The New Nation - Internet Edition

David Barker

Living Islam Out Loud is one of the best non-fiction works I have read in a long time. It is a collection of pieces by Islamic women living in the United States. Their stories reflect a diversity of experience - from growing up within the tradition-laden strictures of immigrant families, to Afro-American women who are children and grandchildren of Nation of Islam founders. A common theme beneath these accounts is the hyphenated nature of existence for Islamic women living in a predominantly secular/Christian culture.

When I was a child growing up within Ontario's public education system, I was exposed - like thousands of others my age - to a social studies curriculum that betrayed more than a small hint of anxiety about the Canadian identity question. How were we to resist the looming presence of American culture creeping up from the south? One answer, as a matter of educational policy, was to teach us that there were differences, however subtle. One difference was the American melting-pot/Canadian mosaic distinction. Both countries are peopled predominantly by immigrants imposed on dwindling native populations. When immigrants come to America, there is a tacit expectation that they will blend in, dress in jeans, eat at McDonald's, watch Hollywood movies, and (of course) learn to speak English. But in Canada, perhaps because of Québec's presence as a constitutionally protected "distinct society," there is less pressure - at least officially - for newcomers to blend in. We belong to a mosaic. The hyphen is essential to our identity. And so we are Indian-Canadian, Euro-Canadian, Chinese-Canadian, and so on.

Sometimes I'm skeptical whether there is any truth to the official indoctrination we received as children. However, at least conceptually, we understand what it means to have a hyphenated identity, and, at least conceptually, we have little problem with the idea that a person might want to assert the part they have brought with them from their homeland. And so the voices I encounter within Living Islam Out Loud strike me as more assertive than necessary. Then I remember: I am not an American reader.

One of the boldest pieces within the collection is "The Muslim in the Mirror," by Mohja Kahf, and it perfectly illustrates the demand to be acknowledged as distinctive, She writes: "If there's anyone I was more sick and tired of than Muslims, it's Muslim-bashers. No one is allowed to criticize Islam and Muslims but those who do it from love. Those who do it from hate, step aside. And step aside, those who do it as a way to fame and fortune funded by neo-conservatives who think they can kaCHING up genuine "reform" in Islam and manufacture docile little McMuslims for the maintenance of U.S. McHegemony in the world. Neocons can kiss my Islamic ass."

Not exactly the writing we expect from our stereotypical woman of Islam, demure in her hijab! But that is one of the points of the book - with women claiming identity from so many different sources, there is no such thing as a stereotypical woman of Islam.

Perhaps it is increasingly difficult for people in the U.S. to maintain the story of America as a cultural melting pot. I think of Ada Maria Isasi-Diaz, author of En la Lucha (In the Struggle): A Hispanic Women's Liberation Theology, who writes of mujerista theology among Hispanic women in America. There is a growing trend among Hispanic women to expect not only their faith, but also their social services, including education and health care, to happen on their terms, to be delivered in Spanish, and to be sensitive to the particularity of their culture and history as a distinctive people. What may strike some Americans as uppity (or even as bordering on treasonous) is a 350-year-old fact of life on Canadian soil - and no one seems to be worse for it. In fact, the converse may be true. It may be that we find ourselves enriched for allowing those we encounter to live on their own terms. Could America be moving in the same direction?

However, it would be misleading to suggest that the women contributing to this collection are primarily engaged in struggles against a hegemonic American culture bent upon pouring them into Barbie molds. For many of the contributors - certainly all those born to immigrants - the greatest points of tension arise from within Islam. The question of hijab is the least of their worries. Or perhaps, by its many different understandings, it reflects the complexity of life for women. For some, wearing hijab is an attempt at earnest devotion, for others, a bold assertion of identity, for still others, a great way to deal with a bad hair day, but for many, it represents views of sexuality whose unhealthiness has intensified once transplanted to American soil. Surprisingly (for a Westerner like me), if there is oppression of women, few of these writers find it in Islam itself. Like the Bible, the Qu'ran can be interpreted to support all sorts of nastiness, but these women read it in ways which affirm them. Instead, most oppression in their experience arises from an insecure foothold in a strange new land.

So, for example, Samina Ali tells how she came with her family to Minneapolis from Hyderabad, India. When she married, she had to be a virgin. If not, she would be useless to her husband and would bring dishonour to her family. Along with her Islamic friends (making lasting friendships with Americans was out of the question), she was married off to a young man from India.

"Our parents plucked these men out of their homelands for this very reason: the daughter's purity should match her groom's, a man not exposed to and perhaps even controlled in some invisible way by demonic Western possession. In this manner, the daughters of the community became mere vessels of parental legacy."

Utterly naive, Samina Ali blamed herself when, after the wedding, her husband refused to touch her and was repulsed by her body to the point of vomiting. She was convinced that she must have done something wrong. Even after he confessed that he was gay and left her, she continued to believe that her own faithlessness was to blame for the failed marriage. Family and friends disbelieved her story and assumed she was slandering her husband. Her husband could not possibly be gay; she was merely failing in her duties as a wife. What followed was the difficult work to establish a sense of herself apart from family and faith, before re-entering her faith with a more mature understanding.

But we must be careful not to presume too much sexual oppression. "A Day In The Life," a poem by Su'ad Abdul-Khabeer, makes it clear that if we use Western mores as our yardstick, we may find ourselves on questionable ground:

"And their mani-pedi

consorts

talk smack,

frontin'

like they kick it

with freedom on the regular

their angular

sentiments

under the guise

of liberty.

Free yourself!

they tell me,

patting my hand

tugging my scarf,

From the tyranny of Faith -

So t

I can be neatly chained

to a thong?"

Another struggle from within Islam arises from the segregationist practices of many mosques, which require women to use separate entrances and to pray behind a curtain or wall. In 1994, only one-third of American mosques had instituted this practice, but by 2000, the number had risen to two-thirds. In "Being the Leader I Want to See in the World," Asra Q. Nomani tells how, despite feelings of inadequacy, she found herself inevitably challenging the practices of her mosque in Morgantown, WV. It began as personal indignation, and grew into a national media event that brought about change and resulted in "An Islamic Bill of Rights for Women in Mosques " and "An Islamic Bill of Rights for Women in the Bedroom."

Although this book is about gender and identity and asserting power over one's own destiny, all these themes get rolled into a larger theme - this is a book about spirituality. It isn't surprising, given that Abdul-Ghafur serves on the Board of Directors of the Progressive Muslim Union, that her book includes several progressive contributions. So, for example, Mohja Kahf concludes her piece with two wonderful paragraphs that seem to rise out of Islam resonate across the faiths. They begin with:

"tI began to free myself of the false god who lived within, the god whose obsession is obedience. I had been battered by an internalized idea of this god. My prior clumsy attempts to make my way around him by myself gave me that crazy schizoid feeling - that I must be doing something terribly wrong in going outside the house of tradition, disobeying, while a yaqin-certainty told me that not to do so violated everything I knew to be sacred."

And near the end, Inas Younis offers "My Son The Mystic," which grounds some of the most profound reflections on the nature of spirit in the experience of dealing with an autistic child. Her reflection runs in two directions. Looking one way, she asks: how could it be wrong for her to make room for ego when it was the absence of ego which lay at the heart of her son's disease? And looking in the opposite direction: was there not something strangely holy about her son who lived permanently in a state that only the holiest of Sufi mystics ever knows? While the challenge which Younis must confront differs considerably from the challenges of the other contributors, she follows their path insofar as she rejects a simplistic understanding of Islam and moves to a more mature engagement with her faith. Perhaps that is all any of us, whatever our faith, can or even should aspire to.

(Review of the book 'Living Islam out loud: American Muslim women speak' edited by Saleemah Abdul-Ghafur)

Sheikh Hammoud bin 'Uqlâ ash-Shu'aybî

Much has been said in an effort to define terrorism. The opinions and understandings expressed so far have been contradictory with respect to the concept, and despite the many definitions and terms which have been placed for the meaning of terrorism, we have not come across a comprehensive definition to the reality of terrorism. Every definition of a reality, if it is not consistent and reflective of the truth, can not be considered a correct definition. Despite many researchers in this field mentioning over one hundred definitions, all of them lack in one way or another, a correct and meticulous definition that we can use to differentiate between acts of terrorism and other acts.

A few examples of definitions of terrorism that have been voiced are:

Terrorism is an act that naturally causes one to feel insecure and frightful.

Terrorism results in the gathering of fear within people, by way of violence.

Terrorism is the use of intentional and organized means that naturally stir fear, to attain particular objectives.

Terrorism is a barbaric horrific act.

Terrorism is an act that contradicts societal modes, and violates of the honour of man.

If you were to analyse these definitions, and study the level of specification, and the degree to which one can rely upon them to declare if an act is terrorism, you would conclude that all of these descriptions fail to make a clear categorical explanation of the concept of terrorism. These definitions are either too broad or too precise, or not broad or precise enough, and the differences in the definition of terrorism stem from the different views, interests and ideologies that exist in different countries. Every country explains terrorism in a way that agrees with its policies and interests, regardless of whether the definition agrees with the correct meaning of terrorism or contradicts it. This is the reason that you'll find an act carried out by a group of persons or individuals described as a "terrorist act" in one instance and you'll find another similar act, perhaps even more barbaric conducted by others that is not considered terrorism.

A prime example is the issue of Palestine. For more than fifty years, the envious Zionists have been giving our Palestinian brothers a taste of the severest punishment. From killing, expulsion, destruction and the devastation of Palestinian homes by those who occupy Palestinian land, this torture is considered an act of self defense by the occupiers and the crusading masters in America and Europe. What the suppressed people of do with the stones is called violence and terrorism!

The correct definition of terrorism is based on two factors:

- Defining terrorism according to the Arabic language

- Defining terrorism according to the Sharee'ah texts

As for language, the derivatives of the word terror are terrorise, terrorised and terrorism, which comes from the root word rahiba (to cause fear). Terrify, scare, intimidate, horrify, frighten and affray are all synonymous words and all lead to fear. Some of these words are deeper in meaning than others, and if we were to follow up on this subject in the Noble Qur'an, we will find that rahiba means extreme fear.

Allah, the Majestic says: "And have fear of Me", and He said, "They call upon us, in hope and fear", and He said, "And prepare for them what you can, from the power and steeds of war, to terrorise the enemy of Allah and your enemy," i.e. to scare them.

Ibn Jareer says: "It is said, 'I panicked the enemy', in that I terrorized them, with terror.

And from it, is the statement of Tufayl al-Ghanawi "Woe to the Mother of Hayy, you struck in their cores, The People of Kulaab, the mornings of panic and terror - you struck fear in them."

Ibn Jareer says: "Bishr narrated to us, Yazeed mentioned, Sa'eed mentioned, from Qataadah, "and draw your hand close to your side to be free from ar-ruhb" i.e. from fear. This is the tafseer explanation of ar-ruhb (terror) and ar-ru'b (fear), proving that ar-ru'b is synonymous with ar-ruhb, and its meaning is extreme fear. This is supported by his statement, sallallahu 'alayhi wa salam, "I have been given victory through striking fear (ru'b) in the enemy, equivalent to the distance of one month (in battle)".

This is a brief summary of the meaning of terrorism in the language of the Arabs.

As for the concept of terrorism in Sharee'ah, it consists of two categories:

Firstly, the concept of terrorism in Islam is that of the detested and forbidden, being of the major sins and those who do it deserves punishment and criticism, be it at the level of the state, groups or individuals. It manifests in reality as an attack against calm people through plundering undertaken by a criminal state or group or individuals. This occurs by stealing wealth and property, taking the prohibitions and making the pathways outside the cities not secure and by oppressive governments overcoming its citizens by suppressing freedom, and ruling by whims and desires, and the like.

Secondly,terrorism that is legislated by Allah for us, commanded by Him, is sufficiently preparing to fight the enemies of Allah and His Messenger, Allah says, "And prepare for them what you can from power and the steeds of war to terrorise the enemies of Allah and your enemies." In this noble passage, explicit words are used concerning the obligation to exert effort to terrorise the enemy, by becoming acquainted with weaponry and the training of armies, so that the enemy may fear them and reconsider a thousand times before going forth against the Muslims. I say that the obligation of preparation for fighting is an issue upon which all Muslim scholars have agreed upon, whether this fighting is defensive or offensive.

It should be pointed out that physical and financial preparation is not sufficient for victory - it must be backed up by morale strength. This is found through developing a strong belief in Allah, relying upon Him, increasing in good deeds and staying far from what displeases Him. The one who studies history realises the truthfulness of this. The Most High says: "Truly Allah has given you victory on many battle fields, and on the Day of Hunain (battle) when you rejoiced at your great number but it availed you naught and the earth, vast as it is, was straitened for you, then you turned back in flight."

When the Commander of the army in the Battle of Yarmook wrote to Ameer al-Mu`mineen, 'Umar bin al-Khattab he said: "We are facing a people who are like sand [in numbers], so equip us with strength and supply us with men."

'Umar, radiallahu 'anhu wrote back to him saying: "In the name of Allah, the Benevolent, the Merciful. From the slave of Allah, 'Umar bin al-Khattaab to the commander of the army, so-and-so, son of so-and-so, to proceed: Know that you do not fight your enemy by your strength or numbers, rather you fight them with your righteous actions, so if you rectify them (your actions) you win and if you corrupt them (your actions) you lose. So be on guard from your bad deeds, as you are on guard from your enemy"

The examples to support this view are many in history. One example is the battle of Yarmook, when the enemy surpassed the Muslims by number and preparation. One narration states that the Romans were 120,000 in number, equipped with the latest weaponry of the time, including catapults, flame throwers and such, and the Muslims were only 12,000 in number, equipped with simple weaponry like swords and arrows. Despite this, the Muslims were still victorious upon their enemy due to the strength of their morale, the basis of which was their belief in Allah and reliance upon Him.

This is the true, correct understanding of terrorism, but the enemies of Allah, His Messenger and Religion from amongst the envious Crusaders, and Zionists understand terrorism in another light. To those misguided disbelievers, terrorism is Islam and Jihad: The "terrorists" are the Mujahid Muslims. For this reason, the disbelievers gathered from all over the earth to fight the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan under the pretext of fighting terrorism, despite the fact that there is no evidence that linked the Islamic Emirate or Osama bin Laden with what happened in America. They know with certainty that what happened in New York and Washington occurred at the hands of radical Zionists or Christian movements, but because they saw an Islamic awakening in Afghanistan and they were fearful of the implementation of the Sharee'ah, in that Emirate. They feared that this could spread to the surrounding nations and so they went forth with this terror campaign in which they used all sorts of internationally prohibited weaponry such as cluster bombs, bunker busters and others, killing thousands of civilian men, women and children.

The irony is that many of the rulers of the Arabs and Muslims and some of the scholars of Islam sided with the disbelievers. They supported the war against the Muslims in Afghanistan without having any evidence that linked what happened in America to the Taliban government and without knowing the meaning of terrorism as defined by America and its friends in disbelief.

For those of you who have taken the time to read what I have written on this issue, you might assume that the sole aim of the Crusaders in their campaign against the Afghan is to crush Islam and Jihad only. While this is the chief aim, the reality is that the Crusaders have other goals in this campaign also. One is to exercise control over the nuclear reactors in that area, like those in Pakistan, because the possession of nuclear weapons by Muslims is regarded as a great threat to the Judeo-Christian Zionist interests. It wasn't long ago that the Zionists destroyed the nuclear reactors in Iraq, and they are making present attempts to harm the nuclear reactors in Pakistan through a conspiracy.

Another goal is control of the oil fields in Central Asia in an effort to seek further control of this world. If this were not the case, then the whole world is filled with organised terrorist movements in South America, Peru, Argentina, Colombia, North of America, Europe, Spain, Italy and Russia. Why did they not launch campaigns and declare their war on those countries in which these criminal terrorist movements exist? And if this is a war against terrorism, then the state-sponsored terrorism perpetrated by the Zionists in Palestine, the Americans in Afghanistan, the Serbians in Bosnia and Kosovo are true examples of the reality of terrorism.

(Hammoud bin 'Uqlâ ash-Shu'aybî, was widely recognized as one of the foremost leading scholars of the Muslim Ummah in the present time. He was known as the "scholar of the scholars" and taught many of the leading Muslim academics that are among us today. Ash-Shu'aybî died of a heart attack inside a Saudi Arabian prison were he had been held for several years. This article on the definition of terrorism has been edited by JUS for Western audiences.)

Afsana Rashid in Srinagar

Manual scavenging still continues in the rural areas and peripheries in the Indian controlled state of Jammu and Kashmir. The practice of cleaning human excreta in these dry latrines is mostly assigned to the women folk. Women of every household are condemned to perform this job regularly.

Despite the availability of Total Sanitation Campaign (TSC) in these areas with the aim to provide sanitary facilities to the people (living below and above poverty line), people stick to the age old practice. Younger generation clearly refuses to do the job but the older ones have no choice and they have to oblige. "Cleaning for the family is the duty of my mother. I do pity her but then that is her job and she has to do it," said a young girl in Budgam who hates this job. When asked what the family does in case her mother is not at home, she aptly replied, "They wait for her, but the job will be done by her mother only."

Field Officer Rural Sanitation Programme (RSP) Kashmir, Ezabir Ali, considers it the worst form of violence against women. "But then she is helpless. The people in general consider it the duty and responsibility of the women folk to keep these latrines clean," she said.

"They continue with this practice despite the alternatives being available. Lack of awareness, this being used as a manure in the fields, they have never given a serious thought towards the health implications associated with it," the Field Officer says are the reasons why people are sticking to this practice.

Younger generation consider it a "dirty job" even the older generation think so but they have no choice. "I do not like this but there is no other alternative. Men in the family insist women to do it. My grand mother and my mother have been doing this; now it is my turn, how can I revolt. I have to follow the tradition," said Zoona, a middle aged woman in Pulwama. "It gives me a dirty feeling but I have no other choice," she added. The women, after cleaning these latrines, have to carry it in the baskets over their heads to the open fields where it is used as manure. Rural people consider it as the best form of manure for their fields and it appears as if they are not ready to give up this practice mostly because of this reason.

"It is used as manure in their fields and this is one of the reasons why they continue on with this practice. They even consider constructing sanitary latrine as a waste of their land.

Even the dry latrines are constructed in a corner in their compounds or towards the street or water point (nallah), thus polluting water bodies. The water from these water bodies is later used for bathing, drinking, washing and various other purposes. This gives birth to various diseases like diarrhea, skin and fungal infections, worm infestations and others," said Ezabir.

Abdul Rahim, a villager said that they do not over-burden their women; it is only on alternate days that they are asked to clean these latrines. "This is not her regular job. It is just on alternate days that she has to do this," he said. Significantly, this job is in addition to her other household chores. He was of the opinion that since it forms good manure, so the practice should go on.

When the Field Officer was asked whether this signifies the complete failure of the TSC campaign, she said, "It can not be stated as a complete failure. There are many cases where people are accepting it with open arms but the problem lies in lack of awareness.

Moreover, people because of their own reasons, do not want to leave this practice at all. New generation however, is ready to accept the change. This is for their own benefit. Adopting sanitary ways of life would ensure dignity and privacy for women, in particular, apart from other health benefits," Ezabir pointed out.

(Source: Muslim News)