Sunday, January 30, 2011

Understanding Islam Today: Traditionalists, Revivalists, and Reformers

BTW, before I write this post, I want to credit sister Nida from her blog "In the Shade of Islam", and my friends from our OPNO blog for inspipring and letting me re-post all these bits for ILH readers, even though I originally made the post for the OPNO blog.

This post came about from an argument between MOP & his wife, an OPNO author, about women praying in the Mosque with no barrier or wall between the women and the men of the Mosque. As non-muslim, you'd find a men-only Mosque totally sexist. I assure you most adamantly, I do too, and find this story most amusing, and to the point about the state of discussion that intellectually we are in today, regarding the religion of Islam, whether one is Muslim or not.

If you are a Muslimah, you may be on either side of the fence with this one, or trapped, like MOP is, in the middle, behind the barrier, and for knocking it down. So unto the tale:

Being that we were all about on a road trip, we were unable to pray in our individual houses, which is what is BEST/EASIEST/NOT A SIN for women (not men who are not travelling---for men who are not travelling it is a SIN/NO REWARD not to pray in the Mosque). Muslims get this belief that prayer is allowed/better for women in their individual houses, because the Prophet Mohamed, peace and blessings be upon him, told Umm Humayd Al-Sa`idiyyah "A woman's prayer in her house is better than in her courtyard, and her prayer in her own room is better than in the rest of the house." (Chain of narration recorded by Abu Dawud).

MOP's wife reasoned that this is because she can concentrate better on her personal connection with her Creator in her own home and she is physically very safe there. And that women being allowed to pray at home and not having to go to the Mosque as something that is compulsory for them, was a gift from their Creator, making their faith easier to maintain in the days when there was no brith control [for example, women & men were discouraged from bringing children to the Mosques that would interupt or hinder the worship and spiritual/intellectual development of others'] .

MOP's reasoning was that it hard for men to have that same connection to their Creator when a distracting woman is in the Mosque with them, and that if something is not done in the culture, it is merely best to avoid things that are sinful, and that it is not sinful for a woman to offer her prayers in a place that is not a Mosque.You see, dear readers, this whole argument came out from the fact that when we had stopped on our journey, we did indeed find a Mosque, but we could not find one that had an area purposely for women. Mosques in Oman usually have an entirely closed off seperate area for women to pray in. This Mosque it seems, at least in terms of the culture, been built soley for the use of men.

Now had there been such an area for women, I doubt MOP's wife would have argued very much. We are in agreement about the benfits of a woman's only side. There are many advantages to a closed-off women's only area, such as being able to adjust and re-adjust one's clothing, and them not having to worry as much about the Islamic requirements for their clothing, or even breastfeeding babies (not something you do while YOU pray, but something that can be done in an women-only side of a Mosque, and not something SO easily done when prayers are preformed by both the sexes together, and that, when a Mosque is mixed in terms of sexes, the Mosque purely becomes a learning and religious center for women, not a social one, whereas informal socialising may take place easily on a women's only area of a Mosque.

The important factor in the tale I am about to relate, is that in this case, there WAS no seperate women's area, but there was indeed a Mosque.

And, in Omani culture, this Mosque was used only by men.

As MOP's OPNO would argue, a Mosque is built for Islamic culture, not any nationalistic culture, and the rules of the Mosque are the rules of the religion, not those of the place where a Mosque happens to be built. Since there WAS a Mosque, albeit, lacking a seperate woman's prayer area, my dear friend and I had concluded that we would pray in the Mosque, rather than outside the Mosque.

MOP wanted us to pray outside.He was more than willing to pray with us there.

To sway his mind I said the following, quoting a saying of the Prophet Mohamed , peace and blessings be upon him: ""The Prophet (Allah bless him & give him peace) said, “If people knew the reward in praying Fajr and Isha together in the Mosque, they would go to the mosque even if they had to crawl.” And the chain of narration is recorded by Bukhari & Muslim. And the Prophet didn't just say 'if men knew, he said 'if people knew' meaning women too." So MOP related the hadith/saying about women's prayer being best in their homes. To which is my friend intelligently replied: "Habibi, we are far from our houses. But we do have a Mosque. The hadith does not say, 'it is better for women to pray in the courtyard of the Mosque than in the Mosque'. In fact, Allah [God] made it perfectly clear that women are to attend the Mosques in that the Prophet Mohamed told the men "Do not prevent the female servants of Allah from entering the House of Allah [i.e the Mosque]" and from many sayings of the Prophet and historical records, we KNOW that women among the BEST generation of Muslims prayed in the same room with the men, no barrier between them, albeit, in very modest dress void of perfumes, and in the back rows so that guys couldn't check out their butts." She was smirking.

MOP of course, knew it was perfectly halal for women to pray in the Mosque, and that we were all Muslim women dressed in a manner to attend any public event in the presence of men but he reasoned that since it was something regarded as outside the culture, it was ALSO perfectly acceptable to render prayers OUTSIDE the Mosque, and less trouble to do so.

WHYYYYY were there seperate prayer areas for women in Oman? both my friend AND I enquired of poor MOP. MOP said, because it was hard for men to concentrate on their prayers with women in the room. Why was this, all OPNO girls wanted to know (even the non-Muslim one) when the men among the earliest Muslims managed to, without treating the women like meat?

"Because it is a corrupt time for Muslims" MOP helplessly cited, which brought about the true reason for this post.

"More sin now than before?" my lips curled into a sneer at that line of reasoning.

MOP's wife and I are of western education, and both spent time as Muslims in the West. This line of reasoning annoys the heck out of us, because all [well, in Islamic scholarship anyways] Muslims believe that Islam as evidenced in the Qu'ran and practiced/explained by the Prophet Mohamed was the perfect example for all Muslims, for all times.

My girl, picked up from there, as it WAS HER husband afterall. "So you would reason, that we should leave off what was done by the Prophet, because what he left us with isn't good enough? That Islam should be CHANGED to meet these corrupt times?"

Of course, that is not what any decent Muslim Omani man could mean, but that is where his kind of reasoning leads. It leads to Muslims in the West who openly reject the things in their religion that don't so easily fit into their modern lives, like the jilbab and khimar, which takes the form of the black abaya and headscarf, that few Omani men like MOP would want their sisters and mothers and wives to reject. Yet in the West, my friend and I have seen it. Women say, it may be in the Qu'ran as a command, but it doesn't pertain to today. Well, there was no requirement of men and women praying seperate BEFORE but there is today. Same reasoning, opposite lines of the spectrum.

"What harm can come from you praying outside the Mosque?" MOP asked his wife as she shouldered her way past him up the steps of the Mosque as if she couldn't hear his question.

On our way there, an Omani boy, ten years younger than myself, tried to stop us, saying there was no women's Mosque. He did not know, that is was allowed for Muslim women to pray in a Mosque, so long as they did not wear perfume, and did all their Islamic requirements in way of public dress, and did not use the Mosque for purposes other than prayer and education from Islamic lectures. He did not know, clearly, that it is a SIN for a man to forbid a woman from attending the Mosque.

MOP prayed in front of us, we prayed in the back, and another Muslim man, who knew enough of Islam to calm the Omani boy down about us women being there, prayed on the opposite end of the Mosque from out party respectfully a small ways in front, as men are to do in the religion.

When we left the Mosque, OPNO belonging to MOP and he to her respectively, answered his question.: "The harm does not come from praying in the Mosque or outside it, but it lies in your reasoning, and what that reasoning allows us to forget. That boy no more knew what was allowed, than he knows why it is not allowed. Your reason, that it makes men uncomfortable, is not a reason in Islam, as Islam allows women to go where it is necessary and even pleasing and certainly beneficial for them to go. The women of Sahaba [the first Muslims] interacted with men in Islamic capacities where it was halal [not sinful] and beneficial for society for them to, in education, business, and religion. The danger, and it IS evidenced IN OMAN for our Western/Convert eyes to see--- by the way, is that when you seperate us from the Mosque, men stop seeing us equals in the religion, and more as meat. You see us as mothers maybe, and wives, at best, and at worst... If men cannot behave as the Prophet himself behaved at the Mosque, than they have no business/right of being there either."

MOP regarded her desperate plea, and assured us he was on the same side, and wanted very much for these things to be changed, but didn't want his wife to be the one to do it, in the manner that she did.

But then who is to to do it? We asked? Who is to change it?

We all agreed, seperate areas for women had their benefits, and women enjoyed them, but that some women suffered from their inability to approach Imam's weekly or daily with questions, or to recieve the same education and information Muslim men recieve from attending the Mosque regularily.

MOP even admitted to us, that in his village in Oman, women do not come to the Eid prayers, when praying the Eid prayer in congregation is CUMPULSORY on muslim men AND WOMEN, even women who have their periods, ect...

That is the danger of reforming/pseudo reviving of Islam. You lose the right legality, and the true message of it, whether the reform is in a liberal or a conservative direction.

Which brings me to:Today, there are, intellectually, 3 different ways of studying Islam, no matter the sect or manner of jurisprudence within those sects.Now I am stealing these definitions, credit to sister Nida, from her blog, and she's stealing it from Abdelwahab El-Affendi ;):

Definition: Those following traditionally approved approaches and methods of interpretation, and basically handing down what has come from before in the same manner as before. These do not wish to update Islam, and seek to do what has always been done ie come to the same conclusion. *many intellectually documented ways of studying & viewing Islam are reform or revival based Islam passed down in the manner of traditionalists but those same types of intellectual Islam would not necessarily BE traditionalist in nature*

Definition: Revivalists distinguish themselves from traditionalists by redefining the tradition into purist terms, while the former tend to accept the traditionl more or less in the context as it was handed down. The purpose of doing so it to impose an idealizized idea of Islam, with a tendancy to instrumentalize religion and to define their movement sociologically, rather than theologically. This can be done in either a very conservative or very liberal manner.

Mr. Abdelwahab El-Affendi's conclusion of this movement in terms of discussing Islam, the same as, and so much more eloquently expressed than my own: "Their version of instrumentalized Islam is spiritually, artistically, and humanly impoverished and narrowly partisan.”

Definition: Reformers differentiate themselves from Revivalists by interrogating the tradition in more radical ways. Seeking to exploit the differences and conflicts within orthodoxy to eliminate or discredit those aspects of the tradition that have become difficult to defend in the modern era, selectively picking and choosing from various accepted authorities to support their modernizing (usually liberal, but not always) agenda.This approach seeks to work within the confines of orthodoxy while working hard to redefine it. It attempts to develop a radical rereading and reinterpretation of traditional Islamic sources by adapting traditionally approved approaches and methods of interpretation.Ultra-radical reformers launch a frontal attack on traditionalism, sometimes advocating treatment of the Qur’an as a “human” text and using the tools of modern literary criticism to decipher it.

Mr. Abdelwahab El-Affendi observes that "such a deliberate drive for a reformation... is based on copying another (Christian) experience in another religious tradition in another era is condemned from the start to the loss of innocence: it is no longer religious reform but social engineering and intellectual tinkering.” Mr. Abdelwahab El-Affendi wrote, that while reform of Islam is much applauded from non-muslims in the West, that they should be cautious in this as well: “The efforts of U.S.-based Muslim intellectuals to undermine Islamic authoritarianism could warrant an “even more ambitious agenda following up on changes in Islam’s ideology with changes in leadership and religious practices.” Much justifies these ambitions, but ambition must not be allowed to shift to illusion. To move from a valid appreciation of the increasing importance of the intellectual contributions of Western Muslims to a “wag the dog” theory that ascribes to them a leadership role in religious reform may be as misguided (and as dangerous) an illusion as the idea that creating an American colony in Iraq would be an advertisement of America’s love for democracy and an inspiration for freedom lovers throughout the Muslim world. Both illusions spring from the same quintessentially Western overconfidence, even arrogance, of which Muslim Westerners are not immune.”

I wholly agree, as a Muslim who lived in the west, letting the likes of Tariq Fatah and Irshadd Manji speak for me, and represent Islam, is misguided. Though one MIGHT say, the same reform movements exist in Egypt, ect.... to quote Nida who'd say it like I would but better;): "What defines 'progressive' islam is a distinct Western liberal ideology, so anyone ascribing to this ideology, be they American or Egyptian or whatever, is elevating Western ideology above tradition (a universal set of moral and ethical values). I believe the reason why the progressive ideology is popular in places like Egypt is due to the deep rooted colonial and neo-colonial legacy. It is mostly people who have been 'exiled' from their countries and had a 'Western/European' intellectual upbringing who are the leaders of this particular movement."But that does not mean, living here now in Oman, that I am free from the influence and power of such misguided reform movements. As this entire post has been an example of, the same line of reformist thinking exists heavily in even Arab Nida pointed out, what some call 'revivalism' is in fact reform: "changing the religious interpretations to an idealized modern vision of what they believe Islam looked like at the time of the prophet (peace be upon him)", regardless of whether or not that vision is based on the classical interpretations of Islam. "As per the mosque example, according to the classical texts women used to pray directly behind men, and now they are being boxed away into small corners of the mosque and encouraged to pray at home. The argument that is being used to justify this practice in some mosques is that "today there is more fitnah/sin"; therefore implying that we have to re-interpret Islam for modern, albeit corrupt, historical time period."

People have to be aware of where their ideologic reasoning leads them, same as when one studies socialism/fascism, two spectrum of the same line of reasoning.

I myself, do not support a reformation of Islam but a reformation of self, and the only revival I engender, is one of knowledge and awareness.

Saturday, January 22, 2011

fashion sets to come

I want to post some fashion sets I made while I was bored for old time's sake, so stay tuned.

Sunday, January 16, 2011


Asalamu alaykom ramatullahi wa barakato:

First off, thank you ALL for your letters of support pertaining to this post. Keep 'em coming:) InshaAllah everything will happen as it is meant and work itself out with time and dua.

Second, I really, really hope my parents don't read this blog because SOMEONE is likely to try and mess up my life again by telling my non-muslim father who I haven't told yet (and who I'd like to calm with a visit to this beautiful country I am in first)... So YOU-KNOW-WHO, please, if you read this, leave me alone to live my life. Do not try to sabotage my decisions so you can laugh and say "I told you so" taking delight in any difficulty that befalls me. The Qu'ran itself warns Muslims against people like you have exhibited yourself to be, saying: "If something good happens to you, they hurt, and if an affliction befalls you, they say, "We told you so," as they turn away rejoicing." [9:50-52].

That is sign enough for me that I don't [and really shouldn't] take your advice, or trust you, as people who "rejoice in saying I told you so" and when something good happens to me "they hurt" are those who come from the path that leads to fire and away from mercy.

When I told YOU-KNOW-WHO-YOU-ARE I married Y you tried to make my life hell and tried to wreck that marriage, and so many peoples lives were wrapped up in a cat-n-mouse game your wus-wus [whispers of doubts ect] brought upon us.

Boxie, Y, and I, our lives will never, ever be the same. My heart was broken. Her heart was broken. Y cried everytime he prayed. KH feels less than he did before, Allah forgive us all for all that we did wrong, and praise-be-to-Him, for all the understanding and right He subhanhu wa'ta'ala guided us to.

BTW, KH, isn't really the Khaleel of the fictional story in the "how to live like an Omani princess" blog. Only a few incidents therein are even the slightest bit on KH. The events might be similar to what happened to us all, but none of the sentiments are after a certain point. It is a story meant to be exciting. Get over it, and don't read into things too much.

And I don't hate you, I just pity you. And ask Allah to forgive you, and guide you, because despite everything you have wrecked upon yourself and others and all the lies you told me and Y, P, Dr. N, KH et all, ALHAMDULILAH also, our lives will never be the same.

Boxie, Y, and I, we all decided, our lives will be BETTER. And I am so happy YOU-KNOW-WHO-YOU-ARE-IF-YOU-ARE-READING-THIS. My life is good. You just want it to be bad.

Know I am not afraid of you, should you return here, because KH knows you despite the fact that he will always be kind to you, and above all, knows my character to be more than that of what would be my inheritance had you your way. And should you play at legalities and sympathies in an attempt to take my security and friends away from me again, I had a Muslim witness to the curse you put on me, to not be able to concieve any children. They know you for what you are now. Your ability to "see the future" is not your gift, but JINN/demons trying to trick you, either to commit suicide or to give you flase pride, I don't know, and as for anywitchraft from spells and curses, Allah is stronger than His Creation, and I do believe, love is stronger than hate. What Allah wills, no other can disallow or stop, and what Allah does not will, no other can provide or create. I am QUITE content with that, actually ;)

You-know-who-if-you-are-reading this: I still love you. I hope you get better one day, inshaAllah. Know that I am praying for you.

Third, ILH, readers, apparently I was cursed to have an empty womb, but I kinda wanna start a little family so keep me in your duas. I am not a huge power-giver to curses kind of person. Allah can undo any curse or spell wrought, and as I already said, love is waaaaaaaaaay stronger than hate.

Fourth, now YOU-KNOW-WHO is probably reading this part going, why'd you want to write this to internet blog Muslimah readers if you don't want me to go and spread it to your family, but Muslimahs, by their strength of being Muslimahs, even virtual strangers, are closer to me in many ways, than blood can ever attain in its jahliliya.

Fifth, ILH readers who love me for the sake of Allah, and who I love for the sake of Allah, and who love what Allah and His Messenger allowed us, and abstain from what they forbid us by the will of Allah, I want to announce to you something that may make the less knowledgeable of you dislike me, or think I am somehow different from you.

I am no longer the only wife in my marriage. And I am happy Allah has given my husband and I and my new sister-wife the strength to do so, supporting eachother, and wanting for eachother what we want for ourselves. While this kind of marriage suits me better than other sisters as I want a bit-of-away time from being loved (NOT TO DO WITH NOT LIKING SEX ;p) adored protected and amused by my husband, I like to do things that I myself just like to do without that being selfish. {I find it highly selfish of myself to drag a husband around to look at stuff he doesn't like to see ect or to spend time with my girlfriends when he is waiting and wants to spend time with me and can't enjoy those things as much in that position}, and having no Muslim family beyond my husband, really, really like having a Muslim sister to be close to who can help me grow in things, and support the marriage and personal growth.

Some members of our families and friend circles (even the Muslim ones) surely reject this part of Islam, but honestly sisters, when you become a Muslim, or if you are born a Muslim, know that your husband DOES have the right to take another wife in his religion. Fairness wise, the clause does NOT give you the right to determine what is fair. As demonstrated in the sunnah of the Prophet Mohamed and many of the men of the sahaba, fairness is that the man must be able to financially [while the wives have equal rights to things a 2nd-4rth wife can ask for less than the first if she likes], physically [if the wife wants she should get, as if she was an only wife], time-wise [should be equal unless either wife forgoes this], and emotionally [women have different needs so this one varies], provide for all whom he marries. He does not need your permission to do so if he knows he can manage all of the above, on the condition stipulated in the Qu'ran where it allows up to 4 wives: wives should be FROM THE FOLLOWING TYPES OF WOMEN: orphans [an orphan woman in Islam is any woman who has no living Muslim maharam], widows & divorcees with children who cannot be maintained by the man's sadaqah/charity honorably.

But it is NOT halal to marry without the knowledge of any wife he was married to previous. Marriages must be announced publically or they can cause serrious fitnah, such as accusations of adultery and fornication, which disapate respect, and destory communities and families.

*This marriage works only if a. the man understand his 1st wives mental and emotional strength well enough to gauge if such a marriage would make her suicidal ect or if he'd even be able to do it and sustain it, and if the women behave as Muslims are to act. Muslimahs must accept this part of Islam, they can't just pick and choose, saying "that isn't for me and I couldn't do it."

Did you know? Um Salamah (one of the mothers of the believers) TURNED down the Prophet SAW's original marriage proposal (after having previously turned down marriage proposals from both Abu Bakr & Umar) saying she couldn't do it "because she was a jealous woman."? He told Hind bint Banu Makhzum Abu Umayyah (aka Um Salamah): "then pray to Allah for Him to remove your jealousy". She then accepted. And as we can see from studying the seerah, [the history of Islam while the Prophet was alive], she was very happy.

Though a woman in Islam IS allowed to seek divorce if she cannot reconcile herself to being in a marriage with more than one wife besides herself, her husband has not committed a sin against her in the religion if he does not reject her or favour the other wife over her. But in the case of divorce, a woman CANNOT ask her husband to divorce her for expedience or family or tribal custom, as the husband IS NOT ALLOWED TO divorce his wife, in order to marry another. That IS HARAAM from him.

My husband will be the first to say, it is INCREDIBLY hard, and not really something that he wanted. I am a rare woman in that I may have wanted him to do so more than he did. Being emotionally fair to one woman is hard (knowing what she needs to feel secure and loved), and financially and physically it means he might have to work twice as hard as other men.
But make sure you marry a man knowing he KNOWS the responsibilities, is a good fair and just men fearing Allah, in the first place, or you will find yourself in an unfair situation with a husband who rejects you and is unjust.

But do not take it as something against yourself if you cannot fulfill everything in your husband's life, as no person was meant to do that for another, only Allah is that for us. Understand the blessing it can be.

For me, and in my experience, while IT CAN BE A CHALLENGE, I find it more rewarding, and easier for me actually.

And to read what I had written before about the subject previously before allowing myself to be in the situation I quite happily in now:

Tuesday, January 11, 2011

PIXIE HERE: Asking for your help

Dear Longtime Readers:

Some fo you have been with me since the days of Beautiful Muslimah and the Bride Wears Hijab blogs.

I know, of late, I TOTALLY haven't been a consistant blogger, but that's because my life has been crazy. Again, I ask your forgiveness.

And for the first time since I started blogging, I am asking for your help, for me.

I need you to help me if I ever helped you in any way (BE IT HIJAB, something else in Islam) Islamically, through this blog or in IRL, by writing letters saying that you know I am a Muslim, and that I helped you.

No, I don't love to be coated in praise, and I am not asking for these letters because I am some kind of egomaniac, but I am in a position where I have to prove I am (most of the time;) ) a decent muslimah [for some period of time] who is useful to the ummah in some small way, so that I can be granted an oppurtunity that I desperately need.

The situation: I am appealing to someone just, in an unjust situation, to appeal on my behalf for permission to be granted an oppurtunity it is halal and needed in my life, and they suggested I ask my readers to contribute to that appeal.

Please help me if I:

a.) ever encouraged you when you had weak Iman.
b.) answered a question you needed to know the answer to about women's role in Islam or otherwise.
c.) helped you make the decision to make your shahada
d.) helped you be strong enough to wear your hijab, be it a scarf, jilbab, or niqab.
e.) Helped you come back to Islam after professed apostasy
f.) [if you are a non-muslim] helped you to be less afraid, and more understanding of Muslims.

Send any such letters to the following email address (if you can write in Arabic, please send your letter in Arabic):

Jazzakallahkheir, and please forgive me for asking. It is just, that I am not believed on my own.

Sunday, January 9, 2011

A reply to a comment that equates adhering to commands in the sunnah, with fanatism and encouraging violence, and about dhimmitude and caliphates

I recieved the comment below on my post about Muslims that want to reject something in Islam using the excuse of something happening 1400 years making an order from Allah or the Messenger invalid or seperate from our beautiful religion of Islam as it is meant to be practiced.

I did not feel great about the comment because I felt publishing of it would require I reply to it but would thus be pointing out the flaws in a known person, but also, since it was signed, and thus adheres to my moderation requirements, I felt I had to, and the sister would be insulted if I didn't. So I made it anonymous as a seperate post. Dear sister, please, I hope you find this to be in line with what you were aiming for.

My response:

Hi {----------}, I am sorry, but your comment made little sense to me.

I do appreciate you taking the time to write your conscience down, but I feel that perhaps English is not your first language or you are not at a highschool level of it [assumption based on the English grammar and your allusion to this news item in regards to your politics and perception of mine from Pakistan way of BBC], and you do not understand me well enough (or have enough of a background on Islamci history) to debate the principles of pure tauhid according to the Sunnah & Qu’ran against Sufism.

In addition, I doubt your Islamic understandings due to your misuse of terms for sects and madhabs on other blogs already, such as calling people “fanatics” or “wahabis” for citing authentic ahadith for istilaal, unaware as you are that no Muslim is a “wahabi”. These are my assumptions on the evidences presented, and may Allah guide me, ameen.

Knowing your limitations thus, it would be unfair for me to engage in an attempt of Islamic discourse with you. Debate in ignorance [and you are uninformed as evidences by a continuous or even purposeful misuse of terms] leads to hurt feelings and rash judgments, and separation among the Muslims. That would be a sin on my part I am not enthused to carry to the grave and be punished for, and certainly not to do so publically in the comments section. Thus, your name was removed from the comment.

Since I had nowhere else to appeal to your conscience but the comments bar, I will answer your concerns thusly, as they address the miseducation and misdirection of many.

First, I apologize for your disappointment in my blog. As I understand it, you do not understand me at all. I forgive you for accusing me of a murderous idealogy, when you wrote:
“Is pixie any better than someone who killed Governor Taseer in Pakistan? How much time will it take for person with such ideology to hold guns than just words.”

Firstly, to explain your erred reasoning, my [Pixie here] belief is that Governor Taseer was murdered .

Your perception of my Islam is biased with your cultural/social politics and miseducation, common with some of the Pakistani sufi community, and relatively illiterate (as per Islamic texts) new converts in the sufi communities [I am generalizing, note, not all Sufis come with these hang ups and I've met some profound and educated ones], same goes for this prevalence among anyone unversed in the Seerah/Prophet's life and Islamic History:

I, [Pixie, who you would, abusing/misusing the term, label “Wahabi”], believe Governor’s Taseer killer is a murderer because

A. Taseer’s murderer did not kill Taseer in the defense of his life, or in defense of his personal property.

B. If Taseer were guilty of a crime in his religion (which there is no evidence of, to my opinion and education, that he ever WAS) any criminal to Islam in Shariah must have a trial, he cannot just be “killed”. Even if the person you kill WAS guilty according to Shariah, if they are not tried and sentenced ACCORDING to shariah, then the person that killed them IS ALSO A MURDERER.

C. Violence/killing and treason have nothing to do WITH blasphemy in Salafism/Islam of the Prophet’s time. Yes, there are conditions in Shariah law for apostates being killed, this means in Shariah, there are DIFFERENT CONDITIONS OF BLASPHEMY, but never, in cases of true blasphemy in the Seerah, was an earthly punishment cleaved out by men and their rule in Shariah. The punishment for blasphemy is apostasy with Allah Himself. I personally, think that’d be punishment enough. As I posted here Muslims CANNOT, in Shariah, render judgements, or punishments, on perceived intentions, ONLY ACTIONS.

My personal opinion is, admiration for Mr. Taseer’s defense of the Christian woman accused of Blasphemy because, as I stated, she did not have a court case under Islamic Shariah authority, and in all cases of blasphemy, even if PROVEN by action or admittance, there is no earthly punishment, AND FURTHER that, grounds are to allow the blasphemer repentance.

I do believe he stood up for the unjust charges labeled at a non-Muslim woman, the way a Muslim living in the example of the Salafi period exampled. May Allah grant him peace, and bless him for that, ameen.

Also, nowhere on this blog, or in any of my thoughts or musings, written or unwritten, have I ever, or will I ever, condone murder, or anything contrary to shariah, such as trials not recognized by Allah and His Just laws. If I linked to ALL of my posts, you tell me where my ideology allows for murder, or violence. I am all for saving lives, actually, my favourite ayah in the Qu'ran, the one that drew me most to Islam is The man who kills a man kills the life of mankind. And the man that saves the life of a man, it is as [to Allah] if they have saved all of mankind.”

You are right, I do believe the "Holy Quran is so clear about what makes true Islamic Nation" and that you fail to "understand why they allow Minorities, why they take goods from countries that don't call themselves Islamic."

If you study the seerah, which is, the Prophet Mohamed's, peace and blessings be upon him, life, you'll know that it is part of the sunnah for the Caliphate to trade, even with the non-Muslims, as was done with the Christians and Jews expelled from the Hijaaz by an order of Rasoolulah Mohamed issued near the end of his life. And during his life, the Muslims always traded with the Quraysh, even though they were Mushirkeen. This is not disallowed in Islam, and does not discredit a Muslim nation or Caliphate whatsoever according to Shariah and the authentic sunnah. "Why they have trade connections?" you ask/ wonder/ ponder. Because it is necessary that the Muslims trade and gain what is beneficial to them.

You are most modest and correct to write "I fail to understand why they allow Minorities". Islam allows minorities [exception being the Islamic Arabian Pennisula aka the Hijaaz], because, beyond the Hijaaz, during the Salafi period (the first three generations of Islam, and thus closest to that which was practiced by Prophet Mohamed, peace and blessings be upon him, non-Muslims were [and remain, provided we ever have a functioning Caliphate again] permitted to practice their religions and keep their own governments without loosing citzenship. Muslims of this day and age, of enough education to understand the way a dhimmi government works, wonder why a Western/Eurpean government cannot accomodate them thusly, as they had accomodated Non-Muslims in the height of their historical influence.

In Islamic dhimmitude, so long as the dhimmi (minority) pays the required tax/ or renders military services in times of need in the form of goods, or physical assistance, one's religion, and own laws regarding marriage, divorce, inheritance, ect can be practiced.

Nowadays, Muslims in non-Muslim countries would be in the position of the "dhimmi" the way the early Sahaba were in Mecca before hijrah to Medina, when they were of small numbers, and not enabled to practice their religion or govern themselves by shariah under the rule of the Quraysh tribe.

***For ANY Muslim who does not understand what I am not talking about, please try to get your hands on a copy of the book "When the Moon Split" or "The Sealed Nectar" so that you have an ounce of understanding before you try to delve into Caliphates or Dhimmitude or even sects***

Some Muslims, in the Muslims majority countries, and those in the West, do not understand the difference between the Shariah ruling periods for Muslims. As you stated, these Muslims "want to follow shariah law" but at the same time, they do not understand exactly how it applies to them. It has nothing to do with "have high birth rate, avoid contraceptives" so I scratch my head at that one. Since they want Shariah law but do not understand how it applies to them, I agree with you fully when you state: "Backclash is imperative. "

You wrote: "my friends say that non muslims are just Islamophobes, but when I read ur blog I felt why not."

My blog is for a Muslim audience though I do understand it is accessible for non-Muslims. That is why I am willing to take the time to comment back when someone has misunderstood me, or a limited understanding of the topic in general. My blog has nothing on it to scare non-Muslims. All laws on it are for Muslims to be aware for themselves, and for non-Muslims, to know there is no compulsion in religion, that true understanding of Shariah and submitting to the will of Allah is a beautiful, freeing, spiritual, freeing thing, with guidance in all matters of life, from past to present. Unless, of course, one understands it, intentionally, or unintentionally.

The thing about non-Muslims living in a Muslim majority country under Shariah law as Dhimmitude is that they prefer that right to citizenship and self government in their religious laws not contrary to overtaking the rights of Islam in Shariah, over moving somewhere else. Muslims also, should veiw this as a good thing, since it is in this manner, that dawah is given, and people are invited to Islam.

What is misunderstood by the cries for a Caliphate and the establishment of Dhimmitudes, is that, well, there are three stages for the ummah, and the establishment of a Caliphate and a Dhimmitude is only the last one.

Nowhere seems capable or near the last stage at the moment in any supportable way.

Muslims such as yourself, "born in America" can be in the first [but mainly, for American Muslims] the second stages of Islam for the Ummah.

The first stage, is when you are a minority, and very afraid for your own life, and just practicing your religion leads you to be tortured. In this case, it is just your job to recite Qu'ran to yourself, and pray, and you are allowed to keep quiet about Islam from those you feel will harm you. As when the Prophet Mohamed, peace and blessings be upon him, started sharing the message of Islam just with those who are closest to him.

The second stage, is when there is an actual community of Muslims, and they are safe from harm. It is here, that Muslims must study and SHARE knowledge with eachother, gaining as much as they can, and work to perfect their faith and understanding of tauhid and other basic principles of Islam, and also, where they practice their Islam openly, and invite others to the blessed fold of Islam. This if often, little enacted upon, in Muslim majority countries, and such is the shameful state our Ummah is in.

The third stage, is when almost everybody in a land has already accepted Islam. It is here, that dhimmitudes are JUSTLY according to Shariah, established, and shariah law is enacted upon by the Muslims upon themselves. It is here, and only at this stage, that they find it possible to form a Caliphate.

Alas, sadly, today---:Muslim majority countries do not have the followers of knowledge and adhearence, to truly want Shariah law, or be able to support it. The countries practicing Shariah these days, are only practicing parts or Shariah, not all of it, and so the systems are unjust, and the populations, too often ill-informed, or rendered powerless by the corrupt application of punishments from the shariah without the protections of the shariah, to remedy the situation they are in. I also "...feel sorry for [the] sad state of today's world and also sad that [knowledge of] Islam... is dying and people still feel peace!! [Sorry, I added, what would be my ammendments to your comment].

You might, "personally find this all useless" since you personally find it okay to be "questioning Quran where it appears non humanity driven" but it is the duty of the believing Muslim to believe in the Qu'ran and to obey its Messenger, and to seek knowledge from the cradle to the grave, and forbid what is evil, and enjoin what is good, so I do not find it pointless in the slightest. It is as the Muslims originally did, as they were guided to by their legitamate Prophet, and you, as a Muslim, must believe that Prophet, Mohamed sallalahu alahi wa salaam, was guided by God/Allah, else, I guess, we should be having a different sort of conversation. ***Amendment to that***: Though I totally believe in questioning as means to derive understanding, not questioning as a form of dismissal of the Qu'ran as an imperfect source.

Don't worry. ;). Even if we did have a different conversation, I firmly believe blasphemy is a punshiment of apostasy before Allah, not man, so you'd be safe from this "fanatic with [a] good command over English".:D

And here, is the original comment, rendered anonymous:

Hi Pixie,almost after 6-7 months I tried checked this blog and was really disappointed. Is pixie any better than someone who killed Governor Taseer in Pakistan? How much time will it take for person with such ideology to hold guns than just words. If Holy Quran is so clear about what makes true Islamic Nation, I fail to understand why they allow Minorities, why they take goods from countries that don't call themselves Islamic. Why they have trade connections? Many of my friends say that non muslims are just Islamophobes, but when I read ur blog I felt why not. Non muslims feel insecure, they allow muslims in non muslim majority countries. there muslims want to follow shariah law, have high birth rate, avoid contraceptives as that makes them pure and true muslims. Backclash is imperative. But as I and you clearly know nothing like no trade will happen, it is mutually beneficial where money is considered. Nothing like no muslims in secular countries can happen, then it becomes a point of concern. I am born in America and my christian friends do feel i am taking their jobs and on top of that I want my laws!! Well I personally find this all useless Pixie. I feel rather than believing in God and questioning Quran where it appears non humanity driven. I feel you are nothing but a fantic with good command over English. I feel sorry for sad state of today's world and also sad that Islam today is more fanatic, sufism is dying and people still feel peace!! Anyway you didnt force me to read this blog but my conscience forced me to comment. Ameen.

Saturday, January 8, 2011

How does Pixie study ahadith on ILOVEHISHMA

I recently recieved this comment from zeinabiyya-thank you zeinabiyya:):


Just thought I would point out that just because you studied something in university doesn't mean it's the only way of classifying ahadith, for instance. When we Shia debate with Sunnis we use Sunni ahadith to contest them, even if we don't admit to these ahadith ourselves, simply because our ahadith do not hold any weight in your eyes. It would be stupid to expect us all to view your ahadith, on the other hand, as the "right ones" simply because you think so yourself.

It seems you don't know much about the issue, however.

Anyway, the best of luck to you in your endeavor! It seems like it will be very interesting, as your blog is in general, and I'm curious to see how it will turn out.


Wa alaikom as salaam ramatullahi wa barakto Zeinabiyya. Thank you for the comment, as it poses a question, or marks an assumption I am sure is likely to come up.

On "I Love Hishma", in the past, not in all things, but in many, I have used Sunni Ahadith, whether or not I had personally researched their narrations or not. Only issues that seemed in doubt to me, did I take the personal trouble to study the Arabic in depth, or to research the time period of origin, and history of the chain of narration from all available sources. If anyone contests with me past writings, I am able to clarify.

In the following series, we intend to write about sects from ALL the points of veiw, using the evidences of those points of veiw. For example, I invited my shiite contributers to use their hadiths, as well the hadiths necessary for sunnis as proof, as well as Ibadhis to use their hadiths, and I am still looking for a Qu'ran only Muslima who wants to contribute, as far as any of these may be from what I personally follow. Same goes for Sunni hadith. When I write that section, it will often be using wholly the majority Sunni opinion.

But in my personal thoughts sections, seperate from the sects overveiw, in what to include, I am not using Sunni fiqh to study ahadith, or shiite, or Ibadhi. I am using only ACCEDEMIC. What you learn if you study history, any history. I will be using historical jurisprudence, not Islamic jurisprudence, in the manner of a science, so to be unbiased. It will be a more thorough agenda.

The reason before this was not done on matters I deemed myself sure one, was a. I did not have the time or resources to devote to such a study, and b. I went with what I believed to be the most correct opinion from the majority in things I was unsure of.

But as I always stated, it is the duty of the Muslim, to first, of course, consult those they trust with knowledge if there are things they are in doubt of, but beyond that, if they are able to, it is incombent upon them to seek out the sources of that knowledge, even to PROVE that source. To know it beyond any doubt. It is hard to do this in all things all the time, but when one is able to, they must.

So I will be using purely the Western science of History (which is not a perfect system in itself) to come to my final opinions, before mixing faith as well, in. The Sunni section will be sunni, the ibadhi, ibadhi, and shiite, shia, but to be honest, I do study all sources when I am able to. I only stay away from things I have doubt in if I do not have time or means to remedy that doubt.

Tuesday, January 4, 2011

Islam AS A HOUSE, & judging the intentions of others & judging the actions of others, and the big difference therein

I recently just heard a good lecture from a Shiekh about one's Islam being a house. I haven't finished the series of lectures but I wanted to share this little bit with you:

And the lecturer said, every house has a foundation first. Without a strong foundation, no house can stand. With a bad foundation, the house will not stand long.

In Islam, the foundation of that house is "tauhid". Tauhid is belief and practice and action of "la illaha il allah, muhumad abdu rasoolulah". It is the thing that makes you a Muslim/Muslimah or not. You have to testify and live believing/knowing "there is no God but Allah alone, and Muhummad is Allah's servant/slave and messenger."

You have to believe this, to be a Muslimah/Muslim.

The thing about tauhid, like the thing about the foundation of a house is, the foundation for the house of Islam (an Individual's belief and intention to understand tauhid) cannot be seen by others. Only by Allah subhanhu wa ta'ala.

Which is why in Islam, we are never allowed to judge the intentions of other Muslims, only their ACTIONS. Which is a mistake many Muslims these days are making when we jump into the the subject and issue of sects in Islam. ***I admit, before a more thorough Islamic education, this was also a mistake of my own.***

But what makes me feel better [and maybe you also, if you've ever been rowing the same boat] is that I am not the *only* Muslim to have made this mistake. :):

Usama ibn Zayd said, "The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, sent us to al-Huraqa, a sub-tribe of Juhayna, and we came upon the people in the morning at their springs. A man of the Ansar and I overtook one of their men. When we descended on him, he said, "There is no god but Allah." The Ansari held back from him, but I stabbed him with my spear until I had killed him. When we arrived in Madina, that reached the Prophet and he said, "O Usama, did you kill him after he had said, "There is no god but Allah"?" I said, "Messenger of Allah, he was only trying to save himself out of fear from our weapons." He said, 'Did you then split open his heart so that you know whether he truly meant it when he said it or not?' He continued to repeat it until I wished that I had only become Muslim on that day." [Agreed upon]

Jundub ibn 'Abdullah reported that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, sent an expedition of the Muslims against some of the idolaters and they encountered them. There was one of the idolaters who, whenever he wanted to aim for one of the Muslims, went straight for him and killed him and then one of the Muslims went for him and killed him. We heard that it was Usama ibn Zayd. When he raised his sword, [the man] said, 'There is no god but Allah,' but he killed him anyway. When the man bringing news of the victory came to the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, he questioned him. He told him what had happened, even telling him the story of the man and what he had done. He summoned him, questioned him and said, 'Why did you kill him?' He said, 'Messenger of Allah, he had hurt the Muslims and killed so-and-so and so-and-so,' and he named a group. 'I attacked him. When he saw my sword, he said, "There is no god but Allah"' The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, 'Did you kill him?' He said, 'Yes.' He said, 'What will you do with 'There is no god but Allah' when it comes on the Day of Rising?' He said, 'Messenger of Allah, ask forgiveness for me.' He said, 'What will you do with 'There is no god but Allah' when it comes on the Day of Rising?' He did not add anything to his words: 'What will you do with 'There is no god but Allah' when it comes on the Day of Rising?'" [Muslim]

The foundation of the House of Islam is Tauhid, and belief and intention of tauhid, cannot be seen by others.

As the Sheikh continued, Tauhid is the foundation of the house, and those who correct their tauhid as is spelt out plainly in the Qu'ran and authentic sunnah as agreed upon by those who can verify the histories and narrations, will have a strong foundation to build the walls of their house upon. The House of Islam has four walls. Those walls are 1.) salat, 2.) paying zakat, 3.) fasting the month of Ramadan, 4.) making hajj if at all humanly possible.

If your understanding of Tauhid is incorrect, you will have walls that sink in places, or that are not strong enough to hold up a roof, or the wiring and plumbing [the rest of the Muslim ummah] will not fit in your house. If you do not believe in Tauhid, you will have no foundation whatsoever, and you will have walls that do not stand at all, unless you stand behind them before other's eyes, propping them up, like a cardboard set on a stage.

And the Sheikh went on to say, that the Muslim Caliphate, which is commanded upon all of the Muslims, is the roof of the House of Islam. Without a firm foundation in tauhid, without quality walls designed in the manner commanded of mankind in the Qu'ran [including Islamic knowledge thereof] that include the wiring and plumbing of all facets of the ummah, then that roof, that roof will not stand.

These days we have Muslims trying to build walls without foundations. These days we have Muslims trying wire the ummah to a roof that has nothing to rest itself upon.

The foundation is very important. Without it, the walls are to be dust that was nothing.

Abu 'Abdullah Tariq ibn Ashyam said "I heard the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, say, 'If anyone says, "There is no god but Allah" and rejects everything that is worshipped other than Allah, his property and life are inviolate and his reckoning is in the hands of Allah Almighty." [Muslim]

Abu Ma'bad al-Miqdad ibn al-Aswad said, "I asked the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, 'What do you think if I meet a man of the unbelievers and we fight and he strikes one of my hands with his sword and cuts it off and then takes shelter from me behind a tree and says, "I have surrendered to Allah." Should I kill him, Messenger of Allah, after he has said that?' He said, 'Do not kill him.' I said, 'Messenger of Allah, he cut off one of my hands and then said it after he cut it off!' He said, 'Do not kill him. If you kill him, then he is in the position you were in before you killed him and you are in the position he was in before he said the words he said.'" [Agreed upon]

We cannot see the foundation other Muslims are building upon, i.e we cannot judge their intentions or belief, but we can percieve the aboveground structure, their salat, their zakat, their fasting, and their effort to make hajj, as an indication of the existance and quality of their foundation. As fasting can be done for Allah alone, and hajj is allowed to be left off for those who are not able to, salat and zakat are two parts of Islam [ACTIONS, NOT INTENTIONS] Muslims may judge other Muslims on, because the Qu'ran says:

"If they repent [say the shahada] and establish the prayer and pay zakat, let them go on their way." (9:5)

Which means, we may judge Muslims for the actions of NOT PRAYING AND NOT PAYING ZAKAT. This is reinforced by various ahadith.

Ibn 'Umar reported that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah and establish the prayer and pay the zakat. If they do that, their lives and property are protected from me except for the right of Islam, and their reckoning is in the hands of Allah." [Agreed upon]

Abdullah ibn 'Utba ibn Mas'ud reported that he heard 'Umar ibn al-Khattab say, "Some people were dealt with by the revelation in the time of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. The revelation has ceased. Now we deal with you according to what is clear to us from your actions. If anyone shows us good [doing the things enjoined upon him by the Qu'ran and the Messenger of Allah], we trust him and honour him. We know nothing of his inward. Allah will call him to reckoning in respect of his inward. If anyone shows us evil [partaking in that was forbidden to humanity in the Qu'ran and evidenced in the sunnah], we do not trust him and do not believe him, even if he says that his inward is good." [al-Bukhari]

Thus Muslims are forbidden to judge eachother's intentions, only their actions.

I hear alot of Muslims judging eachother's intentions, because they have NO KNOWLEDGE WHATSOEVER of another person's actions, or of their own religion they are making judgement's in the name of. That has to stop.


Maybe one day the HOUSE OF ISLAM could have a roof again, if we could do that.

It's a beautiful dream, now isn't it?

Love you all for the sake of Allah,


Saturday, January 1, 2011

I hate "BUT THAT WAS 1400 YEARS AGO" as an excuse to reject something clear in Islam

I really, really hate, actually, I disregard intellectually and totally don't mean to, another person's argument, when that other person tells me this famous line "but that was 1400 years ago" in response to an order they are rejecting in a Sahih hadith or the Qu'ran.

Really? That was 1400 years ago, now was it? Didn't the Qu'ran say, 1400 years ago, that when you say "la illah il Allah, Mohammdan adbu rasoolulah" then you have to believe also in the Qu'ran:
"This day have I perfected for you your religion and completed My favor on you and chosen for you Islam as a religion."-- [Qur'an 5:3]
and in everything there written, and follow what The Messenger gives one, and abstain from what he forbids one.

"Take what the messenger gives you and abstain from what he forbids you. " [Qur'an 59:7].

So obviously, whatever was written in the Qu'ran (albeit) in context, is as required of the Muslims, as it was then. 1400 years ago or not. And if the Messenger of Allah told us not to do something, well then, we shouldn't. If we do disregard the commands of Allah and/or his Messenger (it's one and the same, says the Qu'ran in many places, over and over and over): [], it is much the same as disregarding "la illah il Allah, Muhumad abdu rasoolulah"

Recently I engaged in a debate on a blog, non-specific to Islamic content, on a post about religious discrimination about Muslims in the USA, Tennesse specifically, where a Mosque to be built was protested and then vandalised. As is typical, a commentator remarked:

I wonder what would happen if they tried to build a church in Saudi Arabia? And I wonder what would happen if a Muslim there chose to convert to Christianity? I fear the backlash would be far more violent and extreme than a bit of vandalism and a lawsuit (which will probably fail).

To which I replied:

Anonymous: There WERE no Christians formally living in Saudi Arabia (which wasn't [then] under the rule of the Sauds) after the death of the Prophet Mohamed SAW. So if you want to blame any backlash on Christians in KSA, blame the Saudi govenment for importing cheap domestic workers of other religions than Islam THERE to need/require a Church under their rights in the first place. It wasn't supposed to be done in ISLAM at all. The lazy population as it has come to be were only supposed to have Muslim servants if any but hey, they said, we are lazy[,] we need [workers to do our work for us], let's break the Islamic law that says no non-musliums in KSA in the first place ourselves, and then punish THEM when they want to convert people or build churches.

And Saudi Arabia isn't based on religious freedom. Duh [k, I shouldn't have "duh\ed but most people who write about KSA know NOTHING about it].

But America is supposed to be, including Tennessee.

Mohamed sallalahi wa salaam said: "Expell the Jews and Christians from the Arabian pennisula" Sahih Al Bukhari.

This was carried out in a slow process under Umar, the second Caliph, where Jews and Christians were given big tracts of fertile land outside the Muslim holy lands and freedom to trade with the Muslims.

To which, I got a response I didn't really expect, and the parts I personally disagreed with, I will post here:

Their acceptance of foreign workers however is not a fault, and in the present time it would be extremely backward to resist this. What happened in your example was 1400 years ago and times have changed since then, thank God. Those that think we should be staying static, clinging to 1400 years ago are doing an injustice to Islam and preventing the natural development of humanity. If God didn't want us to move on from those times he might as well have wiped us all out then. Also, I think calling an entire nation lazy is a bit unfair.

Have you ever tried to warn someone of an innovation to laws of Allah to only have them come back at you with "driving a car, using a computer and talking on the phone is an innovation too, so what you are calling an innovation cannot possibly be valid?" "This is ALL 1400 hundred years ago nonsense."

As sis Jamilah posted on her blog , the innovations and changes to the laws of Allah we are talking about have to do with innovations on the religion, NOT on technological or even social changes.

So, I had to say in response to the argument "What happened in your example was 1400 years ago and times have changed since then, thank God. Those that think we should be staying static, clinging to 1400 years ago are doing an injustice to Islam and preventing the natural development of humanity" that when Muslims talk of women's rights, they say, look at what Islam says and the Prophet said and did, and that was pretty perfect 1400 years ago. What is DONE now by KSA to women today is NOT part of Islam, Muslim women like the one who wrote the comment I diagreed with and myself would both argue. "KSA would say, well, the world has changed, people are more evil now." The argument "What happened in your example was 1400 years ago" is doing the same corrupt thing, saying Islam was not perfect then, or the world requires something different than what Islam prescribes.

I am not the one saying women can't drive today, whereas they could 1400 years ago, following exactly what Islam prescribes, camels donkeys, what have you... And I will NEVER BE THE MISGUIDED ONE saying let us cause the problem that NEEDS one to break Shariah law (forbidding the import of non Muslims into the Arabian peninsula), need building of Pagan things or import of false doctrine into a place saved by Rasoolulah.

The Prophet Mohamed said pretty clearly, and the hadith is sahih: "Expell the Jews and Christians from the Arabian pennisula" Sahih Al Bukhari.

I am not saying we can't have cars, ect, ect... or have to live in mud houses, but Quran and Sunnah is pretty clear on what is halal and what isn't for a Muslim nation. Well, importing workers of Non-Muslim faith to live and work there, not in the Dhimmi culture, is also not part of Islam. It is not backwards for me to say that. I am repeating what the Prophet Mohamed SAW said.

Nor should it be offensive for me to say, not following this pure, easily understandable command from Rasuloolah, that those who wouldn't are lazy.

It was said, and not by myself: "I think calling an entire nation lazy is a bit unfair."

For KSA, there are MANY, MANY tasks, that the local population could fulfill, or even just the UNEMPLOYED WOMEN IN KSA, that would then lesson the foriegn non-muslim population. Cashiers, road maintenance, construction... But pride, and nationalism, plus greedy bosses who pay unfair wages, make these things off limits for Saudi society that suffers from a high unemployment rate. I call that lazy. Not on individuals, but on the cultural way of dealing with supply and demand of work.

It IS INCREDIBALY lazy. And I know alot of Saudis who'd call their culture lazy. Even themselves. I knew hundreds of Saudis, and only 1 who'd ever take a job doing manual labour (he's a guy) for a even a high salary. I lived with them for 5 years. Believe me.

If Saudi had followed the natural course of the law from Islam's Messenger, arguing about building Pagan things in KSA wouldn't even be an issue for our enemies to wave against us. In these cases, following the law of 1400 years ago, is a BETTER OPTION, then the ones available now.

The Messenger of Allah said: "Indeed, the most evil of matters in the religion are the newly invented ones, and every innovation in the religion is bid`ah, andevery bid`ah is misguidance, and every misguidance is in the Hellfire."

I will quote sis Jamilah, who said "I feel true embarrassment for those who use the 'well you drive a car' argument to defend some innovation that they are attached to. May Allah swt guide them and protect them."


So I repeat.

If Saudi had followed the natural course of the law, this wouldn't have been needed. In these cases, following the law of 1400 years ago, is a BETTER OPTION, then the ones available now.

That's kind of the one little annoying thing about something that is a truth. It doesn't grow untrue, no matter how much time passes, or how long it is ignored.

Now, if you have been one of those using the, "But that was 1400 years ago" argument, I guess you could always be left to argue: "If God didn't want us to move on from those times he might as well have wiped us all out then."

No offence, and I really mean none. Islamic law and politics facsinate, and I find Saudi Arabia to be terribly hypocritical, because they keep what laws as they see fit, and break the ones that mean they have to treat people more fair and give more money to people less than them ect... but if using that end point in logic, as my non-Muslim father does, why don't you just take it all the way and ask why did God create us at ALL with the ability to choose right from wrong?

If you aren't a Muslim, Philosophers have argued this FOR centuries, and I am SURE you can find some resources to help you find your answers.

But if you are one those you proclaim "la illaha il Allah, Muhammadan abdu rasoolulah":

Islam says, it is because God wanted us to submit to Him. And to recognize the Prophet Mohamed as the Messenger of God.

And in this case, the Messenger of God told us to do something.

And we didn't.

It's as simple as that.

And to quote sis Nida from

"I recognize that there are many problems in our Muslim communities we should be addressing, however we have to start solving these issues by changing our selves - not changing Islam. We need to reform ourselves, not Islam."