The Nouman Ali Khan "Scandal"

The last two weeks or so had seen the Nouman Ali Khan scandal ( with various hashtags such as #NAK #NAKScandal #MakeDuaMyHotFantasy ) trending on the Muslim social media, particularly in North America. When it came out, it immediately captured everyone's attention as Ustadh Nouman Ali Khan enjoys such a high and stellar reputation. His work on making the Holy Quran accessible in the English language is unparalleled in the modern times.

Of course, he denied all allegations, while claiming to be never a perfect man. And to be fair to him, there were really no allegations - simply slander, innuendo and hearsay. Spread mostly by feminist blogs, all the accusers were mute on what he exactly did or stands accused of, except that they called him an 'abuser' or a 'predatory daee'.

Now at that time, after remaining silent for some time, I released a video.

My thoughts on Nouman Ali Khan "Allegations", the curse of feminists

At the time the scandal broke, we only had one duty. We had to presume our brother was innocent, and we MUST demand a proper evidence from the accusers, and an exact accusation. This was the summary of my video.

One of the bloggers, someone whom I have a lot of respect for the work she does otherwise, later stated: "The public revelation regarding NAK was not handled in an ideal manner."

Exactly.

When making an accusation against someone with a stature like Ustadh Nouman Ali Khan, there should be no ambiguity, and the accusation should be crystal clear. If the accusers had come out straight away and said exactly what they accused the preacher of, and the witnesses, and time of alleged incidents, there would no fitnah, and they would be following the proper way to do things. Instead, we had a huge mess, and the community was "either you support a molester and you are anti-women" or "you hate Islam and are trying to take down one of the men of God".

On October 3, 2017, a statement was released by a few prominent Muslims on this scandal.

This statement should certainly make anyone pause. While you defend your brother, you must also keep an open mind when an evidence is presented. Here, very strong, credible people are saying your brother has done something wrong, so their statement must be given proper weight.

However, while this statement is a step in the right direction, there is still a lot of innuendo. What exactly is "spiritual abuse"? Also, the scholars should have listed the exact behaviour they found "conduct unbecoming of any believer". For example, if you strictly believe in zabiha slaughter, if I eat a Big Mac at McDonalds is that "conduct unbecoming of any believer"? 

Thus, if the original victims are NOT ready to come out and say exactly what they are accusing the preacher of, then this discussion is still moot. those who "broke" the original story: you should not have said anything unless the 'victims' are ready to come out and say it. Until they are ready to be public, this is a private matter and best left private.

I do not subscribe to this mentality of hiding the victims' name. Nor do I even know for sure if they are victims, or spurned women now out for revenge. This is not a "bro club" thing. It is following proper process. The women who are involved with the Ustadh, allegedly, were not forced or coerced into a relationship. They went in with full eyes open, supposedly. They are adults. This notion of hiding the names of women accusers, believing them blindly, and blaming the man all the time is a very extreme feminism trait. If we are to support the victims, we have to know who the victims are and how they have been victimized.

You have to ask yourself, at the end of all of this mess, what exactly has been achieved? How has justice been supported? What is the end game?

The only thing that is remaining is a big, holy mess.

What 'Love, InshAllah' and other so-called progressive Muslim feminists don't get

Look at the rubbish that Shahla Khan Salter wrote on Huffington Post.

Titled "To Our Muslim Sisters: Don't Let Faith Stop You From Getting Married", the article makes the point that Muslim ladies should feel free to marry non-Muslim guys.

I first saw this article when Love InshAllah linked to it from their Facebook feed. Even before I read it, Ihad an inkling of what the article would say, and why the authors of Love InshAllah would promote it.

To all Muslim feminists: You want to solve issues in Muslim societies? Solve them. Don't create new ones. Especially when the solution is already given and you don't like it because it doesn't fit your Western "feminist" views.
 
This article, like many on the progressive left, relegates religion to "do what feels right". In essence, they elevate an individual and their own feelings/desires over what is revealed by God and understood as such for generations.

Islam, like almost any religion, has laws. If someone doesn't want to follow those laws, that's fine, but calling oneself Muslim and then saying those laws are not really laws is like saying I am vegetarian but it's OK to eat chicken. These laws are not a buffet that you choose what you want. Like any religion, Islam severely restricts marriages to outside the faith. Only in some exceptional circumstances is it tolerated.

This article is saying you are Muslim but don't need to follow the law, it's OK. Marry outside the faith, it's fine. Islam says it's OK (actually it clearly doesn't). 

The article, and the author, tries to fit Islamic law to some Western sensibilities. The author is saying a husband doesn't need to be Muslim, but only has to "love" his Muslim wife and her "Muslimness" (whatever that means). The article adds that a woman has the ultimate freedom to choose her husband, any one she wants (not really: if she's Muslim she has accepted to live under some moral laws defined by God). The author goes on to say that since we face other challenges we should be able to marry whoever we want (not true, those other 'challenges' can be dealt with other ways).

The final advice itself is dangerous: "Follow your heart".

The whole concept goes against Muslim ethos which is "do not give in to your base desires if it goes against God's desire".

The so-called "progressive" Muslim feminists who form the bulk of Love InshAllah's fan club do not understand one clear thing: no matter how many times they post rubbish like this under the guise of "furthering dialogue" or "promoting an interesting point of view", real Muslims will stick to their religion, no matter how tough. 

Islam hasn't come to create problems, but to provide solutions. Muslim Feminists don't like this solution, so their create problems of their own.

Other articles on Muslim Feminism:

Why Muslim Feminists Don't Win

Why (Many) Muslims Have a Problem With (Most) Feminists

Little Kids Wearing Headscarves

There was an article in the Guardian recently which was entitled This trend of young Muslim girls wearing the hijab is disturbing. 

Now I will be the first to admit that I myself find it disturbing when I see six year old girls wearing a full hijab. Six year old girls are not required to wear hijab in Islam. They are not even required to pray. All of these rulings come much later, when they become adults (i.e. puberty). Why objectify young girls by asking them to wear a clothing that is supposed to be modest (and thus hide their sexuality - which they don't have SINCE THEY ARE SIX YEARS OLD)? 

Now I will also admit my discomfort is because most of the people I know (fathers especially) who make their little girls wear hijab usually tend to be those close minded hateful so-called "orthodox" Muslims with limited knowledge and a very harsh understanding of Islam. These are the 'fire-and-brimstone' type people and usually it's their kids I see dressed like this, hence my discomfort. 

But, is it any other person's business? And then if you continue to read the Guardian's article, you will see it slowly veers into nonsense. It makes statements about the hijab which isn't true. And then you come to realize that it's not the hijab that this writer finds scary, but the very fact that Muslims are practicing their religion. To this writer, the only good Muslim is a non-Muslim.

Now, if I were to write in the same veneer as the article, I would also say that this trend of young girls treating themselves as sex objects is highly disturbing. I am of course talking of the beauty pageants that occur in the US, with teenagers and sometimes kids as young as six. It's actually a documented fact that kids are now becoming hyper sexual and sexually aware in the West at a very early age.

The other day a video of a 13 year old girl setting up her boyfriend to see if he would cheat on her was widely shared on facebook. 13 years old?!!! At that age normal kids are thinking about exams and cartoons and movies. Yet in America and the West, it's normal to be engaged in a physical relationship when you are legally not even old enough to have that relationship.

So you tell me, which is more scary?

Perhaps it's those thirteen-year-old kids that should start wearing the hijab.

Frustrating Reponses When Talking of "Islamic" Mortgage

I will be blunt - whenever I see an ad for an "Islamic" mortgage, or a commercial on how to finance your house "the halal way", my scam alert meter activates. They go through all these fancy brochures explaining their methodology (why? how long does it take to explain how you are lending me money and making a profit?) and at the end of the day, it's interest - just called differently ("profit rate" - whose profit? How do I - the buyer, the borrower - have a "profit rate"?).

The fact that it's all a scam isn't even an outrageous idea; BBC had an article on 'how Islamic is Islamic banking'. The very fact that an Islamic bank can give you a bond (which by its definition is tied to an interest rate), give it an Arabic name (sukook) and thus make it halal tells you all you need to know that most Islamic 'halal' financing is a big scam.

But this post is not about that. This post is about how, when you tell some Muslims this, and why you will be forced to go to a conventional banking for a mortgage, they come up with all sort of statements that frankly says they haven't even spent a minute thinking about the issue.

Why do you need to buy? You can rent all your life?

OK, so unless you have done a comprehensive rent vs mortgage calculation, such as this one in the Financial Post or Toronto Star, you shouldn't be saying this. What it usually means is that you as a Muslim have decided not to borrow from the bank and pay interest due to your religious beliefs (fair point), but because of this you have also decided renting is far better than property ownership (debatable). Most articles that say renting could be better always say could be, or may be, or possibly. They also make a big assumption that you will invest the savings you get when you pay a lower amount of money in rent into the stock market, and that you will invest successfully, and you will have no landlord issues, and so on. Plus, rent is also going up every year.

You don't need to borrow the money, you can save and buy it outright.

Ya, right. Every year the prices continue to rise, and the rate far exceeds an average person's saving grace.

Muslims should reconsider living in the first world where prices are high and buy properties in Muslim countries where its cheaper.

When a scholar actually says this, you don't know whether to laugh or cry. First of all, the price of a house depends on where you live, but so does your earning! I can buy a huge plot of land with a house on it in Rangpur, Bangladesh, for less than my monthly salary in Canada, but what good does that do me? I live here, I need a house here. If I lived in Rangpur, I wouldn't be making the money I make here, so the scale of that house to my earning would be the same scale of a house here to my earning here. It's the same problem.

And anyone who thinks house prices are cheaper in Muslim areas clearly hasn't even done their research (Dubai? Islamabad? Dhaka? - just to give a few) It's this type of lazy speaking that bugs me. Do your research and bring some interesting points to the debate.

Quran says interest is haram. Period. Surah X, verse Y.

Usually accompanied by a Dr. Zakir Naik picture.

Look, no one is arguing that. Or debating that. But the Quran also says eating pork is haram, and we are well aware that Quranic verses do not apply when there's a necessity. If you are in a desert with nothing to eat for days and then you see a pig, you are allowed to kill it and eat.

But we are not in a desert. We can live without purchasing a house. It's not a necessity.

Well, some scholars say it is. Let's debate that, shall we. I am not saying they are right or wrong, but let's hear what they ...

Nowadays scholars will say anything for money. They will say anything is halal. It's contradictory to the Quran!

Exactly! So is "Islamic" financing, yet Muslims seemingly ignore those issues because it has an Islamic label to it. Again, I am not saying let's all go to CIBC and borrow some cash, I am saying let's talk about this intelligently.

There's nothing to discuss. Interest is haram. Period. You don't need to buy a house, you can rent it.

Aaaaaand we are back to square one.

Look, just pray 12 rakat daily and you will get a house in Jannah. Ha ha.

What. The. Fiqh.

That's like a person who cut his finger going to the doctor and the doctor is saying don't worry, in jannah you will be a young beautiful man with a houri. Solve the problem here and now.

Why the RIS List of Speakers is Inexcusable

On the very same day that Canada's new government took office with a cabinet that was made up of 50% women, the RIS (the Reviving the Islamic Spirit) Convention released its list of luminary speakers at this year's December convention.

RIS is an annual conference held since 2003, and has become one of the largest Islamic conferences in North America, along with ISNA in the USA. Over 20,000 people attended in 2015, making it the largest Islamic conference in Canada. Yet, year after year, there has been a complaint about the list of speakers at RIS, so one hoped that this year RIS would get it right.

Here is how RIS gets it spectacularly wrong (or doesn't get it at all) .

GENDER EQUALITY

It should not be lost that today was the day Prime Minister Justin Trudeau started his government in Canada and for the first time ever, the cabinet was made up of 50% women. Asked to explain why that was important, he simply - yet so powerfully - replied, "It's 2015."

What about RIS? Let's see how a conference about Islam, which many of these same scholars say gave women equal rights in 620 AD, is doing in 2015.

Out of the 23 speakers listed on the site, only 6 are women. That's merely 26%. Moreover, if the past is any precedent, the women will speak either in the morning, or early evening, while the men will get the prime time evening spots when maximum number of attendees are there. Many of the men are also scheduled to speak multiple times, while most of the women speak only once.

Is it too much to ask that out of 23 speakers, at least 10 be women? I am sure that despite the fact that some women scholars dislike to speak in front of a huge mixed gathering, we can at least find ten in the whole world?

CANADIAN CONTENT

RIS is a Canadian conference, yet where are the Canadian scholars? From the bios provided on the site, I could only find 1 Canadian. If you think women have it bad, that's  0.043%. What about renowned Canadian scholars and imams like Sheikh Yusuf Badat, Imam Dr. Hamid Slimi, Sheikh Ahmad Kutty, Sister Ingrid Mattson - just to name a few? We are in Canada, and as recent elections, governance and public discourse has proven, we are a distinct society from the United States. Why should we have a conference where the overwhelming bulk of the speakers are foreigners?

There are plenty of other reasons for criticism of RIS as well. They are too shy of courting political controversies and hence their talks are always very timid. Since Tarek Ramadan published a popular open letter as to why he doesn't attend these conferences anymore, RIS seems to have doubled down on any political activity or call to action for justice.

So if you want a timid, feel good, nothing substantial but overpoweringly fluffy male dominated foreigner populated Islamic conference, please do attend RIS.

Every Day is NOT Mother's Day

So while perusing through Facebook I saw that one of my friends had posted this.

This is not her original post, of course, but a retweet (or a repost, if you will) of some "Islamic" group that shared/created/plagiarized this image.

Now everyone has the right to an opinion (no matter how deluded) so here's mine on this image (and others of that ilk).

• This picture claims that every day is Mother's Day in Islam because Islam encourages you to respect, love, obey and honour your mother everyday. My question: so which religion doesn't? Every religion that I know of thinks it's a great idea to respect, love, obey and honour thy parents. So Every Day is Mother's Day in Islam / Judaism / Christianity / Hinduism / Buddhism / Taoism / ...ism.
• Mother's Day is primarily a North American festival. You don't like it where you live, you don't need to celebrate it. There's nothing in Islam requiring you to believe in Mother's Day, but there's nothing preventing you from celebrating it either.
• We should treat our mothers every day like it's Mother's Day, but in reality (and practically) it's not doable, so we take out one day to do something really special for our mothers. I don't really believe in cards or flowers, so the whole "commercialization of the day" is really lost on me, but I do something, like taking the whole family to a restaurant or something special.

In reality it's not just about Mother's Day. You see these pseudo-salafis (they are like the right wing Hindu nutjobs in India who go crazy on Valentine's Day) post similar stuff on Father's Day, Thanksgiving Day, Sharia Appreciation Day (ok so I made the last one up). On Christmas they usually post notices about how it is a mortal sin to wish someone Merry Christmas. On New Year they will post statuses on how there is only two Eids in Islam, and so on.

So maybe we need a Just Chill day. Where everyone can agree (that it's a holiday) to Just Chill. Most likely those pseudo-salafis will have a problem with that as well.

You guys have such a Hindu culture!

"You guys have such a Hindu culture!"

The above was said to me by a Pakistani acquaintance just as we were discussing the 3-0 drubbing that Bangladesh handed out to Pakistan in the recent cricket ODI series. He wanted to know if our player Soumya Sarkar was a Hindu. 

"Honestly, I don't know." I replied. "I was curious about it as well. Sarkar is a last name common to both Hindus and Muslims in Bangladesh, and Soumya is just a first name."

That's when he said it. 

"You Bengalis are so much like Hindus!"

"Please explain." I asked him, in the mood for a good argument.

He struggled, of course.

"I ... don't know exactly," He said. "Your names. I knew a Bengali Muslim called Bijoy. That's a Hindu name. Your dresses ... Your culture ... You guys celebrate holidays like new year that is un-Islamic."

In a calm (so unlike me!) and logical manner, I tackled all his arguments (but of course he wouldn't budge from his opinion).

Typical Arrogance

Realize the statement "Bengali has a huge Hindu influence", no matter it's validity or lack thereof, comes from a base of arrogance. There is a huge arrogance amongst speakers of Urdu (and sometimes Farsi) - that they are somehow more Islamic, just by virtue of their language and lineage.

In 1952, the ruling West Pakistani elite viewed support for Urdu as support for an Islamic identity, and support for Bangla as being a traitor to "Islamic" Pakistan. Jinnah actually had the audacity to say, "Urdu embodies the best that is in Islamic culture and Muslim tradition and is nearest to the languages used in other Islamic countries." His arrogant nature was at its peak when he asked a few Bengali students, on a visit to then East Pakistan (now Bangladesh), whether Bengalis could boast of any great men of letters in their history.

Pakistanis also uniquely believe Pakistan is an "Islamic" country, and therefore anyone who is Muslim should support Pakistan (and anything Pakistani, like the Urdu language). Thus Shoaib Malik infamously thanked all Muslims for supporting Pakistan in the first World T20 final when they played against India, ignoring the man of the match award which went to an Indian Muslim. Anything not seen as "Pakistani", such as the Bengali language, must therefore be non-Muslim, or Hindu.

Pride of Lineage

Urdu speaking Muslims of the South Asian subcontinent are almost always proud of their heritage. They see themselves as more Muslim, or more authentic Muslim, while the dark skinned Bengalis are seen as recent converts from Hinduism and therefore less pure. Nothing of course, could be further from the truth. Islam came to the subcontinent at roughly the same time, and whether you are a Muslim from Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka or Bhutan - all of your ancestors were likely Hindus or Buddhists. The Arabs who conquered and settled in the Indian subcontinent viewed everyone as from "Hind". Yet, look what Ayub Khan, the President of Pakistan, once said.

Bengali Islam was the religion of the indigenous depressed peasant convert; in West Pakistan, Islam was the faith of the conquerors, the rulers, the courtiers. Bengali Islam was a faith associated with the "downtrodden races".

You say Hindu influence like it's a bad thing

It is obvious, undeniable and academically incorrect to say there is no Indian influence in the South Asian culture. From Peshawar to Chittagong, we have similar food, clothes, mannerisms, and so on. We all watch the same Bollywood movies and dance to the same Bollywood songs. We also have our regional variances, and thus you have Pashto, Malayalam, Bengali, Tamil etc. - multiple languages and cultures. And all these cultures have some common elements, and some variances - and within them you have people of many religions.

Where Bengali Muslims have differentiated from Urdu speaking Muslims is that even by adopting Islam, we have not lost our culture or language. In Pakistan (especially) there is a drive to Arabize themselves - seeing it as more Islamic. This was prominent under the Zia regime. When Bangladesh was part of Pakistan, they tried it on the Bengalis (and failed). In 1949 the government of East Pakistan (an Urdu speaking governor) set up a East Bengal Bhasha (Language) Committee which said Bengali should be written in Arabic script. The government saw the whole language as "corrupt" and tried to change it. The report actually stated, ""Sanskritization of the language should be avoided" and it was to exclude the Sanskrit words from Bengali and replace them by Urdu, Arabic or Persian words to “conform to the Islamic ideology”."

Bengalis reject such false standards of "Islamism".

The small stuff - cultural, not religious

So when an Urdu speaking person complains we Bengali muslims have a lot of Hindu influence, all what I said above is what is really going on. Arrogance, a false pride of lineage and Islamism, and an attempt to be Arab. Yet, of course they can point to the small stuff like our names, our dress and our celebrations. Let's get to that.

What is wrong with a name like Bijoy?

It means victory. Same as Fatih. And it has the same roots as say Nasr. Yet, is Fatih and Nasr more "Islamic", simply because it's Arab? What about the names of the famous Tabiyeen who lived during the Prophet's time, whose name was As-hum? You know him better as the Najjashi. Those are not Arabic names. Neither is Bilal. And we know Salman as a Persian name. It is a good meaning and being Muslim that makes your name Islamic, not just Arabic. And may I remind you, of the 25 prophets named in the Quran, only 4 were Arabs. The rest all had non-Arab names.

Is there anything wrong with celebrating Boishakhi?

No, not really. Depends on what you do when you "celebrate". There is nothing really Islamic, or un-Islamic, about a holiday. It's just a day with an interesting history.

However, as I said, those are the small stuff. Undeniably, we have commonalities with people who lived in our lands for centuries and share the same culture and food. No, a statement like that is not about the small stuff. It has darker roots.

And the ironic tragedy is that such arrogance, coming from a supposedly "Muslim" culture, is what broke up the largest Muslim state of the twentieth century.

 

Female Scholars and Female Education in Islam

Here's some images from my new book, Teaching Kids the Holy Quran - Surah 71: Nuh (Noah).

The scholar in my last book was a male character. This time around, I decided I would include the character of a female scholar, because frankly, I feel that is something being ignored in the Muslim community.

I was very happy to see pictures of a workshop (attended by both men and women) at the S. Khadija Centre mosque featuring Dr Ingrid Mattson (on February 6, 2015).

Excellent workshop with Dr. @IngridMattson & Imam @ihslimi @skcentre @DeenStudies on Islam in a N.American context. pic.twitter.com/Te7WeDbLnT
— Yūsuf Badāt (@BadatYusuf) February 7, 2015

This is in sharp contrast to one leading Islamic academic group in North America, which for the first time featured a female scholar teaching a class, but only to female students. Why? We have multiple examples of female scholars throughout history (starting with our mother Ayesha) teaching classes comprising of both male and female students. Many of us have grown up and attended high schools where we were taught by female teachers. As some of you may know, my mother was a teacher herself.

Now the question is why. Why do we ignore the capabilities of 50% of our population (this is really handicapping us!) and why have we accepted this status quo. It is interesting that one of the names and characters who appears in almost every surah is Prophet Musa (Moses, peace be upon him). He was the manliest of all men, and Allah recounts his story numerous times in the Quran. And he was surrounded by powerful women whom he learnt from and benefitted from. His own mother, his second mother who was the wife of the Pharoah, his sister, and his own wife and her sister.

Some one told me that my book could portray that the only scholarship available for women is religious learning, otherwise they should just stay home and not go to school (in some parts of the world this is the predominant view and people shoot girls going to school). Now I don't of course subscribe to this view - knowledge is the lost property of every believer, said my Prophet, Muhammad (peace be upon him). And every believer includes both male and female.

Junaid Jamshed, Blasphemy and Misogyny

So Junaid Jamshed, the famous former-singer-turned-preacher from Pakistan is now in trouble. One short clip from one of his many lectures has now gone viral. Here, Jamshed recounts a story that happened to Aisha and her husband the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).

Aisha was the favourite of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and would always try to seek his attention. One day she decided to fake illness by wrapping a towel around her head.

“What happened, what happened?” inquired Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).

“Ah, my head is bursting with pain!” she complained.

To which, he said, “Oh Aisha, if you were to pass away, the Prophet of God would personally offer your funeral prayers. How fortunate would you be!”

She stood up at once and raged, “This is what you ardently desire - that I die, so you could spend more time with your other wives!”

Jamshed goes on to say that the nature of women cannot be changed even by Prophet.

Now apparently this is a blasphemy as per Pakistani laws. A blasphemy against the character of Aisha, the Mother of the Faithful, may Allah be pleased with her.

First of all, I don't think the story is correct. I remember reading about this particular incident, and it happened during the last few days of the life of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). He was sick, he was on his deathbed, and he entered the room of his beloved wife Aisha. She too had fallen sick, and she was complaining "My head! My head!". So then he told her, "Nay! It is I who has to cry my head! My head!"

And then Aisha complained, "Ah, my head is bursting with pain!”

To which, he replied with tenderness, “Oh Aisha, if you were to pass away, the Prophet of God would personally offer your funeral prayers. How fortunate would you be!”

And then she playfully gave the reply, "And that is what you want! After you bury me, you will return to the house and spend your time with another wife!"

The story completely changes here - rather than someone seeking attention and pretending to be sick, this is a story of a loving back-and-forth between a couple who are comfortable and romantic with each other. It's a beautiful story of love.

So Jamshed, in an attempt to portray the allegedly "frivolous and fragile nature of women that even the Prophet couldn't change", twisted this story around to make Aisha an attention seeking woman.

Second, even if we give Jamshed his version of the story (which is wrong), is it blasphemy? The people around the Prophet, such as members of his own family, were human after all. They all had human failings. Sauda, his second wife, once made a comment after the Battle of Badr that the Prophet corrected, as it was a comment of Jahiliyyah. There was an anti-Semitic comment directed once at his wife Safiyya bint Huyayy, who was of Jewish origin, by another wife - which he also corrected. It is not blasphemy to say the wives of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) sometimes made minor human mistakes for which they were forgiven by Allah, and which serve as examples for us.

And finally, are we so caught up on what Junaid Jamshed said about Aisha, that we completely ignore his sustained record of misogyny and disrespect towards women?

Now I first saw Junaid Jamshed when he came to Muslimfest in 2011.

He gave some speeches and talked about a few incidents from the life of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), sang some nasheeds and closed of with Dil Dil Pakistan, which the crowd loved. He repeated the act every time he was invited to Muslimfest subsequently. One could be forgiven for thinking he is a scholar of the seerah or someone who has studied extensively on religion.

Here is an interview where he is telling men not to teach their wives driving. He is praising himself for not teaching his wife (coincidentally also named Aisha) driving, and he tells men that one good thing they will do is not let their wives drive. The interviewer then asks what if a woman has no one to drive her (her husband has died and she has no relatives to help her out or they are busy), is she to remain helpless and not drive. To which Jamshed of course has no answer but then says this is just a hypothetical situation and he doesn't answer hypotheticals.

Jamshed of course has done a lot of good and called a lot of people to Islam. We can take the good from him and ignore the bad. But let's call out the bad - the misogyny and the shaming of women. In the offending video, for which he is now charged with blasphemy, he goes on about the nature of women.

He is of course a product of his culture and Pakistani culture isn't one where a woman is empowered. But that is of course not Islamic culture, and today we have forgotten that. The average Muslim has outsourced the religion to these pseudo-scholars and ignored learning of their own religion and history. it used to be that Islamic scholars were experts in both science and religion, and were the smartest of the class. Today, it's usually the low achievers and failures of the class that are hustled into the madrassahs and religious schools. So when these scholars say something bogus (such as woman cannot drive), then the average (and now) ignorant Muslim doesn't have the knowledge to fact check this. And when these scholars are given to positions of power (a sign of the Last Days), they make laws to that effect. So religion, rather than becoming a solution, is now the problem.

Our religion and culture is one that produced Umm Salamah, who set out on a camel to travel alone from Makkah to Madinah. It has Nusaibah, a woman who took the oath of Aqabah and fought in the Battle of Uhud with a sword, and fought in subsequent battles after. Our history includes Khawla bint Thalabah, whose complaint against her husband was heard by Allah and is mentioned in Surah Mujadilah, and whom the Caliph Umar used to listen to respectfully as she lectured him on Islam.

Let us not use the hullaballoo over a stupid blasphemy law in Pakistan (which is used mostly to settle scores with minorities and make their lives miserable - a sad fact of history in Pakistan) to excuse the bigger problem at play - the misogyny in the culture that holds back half the population and forces on them a false understanding of male privilege in the guise of religion.

Love Astaghfirullah

I just read this piece on Love Inshallah.

The Single Girl's Survival Guide for Desi Weddings
http://loveinshallah.com/2014/10/08/desi-surivival-guide/

Remember, these are the same folks that raised a huge ruckus when I said women (and men) in Islam should marry early, and there's nothing wrong if you set criteria (such as looks, age etc.) as long as you put piety first.

Now, remember that was my view, and I would like to think it's also the Islamic view (marry early). Some of these women replied on how un-Islamic that was, what was wrong with desi marriage itself, what was wrong with me etc. They kept bringing up the example of Khadija (may Allah be pleased with her) - how I wish they would really read up on her! There was even a disrespectful twitter hashtag going around ‪#‎whatwouldkhadijado‬ if you can believe it.

Now go ahead and read this lady's post.

The world she is describing is an alien world to me.

A world where desi uncles and aunties are the chief enemy. A world where a woman is content with random dates and marriage is far down the priority list. A world where women are so insecure they clutch their husbands possessively (her words, not mine). A world where you can take a fake date to a wedding. A world where you share a magical "first" kiss a dozen times over with dudes who may not figure in your life after that one day.

It's fine if you want to live in that world. It may even fit your social values fine. Just don't call it "Islamic". And don't bring up the name of Khadija (may Allah be pleased with her) when you want to justify your lifestyle.

How Al Maghrib Blew It

It is the situation every organization dreads. Some important executive within the company, or a high profile representative, makes a misogynistic, sexist, crude joke and an indefensible statement. The resulting reaction then goes viral, dragging the company's name down with it. Pressure grows on the organization to do "something" and to clarify where they stand.

In those cases, as a company you have two choices. You either move immediately, sharply distancing yourself from the  offending statements while at the same time appropriately disciplining your employee, and keep yourself accountable. It is an opportunity to prove yourself in the limelight, to demonstrate your integrity and to keep yourself accountable.

Or you try to hide and hope the situation blows away. You can issue a half non-apology or even fight back and defend the speaker, calling those who pointed out the rampant sexism and misogyny names and insults. There will be no sanction of your employee. It implicitly sends out a signal that such statements and jokes are appropriate, fit the company culture and that the criticism of your organization is actually correct.

Al Maghrib Institute, a widely respected association of sheikhs who teach Islamic courses throughout the world, found itself amidst such a dilemma on the weekend. Abu Eesa, one of their sheikhs, posted the following on twitter and Facebook.

 

If this was a "joke", it was retweeted by many of his followers. I thought at first someone pasted the photo of the sheikh as a false allegation - I was dumbfounded to see it was an actual post by him! And his twitter had a series of other posts.

 Joking about women was bad enough. The second twitter plays to the stereotype that women are bad drivers. The third one where talks about ""stick that in your oven and cook it"" is a dismissive mentality that some men have about women. These tweets were bad enough. However, a post soon surfaced about where he "jokes" about raping women.

No matter what the context, you just can't joke about raping women! Especially, AS A SHEIKH and ISLAMIC SCHOLAR, you cannot be giving out fatwas lightly or in jest! AND especially fatwas that says go ahead and rape! (I am ignoring the disgusting FGM mention here).

Of course, women did not keep quiet. And neither did many men. And the resulting outrage resulted in even more non-apology posts by our "sheikh".

 

Now this was high time Al Maghrib stepped in. Sheikh Abu Eesa is part of Al Maghrib Institute and their good name was being sullied and dragged through the mud by association. For a long time, despite calls for a reaction, their twitter post remained silent. Ironically, the last post was actually a tweet about a Sheikh Abu Eesa course.

 

Finally, there was a post.

 

Yes, we now know that Al Maghrib celebrated International Women's Day by talking about Muslim women who are our role models. This could have been a good first step, but it's still talk. Sheikh Abu Eesa made fun of International Women's Day, which Al Maghrib purportedly respects. The important question remains: what about Sheikh Abu Eesa and his comments?

 

Sheikh Waleed Basyouni of Al Maghrib Institute then posted on facebook.

 

This was a cop-out. It did not do any of the things a good response should have done. There was
a) no acknowledgement of guilt
b) no acknowledgement of hurt caused
c) no discipline or sanction of the guilty person
d) no condemnation of the offending statements

Instead, we saw the first signs of a fight back. He said he hates taking a statement out of context or blowing a joke out of proportion. Sorry sheikh, I respect your knowledge and your ilm, but even a man of limited knowledge like me understands that joking about raping women, female genital mutilation or stereotyping women is completely unacceptable. Had Sheikh Abu Eesa worked in any normal corporation in the West, these would be firing offenses.

And then Sheikh Yasir Qadhi, a sheikh whose knowledge I benefit greatly from, and whose seerah lectures are extremely detailed, posted an absolutely shocking facebook post.

Note, there was no reference to Sheikh Abu Eesa or his comments or the whole fiasco in the post. I actually sent him a tweet asking him to clarify what he is talking about. With no response, and given the nature of his tweet, the timing, and his recent endorsement of Sheikh Abu Eesa's Syria fatwa, I can only assume this tweet (and Facebook post) is about the current situation. And therein lies the problem.

Sheikh Abu Eesa is compared to a Companion of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) who made a mistake, and those criticizing him are being compared to the enemies of Allah, the Quraish, who plotted to kill and assassinate the Prophet and wipe out the Muslims (i.e. a bigger mistake). So, if you found the tweets of Sheikh Abu Eesa misogynistic, sexist and offensive, guess what, you are an enemy of Allah. The Sheikh's sexists tweets - yes, they were bad, but you, by complaining about it, made a bigger faux pa and sin!

UPDATED: As of right now (1040 am Tuesday), there is still no post apologizing for his actions by either Sheikh Abu Eesa or Al Maghrib Institute. In fact, Sheikh Abu Eesa seems to have taken delight at the outrage and his non-apology post on facebook is amazingly even more vile.

This was a chance for Al Maghrib to demonstrate that such sexist and anti-women attitudes have no place in Islam and gets no encouragement from educated, Western scholars. Instead, they seem to have closed ranks to defend Sheikh Abu Eesa and call out anyone who finds his "jokes" offensive.

SOMETHING ABOUT ME: I am not what you would call a feminist. I am a guy who is of the opinion that a woman CANNOT lead prayers in a mixed congregation, and I do not think a non-mahram woman and a man should stand beside each other and pray. This is a classical, orthodox position held by the mainstream Muslim body. I think Amina Wadud is very much in the wrong. I agree completely with Allah's orders in the Quran regarding inheritance (of course, special circumstances can be evaluated by a reputed and learned scholar on a case-by-case basis). My post where I encourage Muslims to get married early by the age of 24 was hated by many feminists who called me (and my family) all types of names. I brush off their insults because a man calling to Allah's way will be insulted like Musa (pbuh) was insulted.

Yet. the truth is the truth, and the truth is that Sheikh Abu Eesa's statements crossed a line and he should have been sanctioned. I am not going to call for his firing and did not join the #fireAbuEesa hashtag because I don't like to knock a man's livelihood. He could have been given sensitivity training and taught the importance of moderating what you say as a public figure and a religious leader. Instead, I have been lumped into a "feminazi" camp by Sheikh Abu Eesa and a "Quraish" camp by Sheikh Yasir Qadhi and a "blown out of proportion" camp by Al Maghrib Institute while the sheikhs close ranks around one of their own and permit a frat boy mentality amongst the so-called premier religious educational institute in the West.

Such an act only harms Islam, ya shuyookh. Even a man of limited knowledge like me can see that, so why can't you all?

MORE LINKS ON THIS ISSUE:

• Wa'Mutasima!

UPDATE:

• Al Maghrib Statement on the controversy
• Abu Eesa apology to men, women and jinn
• Yasir Qadhi's later MM blog post on the controversy

On Wearing a Chain

As a young kid in the Middle East, one of my "phases" included wearing a metallic chain around my neck and a steel bracelet on my wrist. It was 'cool' and everybody at school was doing so (remember, this was the 80s). On the other hand, I was still brought up with good values and was quite religious. So this one time, I went to visit this city (Abu Dhabi - the now famous, bigger brother of Dubai) with a couple of friends and it was time for afternoon prayers. We entered a mosque.

After we were done with the congregational prayers we saw the imam making his way towards us. As soon as he was upon us he started to gesture wildly and say something. Whey I say "say something" I really mean "shout". And in Arabic.

A peculiar feature of the UAE is that many of the people who live there, even for decades, do not speak Arabic. Us included. So while the imam ranted and frothed at the mouth, we could only look on helplessly. Some Pakistani labourer then took the trouble to translate to us.

"He doesn't like that." He pointed to the chain and the bracelet. "It's very un-Islamic. Please don't wear that to the mosque."

Silly me, I didn't know that bad 80s grunge look existed in 6^th century Arabia to be banned by the Prophet (along with, say, soccer). I remember being shocked at the imam's behaviour (we were only 10 or 12 at that time!) and thinking, "I am never coming to this mosque again!"

I remembered this incident, years later, this summer.

It was a nice summer's day in Toronto and I went biking with a neighbor. We cycled through routes and hills and were riding home when it was time for Maghreb. As luck would have it, we were riding past the biggest mosque in the city.

"Let's go in," Was my decision but I was a bit apprehensive in what I was wearing. A white t-shirt with the Toronto skyline picture on it, and the long shorts. The shorts reached past my knee, which was good (and made it halal), but still left a LOT of the ankle exposed, which is probably not people normally wear to the mosque.

I went in, expecting another frothing imam.

I was pleasantly surprised. No one paid any attention to me.

I went in, enjoying the refreshing blessing of God that is Air Conditioning, did my ablutions, did the congregational prayers, and then even said salaam to the imam (just to tempt fate) and then left. While leaving, I saw plenty of people dressed like me.

They seemed happy to be there. And I wondered, how many attendees does a frothing imam lose?

Where are the Girls in this Mosque?

I was shopping in another part of Toronto the other day, accompanied by my siblings, and it was time for the Maghreb prayer. There was a big mosque nearby and we drove there. There was one entrance called "Sisters' Entrance", my sister entered from there, while my brother and I walked around the mosque to enter via the main entrance - aka the "brother's entrance".

It was a very nice, huge, ornate, well designed mosque. It was also quite new; the mosque used to be two portables fitting around 40 people before, now this was a proper mosque accomodating thousands. The main prayers were over; so my brother and I prayed by ourselves. The main prayer hall was divided into two sections - a glass barrier separating the dimly lit "private" space from the main hall - this is where we prayed. The sisters' area was upstairs.
As we finished praying, I noticed there was a dars (a lesson) going on. I sat down and listened for a bit. The speaker was an old bearded man, he sat in the centre of the main hall surrounded by kids and adults, and he was speaking in flawless English. The topic of the speech was taking lessons from the life of the Prophets and applying it to modern times. As I listened, I realized the speaker was really good, and the speech was excellent. The kids listened with rapt attention.
And yet ... take a look at the picture below.

Everyone shown around the speaker is a male. The adults were male, the kids were male, and of course the speaker was male. Where are the females.
"Oh, they are upstairs, listening too," Answered someone, when I asked them. "We have speakers and close circuit TV."
This is the problem, the big problem, in today's Muslim organizations. If you take a look at this picure, there is a LOT of empty space behind the men, in the MAIN prayer hall. Why can't girls sit here, in close proximity to the speaker, so they can personally ask him questions, or be inspired in way that only a face-to-face conversation can? Sitting behind the men will satisfy any requirements that orthodox Muslims can throw at them, and not to mention, teaching women this way is actually a sunnah.
I remember going to these classes, sometimes as a kid, often as an adult, when a well known speaker would come to the mosque, and being inspired by the Islamic knowledge imparted. If my sister or wife would attend, sometimes I would wonder why they were not similarly impressed. Hard to be impressed when you are looking at a curtain, I think!
I was reading Cartoon Muhammad's article "The Need for Muslim Women Leaders". He is on the mark on how certain segments of the mosque community (let's be candid - it's the more "religious" folk) who construct barriers (literally and figuratively) against Muslim women speakers.
However, the problem that I saw in this mosque, in this dars, prevent women from seeking knowledge in the first place. Muslim Student Associations all across Canada talk about Israel Apartheid, but we have to be honest and admit there remains an Apartheid system in many of our mosques that discriminate against half our community - the girls.
Contrast this to the times of Caliph Umar (the Caliph of the Muslim empire!) being corrected by a woman during a Friday Khutbah! Or even contrast this with the Sayeda Khadija Centre in Mississauga, Ontario. When I was there, the first few rows were occupied by men, and the next few rows were occupied by women. Sisters conversed with the imam (who was standing, in person, a mere 50 feet away from them). And this was no progressive "flaky" imam, this was Imam Hamid Slimi who also teaches at the prestigious Islamic Institute of Toronto.
If you are a woman, which mosque would you go to?

Gender Segregated Weddings

Have you ever been to a super boring wedding? When you sit apart from your wife, in different halls, and don't know anybody else, so you converse via sms, wait for the food and then leave? Where the only sign that it's a wedding is the one printed on the notice board?

Welcome to your traditional gender segregated wedding.

Now if you ask anyone who prefers a gender segregated wedding, here's what they will say - it's more "Islamic". Is it though?

Remember, Islam DOES discourage free mixing between men and women but ONLY when they are ALONE; Islam does not prohibit ALL interactions between men and women in a public setting.

I find it hypocritical too. To paraphrase Wood Turtle's status, so you can talk to a girl at work or on the street, but you can't talk to her at a wedding without losing all control and giving in to your "impulses"?

Here's the three basic myths about a gender segregated wedding:

1. It's Islamic.

Not it's not. The concept of gender segregation is a Middle Eastern patriarchal practice called Namus which predates Islam. There is no evidence from the Quran or Hadith that enforces segregation of sexes^[2].

The Prophet attended a wedding that was NOT gender segregated. It was Abu Usaid As-Saidi's wedding, and his wife served the Prophet (and his Companions) with food, and even brought him his drink^[3]. There are plenty of examples from his life where men and women, not related to each other, ate at the same table.

2. A mixed wedding may lead to men and women flirting

There is even the idea that if something bad can happen from a permissible act, then we should prohibit the permissible act, even if there is good in it. This incorrect idea is taken to extremes in Saudi Arabia, where women are not allowed to drive lest something bad happens. The ridiculousness of this is proven by a Saudi study that says if women are allowed to drive, there will be a loss of virginity in the kingdom and more homosexuals ^[4]. Dr Taqir Suwaidan at RIS specifically rebutted this idea. If the idea was true, then the whole incident of "Aisha and the Necklace" would never have happened.

As long as there is no obscenity, touching, secret meetings and any sexual contact, go ahead and maintain healthy social interaction with the opposite gender. It's the Islamic thing to do.^[1]

In Bengali circles, it's well known that men and women meet up at weddings. I attended two weddings this year, the second one was of the groom and bride who got to know each other well during the first wedding. And what's wrong with that?

If your society is already so segregated (I am looking at you Saudis) that it's unhealthy and where a woman's eyes now make you crazy^[5] then you gotta wonder how on earth will a man and woman meet up. Maybe the driving ban IS the reason you have more homosexuals (something to think about?).

My personal theory is that societies with gender segregated weddings (Pakistanis? Arabs?) have more cousin marriages. I am sure there is a research paper somewhere here, but what is so wrong with a young man and a young woman getting to know each other, and then getting married?

And if you think a gender segregated wedding prevents men and women from flirting, you don't know your young men and women.

3. Women show their hair and dress up all slutty at these mixed weddings

First, why are you looking at these women anyways! Lower your gaze, men! Second, see first.

I am not responsible for what anyone does. I am only responsible for my own actions. At my own wedding, I had a simple additional line in the invite.

"Since this is a Muslim wedding, guests are kindly requested to observe Islamic sensibilities and dress modestly. Your cooperation is this regard will be highly appreciated."

Or something to that affect. It was a mixed wedding. And you know what? Almost everyone complied with the request. My non-Muslim friends even called me up to ask what would be acceptable. That's because in general, people are nice. I find that hardcore so-called religious people treat everyone else as assholes who need to be 'guided', and therefore controlled.

My view is that it's your wedding, so if you want it to be gender segregated it's your choice. My faith compels me to attend a wedding once I get an invitation and have no excuses, so I will attend. But please, don't call it "Islamic". Because it's not, and you do a disservice to all those men and women who get married in a decent mixed wedding ceremony.


References:

1. Sexuality in Islam, referencing Surah Hujarat from the Quran.
2. Segregation of the Sexes.
3. Bukhari, Vol. 7, No. 111
4. Saudi Arabia: Driving a 'threat to virgin brides', The Independent
5. Saudi to ban women with alluring eyes

Are You More Pious Than The Prophet?

Congratulations, you may now be more pious than the Prophet.

* * *

You will never kiss your wife in public, because after all that is what those infidels do. We are not of loose morals like them! No Public Display of Affection for Muslims! We may beat our wives, because that is in the Quran, supposedly, but we will NEVER kiss them in public.

Congratulations, you are now more pious than the Prophet. He used to kiss his wives in public ^[1] and never beat them.

* * *

Do you have fun? Astagfirullah! Come on! The duniya (world) is not a place to have fun!

Too bad the Prophet had fun. He used to engage in racing with his wives (sometimes he even let Aisha - a woman - win! *gasp*) ^[2], and he even carried Umama, his grand-daughter (Zainab's daughter), while praying.

WHILE PRAYING! *double gasp*. He used to put her down gently when he prostrated ^[3]. We would NEVER let a child interfere with us when we pray, eh? Guess we think we are more pious than him.

Yep. No fun please, we are Muslims.

* * *

You treat Islam seriously. After all, religion is not supposed to be easy, right? I mean, never mind that verse in Surah Taha where Allah is saying "We have not sent down the Qur'an to you to be (an occasion) for your distress" ^[4] - who cares about that! If it's easy it cannot be pious, we all know if you are truly Islamic you will do it the hard way! In fact, when the going gets tough, you know you are in the right path!

The above is actually the tag and title of a blog that encourages women who are pregnant, to fast. Even if it's a 18 hour fast (like in North America).

Too bad the Prophet recommended the easy way for us. Especially about pregnant women and fasting (a definite no-no) ^[6]. But come on! We are more pious than that! As the author asks, "Yes, why should I not fast whilst pregnant?" It's all about priorities. Yes, sure the Quran and Hadith may exempt you, but ... Allah will give you strength! Even if, you know, you are disobeying Him and His Prophet!

When Umar told the Prophet after the conquest of Mecca that prayers no longer need be shortened, as there was no more a fear of attack, the Prophet replied, "This is a charity that Allah, the Exalted, has bestowed upon you, so accept His charity!"

And in another place, *gasp* the Prophet even told his Companions, "So be moderate in your religious deeds and do what is within your ability."^[5]

But we are more pious than that, are we not?

* * *

Meanwhile, we Muslims have to defend the honour of the Prophet (by behaving dishonourably?). And the honour of ALL Prophets. So someone named a teddy bear after Muhammad (peace be upon him)? Off with her head!

Too bad Muhammad's own wife Aisha used to do the same thing.

And music! Astagfirullah! Isn't there a hadith that says "the love of Quran and the love of music cannot co-exist in the same heart"? Oh wait, there isn't? *surprise* Oh, it's just a quote by some guy named Ibn Masud. Oh well, it's good enough for us. No music at our weddings!

After all, it's only the Prophet's most beloved wife Aisha who narrated that when a woman was married to an Ansari man, the Prophet (peace be on him) said, "Aishah, did they have any entertainment? The Ansar are fond of entertainment." ^[7]

Once, according to Ibn Abbas, Aisha gave a girl relative of hers in marriage to a man of the Ansar. The Prophet came and asked, "Did you send a singer along with her?"

"No," said 'Aishah. The Messenger of Allah (peace be on him) then said, "The Ansar are a people who love poetry. You should have sent along someone who would sing, 'Here we come, to you we come, greet us as we greet you.'"^[8]

But come on now, we are for sure more pious than that! In the name of Islam we will segregate our women and put them behind that curtain. I ask you, did the Prophet allow women to be present in the mosques?

He did? Um... um, ignore that. Times are different now. No longer can we obey the Prophet's sunnah in accepting an invitation to a Jewish lady's house for dinner (you know, without wondering if the cow was facing Mecca when it was slaughtered).

We are way, way more pious now.

References:
1. Abu Dawud and Tirmidhi
2. Ahmad
3. Bukhari
4. Quran 20:2
5. Bukhari, Volume 7, Hadith 577
6. Abu Dawud, 2408; al-Tirmidhi, 715; al-Nasa’i, 2315; and Ibn Majah, 1667
7. Bukhari
8. Ibn Majah

Why Are (Some) Religious People so Rude?

I was at a wedding recently. As usual with weddings, there's lots of people taking photographs, and I was one of them, especially with my DSLR. And when the couple has spent more than $80,000 on the wedding, you want to take pictures.

And then I ran into one guy.

"Hey, don't take my picture!" He was adamant! So I replied, somewhat knowingly, "Why, religious reasons?"

"YES!" He practically shouted. "It is haraam (forbidden) to take pictures. So DON'T TAKE MY PICTURE!"

Alright! But then get the HELL OUT OF THE WAY THEN. Stop standing next to the bride and groom if you don't want your picture taken!

I don't understand one thing - why do people who don't want their picture taken always assume everyone WANTS to take their picture? I mean, you are not Angelina Jolie.

And another thing, have you noticed that these people, who often claim to be more "religious" (translation: taking things to extremes) are always ... RUDE!

In another wedding, I met someone else who did not want their picture to be taken. Do you know what he did? He threatened to break the camera of a 10 year old KID who was taking pictures!

"Taking pictures is HARAAM and against Islam and if you take my picture again I will BREAK your camera do you understand?"


Way to go... be Islamic, threaten kids. Nice slogan. Recently, someone left the following comment on another blog (of a Muslim sister who also has a dog).

"no disrespect, but ..."

As soon as you read those, you know that the person has LOTS of disrespect. And what's up with the bad grammar and typos! It seems all our "Islamic friends" online didn't graduate high school English. The commentator goes on to berate her for caring for her sister's dog. Seems like they totally missed Imam Malik's point of view on dogs. Not to mention the story of the People of the Cave (and their dog) from THE QURAN!

On my blog's facebook page recently, someone commented, "IS IT ALLOWED TO SHOE QURANIC VERSES IN PICS....KINDLY GIVE THE ANSWER".

Now I don't think it's ever allowed to "shoe" Quranic verses, but the ALL-CAPS and the weak English immediately told me this person wasn't interested in a civil debate. Nevertheless, I gave him (or her) the references on Muslim artists, pictures etc. And just as I predicted, the person was back with the following gem:

"i am totally dissatisfied with the references you given. plz u give me the true reference after which u r showing it in pics or i will start a compaign to dis like your page....sorry for that"

I like how they apologize .. lol. And then they start spamming the web page, posting rude messages, after which I simply kicked and banned that user. There's something therapeutic about selecting a user and clicking "Remove and ban user".

I would put this aside, but this user is synoptic of a lot of Muslims. They hold fast to some ritual or practice, and anything that is SLIGHTLY different from them - HARAAM! KAAFIR! DOOMSDAY!

I think it's time to tell these people, "your haraam-ing is haraam!" Grow up.

Non-Arab Arabs

So while Katrina Kaif looks much better saying it, I also have to say it.

"What's my name?"

It's not Misbah, Misba, or *horror* Al Misbah.

It's MEZBA.

I hate it when people come to me and say "Why do you spell your name as Mezba, it should be pronounced as Misbah."

"Why," I will ask, knowing the reply.

"Well, it's really 'mis' in Arabic, not 'mez', so you name should be-"

IN CASE YOU ARE TOO DUMB TO NOTICE OR SEE BEYOND YOUR BEARD this is the English language and I am spelling my name in English and I will spell it the Way I Want It.

Imagine a guy name Paul having this conversation.

"Sorry, it's actually 'Ball' in Arabic and not 'Paul' as we don't have a 'P' sound so you should spell your name as 'Ball' really."

Last time I checked, you spell people's names the way they want it to be spelt and pronounce it the way they want it to be pronounced.

Muslims from the subcontinent (India-Pakistan-Bangladesh) all suffer from an inferiority complex where they want to be very Arab. I don't know why, an Arab isn't much better than a non-Arab (I didn't say it, the Prophet did). Yet, in their zeal to be "more Muslim" they will give every kid an Arabic name. This 'zeal' is most evident in Pakistan.

In Bangladesh, surprisingly, we still have few stalwarts who will give their children Bengali names. They are not Hindu, nor Muslim, but Bengali names. Names that have some good meaning, or is cultural.

And then the problem starts when they meet these non-Arab Arabs.

"Why is your name Mala? That's such a Hindu name."

"Why is your name Moushumee? OMG that is SUCH a Hindu name."

The last from a guy called Sameer who puts "Sam" on his resume.

No, it's not a Hindu name. Broaden your horizons a bit. Sheesh.

One should carry a placard.

"Hi, My name is Moushumee and I am NOT a Hindu."

NTTIAWTT.

Questions about "Islamic" Financing

I recently wrote a 2-page article with some questions I have on "Islamic" financing. Next month I have a meeting with a senior cleric at an Islamic institution and perhaps he can give me some answers. I am reproducing the article here so that if you are attending any course etc. on "Islamic" financing, please see if your instructor can answer these points. I recently found out my alma mater Rotman is going to offer a course in "Islamic" financing (via Muslim Girl on Twitter).

1. It seems like a Recent Addition

Islam has been revealed over 1400 years ago, yet interest-free banking seems to be of recent origin. The earliest references to the reorganization of banking on the basis of profit sharing rather than interest are found in Anwar Qureshi (1946), Naiem Siddiqi (1948) and Mahmud Ahmad (1952), followed by a more elaborate exposition by Mawdudi (1950). Much work followed later from the works of these pioneers. The first private Islamic bank was Dubai Islamic Bank in 1975.

My question is: what was the Muslim world doing before 1940? We had a huge empire, in particular the Ottoman Empire; one would assume there would be a need for large financial transactions over the 1400 years of Islam’s history. Yet, all the so-called organized Islamic financing mechanisms such as Mudaraba, Mufawada, Suqooq, Ijarah etc. all seemed to be recent developments. What did a Muslim man who wanted to borrow a huge amount of money, much more than his current capital leverage would allow, do before 1940?

2. Compatibility with local law

Islamic financing in many instances seem to ignore local laws. For example’s sake, let’s take a simple lease-to-own mortgage mechanism used by entities such as ISNA.

How it works (my understanding of it)

The homebuyer wants to buy a house for some amount, say $250,000, and can afford a down payment of $50,000. He borrows $200,000 from the Islamic bank, for 30 years. Every month, he pays a certain amount of money to the bank, and at the end of 30 years, the bank gets their $200,000 back. So, how does the bank make a profit without charging interest?

Answer: they charge the homebuyer “rent” because as they say, they put up $200,000 out of the $250,000 so they own 80% of the house. The homebuyer will pay rent on 80% of the house as “determined by market” – this is their profit. Every year the rent should theoretically go down because less and less is owned by the bank.

My Questions:

1. So who owns the house? Bank, homebuyer or both? If the bank owns a part then should they not share in the cost of utilities, insurance, property taxes etc.? Yet these costs are all borne out by the homebuyer. So why is the homebuyer paying “rent”? According to law these should be borne out by owners only in proportion to their ownership.

2. If every year, more of the title goes to the homebuyer, then should not the Islamic bank pay the City of Toronto a Land Transfer Tax every year because every year the title is changing in composition?

3. If a fire destroys the house after first year who collects the insurance money? (Again goes back to the first question: who is the owner).

4. So what transaction is this? Is it a lease, a loan, a purchase? I thought uncertainties were NOT allowed in an Islamic transaction?

5. Why does the Islamic bank re-evaluate the market price of the house every year to determine the rent? According to Ontario Law, rent can only grow by a fixed percentage every year. Yet suspiciously most Islamic financier’s reevaluation of the market price of the house to determine the “rent” is surprisingly close to Bank of Canada’s financing rates or the international LIBOR rate.

3. General Questions

Student Loans and other non-profit loans

Many so-called Islamic financing schemes require profit sharing which theoretically also implies loss sharing. Yet what about necessities where there is no profit – such as student loans?

I wanted to do an MBA which would cost $60,000. Who would lend me $60,000 interest free for 10 years? It would mean the lender would lose the use of $60,000 for the duration of 10 years, with no profit at the end of term (in fact actually a loss due to inflation and future time value of money) and with the risk of default. Why would ANY one lend me that amount of money interest free?

Similarly, in any country, the government accounts for a major component of the demand for credit – both short-term and long-term. Unlike business loans these borrowings are not always for investment purposes, nor for investment in productive enterprises. Even when invested in productive enterprises they are generally of a longer-term type and of low yield. General profit-loss-sharing ideas do not apply for loans to government for many such projects and therefore Islamic banking becomes impractical.

Accounting / Knowledge of Economics

Those who argue the word “riba” in the Quran means all interest and not just usury (which is excessive interest) also do not study accounting / finance / economics because doing so (and perhaps working as an accountant / banker / economist) would imply they will have to calculate interest as part of their day-to-day jobs. For them, even calculating interest is haram. Thus, if everyone adopted their approach the whole Muslim world would be bereft of accountants, economists etc. Clearly this is not practical. Even the Islamic Foundation of Toronto has an accountant.

How To Have A Perfectly Sane Brown Wedding - Part 1

I attended a lot of weddings this summer, mostly desi weddings. If you don't know how desi weddings work, here's a primer. Now, in the interests of preserving sane-ness amongst desis, I give you (for free) my 5 tips on How To Have A Perfectly Sane Brown Wedding.

*start*

Rule Number 1
If you invite 600 people, make sure the hall can, oh-I-don't-know, HOLD 600 people.

This is your wedding. If you can afford to invite 600 people, then PLEASE get a big hall. Don't think "half won't show up" and "we don't need air conditioning in Canada".

Here's a rule: 600 people = 600 chairs (minimum).

Rule Number 2
You know, you don't REALLY need to invite 600 people.

It's wedding, not a Facebook invite to a teenager's party. Brown people invite EVERY body, lest someone get offended. Sure, you may not have seen me for 10 years, but you will be offended if I don't invite you to an event where you will be ignored for the whole 3 hours because there's 599 other people who want to take a photo with me.

And here's some information for desi parents: "Mr & Mrs." is good enough. You don't NEED to add "and family" to John in the cubicle down the corridor whom you have never known but feel obliged to invite anyways.

Rule Number 3
Please Vet All Wedding Speakers, including the imam/priest.

So here's the situation. I attend this wedding where the food has NOT been served and there's a whole bunch of white people also in attendance (and being fussed over by the host) while the brown guys run riot and throw seating arrangement plans out the window (including PHYSICALLY lifting chairs and taking it to another table AND picking out the 'reserved' tag on some tables and chucking it) - when the long bearded imam stands up to speak.

"Greetings and peace be upon you," He starts. "So here is my tip to the newly wed couple. You have certain rights over each other."

And then he goes to entail how the wife should seek the permission of the husband before leaving his house and how she should always submit to him and the husband should break the news gently to his wife if he ever takes a second wife.

By the end of the speech I had learnt that homosexuals should be stoned to death and a couple can enjoy marital relations in any position (minus the exceptions) and how in this society every woman in a short skirt is a temptress and every man has to fend for himself.

All spoken with a very bad accent.

The food then arrived. I had lost my appetite.

Please pay close attention: VET ALL SPEAKERS. VET THEIR SPEECHES. If possible introduce tape delay.

And do NOT stone homsexuals to death.

Rule Number 4
Women Need To Pray Too.

This is more for Muslims but I have seen many weddings where the hosts go to great lengths to make prayer arrangements - for the men. The women? I guess you can pray in your chairs. I get it that some women may not want to pray given their state of ablution and the heavy make up but for those that wish to pray you SHOULD make the arrangements. If you can get a prayer space, the women can just pray BEHIND the women.

But that would make sense.

And while you are about it, can you get an imam who will NOT decide to read Surah Baqarah while leading that prayer? Seriously, Allah revealed short surahs for a reason.

Rule Number 5
Calling For Food By Table Numbers - a primer.

Please, please DON'T DO THIS. It makes sense when there's only 5-10 tables (see Rule number 2 and refer to white weddings as example). It makes NO SENSE when there's 60 tables. And it makes absolutely ZERO sense when you are reading table numbers in some random order of prime factorial and forget to continue after '39'.

Either have a buffet with at least 4 lines (2 tables with people on either side) so it moves fast, or have food brought to the table. If you want some priviledged people to eat first (i.e in-laws or white people at the office you want to impress), AGAIN, bring the food TO THEIR TABLE.

Otherwise, have a free-for-all buffet.

Again, see rule 1 and 2.

*end*

Extended in Part 2 ...

How To Spot The Eid Grinch

Are you an Eid Grinch? Do you not have fun on Eid? How do you tell someone if they are the Eid humbug? Here are three signs.

1. Working on Eid when they don't have to

2. Not giving Eidi or gifts to children/family

3. Staying home and watching TV all Eid day

Eid is meant to have fun. It is meant as a celebration, BY GOD, for all you have done in Ramadan. It may be a challenge to celebrate Eid in a non-Muslim country but it's not hard, nor is it particularly tough. Really, is it that hard to just have a good time?

Have a party. Arrange some games (here's some Eid game suggestions!). Visit your friends. Give your mom a call (and dad too). Forgive your enemies. Switch off the TV and go outside. Don't be a $$$$ miser, give some gifts!

Here's in advance a very happy Eid Mubarak to all my readers.