Spiritual Schadenfreude

“Astaghfirallah, look at the way these so called Muslims are behaving!?”

“All these Muslims come for Eid prayer, but how many do you think even woke up for Fajr?”

“Look at these brothers with no beards and sisters with convertible hijabs, what’s the point in that!?”

Sound familiar? I know they sound familiar to me. I will own up to not only having heard them and let them go unchallenged, but having made similar statements myself. It’s something for which I seek forgiveness from Allah.

Schadenfreude is a term meaning to take pleasure in the misfortune of others. In its innocent form, it is why we enjoy watching movies and shows that follow a comedy of errors (remember Kenan and Kel anyone?). In its darker form, it is a step away from sadism.

There is something however I’ve noticed that I was indulging in, and not just me, but many others. That is spiritual schadenfreude - taking pleasure in witnessing and discussing the spiritual shortcomings of others (real or imagined).

This requires a lot of introspection. Think about when you last discussed something like the above. Perhaps you were discussing the ‘backward’, ‘uncivilised’, ‘ill-educated’ behaviour of the mosque uncles. Or, having seen the mosque full of people for Eid prayer, commentedd at how many prayed Fajr that morning? Or talking about that heretic group of Sufis/Salafis/Barelwis/Shi’is (delete as appropriate) and how misguided they were with a group of friends.

Now think carefully, did you feel sad about it? Did you feel worried about those who missed Fajr? Did you feel saddened by the behaviour of the uncles? Did you feel genuine concern for those who were ‘heretic’ and did you desire sincerely for them to receive Allah’s guidance? If so, Alhamdulillah, thank God for your sincere heart and feel free to stop reading this blog.

But if, like me, you discovered that in actual fact you took some perverse pleasure in discussing these topics… That like me, you felt somehow better and more superior when talking of those who were wrong or astray… If you found that these discussions inflated your ego instead of making your heart grateful to God for being saved from misdoing… Well then, maybe it’s time to have of a self-reflection.

These conversations are much too similar to backbiting. Even when the subjects remain anonymous, it is often all to clear who is being discussed and most importantly, you know who is being discussed.

The Quran, as ever, teaches us a better way: -

“Believers, no one group of men should deride another, who may after all be better than them; no one group of women should deride another, who may after all be better than them; do not speak ill of one another; do not use offensive terms for one another. How bad it is to be called a mischief-maker after accepting faith! Those who do net repent of this behaviour are evildoers”.
Surah al-Hujraat, Verse 11.

If we find others who have spiritual shortcomings, who behave in contradiction to their faith, who to our understanding are misguided or heretic, than this should distress us. “Love for your brother what you love for yourself” – as our Prophet (peace be upon him) taught. We should approach the topic with mercy, compassion and above all, humility. If, like me, you find that sometimes that those feelings of superiority and pleasure at discussing the faults of others returns, then follow another piece of advice from our Beloved (peace be upon him) – “speak good or remain silent”.

Hadith References:
“Love for your brother…” – Bukhari 13
“speak good…” – Nawawi 15

8 Tips for the Muslim Student

So you’re going to University…

September is a great time - you get to see all the college students eagerly preparing for their taste of university life. You also see life flow back into the student parts of town which felt eerily quiet during the summer months.

Whether you’re a fresher or an old schooler returning back – the academic year is full of opportunity. So here are few quick bits of wisdom I’ve inherited from others.

1) Thank God

Gratitude is at the very heart of faith, so thanks for the blessing of having reached higher education. The very moment you enrol, you’ve become one of the very blessed few who have ever had the opportunity. And in the words of Spiderman’s uncle, ‘with great power comes great responsibility’, so be prepared to thank God by serving his creation.

2) Join the Islamic Society

The Islamic Society is a fantastic and wonderful opportunity. It is one of the best things about university life. It will help you make friends, show you around, give you wonderful social activities and help you keep in touch with your spiritual heart which can be so easily neglected in the intense speed of uni life. “But my ISoc is dull, small and barely does anything” I hear you say. Well that’s just a perfect opportunity to join your ISoc committee and give it some life. Why? Because there is only one thing better than joining the ISoc, and that’s being part of the core committee. It will give you amazing life skills, amazing memories, and let you be part of something that is in the service of God.

The ISoc isn’t a ‘Muslim bubble’ thing, or at least it shouldn’t be. For me, the ISoc was in fact a gateway to meeting people of different faiths, and none (we had lots of fun with the Atheist and Agnostic Society during my first year). Through the ISoc I met people of various backgrounds who attended ISoc social outings, inter-society events and so on. Rather than causing isolation, the ISoc helped me make diverse friendships from different faiths who I otherwise would not have met.

3) Get Yourself a Quran

Both Arabic and English. Maybe you’ve packed one already, if not, steal (I mean borrow) one from the local mosque. Fork out a few quid and buy an English copy (I recommend Abdul-Haleem’s translation). The Quran is light. In Arabic, its recitation is healing and comfort for the soul. In English, its words are wisdom and knowledge. Consume it in both forms. The Prophet (peace be upon him) described the Quran as gardens to delight in. You might go for weeks or months and never glance towards it. But there is always a time when you need to walk in the shade of God, illuminate yourself in his light and enjoy the serenity and fresh gardens of the Quran. Keep it handy. There is a world of knowledge and wisdom contained within its few pages.

4) Education does not equal lectures.

Not to get too romantic and nostalgic, but once upon a time the words learned and educated didn’t mean a degree or well paid job. It meant refinement of character, wisdom, moderation in speech and behaviour, it meant civility and etiquette (by etiquette I mean adab, not eating with the right spoon). Unfortunately, society has been moving towards a duller, more empty and very Cartesian view of the world. Universities have become less places of education and more commercial. But that shouldn’t stop you from getting a real education.

Henry Rutgers once said “don’t let your studies interfere with your education”. I have no idea who Henry Rutgers is, but he’s speaking sense.

Get an education at university. That means meeting people, organising events, going to debates, involving yourself in the thick and thin of campus life. Personally, I learnt a lot more out of lectures than in them. My lectures taught me theories and ideas and academic debates. My ISoc and extra activities taught me patience, determination, hardwork, kindess, concern for others, not to mention event management, leadership skills, working under a very very tight deadline, marketing, multitasking, the practicalities of catering for 300 odd people. With both my university lectures and my ISoc experience under my belt, I felt I left university a more rounded and more whole individual. Others I know feel the same. So get an education in university, but know that an education means more than understanding the word Catersian.

5) Bit by Bit

The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said “God loves the deeds done often, even though they might be small”. Importance advice with regards to ones good deeds, but vital if you plan on passing your examinations. Writing an essay in a few days is never a good idea, nor is trying to cram in the final hours before an exam. When it comes to learning, bit by bit is really the key. Don’t get over-excited read three books in the first week, attend every lecture, seminar, and the whole host of non-compulsory extras offered through the week while keeping intricate well-filed notes with labels and highlighted key sections. Why? Because as anyone who has spent more than 3 months in university will tell you, it doesn’t work. Inevitably you will burn out, worst case scenario, stop trying at all. Instead, get into the habit of doing a bit every day. Even in the ridiculously long holidays. Freshers are always is amazed by the free time offered by university – use it well.

6) Parents

Whether you’re living at home or living away, don’t ever forget your responsibility to your parents. You’re not a teenager or a child, you’re an adult and you have a responsibility to your mother and father.

7) Prayer, Dhikr and a halaqa or two.

Maintaining your spiritual side can be daunting while at university. Most universities are secular, so while your brain is given all the critical refinement it needs your heart is considered simply an organ for pumping blood around your body. Keep your heart alive with some dhikr every day (something small you can do daily easily, make sure there is some salawat in there somewhere). Try your best to do your prayers. If you pray already, keep it up. If you don’t pray, maybe start getting into the habit of praying now. One or two a day and build it up. And make sure you go to a halaqa. Most ISocs hold one, if not, a local mosque should Find a good scholar that you click with, and a topic you feel you’ll enjoy and benefit from. Spiritual knowledge is vital to growing as a person.

8) Have Principles and a Plan

I’ve seen some terrible stuff at university. I’m not talking about binge drinking or the rugby team hazing (the latter being particularly traumatic… I hope I never see an ‘elephant walk’ again in my life), but people who have lost themselves while at university. Know your priorities and know your principles. If you don’t know, this is a perfect time to find out. Few things are as disheartening as seeing someone full of life and potential become apathetic and aimless. Or worse still, replace their once noble and lofty aspirations (end poverty, save the world etc…) with the mundane and self-serving. We all know the hadith that “actions are by intentions”, well remember that this also means that great actions require equally great intentions.

I hope these 8 points are somewhat useful. I'll end with a brief piece of advice someone shared with me during my first year - "a day in which you don't grow closer to Allah is a day wasted".

The Life of Muhammad: Mixed Reactions

From what I gather from my non-Muslim friends on Twitter, Facebook and face-to-face interactions – all are very much enjoying the BBC’s Life of Muhammad documentary.

From what I gather from my Muslim friends on Twitter, Facebook and face-to-face interactions – all are very much disappointed at the BBC’s Life of Muhammad documentary.

It is wonderful to have a generally sympathetic portrayal of the Prophet Muhammad on national TV in a prime-time slot. A great opportunity to share the man and message so close to the heart of billions of Muslims.

Yet it still isn't quite right. Several things just fail to hit the mark.

The first is its insistence on linking modern day events with the biography. Yes, the Satanic Verses, 9/11 and the Israel-Palestine conflict are all important issues regarding Muslims today. But you can’t miss out 1400 years of history. Quite obviously the Israel-Palestine conflict has more to do with the millions of Palestinian refugees that lost their homes and land upon the creation of the state of Israel in 1948 than al-Israa wal-Miraaj (the Prophet's journey to Jerusalem and beyond). Something that isn’t conveyed in the documentary.

An older American documentary, Muhammed: Legacy of a Prophet did the same thing. But instead of contextualising the life of the Prophet with 9/11 or such, it used the day to day lives of modern Muslims – doctors, lawyers and so on. To hear from Muslims about how a specific event in the life of the Prophet resonated with them, or made them who they are felt more intimate and more meaningful. It also made a lot more sense then trying to link complex global issues to a single incident from the life of the Prophet.

The next issue is the choice of commentators. One commentator was Robert Spencer, a very well known anti-Islam commentator who founded and runs the website Jihad Watch. To give you a sense of Jihad Watch’s paranoia – it accuses a dodgy kebab shop in Cardiff of being al-Qaeda trained terrorists. Like seriously, click the link, they actually say it! And this guy is a commentator on the show? Bizarre. The line up also includes Nonie Dariwsh, Director of Former Muslims United. An ex-Muslim was given more speaking time on the Prophet Muhammad than Tariq Ramadan, a prominent Muslim scholar.

I can totally understand the need for impartial and unbiased (if such a thing exists) commentators, in the form of academics and experts – but how can Robert Spencer and Nonie Darwish be justified?

A final issue that bugs me is choice of content. You have 23 years during which the Prophet Muhammad was active as a preacher and reformer of society. In a documentary of three hours, there is naturally a need to highlight certain important incidents; so no one expects everything to be covered.

But for many Muslims, this documentary misses out a lot of the important stuff. Important first in understanding who was Muhammad, and important in understanding who are Muslims.

For example, the suffering and persecution faced by the Prophet in Makkah is mentioned only in passing. Yet this shaped so much of the Prophet’s experiences, and is such an important aspect of the Prophetic story for Muslims. In the face of torture and punishment, all the early Muslims stood steadfast in their faith, adhering to the Quranic injunction of ‘sabr’, patience. To overlook this is to miss the foundation of the Prophetic biography.

Another aspect I was looking forward to in the second part of the documentary, that was barely mentioned, was how the Prophet united the tribes of Madinah. So much of the Islamic understandings of unity, brotherhood (of humanity and Muslims), sacrifice, asceticism and so on stem from the importance of Madinah, yet it was barely looked at.

Instead the documentary tends to focus on the controversial. When discussing Makkah and the Constitution of Madinah, the documentary is keen to mention historians who argue both didn't even exist. When it comes to the controversial issues however, the Banu Quraizah for example, the documentary seems less concerned with historical debate and is content to accept a single narrative around the issue.

Finally, a documentary that tries to look at the life of the Prophet but that omits his relationship to God will always fall short. Even from a critical, atheist position; his relationship to God is paramount to understanding the Prophet. Karen Armstrong is the one commentator who reminds us of this. She understands how central it is to the story.

Overall, it still feels like this documentary is struggling to break free of Western Orientalism. The issues it focuses on, the way the Prophet is presented, the questions asked; they all mimic previous Orientalist studies of the Prophet.

Yet ultimately, I have to remind myself and perhaps other Muslims that this documentary is step in the right direction. So little knowledge exists in the public realm about the Prophet Muhammad, that anything is better than nothing.

Islamism: What are you talking about?

There is one word that has become increasingly popular in media, political and academic discourse of late – Islamism.

No other words however annoy me as much.The word is redundant. It can mean absolutely anything.

In media and political discourse – Islamism is pretty much synonymous with “bad Muslim” – the evil, extremist, terrorist, ‘fanatic in the attic’ Muslim; more often than not, it is used as a slur.

In more refined quarters, it is used to refer to the Muslim Brotherhood and groups inspired by it, or used as an equivalent to the equally pointless term ‘political Islam’.

The fallacy of Islamism is perhaps best demonstrated by Wikipedia, which hosts no less than nine definitions.

At its mean – a word should convey some shared understanding to allow communication of ideas between people. Islamism does not fulfil this criterion.

If Islamism is the philosophy and ideas of the Muslim Brotherhood, then it needs to be restricted to this and not diluted by refering to a host of other groups with sometimes radically different beliefs than the Brotherhood (for example, Saudi Arabian Salifiyyah are often referred to as Islamist despite stark differences).

If Islamism is to refer to ‘political Islam’ then this should be done with integrity and intellectual honesty. ‘Political Islam’ can not be considered a new movement (as if Islam has made no political claims prior to the twentieth century). Nor can it be restricted to describe only one end of the political spectrum. To be sincere in this definition then, we must also describe British Muslims for Secular Democracy as Islamists.

Finally, if Islamism is to refer to the bogeymen of Islam as it is often in the media and even our Prime Minister, then we must have an honest conversation about what ‘Islamism’ is and what makes it a problem. It is unacceptable to bandy about Islamism as a slur and an insult with no further thought, simply replacing Marxist/Marxism as the new threat to modern society.

Ultimately, I think academia, the media and polity would do better to abandon the word altogether – though I welcome someone to prove me wrong.

Reclaiming Jihad

What comes to your mind when you think of jihad?

You would be forgiven if it didn’t have positive connotations. The media and public discourses around jihad are framed by acts of political violence and killing, such as September 11^th 2001.

The Muslim community have tried to correct such a gross misunderstanding of the word. They spoke of how jihad means struggle, a struggle for righteousness, justice and mercy. They spoke of how mindless killing could not be more divorced from the spiritual endeavour (both internal and external) that is indicated by the word jihad.

Jihad has so overwhelmingly been associated with violence and killing, that Muslims sometimes refer to it as the J-word, conscious that its very mention can cause concern.

But now it’s time to redefine jihad. To reclaim jihad.

When you think of the crowds in Tunisia, who changed global politics forever by ousting Ben Ali, think of jihad. When you think of the Egyptians, who through patience and adversity stood united and defiant in the face of a stubborn Pharaoh who fell like Ozymandias, think of jihad. And indeed, when you think of Libyans, who confront a dictator more than willing to kill his own people, think of jihad.

In fact, don’t just think of jihad. Think of the highest, most celebrated, most beloved, type of jihad. Think of the very pinnacle of the meaning of jihad.

This is not a matter of subjective opinion, but of theological truth.

The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said:

“The best jihad is to speak a word of truth in front of a tyrant ruler”

Every protestor took part in fulfilling this deeply profound prophetic teaching, and went to the very core of the meaning of jihad.

Every placard held in Freedom Square was ‘word of truth in front of a tyrant ruler’. Every blog written, every chant, even the moments of silence met the criteria.

Now, more than ever we should be reclaiming the beautiful word that is jihad.

NB: For those interested in the reference for the hadith, its quoted by several muhadith including Ibn Majjah on the authority of Abu Saeed, Ahmed and Ibn Majjah and Tabarani and Baihaqi on the authority of Abu Umamah and Ahmed and Nisa’i on the authority of Tariq Ibn Shihab.

A few questions for Mr Cameron...

“Muslims must embrace our British values” argues David Cameron in a speech delivered in Munich.

Well, I have a few questions for our Prime Minister about this all.

Why the division between Muslim and British?

Perhaps Muslim values and British values are not so different? As a British Muslim, I have found a lot of common ground, on family values, a culture of charity, even stoicism (the ‘stiff upper lip’).

And since we're on the topic, what are ‘British values’? You talk of freedom and equality. These are not just British values, they are Muslim values, they are secular values, they human values. No one would reject them as being virtuous.

But if you try to get more precise than this, we run into problems. The diversity of opinion in Britain, as in any country, precludes making such generalised and grand statements as ‘British values’, unless you include all values held by Britons, the full diversity of them.

I find it uncomfortable how you talk of ‘Muslims’ who must embrace ‘our British values’. I was born in Britain, raised in Britain, educated in Britain. I speak English as well you. I’m not sure why my values, which are born out of my Muslim faith, are not considered ‘British’? Do you not consider me British?

Maybe it's worth remembering that Muslims have been in Britain for centuries, not decades, and have been contributing to British life for just as long.

Intergration is a two-way process. Perhaps it’s time you embraced Muslims as part of Britain?

Has multiculturalism really failed, or are you just being fashionable?

Multiculturalism was the buzz word of the 90s, these days it’s all about ‘intergration’ and ‘community cohesion’.

Buzz words aside, we're really still having the same conversation I think.

There are two sides to multiculturalism. First is the reality, then there is the hope.

The reality is that there different cultures in Britain, these cultures are not just ‘white’ and ‘ethnic’. They are Welsh cultures, Muslim cultures, student cultures, working-class cultures. There is even a discernible ‘rich Oxbridge politician’ culture. They all weave into the fabric of the society we live in. There is no denying it.

Then there is the hope of multiculturalism. This is that these different cultures can interact and engage with each other. That they can find common ground in a shared identity with shared ambitions of the world they want to live in. This is not a two-way conversation, it’s a conversation takes place between lots of groups and cultures, over a long period of time. More than just 30 years.

So perhaps a bit early to call multiculturalism a failure. Especially when it's delivered success in so many areas. Feel free to visit Cardiff for an example. Or Liverpool. Or London. The vibrancy and life of these cities is due to the diversity of those who live there.

You talk of living 'separate lives'. The only ones I find who live 'separate lives' are the super rich, who live in a bubble away from the struggles and concerns of the majority of Britain. Who are so lacking in contact with everyone else they think there is no recession and Brits have 'never had it so good'.

The problems faced by society today have little to do with multiculturalism, which is a scape-goat for social ills caused by poverty, unemployment and disillusionment.

If you really want to solve the problems society faces, you have to be honest about the causes.

Is this about Muslims, or about foreigners? I’m getting a bit confused.

You talk about the need for ‘equality and freedom’, but suddenly you start talking about ‘ensuring immigrants learn to speak English’. Big jump there. Did I miss something?

And then there’s the bit where you say ‘when a white person holds objectionable views – racism, for example – we rightly condemn them. But when equally unacceptable views or practices have come from someone who isn't white, we've been too cautious, frankly even fearful, to stand up to them.’

Okay, we seem to be blurring the lines here a bit. There are plenty of white Muslims out there, have you been too cautious to stand up to them as well? Or only the brown ones? Or are you really just making naïve assumptions of ethnicity and religion based upon skin colour?

Surely you’re more educated and nuanced than that.

Why did you deliver this speech at a European security conference?

Violent extremism is a threat and a danger that should be combated with no hesitations.

But perhaps it’s worth remembering, that out of 294 terrorist attacks in Europe in 2009, only one was carried out by a Muslim.

Regards,
Someone who didn’t vote for you. Or Nick Clegg for that matter.

NB: At time of publishing this blog, David Cameron had not yet delivered his speech, but speeches are released early to the press. As I'm not a fan of writing in the future tense, since I find it a bit weird and almost prophetic in tone, I've written in the past tense. I do however hope Cameron has a change of heart and decides to deliver a speech on fiscal reduction instead.

Not Ashamed

Not Ashamed is a campaign launched by Christian Concern, and backed by Lord Carey (former Archbishop of Canterbury).

It calls upon Christians to be more confident in their faith against an “attempt to ‘air-brush’ the Christian Faith out of the picture”.

I sympathise with many of Lord Carey’s concerns, as stated in the campaign leaflet. Britain does indeed owe much to the Christian faith, from the UK’s overarching morality to its educational establishments (it was Christian schools that educated the poor and the young in the UK well before the State had even the slightest concern for such things). It should also be appreciated that Non-Conformist and the Protestant traditions helped imbue Britain with a sense of religious freedom that is still visible today.

I likewise agree that there are determined efforts to remove Christianity from the public sphere. Although perhaps not all of his examples are accurate – the concern over ‘winter lights’ instead of Christmas lights leads on from repeated tabloid stories about ‘Muslims banning Christmas’. In fact, the stories are so often repeated that they feel part of the annual Christmas run-up. This year was no disappointment, with the Daily Star leading a front page story with the headline ‘Christmas ‘nicked’ by Muslims’. It goes without saying the headlines are somewhat fabricated.

But I do not agree with Lord Carey’s diagnosis of the causes for the removal of Christianity from the public sphere. He writes: -

“So, it appears that flowing from a combination of well-meaning political correctness, multiculturalism and overt opposition to Christianity, a new climate, hostile to our country’s tradition and history, is developing.”

Almost like an elephant in the room, the word ‘secularism’ seems conspicuous in its absence.

I strongly disagree that political correctness (an empty term which few take heed of) is responsible. Nor is multiculturalism to blame. Multiculturalism is widely misunderstood and offers much to this country. A simple definition of multiculturalism is the acceptance of more than one cultural tradition in the public sphere (arguing in favour of pluralism) and a recognition that there exists, alongside the individual, group identities. It is in many ways in antipathy with secularism. It may be out of vogue, but it is invaluable.

Rather, the concern to remove Christianity from the public sphere began during the Enlightenment, and Christianity alone is not the focus, but religion all together. The Age of Reason often put itself squarely in opposition to religion. In France, the values of the Enlightenment came to fruition through laicite, which has generally made slow progress in Britain, and thankfully so.

Secularism, in its extreme form, denies the individual freedom of expression, in the hope to maintain some imagined absence of religion. It is contradictory in that it abuses and infringes upon the individuals rights while claiming to defend them, and likewise removes the very moral tools needed for a free, open, just and merciful society.

I wish Lord Carey and Christian Concern well with their campaign, but if they wish to be truly effective, they should recognise that it is secularism which is infringing upon the right to faith in the public sphere.

And if they wish to successfully contest the ideals of secularism, then partnership with other faiths will be necessary.

PANORAMA: a response

“British Schools: Islamic Rules” ran the title of this week’s Panorama on BBC1. It dealt with what it considered questionable material being taught in British schools.

There are several point of response, or themes of objection, that I have with the documentary. I highlight them in the hope that others will be able to see the questionable ground upon which the Panorama documentary was based.

OTHERING:

Othering is a process by which one identity is secured in opposition, and often in conflict, with another. In this case, it is the clear distinction between British and Islamic.

For many, myself included, there is little conflict between the two. Like millions of Muslims in the UK, I am confident in my British nationality and the Islamic principles and teachings I live my life by – and in fact I find many areas of commonality.

Yet the show with its title (British Schools: Islamic Rules) directly proposed an antithesis between that which is British, and that which is Islamic. This was a theme that reoccurred through out the show.

The presenter criticises some of the schools for teaching anti-Western views (essentially a construction of opposition between Islam and ‘the West’), when the show itself is guilty of doing exactly the same in its title and narrative.

EXTREMISM AND CONSERVATISM:

Religious extremism and religious conservatism are two very distinct notions, and must never be conflated if a mature and informed discussion on religion is to take place.

Yet Panorama is sloppy in distinguishing between the two. An example found in the show is of the religious opinion it cites which disfavours music. Yes, this is a position expounded by many scholars within Islam, though not all, and is well within the mainstream of Islamic religious opinion. Does this lead to extremism, or fundamentalism, or indeed anything of concern? Of course not, and importantly, Islam is not the only faith tradition with varying opinions on the role of music.

Again, this amateurism can be found in discussions of ‘medieval Islam’ and the way that Muslims use the word ‘kuffar’ (it can be used in a derogatory sense, but also in a technical sense, as scholars of jurisprudence are prone to doing).

CLAIMS OF ANTI-SEMITISM:

It is very difficult to examine the material presented in the documentary regarding anti-Semitism. I watched the documentary with a notepad in hand, but all the issues raised were vague, brief and generalised.

Where there is hate and prejudice being taught in Islamic schools, communities must contest this. But as I can’t bring a specific example from the documentary to discuss, I will simply outline what Islam teaches about Judaism, and the equality of humanity in general.

The Prophet Muhammad left no room for doubt about the nature of mankind when he stated in the Farewell Sermon, an important summa theologica of Islam, that: -

“All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over black nor a black has any superiority over white; except by piety and good action”

Jews, along with Christians and Mandaeans are counted amongst the ‘People of the Book’, and honoured title within the Quran used for the Abrahamic traditions.

The Constitution of Madinah, a social contract drafted and signed by the Prophet Muhammad, states in strong terms that between Muslims and Jews ‘there shall be sincere friendship, exchange of good counsel, fair conduct and no betrayal'.

Islam does not view the ‘Children of Israel’ in history as a differing religious tradition. Rather the story of the Children of Israel is the story of faith amongst humanity in the Quran. And so there are stories of piety and morality, of sin and forgiveness and indeed of sin and condemnation. These are for instruction and reflection of present day believers –Quranic references to Children of Israel should be understood in this context.

GENERALISATION AND SENSATIONALISM:

I refuse to accept the now token disclaimer offered by journalists and presenters who say “not all Muslims are like this, but” and then spend the whole show demonising and misrepresenting Muslims.

Despite almost all the schools mentioned by the documentary receiving ‘good’ or ‘excellent’ classifications by Ofsted (a very rare grade), the show then went on listing tenuous claims of ‘extremism’.

Often this is done by quoting speakers out of context, with some ominous music playing. This is a common technique, and one which wilfully misrepresents the speakers and the content of their message, and as mentioned, conflates extremism and religious conservatism.

If the issue of Muslim faith schools, and the content of their syllabus, is to be examined, it should be done thoroughly, with adequate time and an objective analysis.

This short documentary, with sloppy terminology, lack of understanding, vague accusations, sensationalism and generalisations of a two million strong Muslim community is anything but the right way to do it.

Religion needs a Stephen Hawking

Too many people just don’t get religion. The media, politicians, authors, entertainers, policy makers and so on are all too often guilty of understanding religion in a childish, simplistic and grossly inaccurate way.

A public perception of God paints him as a man in the sky with a beard, a booming voice of condemnation, a jealous and petty punisher of humankind or on the opposite end, a good but ultimately benign force in the universe.

Among too many politicians and policy makers, religion is seen as a nice little quirk. Somewhat like the cultural traditions of some distant exotic land - interesting, amusing, but not really something to be taken too seriously.

In a documentary some time ago, Richard Dawkins asked - “how can God speak to a billion people at the same?” The question is frankly bizarre for a theist since it betrays a deep, deep misunderstanding of to whom the word God is referring. It is common to hear people, in a matter-of-fact fashion, that all religions believe all other religious followers are going to hell, another statement that is factually untrue and even notionally incorrect. And the British Humanist Association recently launched a campaign aimed at stopping self-identified Christians as listing themselves as ‘Christian’ since they failed to live up to the BHA’s perception of what a Christian should.

All of these show a society that in moving away from religion, has forgotten what it was in the first place.

So where does Stephen Hawking come in to it? Well, Stephen Hawking is perhaps most known by the laymen for authoring ‘A Brief History of Time’. The book successfully condensed some of the most advanced and complex scientific theories of the modern era into an easy to read paperback for popular consumption. He has since published similar books, such as The Grand Theory (which famously claimed God was ‘unnecessary’.)

Just like Stephen Hawking, religion needs authors who can convey the subtleties of religion to a wider non-specialist audience. Currently, the only author I am familiar with who successfully fills this niche is Karen Armstrong, yet more are needed.

Books on Christian theology are dense and unapproachable, the traditional Islamic texts are either written for a Muslim audience, or when written for a wider-audience, preachy and at times, patronising (notable exceptions are the biographies of the Prophet Muhammad produced by Lings and Salahi). How many people truly understand what ‘Hinduism’ is about beyond Diwali and sacred cows? How many non-religious people could accurately describe an Abrahamic conception of God?

And so much more importantly – is there enough understanding of the role religion plays in society today? The way it influences the human individual and then the individual in a group?

I strongly feel there isn’t.

Writers like Karen Armstrong are needed not to proselytise, but to build bridges and to cement understanding an increasingly diverse society that risks falling apart as drifts ever close to individualism and isolationism.

So religion needs a Stephen Hawking… or two.

Islam and Wales

The below article is a draft. There is a lot of research not mentioned in this article, and some issues that need further examination. I publish it to provide an online source for the history of Islam in Wales, and furthermore, to solicit help, resources, pictures etc... from others in developing a reliable and extensive history of Islam in Wales.

It was written before I began my PhD in Islam in Wales and so does not include some of the more recent findings, which I hope, can be published in due course.

Islam’s relationship with Britain, and indeed Wales, is ancient, dynamic and deeply revealing. It is sometimes challenging, sometimes optimistic and always revealing.

The best place to begin the story is in the late eight century with King Offa of Mercia, who is perhaps most recognised for Offa’s Dyke (a partition built along the eastern border of Wales that still remains in parts to this day). However, King Offa is also known for minting one of the rarest and most curious coins of British history. A gold coin with the standard signage of ‘OFFA REX’, but with an additional Arabic script stamped upon it. The Arabic reads ‘There is but One Allah, the Only God, the True, and Muhammad is His Prophet’. The coin has attracted attention for this unique features, and many theories have put forward as to why a Christian King would mint a coin with the Islamic profession of faith. The most tenable theory is that the coin is an imitation of currency that was in circulation in the Abbasid lands. Yet most remarkably, it shows us that so early Wales already had contact and interaction with Islam.


The twelfth century saw Wales develop many of its most stunning and remarkable buildings and landmarks. Included in this development was Neath Abbey, a building once described as ‘the fairest abbey of all Wales’ by poet John Leland. What is surprising then perhaps is that ‘the fairest abbey of all Wales’ may in fact have been designed by a Muslim, A handful of records state that Lalys, captive from Palestine brought to Britain by Richard de Granville, was the architect of Neath Abbey. Despite Lalys’ unfortunate circumstances, and indeed the wider context of the crusades of the period, Neath Abbey symbolises the cultural exchange and communication that occurred between Muslims and Christians through trade and travel. This exchange of culture and technology can also be seen in the castles that adorn Wales’ borders; many adopted the design and architecture of castles in the Holy Land. I saw this remarkable shared history myself when visiting Syria. As I stood upon Qalaat el Hosn, one of the most important Crusader castles in Syria and looked at the green lush mountains that surrounded the castle, I was immediately reminded of Castell Caerffili. The link runs deeper even yet. Grahame Davies (author of The Dragon and the Crescent) considers the possiblility of whether the English military preoccupation with the crusades gave Wales the breathing space to establish and enjoy it’s two centuries of freedom. We can’t answer definitively, but we can say with confidence that Wales and Islam did not exist in isolation during the medieval era.Conversion to Islam was rare in British Isles prior to the twentieth century, but far from unheard of. We find the story of a Welshman ‘runagado’, an archaic term for conversion to Islam from 1671. Having been on the losing side of a naval battle between his own pirate ship and a Dutch man-o-war, he was hanged from the yard-arm of his ship. The incident is recorded in Charles I Domestic State Papers and gives us a tantalising glimpse into the life of a single Welshman of the time. Our hanged Welshman would not have been the only convert to Islam during this era - travel by sea was becoming more common and it would yet play an important part in the history of Wales and Islam.

Islam and Christianity indeed share many shared origins, being grouped as Abrahamic faiths with a shared faith in one God, in many of the same prophets and common ethical and eschatological framework. Indeed Islam very much reflects the tone of religion of Wales, a religious experience founded upon an egalitarian ethos with a strong sense of the importance of the individual in their expression of piety, something visible through Wales’ non-conformist history.

Despite Christianity and Islam being viewed as faiths in opposition, Muslims and Christians have often found themselves natural friends throughout history. This is most evident in Wales on the Isle of Anglesey.

Anglesey is home to a remote and ancient Church, that of Llanbadrig. It was said to have been founded by St. Patrick himself (Llanbadrig means the Church of St. Patrick). By the late nineteenth century, the Church had fallen into disrepair. It was Lord Henry Stanley, a wealthy aristocrat and convert to Islam (the first Muslim member of the House of Lords) who decided to fund its repair. His conversion was in no way in conflict with his admiration and love of Churches and the Christian faith itself, and so he provided the money for it to be restored. As a mark of respect to its benefactor, the Church incorporated stained glass windows that reflected Islamic artwork, which provides a beautiful integration of Islamic architecture and ancient Celtic architecture. The close relationship between Christians and Muslims in Wales has continued today through the innovative partnerships between the Muslim Council of Wales and various Christian bodies.

The relationship is not only between Islam and Christianity however. In January 2010, the Muslim Council of Wales and Cardiff University Islamic Society in association the Cardiff University Jewish Society hosted what was termed a ‘historic event’. In honour of Holocaust Memorial Day, Muslim and Jewish communities in Wales attended an event with photo-journalist Norman Gershman, who told the story of Muslims in Albania who protected Jews from the Nazi war machine during the dark days of the Second World War. The event may have been historic, but it was not the first time the Welsh Muslim and Jewish community came together to celebrate their shared heritage.

On the 6^th January 1908, over a century ago, a prominent British Muslim convert, Abdullah Quilliam, spoke at Cardiff University College alongside Dr Hirchowitz and Dr Zalkin (at that time, Professor of Hebrew studies). The topic Abdullah Quilliam spoke on was the close relationship between Muslims and Jews throughout history. It is encouraging to know that over 100 years, the religious communities of Wales still found common purpose.

The nineteenth century also saw a significant number of Muslims coming to Wales, particularly the docks of Cardiff and Barry. The Muslim community is perhaps the oldest non-Christian community in Wales. Yemenis and Somalis were made up the majority of sea merchants, many of whom stayed in Cardiff while waiting work. These communities slowly became part of the society until Cardiff became home.

Perhaps in recognition of this long established Muslim community, we can see a star and crescent sitting above a stone dragon on the front of City Hall in Cardiff. There are no notes left by the architect and designers on the purpose and intention of this emblem on the front of Cardiff’s most famous civic building, so we can only guess as to it’s intention for the time being.

Cardiff is also home to one of the earliest mosques in the UK (although certainly not the first, as has mistakenly been claimed). Peel Street Mosque was established sometime in the 1930s, originally just a converted house. The mosque however was bombed during the Blitz in 1941. A new mosque was rebuilt and finally opened in 1947. Records show a number of the individuals involved with Peel Street Mosque were also part of the British war effort during World War 2. Pictured below is Kaid Shef, who helped in the mosque after being injured in the Normandy campaign.

One individual of importance during this era was Abdul-Hamid, who for some time was based in Rhyl in North Wales. He was killed during a bombing in 1944, however records show he was a well known and recognised individual, and an obituary in the times written by Lord Winterton states that Abdul-Hamid was an ‘enthusiastic believer in friendship between Great Britain and… Islamic peoples’.

The sacrifice of Welsh Muslims in World War 2 is one particular aspect I hope to discover more about during the course of my PhD. If one were to visit Barry Memorial Hall today and spend some time reading the names of those killed during both World War 1 and World War 2, they would find dozens of Muslim names. The stories of these men is still unknown.

Cardiff is home now to about a dozen mosques, ranging from purpose built ones such as the South Wales Islamic Centre in Butedown, to converted homes such as al-Manar in Cathays. It’s home to one of the largest and most active student Islamic Societies in the UK, a scouts group, several Islamic charities and much more. Swansea likewise is currently raising money to renovate and old church, and has a great history of fantastic community relations. In North Wales, the Muslim community in Wrexham has just purchased a building for the site of its first mosque (after decades spent praying in a university prayer room).

The community is also marked by a growing level of engagement and interaction with the wider public sphere, creating Muslim Welsh identity that speaks strongly of civic contribution, global citizenship and ethical integrity and confident faith in God.

But that there is still much more to know about the history of Muslims in Wales. Most of this information I fear is not within history books or textual records, but within the people of Wales. Stories passed on, life experiences and local knowledge. Rediscovering this knowledge is a challenge, but one I look forward to.

Many thanks to the below: -
The Centre for the Study of Islam in the UK
Mwslimiaid dros y Blaid
Members of the WW2 Talk Forum
The British Museum for the picture of King Offa's Coin
The Imperial War Museum
Wikipedia for their picture of Llanbadrig Church

A brief word on the Labour Leadership

Today it was announced that Ed Miliband is the new leader of the Labour Party.

Some have hailed this as a success for the left – a return to the socialist roots of the party and a leader that will address social injustice, help the poor, rebuild Britain and create a ‘progressive’ government.

By nature, I’m not a cynic, but I can’t share the optimism of others. In 1997, Tony Blair was elected with a strong mandate (400 MPs in the House of Parliament from the Labour Party!) – if social justice and Labour policies were ever to be enacted in this country – 1997 was the time. Yet Tony Blair’s legacy is not one to be proud of. The Iraq War still causes unimaginable suffering and even domestic policy didn’t solve long standing problems.

Likewise – Obama elected in the USA in 2008. ‘Change We Can Believe In’ apparently, yet the change was not so significant. Yes, the USA has not invaded any foreign countries yet, but that isn’t quite a measure of success. The rhetoric from Obama is the same as his predecessors, republican or otherwise.

Essentially it comes down to this – politicians don’t change the world. The less we look to politicians to make a difference, the better. They are public servants, fulfilling a role necessary for the maintenance of the state.

If we want a fairer society, we need fairer people. If we want ethical foreign policy, we need ethical politicians to begin with. No amount of government legislation will ever replace human goodwill.

Which for me, emphasises the role of faith leaders in the UK. They are able to cultivate individuals with social awareness and responsibility. After all, it was the Christian Church that taught Britain to read and write, it was the Christian community which led the way for social justice well before the political left through the Social Gospel movement.

Today, now that Britain is a country of many faiths, it falls upon all of them to address social injustice and poverty.

Edit (26/09/10): Just realised that the above might be taken as an argument for 'Big Society'. It really isn't. Government is part of society.

Reflections on Free Speech

I’ve been meaning to write this article for some time. At first, I had hoped to condense down several books and articles I had read on Freedom of Expression in Islam, but the more I read about the topic, the more I realised how little needed to be said.

Karl Barth once wrote ‘the best theology needs no advocates’, and often this is the case with Islam. Its teachings on free speech are simple, concise and imbued with spiritual meaning.

I also came to realise that when Freedom of Speech was discussed through the angle of fiqh, or legal jurisprudence, it became a very difficult place. The affirmative evidence for free speech is present in the Islamic sources, but shariah is a dynamic entity that fluxes according to circumstances. So scholars would find themselves specifying endless circumstances so as to articulate the nature of freedom of expression in that situation. It seemed unnecessary to go into such depth.

I found however, the best articulation was the articulation of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and God himself, with little commentary. Primarily because it was imbued with purpose and meaning. As humankind moves towards secularism and atheism, things lose their meaning and purpose all too quickly. So, into this cacophony of debate about freedom of speech, I would like to add the voice of Islam, in a hope that it will create a polyphony out of discord.

The starting place is perhaps a brief overview of modern conceptions of freedom of speech. You'll often hear the phrase “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it” during discussions on free speech. It is quoting Voltaire. It's all too often said with a condescending and patronising tone. For Voltaire, it is the liberty of free speech that is worth dying for, and not the speech itself. If this is the case, then what purpose does free speech serve so as to require such sacrifice?

Modern debate however loses sight of this question, and instead seeks to establish practicalities. It becomes a question of relationships and compromise between the two bodies who influence restriction of free speech. The first being the state who may (and often do) limit speech through legislation and measures of compulsion. The second is the arguably more powerful force of society. Society itself employs various methods of self-regulation to censor and censure certain speech it deems unacceptable.

We have lost sight of what is important when it comes to free speech, and instead preoccupy ourselves with the mundane. Is this person’s speech acceptable? If not, then how should it be dealt with? Ignored perhaps? Or through legislation? Or through public condemnation? The debate goes to and fro, and has failed to provide shed any light on the way forward.

I feel, perhaps, one reason that discussion has failed to provide any solutions is that the wrong question has been asked. Rather than, 'what are the appropriate limits of freedom of speech and how should these limits be exerted?' I feel it is more prudent to ask, 'what is the purpose of freedom of speech and why must it be defended?'.

Surely, a clearer understanding of the purpose of a freedom will allow us to understand why such a freedom may be revoked (if ever).

I turn to a Prophetic teaching, a teaching that is deeply profound.

“The best jihad is to speak a word of truth in front of a tyrant
ruler”

Leaving aside for the moment the consequences of this teaching in understanding the ‘jihad’ of Islam, this hadith gives us a clear sense of what freedom of speech is about.

This freedom is no longer the decision of the state, but in fact a God-given right, one that in its truest and purest form is in search of truth and justice.

We find the Quranic expression of this right in the verse which commands mankind to ‘enjoin the good and forbid the evil' (see Surah 3, verse 104 of the Quran). Human society is mandated by God to ensure that it has individuals, who work towards enjoining, promoting and defending all that is good, and forbidding, working against and preventing all that is bad. As many scholars within Islam have noted, rights within Islam are often expressed through duties - and this duty no doubt requires the right of free speech, to critique, debate, discuss and so on. A right therefore is not simply an inconsequential aspect of a nation’s constitution, but given to serve a purpose. In this case, the purpose of speech is to promote good and prevent evil.

A third indication on the purpose of freedom of speech can be taken from a hadith oft quoted.

Whosoever of you sees a wrong action, let him change it with his hand; and if he
is not able to do so, then with his tongue; and if he is not able to do so, then
with his heart; and that is the weakest of faith.

The prevention of evil, injustice and wrong is thus one further purpose of freedom of speech. The hadith expresses a moral injunction to speak out against wrong action, preempting Edmund Burke's statement that "all that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to remain silent".

Freedom of speech is thus established in search of truth and justice, in the promotion of good, and the prevention of evil, injustice and wrongdoing.

No doubt this is not a carte blanche within the Islamic context. This right of speech is filtered through the noble character of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Even when speaking to a tyrant ruler with a word of truth, compassion is a must. (We see this in the story of Moses and Pharoah, when Moses is commanded to 'speak gently to' Pharoah, in Surah 20, verse 44 of the Quran, regardless of his status as false god and tyrant on earth).

I think it’s about time that this purpose is brought into modern debates.

Only with a clear sense of the purpose of free speech, of why it is important and why it must be defended, can we move forward as a society.