominated orthodoxies
fused cultural biases and aversions with dogma, law, and scriptural commentary.
Twentieth-century society was bound to inquire into them, for
how can God Himself have rendered such a low judgment concerning the
character and place of women? Western Muslims, detached and/or severed
181
from the cultures that have kept and preserved Islam, are discovering in the
Qur’an and Islam a different view of women from the one they had harbored
in the past. It is true that the “male and female are not the same,” and
any honest reading has to accept this as a Qur’anic precept. But this is not
to say that one is more naturally intelligent or pious than the other. Rather,
it means that their personalities profoundly balance and augment each other
in ways that are well-suited to all the changes that society will experience.
Equally true—and this accords with the Qur’an and the traditions—
is that there is something in the characters of the two sexes that allows
men to assume leadership and dominance more readily than women. Yet
this reality does not imply that women are not fit to lead, learn, and participate,
for I believe that Islam’s textual sources are clearly open to this
possibility. One thing that it does mean is that society must be alert to the
abuse of women, because throughout the Qur’an one finds repeated
injunctions and warnings against such mistreatment. A verse such as
God has indeed heard the words of her who disputed with you
concerning her husband and complained [about him] to God, and
God hears the conversation between the two of you. Truly God is
All-Hearing, All-Seeing (58:1),
which addresses a common injustice committed by men of seventh-century
Arabia, must, because of the obvious cultural specificity of the following
verse, be read as a universal warning, to be forever heeded by the Muslim
community.
A faithful interpretation of Islam by modern Muslims most probably
will not agree completely with twentieth-century feminists’ platforms, nor
will it agree with many of the views about women found in earlier Muslim
scholarship. Once again, as on so many issues, the Muslim community
finds itself forced into being “a people of the middle way” (2:143) in its
struggle to work out what it means to be a Muslim man or woman in the
modern world.
LAWAND STATE
Unity, brotherhood, the elderly, the family, marriage, and the roles of
men and women are the main topics of discussion right now among the
American Muslim community. A survey of American and Canadian
Muslim newsletters and magazines would confirm this. Since American
Muslims are not in a strong position to influence legislation, the current
discussion on civil, criminal, and international law remains limited and
hypothetical.
182
183
There has been some effort at devising an alternative to Western banking
in accord with Islam’s ban on usury (riba),224 but, as can readily be
imagined, both the theoretical and practical problems are immense. Nearly
all Muslim economists agree that a truly suitable alternative has not yet
been implemented.225
The attention of Muslims in the West has been drawn to a few issues of
no immediate bearing on their lives. The founding of the Islamic Republic
of Iran, the numerous and multifarious calls for jihad, the death sentence by
Imam Khomeini against Salman Rushdie, and other incidents have
reopened in the West questions about Islam’s positions on government,
non-Muslim minorities, war, and apostasy. Frequently, the Western Muslim
is shocked to find himself or herself in the uneasy role of Islam’s spokesperson
to a non-Muslim culture, as microphones and television cameras zoom
in on an ordinary believer to extract his or her spontaneous sorting-out and
explication of world events.
JIHAD
Then, when the sacred months are over, kill those who ascribe
divinity to other than God [mushrikeen]wherever you find them,
and take them captive and besiege them and wait for them in every
place of ambush. But if they repent and establish the salah and
give the zakah, then leave their way free. Truly, God is Most
Forgiving, Most Merciful. (9:5)
“An Islamic state,” proclaimed the Muslim speaker, “does not simply
wage war on non-Muslim political systems. It must follow very strict
guidelines. Before it may attack a non-Muslim country, it must make every
effort to send emissaries to invite the regime and its people to accept either
Islam or Islamic rule. If the invitation is ultimately rejected, then and only
then may the Islamic government declare war against the non-Muslim
government.”
“But that’s like saying that I have to listen to your preaching or your
going to punch me in the mouth,” a member of the university audience exclaimed.
“I’d like to know,” she continued sharply, “if Muslim governments
are equally obliged, under Islamic law, to accept missionaries from
other religions.”
224Muhammad N. Siddiqi, Muslim Economic Thinking (Leicester, UK: The Islamic Foundation,
1981).
225Ibid.
Theists cannot but apprehend God’s control over the human drama, be
it through God’s ordained laws built into the total system, or through direct
and subtle manipulation, or some combination of these two. Religious
communities will often interpret prosperity as divine favor and misfortune
as divine disapproval: the latter must be on account of the nation’s collective
sinfulness and demands a return to the pure sources of faith.
The Qur’an contains persistent reminders that such a formulation is inaccurate
and oversimplified. Worldly achievement involves important
tests, and patient suffering brings great reward. Yet during the lifetime of
the Prophet, ultimate victory was heavenly confirmation of the truth of his
mission and the fidelity and sincerity of his followers.
Immediately after his death, the Muslim community found itself
locked in war, first with apostate tribes and then with the Roman and
Persian empires. Its remarkable and rapid successes, under the pious leadership
of Abu Bakr and afterwards ‘Umar, could only have further reinforced
the conviction that God was always with the Ummah and that it was
to be His instrument in establishing the universal kingdom of God on
earth. However, not all Muslims who had a part in the great conquests—
almost surely, not even most—had purely pious and non-material motives.
The spoils of war were always a strong enticement which, on many occasions,
the Qur’an and the Prophet played down in favor of the spiritual
reward for self-sacrifice in a just cause.
Let those fight in the cause of God who sell the life of this world
for the Hereafter. And the one who fights in the cause of God, and
then is [either] slain or attains victory, We shall give to him a
mighty reward. (4:74)
God has purchased of the believers their lives and themselves for
[the price that] theirs is paradise. So they fight in His cause and
slay and are slain. A promise binding on Him in truth, through the
Torah, the Gospel, and the Quran. And who is more faithful to his
covenant than God? Then rejoice in the bargain you have made:
That is the triumph supreme.(9:111)
Within a few generations after the death of Muhammad, the Muslim
empire stretched westward across North Africa to the Atlantic and eastward
through Persia and into China. Later there would be major setbacks
at the hands of the Moguls, Turks, and Crusaders. Yet the first two of
these were eventually to adopt Islam, and the Ottomans would counteract
much of the Christian conquest and, in the seventeenth century, reach as
far westward as to besiege Vienna.
184
185
The recurrence through a millennium of inevitable triumph going
back to the lifetime of the Prophet helps to explain the supreme confidence
and one-sidedness of classic Muslim religio-political thought.
Muslim scholars of the past divided the world into two mutually exclusive
domains: dar al Islam (the abode of Islam), which was the territory
ruled by Muslims, and dar al harb (the abode of war), which was to be
subjected, through conquest if necessary, to Muslim rule. Although, at
least in theory, a constant state of conflict was to exist with non-Muslim
powers, long intervals of peace and commercial and cultural exchange
did in fact transpire between the Islamic and other systems. Conversion
was not a primary objective; only subjugation to God’s law as they understood
it. As a matter of fact, Muslim rulers were usually in no hurry to
have conquered peoples convert, not only because they were constrained
by Islamic law from forcing conversions but because of the economic
benefit they often reaped from taxing non-Muslim citizens at a higher rate
than Muslim subjects.
On the whole, conversion occurred continuously but gradually. And
in many parts of the Islamic empire, Muslims remained in the minority
for hundreds of years. Western scholarship has finally dispelled the
stereotypical depiction of the fanatical Arab horseman, wielding a
sword in one hand and a Qur’an in the other, offering conversion or
death.226 As must be expected, religious discrimination did exist, but in
the pre-Enlightenment period, Muslim civilization compared very
favorably with most others—in particular, with Christian Europe—on
this score, and intolerance very rarely took the form of forced conversion.
The Muslim world is still struggling to make sense of and recover
from its unexpected humiliation and exploitation under European
colonialization, its steady decline to Third World status, and the return
of a Jewish state to Palestine, the Muslim possession of which had so
long been a living proof of the superiority of Islam over its two major
predecessors, Judaism and Christianity. Frustration erupts as depicted
on the newscasts in the seemingly perpetual calls from multifarious
sources for jihad. These calls are almost always directed against the
West or against governments—and sometimes individuals—believed to
be “puppets” of the West; occasionally, Muslims on both sides of a conflict
will even call for jihad against each other. The Western audience
watches in horror, reminded of its own atrocities committed in the past
and, in some places, still being committed in the name of God. As a
226Bernard Lewis, The Jews of Islam (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984), 3-4.
result, it fervently hopes that the separation of church and state in its
own domains is never eroded.
The deeply felt threat of religious militancy and fanaticism draws the
Western listener into a strange kind of “holy” conflict, waged to the background
of enraged cries of “Death to America!”—“Death to Israel”—
“Death to England!”—“Death to Bush!”—“Death!”—“Death!”—
“Death!” It does not matter to the listeners that the shouts are coming from
peoples who have suffered miserably under past Western imperialism and
manipulation, colonialism and neocolonialism. Most are unaware of this,
but, even if they were aware, the deep-seated paranoia that it arouses might
justify the past anyway. “The fact of the matter is that they hate us and we
hate them, and they want to kill us or destroy and subjugate us in the name
of God!” The Islam seen by the West as it “unfolds” on the television
screen has little to do with peace and mercy. To the viewer, it looks and
sounds like hatred and death.
Thanks in part to the Western media, and even more to the way the
term is presently used by the Muslim masses, jihad is almost exclusively
translated into English as “holy war” or “religious war.” However, the
primary meaning of jihad to the ancient Arabs, and also the one found in
modern dictionaries is, surprisingly enough, not fighting or killing;
rather, the Arabic qital conveys this meaning. The verb jahada (jihad
being the associated verbal noun) means “to toil,” to become weary, to
struggle, to strive after, to exert oneself. For example, the derivative ijtihad
means effort or diligence. Asurvey of the Qur’an’s usage of the verb
jahada, particularly in passages revealed in Makkah before warfare
began, demonstrates its more general connotation:
And those who strive hard [jahadu] for Us, We shall certainly
guide them in Our ways, and God is surely with the doers of good.
(29:69)
And whoever strives [jahada], he strives [yujahidu] only on behalf
of himself. Surely God is independent of all beings. (29:6)
And We have enjoined on man goodness to parents, but if they
contend [jahada] with you to associate with Me that of which you
have no knowledge, do not obey them. (29:8)
And strive hard [jahidu] for God with due striving [jihadihi].
(22:78)
186
187
Then do not obey the unbelievers, and strive a great striving
[jihadan] against them [jahidhum] by it [the Qur’an].227 (25:52)
The last verse occurs in a passage telling the Muslims to make use of
the Qur’an when they dispute with disbelievers.
A number of traditions convey the wider significance of jihad. In general,
they describe various substitutes to fighting. The hadith stating that
“the hajj (pilgrimage to Makkah) is the most excellent of all jihads” is of
another genre.228 A saying attributed to one of Muhammad’s Companions
may best illustrate the breadth of the concept. After leading the troops back
from battle, he called to those near him, “We go now from the lesser jihad
to the greater jihad.” When they asked if a more difficult military assignment
was intended, he explained that by the greater jihad he had meant the
jihad al nafs (the struggle within oneself).229 This is an eloquent summary
of the view that an individual’s earthly life is essentially an unremitting
personal struggle.
The emigration (hijrah) to Yathrib (pre-Islamic Madinah) represented
a critical transition in Muslim–pagan relations. Patient suffering would
now give way to military action. Tradition records that both sides were
conscious of its deadly implications. Hence we have the pagans’ attempt
to track and kill Muhammad before he reaches Madinah.230 Subsequently
the crucial jihad for the Muslim community would be realized in battle
(qital). The immediate problem was how to motivate the less-committed
Mulsims to risk their lives for a new ideal, when the odds seemed against
them and the promise of booty was in doubt, for the pre-Islamic Arabs
were normally much too pragmatic to fight when personal honor or
wealth was not at stake.
Fighting [qital] is prescribed for you, and you dislike it. But it is
possible that you dislike a thing which is good for you, and you
love a thing which is bad for you. (2:216)
What ails you that you do not fight [tuqatiluna, from the verb
qatala, “to fight”] in the cause of God and the helpless men,
women, and children who say, “O our Lord, bring us out of this
land whose people are oppressors, and appoint for us from
227See also Qur’an 61:11-12.
228Sahih al Bukhari, trans. Muhammad Muhsin Khan, vol. 2, “The Book of Hajj” (26),
Hadith no. 40.
229Sayyid H. Nasr, Traditional Islam in the Modern World (KPI Limited, l987), 27-33. This
hadith is attributed to Ibrahim ibn ‘Aylah and is considered weak by hadith scholars.
230Al Tabari, Tarikh al Rusul wa al Muluk, vol. 6, trans. W. Montgomery Watt and M. V.
McDonald (Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 1985), 140-52.
188
Yourself a protec-tor, and appoint for us from Yourself a helper.”
(4:75)
O Prophet, arouse the believers to the fight [qital]. If there are
twenty among you who are steadfast, they will vanquish two hundred;
if a hundred, they will vanquish a thousand of the unbelievers,
for these are people without understanding. (8:65)
Those who were left behind rejoiced in their inaction behind the
back of the Messenger of God; they hated to strive [yujahidu,
from jahada]with their goods and persons in the cause of God.
They said: “Do not go not forth in the heat.” Say: “The fire of Hell
is fiercer in heat,” if only they could understand. (9:81)
But when a surah of basic meaning is revealed and fighting [qital]
is mentioned therein, you will see those in whose hearts is a disease
looking at you [Muhammad] with a look of one fainting at
the approach of death. (47:20)231
As the Qur’an now urges the believers to battle, we note the parallel
emergence of restrictions in warfare.
Fight [qatilu] in God’s cause against those who fight against you
[yuqatilunakum]; but do not commit aggression, for truly, God
does not love aggressors. And slay them [wa aqtiluhum] wherever
you catch them, and turn them out from wherever they have
turned you out, for sedition is worse then killing [qatl]. . . . But if
they cease, God is Most Forgiving, Most Merciful. (2:190-192)
And fight them [qatiluhum] until there is no more sedition and
religion is for God alone; but if they cease, let there be no hostility
except toward the wrong-doers. (2:193)
There is no compulsion in religion. (2:256).
You will find others who desire to gain your confidence as well as
that of their people. Each time they are sent back to temptation,
they succumb to it. If they do not let you be and do not offer you
peace and do not stay their hands, seize them and slay them
[aqtuluhum] wherever you come upon them: and it is against
these that We have empowered you. (4:91)
231See also Qur’an 48:11-6.
189
But if the enemy inclines towards peace, then you [too] incline
towards peace, and trust in God. Truly, He is the All-Hearing,
All-Knowing. (8:61)
To those against whom war is made [yuqataluna] wrongfully,
permission is given [to fight], and truly, God has the power to
defend them—those who have been driven from their homelands
against all right for no other reason than their saying,
“Our Lord is God.” For if God had not enabled people to defend
themselves against one another, all monasteries and churches and
synagogues and mosques, in which God’s name is abundantly extolled,
would surely have been destroyed. (22:39-40)
These passages (emphasis mine) make it quite clear that fighting is
allowed in self-defense or in defense of victims of tyranny or oppression
who are too weak to defend themselves. It is significant that three of
these occur in the second surah, which is believed by many scholars to
be a recapitulation of the Qur’an’s major themes. The last reference may
best describe the Qur’an’s attitude toward war: it is cautionary, circumspect,
and realistic. But one finds little Qur’anic support for the use of
aggression to force non-Muslim states to accept Islamic rule. The verse
that heads this section is sometimes cited, but a quick glance at the context
shows that this passage is directed against those who, through
treachery, break their treaties with the believers. The preceding verse
reads:
[But treaties] are not dissolved with those pagans with whom you
have entered an alliance and who have not subsequently failed
you in anything, nor aided any one against you. So fulfill your
engagements with them to the end of their term, Truly, God loves
the God-conscious. (9:4)
And later,
As long as they remain true to you, remain true to them. Truly,
God loves the God-conscious. (9:7)232
232 Ibid. Verses from the ninth surah, such as 9:123 and 9:29, are often employed to justify
the conquest of non-aggressive states in order to subjugate them to Islamic rule. Not only
does such usage imply a blatant contradiction of the verses just cited, and thus the need for
a hypothetical large-scale abrogation, but, as Ali argues exhaustively in his The Religion of
Islam, it ignores both the historical and revelational contexts.
190
The division of the world by past Muslim scholars into “the abode of
Islam” and “the abode of war” reflected existing realities. Any significant
power of their day was essentially in a conquer-or-be-conquered situation.
233 Today we would like to believe that that is changing, but perhaps
the best we can do is replace the word “conquer” by the words “dominate”
or “control.” I believe we have reached a state of awareness, however, that
is uncomfortable with either notion and that accords more easily with the
Qur’anic ethics of warfare.
FAITH AND POWER
“I’m sure you know that it’s incumbent on Muslims living in the
United States to work and struggle and, if necessary, to fight to establish
an Islamic state here,” said the dean of the Middle Eastern University,
aware that tradition and scholarship were on his side.
“My idea of what makes a state Islamic might be very different from
yours,” I answered. “Do you, for example, feel that your country is an
Islamic state?”
“Of course it’s not perfect,” he offered. ‘But we’re free to practice our
faith and most of the Shari‘ah is enforced.”
“But what if we’re already free to practice our rituals here and to influence
the laws and government through democracy?”
“But democracy recognizes the will of the majority, while an Islamic
state gives final authority to God as revealed in the Qur’an and teachings
of the Prophet!”
“Might not the two converge in a society where the majority are committed
to the viewpoint that God is the supreme authority and Muhammad
is His Prophet? If the majority is not so committed, then what purpose is
served by declaring an Islamic state or a state religion?”
“What you’re advocating is secularism!”
Our conversation had ricocheted off a number of issues that vex contemporary
Muslim political discussion: the duty to establish an Islamic
state, the problem of defining what an Islamic state actually is, and the re-
233This is typified by the conquests of ‘Umar. In The Religion of Islam, Ali points out that
after Muhammad’s death, a number of Arab tribes rebelled and presented a military challenge
to the political authority of the Muslim state. The focal point of this activity was,
roughly, the western border lands with Syria and in the east (i.e., Bahrain). These rebellions
were supported with equipment and manpower by the Roman and Persian empires,
respectively. The newly emerging Muslim nation thus found itself thrust into conflicts
with these two empires. In the case of Persia, for example, even Muir admits in his History
of the Caliphate that the situation “left Umar no choice but to conquer it in self-defense.”
191
lationship between Islam, democracy, and secularism. It might be best to
consider these in reverse order.
Islam and secularism are irreconcilable. By definition, secularism implies
indifference to or exclusion of religion. It embraces the doctrine that
the basis of morality should be nonreligious, a doctrine that a Muslim cannot
accept. But secularism and democracy are not synonyms, and the latter
does not appear to be inconsonant with Islam, for democracy is government
by the people or rule by the majority. Many Muslim thinkers have seen
close parallels between the principles of democracy and the Islamic concept
of shura (mutual consultation). Democracy does not mean the exclusion of
religious convictions from government policy making; indeed, the legal
and political systems of modern democratic nations are grounded in moral
convictions that have a predominantly religious basis. And democracy does
not prevent religious groups from lobbying for their causes: the American
anti-abortion movement, the presidential candidacy of Pat Robertson, and
the recent protest of the Gulf War by the American Roman Catholic
Church, to name only a few. Thus, the word “secular,” when applied to
most Western democracies, is something of a misnomer.
A democratic system attempts to insure that every individual’s political
opinion weighs equally and that all citizens cannot be subjected to a
minority viewpoint. In a society that is homogeneously Muslim, democracy
should no more challenge the supreme authority of God than any
other system of rule. Whether or not the collective will coincides with the
divine Will would depend on the commitment and understanding of the
masses and their elected representatives.
In a pluralistic society, democracy helps to protect religious and political
freedom; it helps, but does not guarantee, for the dominant viewpoint
will naturally have greater influence. Muslims living in the United States,
for instance, are subject to marriage laws predisposed to Christianity that
conflict with their beliefs. However, the opportunity is also open to Muslims
to argue their case and to bring about a change in government policy.
Similarly, history records a fair degree of religious tolerance by
Muslim governments, especially when compared to other systems. Nevertheless,
in accordance with Islamic law, non-Muslim communities were
sometimes forbidden to proselytize their religion or to construct new
places of worship.234 For Christians, both of these are considered religious
duties. While the danger exists of offending what a minority feels to be its
right, it is the modern democratic republics that now seem to do the best
job of protecting individual rights; in fact, it is difficult to conceive of a
234Lewis, Jews of Islam, 25-26.
192
preferable alternative. Indeed, Muslims themselves often testify that in
many ways they are freer to practice their faith in the West than in the
countries from which they came.
I am not going to venture as far as to say that the Western democratic
republic suffices as a model of an Islamic state or that if the Muslim
community continues to grow in the West such a transmutation will naturally
occur. In the first place, I do not know of any existing practical
model, nor even a definition, of an Islamic state that is acceptable to a
majority of Muslims. Saudi citizens generally believe that their government
is Islamic, or at least legitimate from the standpoint of Islamic law,
but practically no Muslims outside the Arabian peninsula agree. The initial
goal of the Islamic Republic of Iran was to conform to Imam Khomeini’s
blueprint of “government by the juriconsult (faqih),”235 but supporters
acknowledge that this has not yet been achieved and that the
Iranian system is still in a state of transition. Be that as it may, the Iranian
attempt will not suit the Muslim world’s Sunni majority, for it is seen as
an essentially Shi‘ite construction. The next and least possible candidate
would have to be Pakistan, which became an independent state in August
l947. However, Pakistan, which has been under different types of military
dictatorships for much of its history, lays no claim to being an
Islamic state. And the part that Islam should play in the political process
has been a long-enduring controversy among Pakistani leaders and intellectuals.
236
In contrast to the dearth of modern models, numerous theories on
Islamic statehood have been put forth recently by Muslim writers,
ranging from theocracies on one end of the ideological spectrum to
democracies on the other.237 Almost all agree that an Islamic state must
conform to the will of God, but beyond that there are diverse interpretations
and major theoretical differences. Two areas in which there is
considerable discrepancy are the role that should be assigned to the
religious scholar in an “Islamic” state and the status of non-Muslim citizens.
235Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Wilayat-i Faqih (Tehran: 1978).
236Ishtiaq Ahmed, The Concept of an Islamic State (London: Frances Pinter, 1987).
237Ibid., 187-94. See also: Muhammad Asad, The Principles of State and Government in
Islam (California: University of California, l961); David D. Commins, Islamic Reform
(London: Oxford University, l990); Asghar Khan, Islam, Politics and State (London: Zed
Books, 1985); Metin Heper and Raphael Israeli, Islam and Politics in the Middle East
(Sydney: Croom Helm, 1984); Tareq Y. Ismael and Jacqueline S. Ismael, Government and
Politics in Islam (London: Frances Pinter, 1985); S. Abul A‘la Maududi, The Islamic Law
and Constitution (Lahore: Islamic Publications Ltd., 1980).
193
As regards the latter question, while nearly all Muslim authorities
agree that every citizen is guaranteed the right to life, liberty, and property,
restrictions on political liberty and religious belief and practices are
often imposed. In some theories, non-Muslims are allowed to propagate
their faith only among non-Muslims. Each community has its own religious
courts, but non-Muslims may be inferior before the general law
(for example, they could be disqualified as witnesses and the penalty for
the murder of a Muslim by a non-Muslim may be harsher than the punishment
of a Muslim who kills a non-Muslim), and non-Muslim citizens
may be disqualified from any substantial and meaningful participation in
the political process.238
In consideration of the widely-held view among Muslims that all the
present governments of Muslim countries are not Islamic, as well as the
great diversity of theoretical programs for Islamic rule, it is something of
a surprise to hear Muslims speak of an Islamic state as if it were a firmly
established and agreed-upon concept. It seems that the average Muslim’s
use of the term involves both a rejection and a dream: a rejection of
Western domination and the oppressive rulers who now govern Muslim
lands, and a vague vision of a utopian solution. The model of the Prophet’s
city state of Madinah is always in the back of the believer’s mind,
but little thought has been given to how that model can be adapted to meet
the needs of twentieth century society. Of course, no more than this
should be expected of the man in the street, since he is hardly ever a political
scientist. And an expert talking about an Islamic state would have to
be pressed for details before obtaining a clear idea of what he or she has
in view. One high-ranking member of ISNA (the Islamic Society of North
America) admitted to me recently that if the American people were to
accept Islam tomorrow, he would have no idea what the new converts
would do in the way of governing themselves as an Islamic society.
Despite prevailing differences of opinion and uncertainty, almost all
Muslim theorists agree that an Islamic state must have a religious basis. An
assumption that obviously follows is that its major political and legal institutions
should be led by Muslims. This much, I feel, must be conceded, or
why use the adjective “Islamic” at all? There are a few Muslim theorists
who see no problem with the democratic model, but the closer their programs
approximate Western democracies, the more the word “Islamic government”
is stripped of any real significance.239 And this is the second
cause for my reluctance to offer the modern democratic republic as a pos-
238 Ahmed, Concept of an Islamic State,87-116; Lewis, Jews of Islam, 27-40.
239Ahmed, Concept of an Islamic State, 121-62.
194
sible “Islamic” model, because it does not limit political office to a particular
religious affiliation.
The European or American Muslim is then caught in yet another
quandary: Should he/she wish for the end of his/her present form of government,
which possesses many apparent advantages and features that
seem to agree with his/her understanding of Islam, in order to replace it
with a system that remains poorly defined even now? Such discomfiture
may indicate the need for circumspection.
Muslim scholars have seen a divine blessing in the different phases
of the Prophet’s career, for it helps believers who are facing a variety of
ordeals. It is therefore natural for them to look for parallels to their own
trials in his, as well as the early Muslim community’s life experience. But
this can be exaggerated to the point at which Muslims force analogies
where there are, in reality, only superficial resemblances.
The Qur’an and the traditions testify to the fact that Muhammad and
his followers displayed tremendous patience and fortitude in their effort to
practice and propagate Islam in the hostile milieu of Makkah. It was only
after all avenues were exhausted that the community, then under severe persecution,
took the necessary action of seeking political autonomy and retaliation.
It would be fruitless to speculate what direction would have been
taken if they lived in a polity where their freedom to propagate and practice
were protected by law, for their situation was vastly different. But it seems
safe to say, along with Bernard Lewis, that “Muhammad became a statesman
in order to accomplish his mission as a prophet, not vice versa.”240
Muslims in the West—women more than men—have faced some
prejudice and inconvenience, but in no way have they encountered persecution
and intolerance on the same scale as did the early Muslims. As
long as they are able to share equally, according to their religious convictions,
in the social and political evolution of their societies, I see no
mandate to dismantle the existing democratic systems of government.
Muslim writers assert with great confidence that Islam has always fared
better in its calling in a peaceful rather than a coercive environment, and
there are already signs that Western lands may turn out to be extremely
fertile soil for its growth. A Muslim must strive to “enjoin the right and
oppose wrong” (3:110), to “obey God and His Messenger” (3:32), and to
be among the best of people “brought forth for mankind” (3:110). And at
present that opportunity exists for them more in Western lands than it
does in Muslim countries. Frankly, my greatest concern is that, should
the tables be turned, Muslims would deny others similar privileges.
240Lewis, Jews of Islam, 12.
195
APOSTASY241
“Do you or do you not agree that Salman Rushdie deserves the
Qur’anic punishment for apostasy?”
There was no way to sidestep her question, for this was already her
second attack. Almost half of the audience was non-Muslim, and the BBC
cameras were catching every word. Didn’t she consider the impact of her
words? How do you answer such a challenge without confirming others’
worst suspicions about Islam?
“I already stated that he’s a murtad (apostate).”
Please go away! What are you trying to accomplish? Didn’t you see
the media’s reaction to Yusuf Islam? It was news in every Western country!
“RIDE ON THE DEATH TRAIN,” “SONG OF THE KILLER MAN,”
“FROM FLOWER CHILD TO TERRORIST,” ran the headlines. They
talked to old girlfriends, who said that he had always had it in him.
“Does he or does he not deserve the Qur’anic punishment of execution?”
she demanded.
The scarf forced him to concentrate on the wrath in her eyes, eyes that
were sure to exact revenge for two centuries of anguish and humiliation at
the hands of disbelieving imperialists. There was no stopping them. With
a heavy heart, he sighed, “Yes. He deserves the Qur’anic punishment for
apostasy.”
“Assalamu alaikum,” she said. Then she turned from the microphone
and headed down the aisle towards her seat.
“Allahu akbar!” they shouted. “Allahu akbar!”
Conversion to Islam has almost always had serious political consequences.
More than a mere statement of belief, it has meant communal and
political identification with the Muslim community and its causes. One’s
public testimony of faith theoretically provided instant access to all the
Muslim community’s institutions and the privileges of equal partnership.
A person’s life, property, and honor became immediately sacred by pronouncing
the terse declaration, “I bear witness there is no deity but God,
and that I bear witness that Muhammad is God’s Messenger.”
It is easy to imagine how conveniently this formula could be manipulated:
to save one’s life on the battlefield, to acquire a material or political
advantage, or to deceitfully infiltrate the Muslim community. Records of
such abuses are frequent in Muslim annals. The chief means available to
241This subject is given a more thorough treatment in two modern works that challenge the
traditional ruling: Mohamed S. El-Awa, Punishment in Islamic Law (Indianapolis:
American Trust Pub., n.d.), 49-68, and Ali, Religion of Islam, 591-99.
196
the early jurists to counter this danger was to threaten the defector with execution.
Non-Muslim citizens were allowed to switch religions as they
chose, provided they did not accept Islam. However, once a Muslim, always
a Muslim. Thereafter, the only alternative was death. Of course, this
did not augment the rate of conversion to Islam. The primary concern of
jurists was not to retain community membership, but rather to prevent surreptitious
ingression.
Acrisis of belief is not always a political crisis. Many who experience
the agony of uncertainty have no worldly motivation and often admit to
envy of those who are capable of blind acceptance. Doubt can lead to rejection
of faith, the more if it is prohibited, but it can also lead to deeper
and richer faith, especially if it is given room to do battle with itself. Some
Muslim theologians, such as al Ghazali, maintained that doubt was the
first step on the road to true faith.242 Some early jurists distinguished between
doubt and deceit. The Hanafi school, for example, held that a female
apostate should not be executed, since “she is not in any position to fight
against Islam, which is the ostensible reason for putting to death an apostate.”
243 The majority view, however, was and still is that apostasy from
Islam under any circumstances demands the death penalty.
Contrary to the assertion of the speaker in the foregoing dialogue, the
Qur’an never specifies execution or any other punitive action vis-à-vis the
apostate. It mentions apostasy a total of thirteen times, but “all that these
verses contain is the assurance that the apostate will be punished in the
hereafter.”244
And if any of you turns away from his faith and dies as an unbeliever—
then the works of those will go for naught in this world
and the Hereafter. (2:217)
Indeed, those who deny the truth245 after having professed their
faith and then increase in their denial of the truth, their repentance
242Ignaz Goldziher, Introduction to Islamic Theology and Law (Princeton: Princeton University,
1981), 87-8.
243El-Awa, Punishment in Islamic Law, 53.
244Ibid., 50.
245I prefer here Muhammad Asad’s translation of the verb kafara as meaning “to deny the
truth” or “to reject the truth,” rather than the usual rendition, “to disbelieve.” Its primary
meaning is “to cover” or “to hide,” and in pre-Islamic times it was often used in the sense
of “to show ingratitude” or “to deny or reject something” (i.e., a favor or a gift). I feel that
Asad’s interpretation comes closer to the more general connotation of the term and its use
in the Qur’an. Unfortunately, as with so many terms and phrases in the Qur’an, no immediate
English equivalent exists. Toshihiko Izutsu has an interesting analysis of this verb in
his God and Man in the Koran.
197
will not be accepted; and those are the ones who have gone astray.
(3:90)
Indeed, those who believe, then deny the truth, then believe, then
deny the truth, and thereafter increase in denial of the truth—God
will not forgive them nor will He guide them in any way. (4:137)
O you who believe, if any of you turns back from his religion, then
God will bring a people whom He will love and they will love
Him. (5:54)
Whoever disbelives in God after accepting faith—excepting the
one who is compelled, while his heart remains firm in faith—but
whoever opens their breast to unbelief, on them is wrath from
God, and theirs will be a dreadful punishment. (16:106)
The Qur’an refers to two historic—and unpunished—cases of apostasy
during the Madinan period. One involved an attempt by the Prophet’s
Jewish adversaries to encourage others to leave the faith by setting an
open precedent. The other involved six Muslim wives who, after the
treaty of Hudaibiyah chose to rejoin the pagan community:
And a party among the People of the Book say: “Believe in what
has been revealed to the believers at the opening of the day but
reject it at the other [end of the day], in order that they may turn
back.” (3:72)
And if any of your wives should go over to the deniers of the truth,
and you are thus afflicted in turn, then give to those whose wives
have gone away the equivalent of what was spent. (60:11)
The command, “There is no compulsion in religion: truth stands out
clearly from error” (2:256), would seem to argue against a penalty for
apostasy outside of a manifest act of political treason. The majority trend
of those traditions of the Prophet related to incidents of apostasy also point
to this conclusion. In the first place, there are authenticated traditions in
which no action was taken against apostates. An incident is related by al
Bukhari that concerns a man who took back his pledge of allegiance to the
Prophet and then left unharmed.246 Similarly, there is the case of a Christian
who became a Muslim, served for a short time as one of the Prophet’s
scribes in Madinah, and then went back over to Christianity. He was fre-
246Sahih al Bukhari, trans. Muhammad Muhsin Khan, “The Book on the Virtue of al
Madinah” (30), Hadith no. 107.
198
quently heard making the blasphemous claim, “Muhammad knew nothing
except what I wrote for him.” Anas, the narrator, goes on to mention that
he later on died of natural causes.247
Secondly, there is the group of traditions that associate apostasy with
high treason. These include the only authenticated case of the punishment
of apostates, the case of a party of the tribe of ‘Ukul, who accepted Islam,
then apostatized and subsequently committed murder. The saying of the
Prophet, “The life of a Muslim may be taken only in three cases: the case
of a married adulterer, one who has killed a human being, and one who
forsakes his religion and separates himself from his community” is given
further elaboration in the version in Abu Dawud, where the Prophet explains
that the last category refers to “a man who went out (of the community)
to fight against God and His Prophet.”248
In classical legal texts, the hadith saying, “Whoever changes his religion,
kill him,” is used to argue for the death penalty in general cases of
apostasy.249 However, Muhammad Ali argues that this statement demands
interpretation, for, if taken literally, it implies that all converts to any religion
should be killed. He opines that the only way this statement can be
reconciled with other evidence, much of which is presented above, is to
assume that high treason is the point at issue here.250 Mohamed el-Awa
objects that Ali’s position is apologetic and goes on to present a grammatical
argument that shows that the statement could be interpreted in any one
of sixteen ways (among which are a recommendation or permission), but
not necessarily as a command.251
Regardless of what ideals have influenced Ali, I personally find his
reasoning to be sound and appropriate. Giving precedence to the Qur’an,
and in consideration of other authenticated traditions, he concludes that
one apparently incomplete fragment of a saying should not be allowed to
overrule what conscience dictates as just. El-Awa only enhances Ali’s
claim regarding the insufficiency of the particular hadith. We must allow
that cases may arise in which not all the pertinent data can be reconciled.
In such instances, I believe, one should yield to the perceived weight of the
evidence without necessarily having to reconcile every minute detail.
247Ali cites and translates this hadith from Sahih al Bukhari in his Religion of Islam, 579.
248Abu Dawud, Al Sunan, 4:223. El-Awa cites and translates this tradition from Sahih al
Bukhari in his Punishment, 52. He states that it appears in Sahih al Bukhari (Cairo: 1934),
12:169.
249Sahih al Bukhari, trans. Muhammad Muhsin Khan, vol. 4, “The Book of Jihad” (52),
Hadith no. 260.
250Ali, Religion of Islam, 596.
251El-Awa, Punishment in Islamic Law, 52-53.
In the case of the Prophet’s sayings, for example, it must be remembered
that scholars of traditions knew very well that the narrators, especially
in the first few stages, were not always reporting what they had
heard verbatim, but rather what they understood to be the sense of the
saying. This explains the variety of versions encountered in the standard
collections. Thus, while we may justifiably respect the traditions as an essential
source of information, we must be ready to approach discrepancies
analytically and realistically, to compare them with other relevant data,
and to allow for the possibility of imperfection.
While the death penalty for apostasy still has important implications for
Muslims in countries such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, and perhaps Pak-istan, it
is of little immediate consequence to Muslims now living in Western countries,
where the idea of killing a person for having second thoughts about
his or her faith is highly repugnant. The evidence resorted to in classical
texts to justify execution for a mere change of faith might better suggest
limiting such a punishment only to cases of aiding and abetting an enemy
of the state. The Qur’an, with supreme confidence, announces that “Evidences
have come to you from your Lord. Then the one who sees, does so
for his own soul, and the one who is blind, it is upon himself (6:104).” Muslims
should, in turn, be assured that their religion will prevail in an environment
where there is truly “no compulsion in religion.”
199
200
201
CHAPTER 5
Ahl al Kitab
Revelation and History: An Interpretation
In the second chapter, I mentioned that one is struck instantly by the
many Qur’anic references to Biblical prophets. In a debate I witnessed between
Gamal Badawi and Anise Shouroush, the latter remarked that seventy
percent of the verses in the Qur’an are related to Judeo-Christian concepts.
Although this is an exaggeration, unless by this Shouroush includes
the concepts that all monotheistic faiths have in common, his statement
contains a substantial degree of truth. Certainly the stories of Biblical
prophets, accounts related to the Judeo-Christian tradition, and criticism of
Jewish and Christian understandings and behavior dominate the Qur’an’s
discussions of other religions.
Orientalists are naturally skeptical concerning this and have
charged Muhammad with borrowing from Jewish and Christian
sources, citing parallels to the Qur’an in the Bible, the Talmud, Talmudic
commentaries, Gnostic Christian apocrypha, and ancient Christian
and Jewish letters and poetry.252 Many of these parallels are nothing
more than superficial similarities that can be found between any two
religions. But even where substantial resemblances exist, the diversity
and obscurity of the sources suggest to skeptics that Muhammad must
have taken much more than just a passing interest in Judaism and
Christianity—that he had mastered, or at least been exposed to, large
amounts of information, apparently unbeknownst to his followers, that
would normally be accessible only to experts.
There is, of course, another possibility: that there was a much larger
and more significant Jewish and Christian scholarly presence in the
Hijaz then has heretofore been supposed, which led to the appropriation
of Judeo-Christian traditions by the larger Arab culture. The Qur’an does
assume that the Arabs had at least a small degree of familiarity with the
Biblical accounts, but it does not indicate a shared heritage. The
Makkans may have taken a fleeting interest in the stories told by Jewish
and Christian merchants during the annual trade fairs, but no more than
252Abraham I. Katz, Judaism in Islam (New York: Sepler-Hermon Press, 1980).
that, for pre-Islamic poetry contains virtually no mention of Biblical
personalities.
For two centuries after the Prophet’s death, Muslim exegetes were
forced to look beyond the Arabian peninsula for Judeo-Christian sources
(designated as Isra’iliyat) in order to explain parallel Qur’anic passages.
This proves not only that the Arabs of the Hijaz were largely ignorant of
the Jewish and Christian traditions, but also that Muhammad left little
commentary on the subject. This observation only adds to the puzzle surrounding
the profusion of Biblical allusions in the Qur’an, for skeptics
have yet to provide a satisfactory accounting for the source(s) of Muhammad’s
knowledge of Jewish and Christian tradition or of its ubiquitous use
in the Qur’an.
It is accepted universally that the Prophet’s principal objective was to
rid Arabia of idolatry and, with the exception of a few references to the
Jews and Christians, all verses related to actual combat are directed
against the pagans. Yet the Qur’an itself contains very few explicit references
to actual pagan beliefs and practices. For example, the gods of the
polytheists are mentioned by name only once (53:19). It would seem
more natural that one engaged in a life-and-death struggle with an enemy
would direct all of his resources against the immediate danger. But from
the early years in Makkah, long before the six-year-long confrontation
with the Jews of Madinah, and in the years succeeding the removal of that
threat, the Judeo-Christian religious tradition was the main target of the
Qur’an’s attack on other faiths.
One should realize that there were other major religious influences in
the region. During Muhammad’s lifetime, Persia had the strongest political
presence in Arabia, and the Hijaz had close economic ties with India;
thus, Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, and Buddhism might have been eligible
for a little criticism in the Qur’an. Of course, it would be much easier to
build a strict monotheism on the Jewish precedent, but the same does not
apply to Christianity.
From the political perspective, who could have foreseen, especially in
the early years of Muhammad’s mission, that Rome and not Persia would
be the ultimate nemesis of the Islamic world? Much of the perceived relevance
of the Qur’an would have been lost if Persia or India had turned out
to be the more formidable enemy; but, as history demonstrates, only the
Christian West would pose a continued threat to Muslim world dominance.
The Muslims’ lightning conquest of Persia and North Africa immediately
after Muhammad’s death provided the Islamic empire with vital material
and intellectual wealth, and it would soon penetrate eastward through
India and into China. Although Muslim armies came close to defeating
202
203
Europe a number of times, it never actually happened, and ultimately
Europe rose from near total defeat to challenge the Muslim world, as it still
does today in a pivotal confrontation between the Islamic and Western cultures.
Whether one attributes it to coincidence, Muhammad’s genius, or
divine wisdom, the importance the Qur’an gives to Judaism and Chris-tianity
fits well with history’s unfolding.
Had Muslims conquered Europe, it is very possible that they might
have achieved total world domination and might never have felt the same
urgency to recapture their faith’s original power and to purge it of cultural
accretions as they do now. For example, the need to reexamine the status
and social position of women or the institution of slavery was provoked,
in large measure, by the Islamic world’s encounter with a West
that had itself recently undergone such reforms. This is not to say that
reform on these matters would have been inconceivable without this convergence
of cultures, for the Western experience argues otherwise, but it
has acted as a catalyst for rapid change. On the other hand, it is interesting
that some eminent Western Islamists, such as Gibb and Watt, have
seen in the encounter an opportunity for the Western world to recover a
lost spirituality, an opportunity that would have diminished had Muslim
society completely embraced Western culture and values that came with
colonialization.253 What such scholars have in mind is not a wholesale
conversion to Islam in the West, but a chance for a new stage of reform
and rebirth within their own faith communities by means of an interfaith
dialogue.
Almost all “experts,” for various reasons, agree that humanity has
reached a critical juncture: the current confrontation between Muslim
society and the West. On both sides, there are those who believe that the
future salvation or ruin of humanity may hang in the balance. Until now,
the confrontation has not been principally religious in character, but religion
does and will continue to play an integral part, and probably an even
greater one in the future. For many Mulsims, it is a meeting envisaged in
the Qur’an: between Muslims and the People of the Book (i.e., Jews and
Christians), with the Biblical prophets, and, hence, Judaism being the
acknowledged common ground.
Ahl al Kitab (People of the Book)
You will find the strongest among men in hostility to the believers
to be the Jews and the pagans. And you will find the nearest
253Gibb, Wither Islam, 376-79; W. Montgomery Watt, Islamic Revelation in the Modern
World (Edinburgh: 1969), 126-29.
204
among them in love to the believers to be those who say, “We are
Christians.” That is because among them there are priests and
monks, and they are not proud . And when they listen to what has
been revealed to the Messenger, you will see their eyes overflowing
with tears because what they recognize as the truth. They say:
“Our Lord, we believe. Then inscribe us among the witnesses.
And it is not for us not to believe in God and what has come to us
of the truth, and we long for our Lord to admit us among the righteous
people.” And their Lord confirmed them for what they said
with gardens with rivers flowing underneath, to remain therein;
and that is the recompense of the doers of good. But for those who
reject the truth and deny Our signs, they shall be the people of
Fire. (5:82-86)
In the Qur’an, the Jews and Christians are referred to collectively as
Ahl al Kitab (literally, the People of the Book), which points to the fact
that both communities are founded upon an originally divinely revealed
scripture. The appellation attests to their exceptional and, at the same
time, peculiar status in Islam, for they occupy an ambiguous position
between the Muslim and the idol-worshiper. For instance, certain marital
and dietary restrictions which Islam establishes vis-a`-vis non-Muslims
do not apply to Jews and Christians (5:6). In a number of verses of the
Qur’an (2:62; 3:113-15; 5:72; 22:17), Judaism and Christianity are granted
a degree of legitimacy, and Muslims are told to invite the People of the
Book to a dialogue in which they are to display the utmost courtesy
(16:125; 29:46).
The Qur’an contains numerous references to Old and New Testament
personalities, and parallels to many of its stories can be found in
the Bible as well as other ancient Judeo-Christian sources.254 Furthermore,
the Qur’an mentions that it confirms the fundamental message of
the two previous scriptures (2:89; 3:81), invites their investigation in
order to cor-roborate specific details (3:93; 10:94), and that it corrects
some points (5:16-17, 21) and elaborates on others (3:44; 5:30-34;
28:44). The Qur’an states that all previous prophets, in particular those
mentioned from the Judeo-Christian tradition, taught the same essential
truths. Therefore, it does not discount Judaism or Christianity, but maintains
that the pure teachings of these prophets have been distorted over
the years via their contact with earlier and other religions. Hence, the
Qur’an had to be sent to restore their original purity.
254Firestone, Journeys in the Holy Land.
205
Yet the Qur’an’s attitude towards Jews and Christians is not always
congenial. For one thing, as is to be expected, there was opposition from
both communities living in and around Arabia, although much more from
the Jews than the Christians. This conflict can be discerned in many passages.
The Qur’an states that the People of the Book will never be happy
with the Muslims until they follow their religion (2:120). The Jews and
Christians frequently side with the pagans against the Muslims (2:105;
5:83; 33:26), and the believers are cautioned not to take them as allies
(5:54, 60). Many of them are kafirun (deniers of the truth) (98:1, 6), although
others are entirely sincere and trustworthy (3:75, 113-114); many
are among the worst of creatures (98:6), yet others are among the best
(98:7). Before the campaign of Tabuk, Muslims are instructed to fight
against the People of the Book until they are humbled and pay the jizyah
(poll tax) (9:29).
Another factor to bear in mind is that although the Qur’an emphasizes
the relationship of Islam to the former religious tradition, it would soon
become absolutely necessary to distance the Muslim community from the
People of the Book so that Islam would not be mistaken for a Jewish or
Christian offshoot or heresy. Thus we have reports of Mu-hammad stressing
his community’s difference from the earlier communities in matters of
appearance, behavior, and practice. The Qur’anic verses that deny the crucifixion
of Jesus (4:157) and change the direction of prayer (qiblah) from
Jerusalem to Makkah (2:142) are decisive demarcations. Curiously, in an
attempt to counter previous orientalist claims that these passages were
devised by Muhammad after he failed to convince the Jews and Christians
of Madinah of his prophethood, many Muslim apologists claim that these
two passages were not associated with major breaks with the People of the
Book. But this claim can be rejected without having to deny that both
events were key steps toward establishing Islam as an independent reformative
and definitive religious movement. The Qur’an itself, in 2:143-45,
attests to this. Such unequivocal departures were of the utmost necessity,
considering the microscopic size of the new community in comparison to
its two predecessors.
The Qur’an also opposes certain dogmatic and practical features of
Judaism and Christianity. Both religions are censured for giving too much
authority to their clergy (9:31), for their claims to exclusivity (2:111,
135), for committing excesses in their religion (4:171; 5:80) such as
Christian monasticism (57:27), and, as Muhammad explained, for “making
lawful things unlawful and unlawful things lawful.”255
255Ibn Kathir, Tafsir al Qur’an al ‘Azim, 1:137.
The Qur’an strongly denounces certain doctrines prevalent among the
earlier scriptural communities. Among these, is the use by Jews and Christians
of the phrase, “son of God.” For example, we read:
The Jews say ‘Uzair is a son of God, and the Christians say the
Messiah is the son of God. That is a saying of their mouths. They
imitate what the deniers of truth of old used to say. (9:30)
It singles out Christianity in particular for formulating the concept of
the Trinity:
Do not say, “Three” Cease! That is better for you. God is one God.
Glory be to Him, [high exalted is He] above having a son (4:171),
and for the widespread practice among several major sects of worshipping
Jesus and his mother Mary:
And when God will say: “O Jesus, son of Mary, did you say to the
people, ‘Take me and my mother as gods besides God?’” he will
say, “Glory be to You, it was not for me to say what I had no right
[to say]! If I had said it, You would have known it.” (5:116)
Most contemporary Christian theologians agree that the expression,
“son of God,” is symbolic and that the concept of the Trinity says something
about three means by which God reveals Himself to man and about
His involvement in our earthly lives. It is therefore now a common practice
among Christian critics of Islam to trivialize the above-mentioned passages
by stating that Muhammad did not understand the subtlety of the
concepts of the son of God and the Trinity. They maintain that he must
have been unaware of the intricate theological concept of the three hypostases,
the complexities inherent in the mystical doctrine of the son of
God, and that he must have mistakenly included Mary as one of the persons
of the Trinity. It very well may be the case that the Prophet had little
personal knowledge of these enigmatic tenets, but these conclusions are no
more than interpretative conjectures that are very difficult to prove based
on the Qur’an.
It is quite obvious from the text that the issue for the Qur’an is the use
of dogmatic statements that are easily misunderstood and misleading, not
anyone’s particular Christology. As the Qur’an’s main problem is with the
wording of these tenets, it stresses that “the Jews say,” “the Christians say,”
and “Do not say” in the above verses, for these expressions “imitate” and
206
could lead to idol-worship and it would be better to avoid such language.
Even though Judaism and Christianity each uses the expression “son of
God” in different senses, they are warned of the inherent danger in the
words themselves. The fact that the Qur’an does not substitute “they
believe” for “they say” in these references argues for an awareness that the
symbols are open to a range of theological interpretations. Thus we find
other passages that include some Christians and Jews among the true believers
in God.
But the Qur’an is here not so much concerned with theological postulates
as it is with the effect of these formulations on the common man. As
a result of these phrases, the average Jew may come to believe that Jews
alone are God’s beloved people (5:20), and the average Christian could
very easily misread these doctrinal statements and understand, incorrectly,
that Jesus is God or the “begotten” son of God, and that he and even his
mother should be objects of supplication and worship. Even today, if you
ask any Christian if Jesus is literally God’s son and if he should be worshipped,
he or she is more than likely to respond in the affirmative, while
Catholics are likely to say that Mary, the mother of Jesus, should also be
worshipped. Thus 5:119 is not a reference to the Trinity but to this very
real hazard. That the Qur’an’s concern is with the misleading character of
the above-mentioned doctrinal phrases is evidenced further by its own references
to Jesus as “a messiah,” “a spirit,” and “a word” from God, in effect
indicating that these Christian descriptions are acceptable and not exclusive
to Jesus.
The function of the Qur’an’s account of the Jews and the Christians is
not simply to chide them or to relay information. It also includes a portrayal
of those human tendencies and weaknesses that are always there to
undermine the purity of any community’s worship and a partial explanation
of why the prophetic office was terminated. Concerning the first matter,
it is sufficient to say that Muslim scholars have repeatedly criticized
the faithful for having committed the same errors as their predecessors. Ibn
Hazm of Barcelona complained that the practice of taqlid (blind acceptance
of scholarly decisions arrived at during the first three Islamic centuries)
is in blatant imitation of “they have taken their rabbis and priests as
Lords beside God” (9:31). There are still Muslims who pray to saints at
gravesites and beg them for their intercession, and many Muslims continue
to repeat the same claim of a Muslim monopoly on God’s mercy and
forgiveness.
On the second point, the question is often asked: Why was there a
final prophet? For the early Muslims, this question stretched across the
chasm separating Muhammad’s leadership from the corrupt order that
207
was currently ruling them. Not surprisingly, it was soon tied to the question
of divine justice and mercy, for why would God so directly guide
man throughout history and then suddenly leave him to himself until the
end of creation? Two responses—and there were many others—that were
formulated survive today as the two major factions of the Muslim community:
the Sunni and Shi‘ah. Rather than review these, we present
another, although not opposing, point of view.
True faith, from the standpoint of Islam, is based on belief in the unity
of God (tawhid). A natural corollary to this, which is also a major Islamic
belief, is the essential oneness of man. Every monotheistic faith must
come to terms with both of these strains, which are by no means always
harmonious in earthly practice. The story of the Children of Israel is about
a people who are uniquely receptive throughout much of their history to
monotheism, yet who live in a predominantly pagan milieu. Outside
influences, which penetrate their community with great frequency, cause
them to waver at times from the teachings of their prophets. In the
Qur’an, they appear as a nation involved in a constant struggle between
pure monotheism and heathen pressures, which, in part, explains their
need to insulate themselves from their social surroundings and their
attempt to preserve and protect their racial and cultural purity. But they
came to see themselves as God’s chosen people, to the exclusion of all
others, and as sons of God in the Old Testament sense of the term. As a
result, because of Muhammad’s non-Jewish origins, they could never
accept the final Messenger of God, even though he confirmed the essential
message of the revelation in their possession. The Qur’an blames
them repeatedly for their refusal in this regard. In short, Judaism, although
successful in preserving the belief in one God, was unable to
accept the oneness of man under God.
While Christianity goes back to the same Biblical roots, unlike
Judaism, it is a universal religion. Its coherence derives from an intense
spiritual yearning to know and to be loved by God. Thus, while the Jews
and the pagans of the Arabian peninsula were stubbornly closed to a message
that departed from their traditions, the Christians are shown to be
more easily affected by its spiritual force (4:85-89).
The difficulty that universal faiths encounter is the great diversity of
the peoples they absorb, for they bring languages, ideas, symbols and cultural
practices that could potentially distort the original faith. From the
Muslim view, such was the case with Christianity. Although it embraces
all mankind, its tenets compromise pure monotheism and it lends itself too
easily to associating others with God. In this way, the Judeo-Christian experience
exemplifies the dilemma faced by all the great world religions:
208
209
monotheism or universalism were invariably compromised in attempting
to preserve one or the other.
Islam also struggled, and still does, with these internal tensions, and
extreme measures would be taken by the mainstream to protect both implications
of tawhid. Philosophical and mystical speculation were discouraged,
all aspects of life were systematized into religious law, and all
innovative thought was forbidden through the adoption of taqlid. Of
course pressures continued to arise, but, for the most part, Islamic orthodoxy
succeeded in placing the major sources and principles of early
mainstream Islam on ice, so to speak, preserved in a type of suspended
animation that would eventually be transferred intact to the present time.
Whatever the cost to Muslim civilization of the rigorous steps taken by
these earlier Muslim scholars, the two major features of tawhid, the oneness
of God and the oneness of humanity, were successfully united in
Islam and passed on to future generations. For Muslims, this is one
example of how God, through Islam, completed His favor to mankind
(5:3).
Muslim-Christian Dialogue
And do not dispute with the People of the Book except with what
is better, unless it be with those of them who do wrong, and say:
“We believe in what was revealed to us and revealed to you; and
our God and your God is One, and we have surrendered to Him.”
(29:46)
Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching;
and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious.
(16:125)
Woe to you scribes and pharisees, hypocrites that you are! You traverse
mountains and valleys in search of a single convert, and
when you make a convert, he becomes twice the child of Hell that
you are! (Matthew 23:15)256
It would seem more likely that Muslims would engage in dialogue
with Jews rather than with Christians, for, at least in matters of dogma,
Judaism and Islam are quite close. But, surprisingly, almost all of the current
interfaith conversation is between Muslims and Christians. One possible
reason might be that the Arab-Israeli conflict and the antagonism of
256May and Metzger, The New Oxford Annotated Bible.
210
the Qur’an towards the Jews of Madinah may incline Muslims more towards
Christians. However, the fact that Christianity and Islam compete
for converts probably has more to do with it, as each community views the
other and not Judaism as its main religious threat.
In the past, Jewish scholars played an important mediating role between
the competing communities. There have also been notable Jewish
converts to Islam, such as Muhammad Asad and Maryam Jameelah, both
of whom have made significant contributions to Muslim thought.257 But the
political climate has limited current Muslim dialogue with Jews mostly to
the issue of Palestine, and even here there has not been much direct communication.
The titles of this section and the next reflects this unfortunate
situation.
It is quite easy for meetings between members of different faiths to
degenerate into a kind of religious warfare. Propaganda and tactics of
promoting and defending something in which we are so personally involved
is unavoidable, but it leads often to deceit and mistrust and the
subsequent blocking of truthful communication. The goal of collectively
moving closer to the truth is obscured by other ambitions.
In colonial times, Christian evangelism was supported by various
European states as one wing of a program for world domination; accounts
of coercion and fraud abound and are not easily forgotten. Muslims may
have been comparatively better, but they were also guilty, as evidenced
by the so-called Gospel of Barnabas, a blatant forgery surfacing in
Muslim Spain in the twelfth century and which is still in wide circulation
in the Islamic world today. Things have improved considerably, for we
live in a period of greater tolerance and Western research into Islam has
grown more independent of church and state. Even clerics like Montgomery
Watt and Kenneth Cragg have shown commendable objectivity,
fairness, and insight—more, it has to be admitted, than Muslim writers
have demonstrated toward Christianity.
An accurate appraisal of how far apart you are involves a true assessment
of how close you are as well. In this respect, the Christian side in
the dialogue is much further along, for Christian understanding of
Islamic thought is much greater than Muslim knowledge of Christianity.
Regardless of past motivations, the acquisition of this knowledge is a
great help when it comes to sharing perspectives. Muslims who wish to
engage in fruitful dialogue should become students of Christian thought.
What is required is more than merely reading the Bible and borrowing
from ancient polemics; Muslims need to study the development of Chris-
257Asad, The Message; Jameelah, Western Civilization Condemned by Itself.
tianity from the Christian point of view, and both sides must bear in mind
that religious perspectives within each tradition are varied and changing.
There also needs to be a mutual willingness to learn as well as to teach,
for each can gain from the other’s experience. Christians have wrestled
with modern rationalism and secularism much longer than Muslims and
have had to differentiate between scientific-historic data and the use of
legends and traditions in the growth of their religion. Their findings are
bound to affect Muslim thought, for there are many parallels in Muslim
and Christian sources. It is therefore necessary for Muslims to study these
developments both critically and cautiously. And, in spite of its abrupt
collision with this secular age, Islam has thus far been able to maintain its
hold on the Muslim masses, including the great majority of the Islamic
world’s intellectual leaders. It continues to provide a spiritual haven to the
faithful in an increasingly mechanistic and impersonal world, and is gaining
many adherents in the leading industrial countries. In the continued
resilience of Islam, there are important lessons for Christians.
Another volume and much greater expertise would be needed to do
some justice to this subject. However, I would like to share a few impressions
I had after attending a recent dialogue. Actually, it was a two-part
discussion. The title of the first program was “Jesus: God or Man?” and
the second was entitled “Is the Bible or the Qur’an the Word of God?”
The titles indicate that the programs were sponsored by Muslim organizations.
Judging from announcements in Muslim newsletters and magazines,
these are very popular themes for Muslims in the United States, yet from
the start they obscure some of the most basic issues. For example, Christian
theology maintains that Jesus is neither God nor man but that he is
uniquely possessed of both natures. Also, for Christians, the definitive revelation
is not the Old nor the New Testament but Jesus Christ himself. The
Bible is no longer seen by most Christian theologians as pure revelation
(that role belongs to Christ), but as a synthesis of inspiration, interpretation,
commentary, and witness. The Old Testa-ment is believed to herald
Jesus’ coming, and the New Testament serves to witness and explain it.
From the Christian perspective, a more appropriate contrast than the Bible
and the Qur’an might be a Jesus—Qur’an and New Testament—hadith
analogy. A title such as “Revelation in Christianity and Islam” might better
accommodate the viewpoint of Christians.
AChristian might argue that whereas the Qur’an, at least for Muslims,
is the eternal and uncreated word of God revealed as a book or as script,
for Christians Jesus is the eternal and uncreated divine word revealed in
the person of Christ. In their belief system, Jesus not only verbally com-
211
municated a revelation, but his every action, emotion, word, and impulse
revealed the eternal word of God. Inasmuch as the revelation was authentically
human, Christians view Jesus as fully and truly man, and, inasmuch
as the word of God was made manifest by his humanity, he is also truly
divine.
At times, Muslim speculation about the mystery of Muhammad’s
prophethood shows similar tendencies. Supported by the Qur’anic verse
that states that Muhammad, “does not speak of his own desire” (53:3)—
even though the context shows that this refers to the revelation of the
Qur’an—the notion arose that every utterance of Muhammad and, by extension
his every deed, no matter how mundane, was revealed to guide
mankind. This is despite the fact that the Qur’an emphasizes repeatedly
his humanity and confines his role to that of messenger, warner, and
teacher (25:56; 27:91-93). In consequence, the imitation of any of Muhammad’s
most mundane habits is believed by many to possess immense
spiritual reward. Orthodoxy would avoid deeper theorizing on the connection
between the Revelation and its recipient, but, in some aspects,
Muslim veneration and emulation of Muhammad outstrips that accorded
to Jesus by Christians.
Both Christians and Muslims will find this Jesus—Qur’an and New
Testament—hadith analogy wanting in many respects. For one thing, its
brevity cannot possibly do justice to the development of Christian theology,
as it cannot bring to light the philosophical difficulties discussed nor
the grave consequences perceived, that were behind the formulation of
Christian dogma. It also does not convey adequately the Christian perception
of God’s very personal entry into mankind’s struggle by His revelation
in Jesus. The Muslim’s objections might be more pragmatic. He
would maintain that while Muslims admit a close connection between
God, His word, and prophethood, they represent different levels of existence.
Just as he does not worship creation, which indeed manifests God,
he neither worships the Qur’an nor prays to Muhammad, even though
God is made known to man through both. In addition, he would counter
that the definitive revelation of Muslims is for all to examine and judge,
but that in the case of Christianity, one must rely on secondary sources.
We can no longer experience directly the person of Jesus, but we can still
experience the Qur’an and either accept or reject it. From the Muslim perspective,
it would be as if the Qur’an no longer exists, yet one was to
believe that it was a divine revelation based on the Prophetic traditions
and later communications.
The doctrines of the Trinity and the divine sonship of Jesus are not
revelations, for all dogmas are nothing more than proclamations worked
212
out and agreed upon by religious authorities over the course of time. A
dogmatic statement is something that, when arrived at, represents a formula
acceptable to those who frame it, that allows for their individual
understandings. Even though a dogma sets boundaries for the community,
it is open to different interpretations within the community. To appreciate
it correctly, one has to go back to the intellectual and social atmosphere
that gave rise to it.
In the case of Christianity, this means returning to the Palestine,
Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch of the early centuries after Christ. It means
studying the Hellenic and Judaic cultures that influenced it, learning the
ideas of the Greek philosophers and their modes of expression, and reentering
the debates at Nicea, Ephesus, and Chalcedon.
The environment into which Christianity was born was markedly different
from that which nurtured nascent Islam. The early Church fathers
were inheritors of a rich merging of advanced cultures. Unlike the early
Muslims, their first concern was not state government and legislation, but
establishing the philosophical integrity of the emerging faith in an atmosphere
charged with competing religious and ideological currents.
Whereas for the Muslims religious scholarship principally meant law, for
the Christians it meant theology.
Philosophy and metaphysical inquiry, while never stifled completely,
were discouraged by Muslim orthodoxy because of the risks they posed
to monotheism, especially at the level of the common believer, who was
considered unequipped to wrestle with the subtleties of logic and symbolism.
To a large extent, Islam was willing to sacrifice speculation to preserve
correct worship and practice. The history of Christianity, on the
other hand, is dominated by church councils in which the most profound
theological mysteries were expounded upon and debated. Whereas the
Muslim scholar kept close to the man in the street, elaborating a comprehensive
system of conduct for the faithful, the Christian theologian soared
to philosophical heights that were far beyond the reach of laymen. To this
day, the theologies of the Muslim scholar and layman are not very different,
while the Christian theologian and layman appear, from the outside,
to be very far apart.
Muslim schools of thought did debate theological issues, not under ecclesiastical
authority and not in synods but on a scale large enough to generate
inquisitions and persecution. And unavoidably, some dogmas were
formed and preserved: the uncreatedness of the Qur’an, the createdness of
the world, the doctrine of qadr (predestination), the theory of the abrogation
of Qur’anic verses, and al Ash‘ari’s anti-dogmatic dogma of bi la
213
214
kayf.258 The great concern of the Muslim scholars engaged in these disputes
was to safeguard monotheism at almost any cost.
By contrast, Christian theologians were determined to preserve not
only monotheism but also the conviction that God, in Jesus, had entered
history in order to save mankind. They elaborated a complex and subtle
theology that is by no means logically absurd or ridiculous. Such an opinion
underestimates the genius that went into centuries of near continuous
philosophical refinement. But the question is not whether a fully consistent
theoretical system has been or will be reached at some point in time,
for a logically consistent system may be unrelated to reality, but how close
it is to the Message originally preached and how effective is it in guiding
the believers to submission to God. The same should be asked of every
dogmatic formulation of any religion, Islam’s included.
We often reach a point at which a dogma becomes so far removed
from its beginnings that it either loses its relevance or, far worse, becomes
misleading. In our efforts to hold fast to it, we begin to sound like a person
who makes an erroneous statement and then, rather than admit his
error, insists on his original dictum and thus interprets it in a way contrary
to the generally accepted sense of the words. When this is the case, might
it not be better to discard it altogether, or at least replace it with a new
formulation?
Within the Muslim community, this and related questions about the integrity
and authority of certain textual sources are sometimes asked, but
not with the same frequency and urgency as they are in modern-day
Christianity, which now appears to be nearing a state of crisis. In the dialogues
I have seen so far, each side tends to gloss over or deny the existence
any hint of internal controversy. But this is sure to change as the two
communities become better acquainted.
The Israeli-Palestinian Problem
Racism is one of the darkest inculcations of childhood. Bridgeport,
Connecticut, when I was growing up there, was made up of many unassimilated
cultures. It was a melting pot that had not yet begun to simmer.
Bigotry was much more evident there than in the Midwest where I now
258The phrase bi la kayf has the literal meaning of “without [asking] how.” This doctrine
holds that the anthropomorphic references to God in the Qur’an reveal truths but should
not necessarily be taken literally. Thus it states that a Muslim should accept the truth of
such statements without insisting on knowing exactly how they are true. Watt might say
that such statements “diagram” certain truths. See Watt, Islamic Revelation in the Modern
World, 80-90.
live, for you were in daily contact with the objects of your prejudice. Of
the racial slurs we hurled against each other, the word “Jew” is unique in
that it was not a corruption of or departure from a word that defines an ancestry
and because it is a dictionary term. Another distinction is that it was
not only used to deride Jews, but would be used, sometimes alone or in
combination, against persons of any race. For the gentiles, it had different
shades of meaning, including miserliness, cowardice, and dirtiness.
I remember how the young kids from our neighborhood would ambush
little Jewish boys on their way home from the synagogue, yelling,
“Get the Jew!” or “Kill the Jew!,” chasing them down the street. And unlike
others, their parents rarely if ever complained to ours. Was it a part of
their upbringing? I wondered. Did they come from a long line of publicly
humiliated laughingstocks? How utterly weird to be chastised by the word
that merely describes your descent! How often in later years I listened to
adult friends of mine, who, after knowing me for some length of time,
would privately confess their Jewishness, as if they were confiding that
they were ex-convicts. Some would go as far as to divest themselves of
Jewishness altogether by adding, “It’s only a religion that I don’t believe
in any more.”
Through my first marriage, I obtained an inside look into Jewish family
life, which turned out not to be as unusual as I had presumed. The only
thing that struck me as definitely peculiar was how uncertain they saw
their existence, how convinced they were—and their relations and friends
as well—that what had happened in the past could happen again, and that
even in the United States the political climate could change quickly.
Although some Jewish organizations make it their onus never to allow the
Nazi Holocaust to be forgotten, I can hardly recall anyone in my first
wife’s family mentioning it by name, although it was alluded to frequently.
True enough, this unspeakable tragedy is exploited for propaganda purposes
by Zionists, but that does not detract from the fact that the Nazi
death camps have sunk deep into the Jewish soul and have been added to
the centuries of persecutions that are relived cyclically in their religious
rituals, where even humor is some times called upon to relieve the sadness
of their history.
I recall a conversation with my ex-wife more than three years after our
divorce, in which she told me that she had lately resumed using her maiden
name. When I asked her why she had not done that long ago, especially
since the divorce was her idea and there had been no hard feelings on
either side, she explained that she had received much better treatment
when her last name was Lang: “They assumed I was German.” No bitterness
nor sorrow was implied, for she said it half-jokingly, yet what should
215
216
have passed as insignificant was for me an eye-opener that fit together
many bits and pieces.
Until then I had thought that American Jews worried most about the
future—that the horrors of their past might someday return. But her statement
made me perceive a more pervasive anxiety and realize that, for
Jews, there are probably times when many feel it advantageous to conceal
their identity, when they hope that certain strangers do not discover their
secret. And I wondered how, under such circumstances, one avoids feelings
of guilt and self-reproach. Perhaps this is an exaggeration on my part,
but if such anxieties are prevalent among American Jews, the long chronicle
of atrocities suffered by Jews in Europe and Russia would certainly
justify them.
Muslim readers may protest that the situation of Jews in Muslim
lands was much better than in the Christianized countries. This opinion
finds support in Bernard Lewis’s recent study.259 He points out that before
the Age of Enlightenment in Europe, the best chance for Jews to find a
tolerant environment and one in which they could advance was to be
found in Muslim lands. But the author also shows that Jews in the Muslim
world did not enjoy complete equality of rights and opportunities. In
Islamic law for example, evidence given by Jewish and Christian subjects
(collectively classified as dhimmis) was not admissible before a Muslim
court. In addition, their lives had a lower value than that of Muslims when
it came to the bloodwit compensation that had to be paid for an injury.260
Also, many Muslim law manuals insisted that Jews and Christians should
be subjected to a number of petty humiliations: a dhimmi must ride an ass,
not a horse; he must not sit astride his animal, but ride sidesaddle, like a
woman; he must not carry a weapon; he must be distinguished from
Muslims by his dress; and restrictions on housing are frequently mentioned.
261
In spite of various expressions of inferiority, Islamic law guaranteed
Jewish and Christian communities a large degree of autonomy and “in
most respects the position of non-Muslims under traditional Islamic rule
was very much easier than that of non-Christians or even of heretical
Christians in medieval Europe, not to speak of some events in modern
Europe.”262 Lewis describes their legal status as one of second-class citizenship,
but he cautions that the phrase deserves a closer look.
259Lewis, Jews of Islam.
260Ibid., 27.
261Ibid., 35.
262Ibid., 62.
217
Second class citizenship, though second class, is a kind of citizenship.
It involves some rights, though not all, and is surely better
than no rights at all. It is certainly preferable to the kind of situation
that prevails in many states at the present time, where the
minorities, and for that matter even the majority, enjoy no civil or
human rights in spite of all the resplendent principles enshrined in
the constitutions, but utterly without effect. A recognized status,
albeit one of inferiority to the dominant group, which is established
by law, recognized by tradition, and confirmed by popular
assent, is not to be despised.263
We should also note that Jewish and Christian citizens were treated
more or less the same under Islamic law, and that persecutions of either
minority were rarely condoned by the government.
Even though Jews living under Muslim rule generally had it better
than those living under Christian rule, from a twentieth-century point of
view their existence was precarious in either case. Their well-being and
survival depended on the goodwill and mercy of the majority, as they
had no outside political power to represent them or to exert pressure on
their behalf. I feel that political Zionism was inspired and impelled by
this perception, and that it also accounts for the practically unconditional
support given by many American Jews to the State of Israel. I do not
believe that that support from the Jewish masses is based primarily on
greed or racial pride or chauvinism; rather, I believe it derives from very
deep-seated fear and tribulation. Ironically, the creation of the State of
Israel may eventually lead to the very catastrophe that it is supposed to
avert.
A full account of the histories of the Palestinians, Zionism, and the
modern state of Israel is needed to appreciate the passions involved in the
current Palestinian-Israeli conflict. I only provide here a very brief sketch
and refer the reader to fuller treatments in the notes.264
Historians agree that the ancestors of the great majority of the Arabs
of Palestine did not come to Palestine with the Muslim conquest, but
that they are primarily descendants of Semites whose tenure of Pales-
263Ibid., 62.
264William W. Baker, Theft of a Nation (Las Vegas: Defenders Publications, 1982); Beatrice
Erskine, Palestine of the Arabs (Westport, CT: Hyperion Press, 1976); J. M. N. Jeffries,
Palestine: The Reality (Westport, CT: Hyperion Press, 1976); Edward W. Said, The
Question of Palestine (New York: Times Books, 1979); Frank C. Sakran, Palestine: Still
a Dilemma (Pennsylvania: Whitmore Publ., 1976); Clifford A. Wright, Facts and Fables:
The Arab-Israeli Conflict (London: Kegan Paul International, 1989).
218
tine goes back at least three millennia before Christ and is “probably
one of the simplest and longest in the world.”265 The ancient Hebrews
arrived in Palestine much later, approximately fourteen hundred years
before Christ. At first they established small settlements in the hills and
lived in peace with their neighbors. At a later date they took up arms,
and a great deal of their ensuing warfare is recounted in the Old
Testament. The state or states established by the Israelites in Palestine
were destroyed by the Assyrians in 700 BC and by the Babylonians in
550 BC.
The duration of ancient Jewish territorial possession of Palestine was
ephemeral. Before the time of David, the settlement of the twelve tribes of
Joshua was purely nominal;266 only during the reign of David and Solomon
did anything like Jewish possession of what we call Palestine exist. Eight
hundred years afterwards, the Maccabees re-established the Jewish power
that had faded with Solomon, but only for a very short span did it perhaps
reach again the dimensions of David’s and Solomon’s days. Baker states
that Palestine is:
the country where Jews had once upon a time (over 2000 years
ago) established a state for a relatively short period of historical
time. The same “state” eventually broke into smaller states.267
The argument for a Jewish historical claim to Palestine is therefore untenable.
The possession by force of scattered parts of a territory for a few
centuries more than two thousand years ago no more entitles today’s Jews
to that land than it would entitle today’s Arabs to Spain, which they possessed
for several centuries. In addition, Baker points out that:
the present day Jews now occupying Palestine are but mere
fragments and in no way traceable to the former Hebrews or
Habiru who once conquered the land of Canaan. . . . Those
Palestinian Arabs still living in Palestine are true descendants
of the original semitical inhabitants. Their roots do not lie in
Syria or Lebanon, Jordan or Egypt, but rather the only country
they have ever known as their homeland, the land of Palestine.
268
265Jeffries, Palestine: The Reality, 6; Baker, Theft of a Nation, 5-6.
266Jeffries, Palestine: The Reality, 8.
267Baker, Theft of a Nation, 7.
268Ibid., 6.
219
He adds:
Those Jews in 1897 who desired to once again possess Palestine as
their homeland were in no way connected with the Semitic Jews of
some 2500 years previous. This is attributable to the admixture of
blood through marriage; but it is also due to the large number of
non-semites who were converted to Judaism. The classic example
of this occurrence is the Khazzar tribe living in present day Russia.
Their wholesale conversion took place in the 8th century A.D., and
many of the present Jews are descendents of this tribe.269
Nonetheless, it was upon the “historic connection” argument that
Zionists in the early part of the twentieth century pressed their claim to
establish a national Jewish homeland in, and eventually encompassing,
the land of Palestine.
Zionism, which had its beginnings in the nineteenth century, was a
Jewish movement to re-establish a Jewish nation. For some, this meant a
spiritual restoration and a return to their religion, neither of which entailed
a desire for territory. Many others, however, envisioned turning the Syrian
province of Palestine into a Jewish nation. The two approaches are differentiated
by referring to the former as spiritual Zionism and the latter as
political Zionism (hereafter, when we speak of Zionism, we will be referring
to political Zionism).
In 1915, the British government pledged itself, according to the terms
of the Hussein-McMahon Treaty, to “recognize and support the independence
of the Arabs within the territories included in the limits and boundaries
proposed by the Shareef of Mecca.” These boundaries upon which
Shareef Hussain of Mecca, “as representative of the Arab peoples,” and the
British government agreed encompassed Palestine. In return, the Arabs
under Hussain’s leadership pledged to join the Allied forces in World War
I in their war with Turkey. The Arabs fulfilled their pledge and fought commendably.
270 In 1919, the French and British governments, in the Joint
Anglo-French Proclamation, confirmed the terms of the earlier pact with
Shareef Hussein and explicitly guaranteed Arab rule in Palestine and other
Arab lands.271
Between these two dates, however, the British had concluded two
other agreements that were incompatible with the promise made to the
269Ibid., 9.
270Jeffries, Palestine: The Reality, 64-87.
271Ibid., 238-40.
220
Arabs. In 1916, the British and French negotiated the Sykes-Picot Treaty,
which divided the still unconquered Ottoman empire, including the Arab
lands, into British and French “zones of influence.” In 1917, the famous
Balfour Declaration, in which the British government committed itself to
“the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people,”
was issued. The Balfour Declaration reads:
His Majesty’s Government views with favour the establishment in
Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use
their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object,
it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may
prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish
communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed
by Jews in any other country.272
This Declaration, which was the proclaimed foundation of British
government policy in Palestine for the next thirty-one years, conceals a
number of important points. Its brevity suggest that it was drafted hastily,
an assumption that is far from the reality. M. Nahom Sakalov, writing
about the Declaration in his History of Zionism, states that “every idea
born in London was tested by the Zionist Organizations in America, and
every suggestion in America received the most careful attention in London.”
Leonard Stein says about the Declaration in his Zionism that “It was
issued after prolonged deliberations as a considered statement of policy.”
Stephen Wise, an American Zionist leader, writes: “The Balfour Declaration
was in the process of making for nearly two years.”273
Another salient feature of the Declaration is its vagueness, all the
more remarkable in view of the just-mentioned comments. Certainly, a
document drafted so meticulously over a two-year period should have
spelled out precisely what was meant by “the civil and religious rights of
the non-Jewish communities” and what their not being subjected to
“prejudice” would entail. The Shaw Commission, one in a long series of
commissions sent by the British government to Palestine in l930 to
investigate continuing and growing racial unrest, complained that the
Declaration was open to “a wide variety of interpretations” and recommended
that the government should state clearly its policy towards
Palestine.274
272Ibid., 170-71.
273Ibid., 172.
274Ibid., 613.
221
Along the same lines, the reference to non-Jewish communities in
Palestine elicits our attention, since it leaves the impression that the Jews
were in the majority in Palestine when the Declaration was issued. The
fact of the matter is that at that time 9l per cent of the population was
Arab and only 9 per cent was Jewish.275 Note too that the non-identification
of the Arab segment is intentional, for the refusal to recognize the
existence of Palestinians was an early Zionist policy that persists until
today.276
The document’s ambiguity was not, according to the Zionist leaders
quoted, due to hasty or casual drafting; it could only have been intentional.
As Jeffries documents, it was meant to obscure the ultimate Zionist
scheme of converting all of Palestine into a Jewish state and the British
government’s commitment to support this program up to its logical conclusion.
In the meantime, the Balfour Declaration was seen as only an intermediary
step towards the Zionist ideal.277
At the close of the World War I, the Palestinian Arabs anticipated their
political independence as promised in the McMahon-Hussain Treaty. In
the succeeding years, they discovered that not only did Britain have no intention
of honoring its pledge, but that they were to have forced upon
them, under the British mandate, a massive immigration of European
Jews. In 1914, 9 per cent of the population of Palestine were Jews, while
the rest were Arabs. By 1922, the Jewish population had risen to 11 per
cent; in 1931 it had increased to 17 per cent; and by 1947 the Jewish share
in the population of Palestine was 31 per cent.278
Monopolies over the land’s natural resources were granted to Zionist
companies. Zionist firms were encouraged to buy up cultivable land over
the heads of the population from absentee landlords or from “Arab vendors
who were in such poverty that they had no recourse but to sell, in order
to pay their taxes and meet their wartime debts.”279 The economic
impact on the Arabs was devastating. Unemployment skyrocketed and a
huge landless class of poor people was created. Palestinian outrage intensified,
as would that of American citizens if our government allowed the
purchase and colonization of large blocks of the richest American soil by
foreigners with the aim of eventually establishing an independent country
thereon.
275 Jeffries, Palestine: The Reality, 177.
276Wright, Facts and Fables: The Arab-Israeli Conflict, 2-5; Edward W. Said, A Profile of
the Palestinian People (Palestine Human Rights Campaign, l983), 3-4.
277Jeffries, Palestine: The Reality, 142-85.
278Wright, Facts and Fables: The Arab-Israeli Conflict, 4.
279Jeffries, Palestine: The Reality, 429-55, 704-705.
222
Throughout the l920s and l930s, disorders continued, with a constant
stream of Arab delegations traveling to London to present their case, but
to no avail. In return, Palestine received an almost equally constant stream
of commissions, followed by British government-issued White Papers that
sought to evade the findings of the commissions. The Crane-King Commission
of l9l9, the Haycraft Commission of l921, the Shaw Commission
of l930, the Hope-Simpson Commission of l930, and the French Commissions
of l931 and l932 all concluded that grave injustices were being committed
against the Arab Palestinians; that Jewish immigration should be
greatly curtailed or suspended indefinitely; and that a government that represented
the population should be installed.280 The record of the British
mandate of Palestine was one of thirty-one years of broken pledges, violations
of international laws, outright treachery, dishonesty, and deceit.
Much of the same, but on a far greater scale, was to be continued with the
creation of the State of Israel.
What has been shown thus far allows us to dispel some common American
misconceptions on this issue. The average American’s understanding
is that after World War II, Jewish victims of the Nazi Holocaust began
immigrating to a mostly uninhabited Palestine with the aim of living
peacefully side by side with the tiny Arab population, and that a short time
later, in response to outbreaks of racial violence, the United Nations partitioned
Palestine into an Arab sector and a Jewish sector, which was soon to
become the State of Israel. Thus, the reasons for the existence of the State
of Israel are believed to have been the Holocaust and the Palestinian Arab
hatred of Jews.
But, as we have seen, the Zionist agenda of transforming the whole
of Palestine into a Jewish nation was launched long before World War II
began. In l914, Palestine was neither uninhabited nor, as Israel’s former
Prime Minister Shimon Peres once put it, an “empty desert”; on the contrary,
it was the populous homeland, well-known for its fertility and
beauty, of a contemporary society.281 The cause of Palestinian people’s
outrage was not prejudice, but the result of being cheated out of their
promised independence and the subsequent displacement from their
land.
The Partition scheme of l947 was not the reaction of the United
Nations to sudden unprecedented civil strife in Palestine, for it was first
proposed by the Peel Commission in l937. While authorities agree that
relations between Arabs and Jews in Palestine were on the whole amiable
280Ibid., 272-95, 420-25, 604-29, 637-51.
281Said, Profile of the Palestinian People, 2-4.
223
before the influx of European Zionist settlers, violent clashes between
Arabs and Jews began to occur shortly after the Zionist invasion, going as
far back as the Jerusalem riots of l920.282
On the eve of the partition, the Jews made up 32.5 per cent of the total
population of Palestine and had acquired 5.77 per cent of the total land
area. The United Nations’ partition granted the Jews sovereignty over 56
per cent of the total land area, ten times as much as they actually owned at
the time.283 Forty-five per cent of the inhabitants of the partitioned territory’s
Jewish sector were Arabs, a large number of whom were to be expelled
through Zionist terror and atrocity in the succeeding months. In
1940, Joseph Weitz, the administrator responsible for Jewish colonization,
clearly stated the final goal:
Between ourselves it must be clear that there is no room for both
people together in this country . . . . The only solution is a Palestine
without Arabs. And there is no other way than to transfer the
Arabs from here to the neighboring countries, to transfer all of
them; not one village, not one tribe, should be left.284
Massacres by the hundreds of unarmed men, women, and children occurred
at Deir Yassin, Ein al Zeitun, Lydda, Safsaf, Saliha, and Duwaima.285
An Israeli soldier provided the following chilling account of the slaughter
at Duwaima: “They killed some eighty to one hundred Arabs, women and
children. Their children were killed by smashing their skulls with clubs.”286
An extremely effective Zionist tactic was the broadcasting of frightening
radio messages in Arabic, urging Palestinians to flee from their homes for
their lives.287
The expulsion effort met with considerable success. Between 1 April
1948 and 15 May 1948, four hundred thousand Muslim and Christian
Palestinians fled from their homes in the Jewish sector, becoming
refugees for the first time in their history. The latter date, 15 May 1948,
celebrated the birth of the present-day “State of Israel,” after which Zionist
tactics became even more ruthless and explicit. The British military
historian Edgar O’Ballance wrote:
282Jeffries, Palestine: The Reality, 329-35, 661-69.
283Baker, Theft of a Nation, 15-16.
284Wright, Facts and Fables: The Arab-Israeli Conflict, 16-17.
285Ibid., 20-21.
286Ibid., 21.
287Ibid., 18-19.
224
No longer was there any “reasonable persuasion.” Bluntly the
Arab inhabitants were ejected and forced to flee into Arab territory,
as at Ramleh, Lydda and other places. Wherever the Israeli
troops advanced into Arab country, the Arab population was bulldozed
out in front of them.288
In the ensuing struggle, termed the l948 War, four hundred thousand
additional Palestinian refugees were created, leaving only one hundred
sixty thousand Arabs in the Jewish state, and by December the Jews were
in possession of 78 per cent of the total area of the country. By 5 June
1967, as a result of the Six Day War, the ranks of Palestinians driven from
their homes had swollen to 1.5 million. The government of Israel, in violation
of section 11 of UN Resolution 194, has forbidden them to return to
their lands or properties.
Since its birth, Israel has fought five major wars with the Arabs and
has been involved in additional conflicts and conflagrations, such as the
1978 invasion of Lebanon. The wars occurred in 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973,
and 1982. Israeli propaganda claims that the Arabs started all of these, but
statements on record of Israeli political and military leaders show that in
all but the 1973 war, Israel perceived no threat to its security and was the
clear aggressor.289
Since the 1967 war, Israel has occupied the whole of Palestine. The
West Bank and Gaza Strip are referred to as the Occupied Territories and
remain under an oppressive military rule. In 1982, there were almost two
million Palestinians living inside Palestine, half of them living inside
Israel and the remainder in the Occupied Territories. In the same year,
there were just over 2.5 million Palestinians living outside Palestine.290
The Israeli policy of settling the Occupied Territories with Israeli Jewish
citizens continues unabated, despite its being in violation of international
law and despite the perfunctory protests of the government of the United
States. Such international agencies as UNESCO, Amnesty International,
and the Red Cross have been disseminating information for years on such
human rights violations as the demolition of Palestinian houses, the
seizure of Arab lands, the maltreatment of Palestinian workers, and the
torture and illegal detention of Arab prisoners.291
Before turning to the Muslim response to the Palestinian tragedy, I
wish to address the widely-held notion that Jews have a moral-religious
288Edgar O’Ballance, The Arab-Israeli War (New York: Praeger, 1948, 1957), 171-72.
289Wright, Facts and Fables: The Arab-Israeli Conflict, 121-38.
290Said, A Profile of the Palestinian People, 14.
291Said, The Question of Palestine, 37-48.
225
title to Palestine. Undoubtedly Jews have been the victims of terrible
persecutions in the past, especially during World War II. Yet the Jews are
not the only people to have suffered cruelty at the hands of others, and
their past suffering does not entitle them to usurp another nation’s land
and property.
The wholesale theft of Palestine and the continued violation of the
Palestinians’ basic human rights will not ease the pain of the victims of
the Holocaust. In reality, it only serves to dishonor the great sacrifices that
were made and denies the lessons to be learned. Today Zionists are often
heard saying that their persecution of the Palestinian people does not
compare to the Holocaust. In terms of actual human suffering, that may
be granted, but what makes the injustice committed against the Palestinians
all the more immoral is that it is perpetrated by those who should
so readily and immediately empathize with their affliction. With regard to
the so-called Biblical or religious justification, which involves resurrecting
already fulfilled prophecies with self-serving interpretations, it is
even more despicable, because it implies that God encourages racism and
injustice in bringing about His will. This argument not only prostitutes
justice and morality, but religion as well.292
For every action there is an inevitable reaction, and the global Muslim
response to the Palestinian tragedy has by now solidified into the unified
conviction that Israel and its supporters are determined opponents of Islam
and its adherents. There is no issue that arouses Muslim ire more than the
plight of Palestine. This resentment is not engendered only by sympathy
for their Muslim Palestinian brethren—the recent Gulf Crisis showed how
fragile those bonds of brotherhood actually are—but is much more direct
and personal. For Muslims, the State of Israel is the last living vestige of
their debasement and dehumanization at the hands of insolent colonialists,
a persistent reminder of their exploitation and manipulation by Western
imperialists, set in a land which is sacred to them and a place of pilgrimage
from which they are debarred. It therefore stands as the supreme
example of Jewish and Christian European contempt for Islam. For many
others, it is an apocalyptic battle ground heralding the End of Days.
These themes are recited and rehearsed in Friday sermons throughout
thousands of American mosques, and Muslim rage festers and strengthens
with each passing day. As the oppression of the Palestinians continues, this
rage takes on an increasingly ugly side. Jews are categorized as the
accursed of God, the initiators of all the sins of mankind, the implacable
292Baker, Theft of a Nation, 58-105; Wright, Facts and Fables: The Arab-Israeli Conflict,
164-69.
226
archenemy of Muslims.293 Archaic, pernicious Eastern European anti-
Jewish propaganda pieces such as the forgery, The Protocols of the Elders
of Zion, are sometimes cited and endorsed. Not long ago I attended a public
lecture in which a Muslim speaker attempted to convince Americans of
a global conspiracy by arguing that the Jews control the media, citing
Steven Spielberg, Woody Allen, Mel Brooks, and Ted Koppel as proof. An
approach of this sort defeats the very cause that it attempts to represent.
The first thing that must be stressed is that not all Jews are Zionists
and not all Zionists are Jews. Some of the most effective spokespersons
against Zionism, from its very earliest days up to the present, have been
Jews. Jeffries gives ample testimony to this in his book.294 There is also the
other side of the coin: so-called Christian Zionists. Prominent examples of
such people are Jerry Fallwell and Pat Robertson.
Such statements as “the Jews control the media” are exaggerated and
prejudicial, giving the impression that all American Jews are collaborating
in a vast, illegal manipulation of the press. To be sure, there are very
powerful pro-Israeli organizations and lobbies in the United States that
exercise great influence over the communications industry, as former
congressmen Pete McCloskey and Paul Findley testify; but they also
point out that, for the most part, these groups operate in compliance with
existing American laws.295 A more pragmatic approach is to expose the
extreme pro-Israeli bias of the news media and American foreign policy,296
as the key to Zionist success has always rested on diffusing a false reality
in the West and on keeping the Western public misinformed. Once that is
recognized, the task facing Muslims becomes obvious. Muslims in
America should organize politically and begin immediately, if only on the
local level, to present the truth of the Palestine situation to their fellow
Americans. They do not need to voice paranoid exaggerations, but simply
to state the facts, which cry out so resoundingly against an enduring
injustice.
In the wake of the Gulf crisis, hope among supporters of the Palestinian
people has diminished. We often hear pessimistic admissions that time,
as many Zionist claim, may be on the side of Israel; that sometime soon,
through continued colonization and coercion, Arabs will be driven from
the Occupied Territories and the international community will come to recognize
all of Palestine as the State of Israel. But if there is any hope for
justice for Palestinians, those in the United States who support them must
293Lewis, Jews of Islam, 185-89.
294Jeffries, Palestine: The Reality, 112-13.
295Paul Findley, They Dare to Speak Out (L. Hill Books, 1989).
296Said, Question of Palestine.
227
not surrender to despair. Of all the causes dear to America’s Muslims, this
is the one upon which they can have the most impact.
I disagree with the notion that time is with the Zionists. It is predicted
that by the year 2000 the majority of American citizens will not be Caucasian;
consequently, it will not be at all surprising if these citizens identify
more readily with the Arab Palestinians than with their oppressors.
Furthermore, Islam is the fastest growing faith in the West, and it is
expected to be the second largest religious community in the United
States by the turn of the century. This voice is bound to be heard. Thirdly,
American public opinion is already beginning to move away from support
of Israel, and the more Americans come to know that their tax dollars
are essential to the successful perpetration of heinous crimes against
humanity, the faster, I believe, public opinion will change.297 Finally,
America’s power, military and economic, is not eternal nor invincible.
Signs are that it is already declining, while Muslim nations are becoming
stronger. Eventually Muslim governments will undoubtedly yield to
democracy and as a result will pay closer attention to the will of the populace,
which is more committed to the problem of Palestine than their
current rulers.
Today, the Palestinians are advocating what is known as the two-state
solution. This calls for the creation of an independent Palestinian state
formed from the Occupied Territories. However, in many ways this seems
less than equitable, for it delivers only a small fraction of what was
promised and what is rightfully owned. But it represents the desire of the
Palestinian people, and we should give it our total support. It is hoped that
Israel will consider the proposal carefully, before the political pendulum
swings in the opposite direction and the opportunity to achieve a peaceful
settlement disappears altogether.
Ties of Kinship
I do not remember where the imam of the mosque was driving us in his
van, but a few sentences of our conversation have stayed with me ever
since.
My dear friend Hamed and I were talking about my parents, and he
asked me if they had become Muslims. When I told him that they are very
297Horrible atrocities have been made possible through American government funding.
One terrifying demonstration occurred in Lebanon in September l983. After the withdrawal
of the PLO from the Sabra-Shatila refugee camp in Beirut, the Israeli army surrounding
the camps sent in troops of the Lebanese Christian fascist party, known as the
Phalange, who proceeded to massacre one thousand Palestinian men, women, and children.
The killing continued uninterrupted for thirty-six hours as the Israelis watched.
committed Christians, Hamed reminded me that God is the final judge and
that His mercy encompasses all things. I appreciated his concern and
openness.
“What is the opinion of the scholars on the fate of Jews and Christians
in the hereafter?” he asked the imam.
“Those who died after the time of Muhammad,” the imam pronounced
coolly, keeping his vision fixed on the road, “are in the Fire.”
I was so deeply hurt that I was speechless for the rest of the trip—not
because I believed in his statement, but because it was delivered with such
utter frigidity and authority. This was exactly that type of thinking that had
driven me from religion more than twenty years ago.
During my youth, wherever I went, there was always a crucifix nearby:
in every room of our house, hanging from the mirror of the car of the
neighbor who drove us to school, above the blackboard in our classrooms,
dangling from people’s necks, and above the altar at church. It was an
omnipresent and woeful image of a man who had just expired, who seconds
earlier had sought forgiveness for his persecutors; and, in his death,
we found the assurance of forgiveness and love. For us, it was a sign of an
impenetrable mystery that held the secret of our existence, our suffering,
and our sinfulness. In Catholic schools, the Church doctrines were practically
never discussed and, for the children, they required no explanation.
We saw in the image on the cross the coming together of God and humanity
with all the passion, suffering, and grace that such a symbol entails,
and, for us, this tragic death was an eternal sign of our salvation.
When I became an atheist, I discarded the cross. But there was also a
sense of personal loss, for our symbols have such power over us that when
we lose them, we lose something of ourselves that may not have a ready
substitute. After ten years of atheism, I had put the crucifixion far behind
me and, when I found fulfillment in Islam, there was nothing in the Qur’an
to make me feel the need to believe in the crucifixion again—in fact, quite
the contrary.
Perhaps this may pose a greater difficulty for those who converted directly
from Christianity. Indeed, the Docetic interpretations of the
Qur’an’s denial of the crucifixion, which made their way into Islam
through heretical Christian channels, probably stem from this difficulty
faced by early Christian converts. And even though I am no longer
attached to the symbol of the cross, I strongly resent suggestions from any
quarter that toss aside, usually insensitively, the Christian experience or,
for that matter, anyone’s religious experience. Most people do not cling
to their beliefs (or disbeliefs) for the sake of mere convenience or out of
228
stupidity, for it is just not that simple, but rather out of feelings of emptiness
and desperation. Unless we are ready to approach each other on matters
of faith with deep humility and sympathy, it is best to leave that task
to others.
It is surprising how many converts to Islam accept the opinion of
Muslim scholars on the ultimate destiny of their non-Muslim family members.
For while the Qur’an criticizes and corrects the People of the Book
on a number of counts, their fate is clearly left in God’s hands. As stated
earlier, unlike most Muslims, the Qur’an acknowledges that there are true
monotheists among them, at the same time warning them that some of
their beliefs are misleading and harmful.
Definitely, according to the Qur’an, some of the Jews and Christians
are kuffar (rejecters or deniers) and some of their beliefs are incorrect, but
it must be stressed that the Qur’an consistently uses the words, “min ahl al
kitab (among the People of the Book)” in these reprovals. It is one thing
to stubbornly reject or avoid confronting truth, but quite another to not be
able to see it as a consequence of one’s intellectual and cultural limitations,
after a genuine attempt to do so. I myself must confess that although I am
committed to Islam, the way most Muslims represent their beliefs does not
make sense to me because my frame of reference is quite different from
theirs.
In addition, we must humbly admit that, in comparison to the wisdom
of God, all our knowledge is insignificant and our fates will be determined
by how we respond and what we do with what we know, with all our limitations.
A fellow Muslim once protested that if he accepted my point of
view, he might as well become a Christian so that he would not need to
perform the prayers and fasting. “You’re missing the point,” I told him.
“It’s because you truly believe in Islam that you must submit to it.
Otherwise, by leaving your religion, you would be turning your back on
what you understand to be true.”
In any case, the Qur’an makes it clear in three almost identically
phrased passages (2:62; 5:69; 22:17), revealed at three distinct times, that
non-Muslims are not automatically excluded from salvation. The early
Muslim exegetes sensed a possible conflict here and opined that the Jews
and Christians referred to must have been those who lived before the time
of Muhammad. However, neither the Qur’an nor the accepted sayings of
Muhammad warrant this interpretation.
It is true that the Qur’an insists that no religion finds acceptance with
God but Islam (3:19; 3:85), but one must remember that, at the time of the
Revelation, the Arabic word islam did not yet stand for a thoroughly elaborated
system of laws and dogmatic principles. To the Arabs, islam meant
229
complete submission or surrender, and in the Qur’anic context it refers to
a sincere and willing self-surrender to God, which is the essence of all true
worship of God. We are not in a position to determine the extent to which
another’s faith is based on this intention. On these matters, we have to allow
God, in His infinite wisdom and mercy, the final word:
Those who believe [Muslims] and those who are Jews and the
Christians and the Sabians—whoever believes in God and the
Last Day and does righteous deeds, for them, their reward is with
their Lord, and there shall be no fear on them nor shall they grieve.
(2:62)
PARTING THOUGHTS
Grant lived on the outskirts of the Mission District, one of the poorer
sectors of San Francisco, where he rented the bottom floor of a small,
aging two-story house. It had been his home for over a decade and, thanks
to rent control, it was too good a bargain to let go of, even if the neighborhood
was steadily deteriorating.
A block from his flat, and from the turnpike, was the San Francisco
Islamic Center, which, in more prosperous times, had probably been a
warehouse. If one did not happen to notice the small marker above the side
entrance, it could still easily be mistaken for one.
Grant walked passed the Center almost every day on his way to the
bus stop, so he knew what it was and why Middle Eastern and Indo-
Pakistani men clad in traditional attire visited it frequently. His fascination
with religions led him to pay his first visit to the Center, which
would lead inevitably to his conversion, for he would not be fully satisfied
until he actually experienced the religion. Yet he proceeded, as always,
cautiously, requiring several visits before he made his Shahadah. “It’s better
to take your time before deciding,” they warned him, “because the
penalty for leaving Islam is death.”
I met Grant a week after his conversion, which was about three weeks
after mine. At that time, he was only the second white American Muslim
I had seen. Six months later, he left Islam. He returned to it a year after
that, left again to join the Sikhs for a short stint, and then became a Buddhist.
Before Islam, he had tried several other religions: Catholicism,
Russian Orthodoxy, and Judaism among them. Now he was in limbo
again. “I change religions more often than I change my socks,” he used to
230
say. But for Grant it was hardly a joke. Rather it was an admission of one
failure after another to satisfy his love for God and to find the community
of faith where that love could be realized and lived. “Islam has the best religion,
but the worst believers,” he would say, quoting a well-known
Muslim writer. I did not agree completely, but I had never put much hope
in humanity anyway. Yet for Grant, the religious community was at least
as important as the religion’s ideology.
Through his many conversions we remained friends. Quite often,
both before and after I got married we had dinner together, and our
conversations were almost exclusively about religion. Our strong friendship,
together with his rejection of Islam and his general indecisiveness
about religion, had made me question and examine my own commitment
continuously and closely. For me, Grant became a spiritual guide, asking
questions that I had not thought of but needed to, unintentionally
forcing me to explore deeper and deeper within myself. He was my spiritual
Khidr, my blue-eyed, sharp and witty, Irish-green pilot into so many
contradictions. What was it going to be like without him, I thought, as I
veered towards the exit that would take us to his house.
“It is awfully hard to serve God—to truly serve Him!”
My first impulse was to agree with him, because the line between serving
God and ourselves is so infinitesimally thin.
“Maybe we’re more demanding than He is, Grant. Maybe God only
wants us to keep trying.”
Darkness takes away distractions; it sensitizes. It was past midnight. I
lay in bed on my right side, my right hand tucked under the pillow beneath
my head, kept awake by a nagging question on divine justice. Suddenly I
was distracted by an eerie sense that something was different. I lay perfectly
still, alert to the faintest movement.
The murmur of the night had slipped away, displaced by soundlessness.
A strange sensation began to fill me, at first faintly, then radiantly,
with no clear transition. I felt I was evaporating into an infinity of tiny
atoms, held together by an overpowering tenderness.
I waited for it to subside, but it grew from intensity to intensity, to the
point at which I thought this had to be my end. I was consumed by dread
and awe and yearning. My body froze, locked in expectation.
The presence seemed greater behind me, over my shoulder. I slowly,
timorously reached out with my left hand into the darkness, not daring to
turn my head from the pillow to look back. With a surge of power, I was
submerged in love, dissolved in inundating kindness. Freed, my resistance
dissipating, I thought back to my family. “Please take care of my daughters
and my wife!”
231
Then I reverted to a state of calm. I could hear the buzz of crickets outside
my bedroom window and the quiet sound of a car gliding down our
street. I tried to interpret what had just happened. I felt protected and fostered
and a sense of deep longing—and disappointment in myself. To this
day, I have been unable to remember the question I was tackling.
“I do love God, Jeff!”
“I know you do, Grant. I never knew anyone who searched so passionately
as you.”
Passing the Islamic Center on our left, we made a right onto Ogden
Street. I stopped the car in front of Grant’s apartment, turning the tires into
the curb.
Some people are able to express themselves so effortlessly. They can
capture, order, analyze, interpret, and relate what they are feeling in a single
breath. I had not planned any parting words. If I had, I probably would
have told Grant how glad I was to have known him, how much I had
gained from our friendship; that I was looking forward to Kansas—a new
place is a chance to grow—but that I would always remember him.
The dream recounted in the first chapter had sustained me through the
long turmoil and uncertainties of conversion. I used to recite the story of
it to myself and others; I wrote it down so that I would never forget it, so
that I could always fall back on it for support. In time, it gave way to my
daily reading of the Qur’an, supplanted by its captivating call from
Heaven.
Both of them are still important to me, but the experience of God’s love
in prayer and contemplation now far overshadows them, and yet I am ever
more aware of my weaknesses and failings. I know now that if I lose God
again, then I have surely lost it all, and I plead, along with Rabi‘ah al
‘Adawiyah: “O my God, would you really burn this heart that loves you
so?” And I find comfort in her answer.
I walked Grant over to the stairway of his apartment. “Take care of
yourself and keep in touch,” I told him as we shook hands. Something in
the moment told me—and I think Grant, too—that we would never see or
hear from each other again. Over the years, I tried calling and writing
him. I also had friends in the Bay Area try to locate him, but to no avail.
“Al salamu ‘alaykum, Jeff,” he said, smiling reassuringly.
“Wa ‘alaykum al salamu wa rahmat Allah.” And may God’s peace and
mercy be upon you, always.
232





http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Lang

No comments: