Remarks to the Summer Institute of the Washington World Affairs Council
June 25, 2007, Washington, DC
Ambassador Chas W. Freeman, Jr. (USFS, Ret.)
I am very pleased to be able to meet with you on this, the first day of a week–long examination of relations between our country and the Arab world. I have been asked to speak about American foreign policy as it bears on this topic.
The US relationship with the Arabs and Islam has grown from a minor concern sixty years ago to become, by stages leading to 9/11, a national obsession. For most of this period, most Americans didn't pay much attention to the Arabs except when the price of gas went up or the Israelis bombed them or some Arab bombed Israel back. Now our involvement in the Arab world is direct, continuous, expensive, overwhelmingly military, traumatic, politically divisive, highly problematic, and sometimes fatal. We are stuck in what the Bush Administration briefly named "the long war." This is a war with an enemy we are having trouble identifying and whom we clearly don't understand. It promises to be long indeed, both because we don't know how to win it and because we will never admit that we may be losing it.
On the final day of the program, you will hear from a senior official of the Department of State, a dedicated public servant who will tell you what the United States government thinks it's doing — or at least what it wants you to think it's doing — to advance our interests vis–à–vis the Arabs. I spent thirty years as an advocate for our country's foreign policy as it was conducted under seven presidents. I admire the dedicated professionalism of those to whom this baton has now passed — but can hardly tell you how delighted I am to have handed it off. I will let the senior official speak for the government. I will, as usual, speak only for myself.
US–Arab relations have become a tough subject to speak about in polite company. Since 9/11, the Arabs and we have worked hard to vilify each other. Each side has succeeded in blackening the reputation of the other. And, as if the resulting negative political overtones were not enough, the US–Arab relationship is also an exceptionally complex one — to which it is difficult to do justice in a brief discussion.
This is not just because, while the United States is a single nation–state that acts with a single will, the Arabs are a nation of twenty–three politically diverse states that often compete with each other and only rarely unite. Americans and Arabs are also each part of complex larger groupings of people with similar values — in our case, the 850 million–strong community we call "the West;" in theirs, the 1.4 billion Muslims who define the realm of Islam.
We need the oil and gas that the Arabs sell; they need the goods and services that we produce. We are in the main a devout and hospitable people. The Arabs are, if anything, even more so. We are roughly equal in numbers. Like us, Arabs come in all shapes, sizes, and skin and hair colors. We are each united not by our ethnicity but by the common languages and cultures that mark us as members of great nations that occupy wide swaths of the globe. Americans, like Arabs, have a predominant religion — ours, various forms of Christianity, theirs, various tendencies of Islam — but both of us harbor substantial minorities who profess other Abrahamic faiths. Just as most Americans are Christians but some are Jews or Muslims, most Arabs are Muslims but many are Christians and some are Jews.
With so much in common, we should be friends. For much of the brief history of our relationship, we have been. No more. Anyone who cares about and follows US–Arab relations knows that they are now the worst they have ever been.
Well, so what? Does it really matter?
In foreign policy, national interest is the measure of all things. The United States has important interests in West Asia and North Africa that ensure that our relations with the Arabs can have very large consequences for us. These interests don't go away in response to events or shifting perceptions or changes of Administration in Washington. Let me enumerate six things that are, and will remain, at stake in our relations with the Arabs.
First — let's face it. We are energy junkies.
Once the world's biggest oil exporter, we are now its biggest oil and gas importer. We complain a lot about the price of oil. But in practice we seem willing to pay whatever price is on the pump to be able to drive to our homes and shopping malls in the suburbs rather than walk or take public transport around our cities. We depend on the global oil market for imports that meet two–thirds of our demand for petroleum products. In turn, the global oil market depends, to a great and growing extent, on Arab oil. The Arabs now supply one–fourth of the world's oil; in a decade they will supply one–third. Switching from oil to gas is not a work–around. Arab countries already produce 35 percent of the world's traded gas. This percentage is set to double in the coming years. Arab countries hold 60 percent of the world's oil reserves. The world — including the United States — is destined to become steadily more dependent on them for its energy supplies, not less.
This gives the world an interest (as energy gluttons, we in this country have a particular interest) in expanded Arab oil production and exports to meet our energy needs, as well as those of large new consumers like China and India. That, in turn, gives us an interest in peace and stability in the Arab world. Consider, for example, the effects of the anarchy we have created in Iraq. Before our invasion, Iraq was a reliable supplier to the United States and other markets, with good prospects for expanding exports over time. The fact that occupied Iraq is now an erratic supplier with very uncertain prospects is one of the reasons that the price of oil has risen to current levels.
In addition to an interest in access to expanded Arab production of oil and gas, we have an obvious stake in avoiding disruption of their sales of these vital commodities abroad. While other interests may, on occasion, outweigh concerns about the general welfare of our country, it is clearly prudent to try to reduce the dangers of war in West Asia, and thereby to preclude a repeat of the sort of confrontation and resulting energy crisis that occurred during the Egyptian–Israeli war of 1973. Then, the sudden requirement to shore up Israel's war–making capacity provoked a retaliatory Arab oil embargo. That hit us hard even though our economy was then only about half as dependent on imports as it is now.
Second, we have acquired a clear national interest in achieving the peaceful integration of Israel into its region.
Israel cannot hope to enjoy peaceful coexistence with its Arab and Muslim neighbors through endless military intimidation of them or their Palestinian kin. Nor will the Arabs accept the legitimacy of a Jewish state in their midst if Israel rules its captive Arab population under the cruelties of martial law while highhandedly expanding its borders at Arab expense. Until it negotiates peace with the Palestinians, Israel will remain under siege and insecure.
After nearly sixty years of existence, the State of Israel is an established fact, but its future therefore remains precarious. Arab leaders now publicly acknowledge Israel's existence and express willingness to accept it, providing Israel ends its oppression of the Palestinians and halts its dispossession of them from their homes. But resentment and loathing of Israel among Arab publics has never been so intense. The result is constant low–intensity conflict, punctuated by occasional outbursts of large–scale warfare in which the United States is inevitably implicated. The danger that conflict in the Holy Land will erupt into a global struggle between the supporters of Israel and its foes is also ever present.
Meanwhile, without the personal security that only peace can provide, many of Israel's most productive Jewish inhabitants have begun openly to contemplate seeking peace and security by leaving the country to find new homes abroad. It is entirely possible that, without peace, the Zionist experiment will wither away, leaving behind it only the bitter hatreds that it and the Arab reaction to it have engendered. In terms of US interests, there is nothing optional about the pursuit of peaceful coexistence between Israel, the Palestinians, and Israel's other Arab neighbors; it is an imperative. The alternative is not just more violence in the short term; it is the permanent embitterment of the Arabs and the end of Israel in the long term.
Third, as differences between Israel, the West, and the Arabs have come increasingly to be defined in religious terms, we have acquired an interest in the character of the religious order in which Arabs participate.
There are 325 million Arabs — most Muslim, but many Christian and some Jewish, despite Israel's ingathering of the world's Jews. Arab Muslims make up only one–fifth of the 1.4 billion member global Muslim community, but they are a decisively influential fifth. The Islamic holy places are in Arabia and the language of Islam is Arabic.
Religion creates a sense of shared identity that can transcend ethnicity, especially in response to denigration of their faith or discrimination, humiliation, or assaults by outsiders on those who share it. Attacks on Arabs, whether Palestinian or Iraqi, are felt by other Muslims. The brutality that has attended the Israeli colonization of Palestinian lands, the many deaths in Iraq from a decade of American sanctions, followed by our invasion and occupation of Iraq, and last summer's US–approved Israeli savaging of Lebanon are all cases in point. Arab rage at perceived injustice easily translates into Muslim anger toward its perceived perpetrators. Increasingly hostile relations with the Arabs are estranging Muslims everywhere from Americans.
The effects of US policy toward West Asia and North Africa thus spill over to affect our relations with the rest of Asia and Africa, including non–Arab–but–Muslim Iran and Turkey, and Central, South, and Southeast Asia as well as key countries like Nigeria. The United States has many interests in cooperative relations with these countries, not least in preventing them from becoming supporters of terrorist actions against Americans. Consider, too, the energy dimension. These nations hold yet another 20 percent of the world's oil and gas reserves.
A fourth interest arises from the fact that Arab countries and predominantly Muslim lands like Indonesia, Malaysia, and Iran straddle or abut the world's major transportation routes.
It's not just the security of oil and gas supplies that is the issue here, though the Straits of Lombok, Macassar, Malacca, Hormuz, and the Bab al–Mandeb are vital links in the energy trade. You can't travel between Asia (which is becoming the world's economic center of gravity) and Europe without transiting these countries' air or sea space. Our status as a global power depends on the maintenance of a permissive environment for the transit of our armed forces. In military affairs, logistics are key. Our country has a big stake in sustaining cooperative military ties with the Arabs and other Muslim peoples and access to their air and sea space. Hostile relationships with these countries have the potential to cripple our capacity to project our power not just in the Middle East, but beyond it. As an example, consider the difficulties the Pentagon is now having finding a North African Arab country willing to welcome the headquarters of its new Africa command.
Fifth, we have a major economic interest in encouraging the Arabs to reinvest the money they earn from energy sales in ways that benefit us.
More than thirty years ago, as increased oil prices began to flood their economies with "petrodollars," Arab oil producers made a commitment to plow this money back into the American economy. Both we and they benefited greatly from this. But, today our posture toward Arab investment is decidedly unwelcoming. Arabs doubt that money they put here can be secure from politically motivated intervention by our monetary authorities or harassment by the army of tort litigators who live off the legal blackmail our system now facilitates. The result has been Arab disinvestment from the United States, followed by the redirection of new investment elsewhere, for example to China. There is even talk about Arab abandonment of the use of the dollar as the unit of account for the oil trade and one major Arab oil producer recently decided to end the peg that had tied its currency to the dollar. Oil exporting countries are now accumulating annual surpluses of $600 billion or more. The consequences for our economy of a change in the role of the dollar in international energy and related commodity markets would be profound.
Sixth and lastly, but far from least, we have an interest in preventing and, ultimately, reducing anti–Americanism, especially anti–Americanism that takes the form of terrorist action against Americans.
It has generally been thought wise in foreign affair to try to divide one's enemies, rather than to say or do things that unite them. Frankly, as we have drifted into what is now seen among Muslims everywhere as an assault on Islam and its believers, we have steadily broadened the political base of Arab and Muslim anti–Americanism. Al Qaeda and other enemies of the United States now think they have a chance to unite much of the Muslim world to their cause, form a broad coalition against us, and multiply their numbers many fold.
The ignorance of most Americans, even educated Americans, about Islam and the Arab world has made a large contribution to these strategic failures with both Arabs and Muslims. Lacking understanding of those who oppose us, we have reasoned from fallacious analogies with our former foes in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. Instead of trying to understand and rebut al Qaeda=s case against our direct and indirect interventions in the Arab and Islamic worlds, we have ascribed to it an ideology that does not exist. "Islamofascism" is a word invented in America, redolent with politically evocative overtones of the European holocaust, and totally disconnected from both Islam and Arab history. Rather than analyzing the objectives that al Qaeda and its allies profess — which have to do with freeing the realm of Islam of our presence so that they and other Islamic extremists can direct its course to the future — we assign to them an objective of world conquest similar to that of our past Eurasian enemies. Our ignorance, confusion, and self-indulgence have led us to impose unfounded stereotypes on Muslims and to mistake Arab friends for Arab enemies — and, no doubt, vice versa.
The great Chinese strategist, Sunzi, once sagely observed that: "know your enemy and know yourself and you can win every war." Conversely, I would argue, if we continue to contend with imaginary demons and to invade countries to vindicate our hallucinations, we will lose every contest. The consequences of American failure against Islamic militants could be very large. The fact that al Qaeda and its ilk do not much resemble the picture of them painted by our pundits does not make them any less dangerous B just dangerous in different ways. They must be countered by more realistic, appropriate, and effective means than those we are so counterproductively employing at present.
The only good news is that al Qaeda has been almost equally inept. Many of its actions horrify Arabs and other Muslims as much as they do those they are designed to shock in the West, and its doctrines are too obviously deviant to have wide appeal in the Islamic world. Still, al Qaeda has shown that it can learn from failure and adjust its tactics. In the long run, we must assume it will correct its mistakes.
Over time, therefore, Islamic extremists are likely to become more, not less formidable as enemies of both the United States and those Arab regimes that remain aligned with us. In this regard, the deepening estrangement of Arab and other Muslim populations from the United States has very adverse consequences for us. It provides a political environment favorable to recruitment efforts, operational support, and concealment among the people by our extremist enemies. It inclines Arab leaders to shrink from public association or cooperation with us, even against terrorists who are targeting us only to deter us from continuing to support these leaders. It complicates our ability to counter the Iranian inroads our policies in Iraq, Lebanon, and the Holy Land have facilitated. It increases the incentives for the Arabs to accommodate Iran, and it deprives us of the political cover they might otherwise provide for an orderly and honorable end to our military intervention in Iraq.
The causes of Arab and Muslim alienation from the United States are not hard to discern and describe. They are policies that have demonstrably served our interests no better than theirs, or for that matter, Israel's:
- Our decision to back Israeli efforts to pacify the Palestinians rather than to continue to try to mediate a Palestinian–Israeli peace. This succeeded only in discrediting us as peacemakers without gaining security for Israel, and it empowered Islamist unilateralists among the Palestinians to match the equally unilateralist Israeli government.
- Our collusion with Israel in the effort to isolate and overthrow the democratically elected Hamas government. This first left Hamas nowhere to go but further into the Iranian embrace. It then catalyzed armed conflict among Palestinians, partitioned the occupied territories, encouraged an Israeli effort to crush or starve the Gaza ghetto into submission, and made the prospect of a just and lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians based on a two–state solution more remote than ever.
- Our witless transformation of our punitive expedition to capture al Qaeda leaders and chastise their Taliban hosts into a long–term occupation of Afghanistan directed at excluding radical Muslims from a role in governing it. This has turned the Islamic world against our intervention there, conferred new life and undeserved nationalist resistance credentials on the Taliban, and lent unhelpful credibility to al Qaeda's charge that we are engaged in an anti–Muslim crusade. (It has also had the perverse result of making Afghanistan so safe for poppy cultivation that it is now the source of almost all the world's heroine.)
- Our catastrophic march into the strategic ambush of Iraq, where we remain pinned down. Iraq is now a country militarily occupied by us but politically occupied by Iran. Our "transformational diplomacy" there has birthed a catastrophic mixture of anarchy and gang warfare, mounting civilian casualties and infrastructure collapse, and an eruption of embittered refugees to every corner of the mostly Sunni Arab world.
- Our continual demonstrations of strategic ineptitude and politico–military incompetence. We persist in an attempt to impose military solutions on political problems in Iraq — thereby precluding political solutions to them — even as we cooperate in Shiite suppression and ethnic cleansing of Sunni Arabs and thrash about in search of a way out of the mess we've made.
- Our apparent plans to perpetuate our occupation of Iraq through the establishment of permanent military bases there from which we can dominate the Arab world. This is the one thing we've come up with that has succeeded in uniting Sunni and Shiite Iraqi Arabs — in almost universal opposition to such bases.
- Our open encouragement of Israel's sadistic mutilation of Lebanon last summer. This cemented Hezbollah's ties to Iran while transforming it into the dominant political force in Lebanon.
- And our recent efforts to block peace talks between Israel and Syria. This ensures a continued state of war along Israel's Golan front, continued proxy wars in Lebanon, continued Syrian reliance on Iran, and continued stalemate in US–Syrian relations.
The policies that have produced these disasters for our interests and those of our friends could clearly do with some revision. As I noted, al Qaeda has shown that it has the capacity to learn from its mistakes and correct them. Do we? I wish I could be here to ask the senior official that question on Friday.
|
Friday 23 December 2011
Sex and the married Muslim
Sexpert to the Arab world Dr. Heba Kotb discusses female pleasure, halal sex and curing homosexuality.
By Tracy Clark-Flory
Jun. 06, 2007 | Veiled by a hijab, Dr. Heba Kotb appears weekly on a hit Arab TV show called "The Big Talk" with a message for Muslims: Have more sex -- and hot sex -- in the name of Allah.
Kotb, the first licensed sexologist in Egypt, believes that sex is a gift Allah intended for humans; her divine mission is to make sure that they're enjoying it. Every week, viewers throughout the Muslim world flood her station with calls, hoping to have their most embarrassing and intimate questions answered on-air. All sorts of sexual queries are allowed, with one snag: Sexual relations outside of marriage are haram (prohibited by Islam) and not open to discussion. In fact, Kotb, a wife and mother of three, draws her sex advice directly from the Quran. According to her textual analysis, the Prophet Mohammed encouraged frequent sex and foreplay and decreed that female pleasure is, um, actually kind of important. She delivers these sexual dictates with the dryness of a doctor and the conviction of a fundamentalist, but she's also prone to jarring fits of laughter.
To the Western world -- where gray-haired sex educator Sue Johanson can be seen on TV simulating oral sex on six inches of silicone -- Kotb's call-in show would seem relatively quaint and her views on homosexuality downright regressive. But, to much of the Muslim world, the 39-year-old -- who appears fresh-faced and prim, save her heavily kohl-lined eyes -- is considered a radical liberal. Not surprisingly, though, her work has drawn the attention of extremist Islamic clerics: Sheik Youssef al-Badri declared that her work only "increases the number of sex perverts." But viewers were aching for a show like hers, she says, because sex education in Egypt is "nonexistent." In fact, it was while studying stateside to become a surgeon that Kotb discovered there was a world of sexual knowledge that had been withheld from her -- so she decided to take a dramatically different path and pursue a degree in clinical sexology. Years later she returned to Cairo and opened her own sex clinic; the demand for her services is so high that she's booked months in advance.
Kotb recently talked to Salon by phone from Cairo and explained why good sex is God's will, female masturbation is wrong and homosexuals are akin to alcoholics.
You've said you believe that by having more sex, married couples will please Allah. Why?
Whenever you have sex you get rewarded because you're avoiding the woman being prone to have sex outside of the marriage and vice versa. It's a way to please each other in our world and to please Allah.
Is the Quran concerned with female pleasure?
Yes, it is. The biggest chapter of the Quran is called "The Cow." There is a verse talking about the woman's rising pleasure. It's an order to the man to give the woman the right to have pleasure -- it orders the man to give the woman foreplay and also to get the wife to have sex repeatedly and to not wait for the woman to ask because sometimes she's too shy to ask.
You've blamed Egypt's high divorce rate on "bad sex." But why is the country stricken with "bad sex"?
I think that probably more than 80 percent of divorces in Egypt are from a lack of sex education. Sex is a taboo; it's not to be discussed or complained about. A lot of people didn't know that they could complain about sex.
Why is sex such a controversial topic in the Muslim world?
It's culture -- it's not Islam, whatsoever. Islam is a very liberal and progressive religion. It invites people to have sex, of course within the marital frame. Prophet Mohammed never showed any offense to anyone asking about sexuality. On the contrary, he responded to every single question. The thing is, the culture overwhelms this.
What do you think about the in-your-face American approach to sex and sexuality?
I'm totally against this. It's harmful -- sex loses its luster and its preciousness. God orders that sex remains precious, like a pearl -- it's not just for everyone. A balance has to be built: This is allowed, this is not allowed; this is halal, this is haram. Sex is one of the things that is forbidden before marriage and outside of marriage; on the other hand, it's allowed within marriage with a lot, a lot of freedom. This creates a balance. In the American approach everything is allowed -- you can have sex at any age, on any occasion.
Who do you think is having better sex -- Americans or Egyptians?
Well, I'm not a witness. [Laughs.] Believe it or not, I've been to several countries for various conferences and it's quite the same everywhere -- there are the same problems. I don't think one group is having better sex than the other, but there is great individual variation. Those who are open, clear with each other and confront the problems they are having are far ahead.
You have encouraged women to explore their bodies -- does that include masturbation?
The woman, by means of instinct, does not need masturbation. She's not like the man whatsoever. It's not a call of nature for her. So that's why I'm not very sympathetic with young women and girls choosing to masturbate. They're ruining their sexual future -- a woman has to remain blank until she gets married and by masturbating she's forming her sexuality.
What if a woman masturbates during marriage?
There's no need! If her husband is operative and they're having sex, there's no need.
As forward-thinking as you are in some respects, you're hardly a liberal by Western standards. What are your feelings on homosexuality?
[Laughs] Well, I have a very famous opinion about homosexuality. I'm totally against homosexuality being considered a gene or natural. It's a sin -- they're just like the alcoholics and the drug-takers. I'm also the reason for a lot of patients to have been cured -- so, no, I can't believe that it is natural.
So you've cured people of their homosexuality?
A lot, yes -- maybe over 30 or 40 now. They were extremely obedient and followed my instructions for a whole nine months to one year. Now these patients are married to women, have kids and desire women even on the level of daydreams and night dreams.
Has a caller on your show ever asked a question that made you blush?
I don't get embarrassed -- it's my job. In Islam, everything between a husband and wife is allowed sexually, except for two things: anal intercourse and intercourse during menstruation. One caller said she desired to be penetrated from behind. I got mad because this is a closed subject -- this is haram. Being asked this question on the air makes me uncomfortable about giving the answers. When I'm inside my own office, it's easier -- you don't have to watch what you say.
What kind of a response have you received to your show?
For me, the response was extremely positive from everyone. I've been told some people think of my show as being extremely revealing and that it's teaching people how to have sex and encouraging young men and women to have sex outside marriage. But I don't care about this argument, because it's not right.
What are your husband's feelings on your career?
He's busy too -- much more busy than I am. I'm blessed; if he were not, I would be living in a big problem. He has been extremely supportive all throughout my life. He used to be my colleague in college. We fell in love in our third year of school. He knows how important my work is to me and he knows that being supportive is the way to my heart. He's my first priority in my world -- he's my love, he's my sweetheart. Maybe that's why I'm giving good advice for spouses. Throughout our 15 years of marriage, I have never stopped loving him.
Women in Islam
Dr. Ibrahim B. Syed
President, Islamic Research Foundation International, Inc.
Louisville, KY
This is in response to the sermon (given at the Eid ul Fitr celebration in Louisville, KY) that addressed the negative role of women in Islam, News story "Muslims gather for celebration" published in the Louisville Courier-Journal, dated October 24, 2006.
Hijab (headscarf) is a Judeo-Christian tradition which originated in the Bible. ( Reference: 1 Corinthians, 11:5, 11:6, 11:10, 11:13).
Hijab (headscarf) is mentioned in the Qur'an 7 times. Each time it means curtain or barrier and NOT headscarf. The Qur'an commands modest dress and says to the women to "draw their veils (Khimar) to cover their Bosoms" The Hijab (headscarf) became paramount after the Iranian revolution in 1979 as a sign of protest and identity. There is no consensus on Hijab in the Muslim world. Each one has his/her own personal subjective opinion. Islamic Scholar Dr. Zaki Badawi wrote "There has never been an Islamic obligation for women to cover at any time" . "Even in Saudi Arabia the covering of women from head to toe is recent; it was not required before the discovery of oil." "The hijab veil (which covers all of a Muslim woman's hair) is also not obligatory…" Hence the Burqa and the Niqab (face veil) are inventions. In public one can see women with hijab and without hijab as the women have a choice.
In lran, Imam Khomeini first insisted that women must wear the veil and chador, but in response to large demonstrations by women, he modified his position and agreed that while the chador is not obligatory, MODEST dress is.
According to some scholars the Koran says: "Allah has given you clothes to cover your shameful parts, and garments pleasing to the eye. But the finest of all these is the robe of piety."
The Quran often emphasizes that women should be treated kindly and with much respect. It says:
“O you who believe! You are forbidden to inherit women against their will. Nor should
you treat them with harshness, that you may take away part of the dowry you have given
them - except when they have become guilty of open lewdness. On the contrary live with
them on a footing of kindness and equity. If you take a dislike to them, it may be that
you dislike something and Allah will bring about through it a great deal of good.” (4:19)
Muslim history is full of independent women: warriors, poets, wealthy businesswomen and efficient administrators. Many women had considerable political power.
Khadijah was the first wife of Prophet Muhammad and the first of the believers. Being a business woman and acquiring great wealth, she held a very high social status amongst the Arabs. The voice of Khadijah was the first; the only and the solitary voice which
supported the mission of Prophet Muhammad. She was a true Minister and a sincere Adviser of the Prophet in his mission.
Ayesha, a prophet's wife was an eminent scholar who excelled in learning about the Noble Quran, injunctions, legality and illegality of things, poetry, medicine, history of ancient Arabia, and pedigree. She was a scholar, an educator, and a narrator of 2,210 traditions and teachings of the Prophet. She even used to issue legal decisions under Islamic jurisprudence. There are many more women who have impacted Islamic history in one way or another. Women were companions to the Prophet that took part in battles by taking care of the wounded, transmitted and compiled traditions of the Prophet, made monetary contributions for the development of mosques, were orators and poetesses, and became scholars of Islamic knowledge and so on.
For centuries, Muslim women in different struggles and communities have joined men on the front lines of war, and have died alongside them. The Prophet’s own female relatives took part in battle; his wife Ayesha led the Battle of the Camel, and his granddaughter Zaynab bint Ali fought in the Battle of Karbala ( Iraq ). Other women were recognized for tending to the wounded, donating their jewelry for the battles, and encouraging their male family members to fight to ensure the survival of Islam.
When Benazir Bhutto became prime minister of Pakistan in 1988, many claimed that it was a blasphemous assault on Islamic tradition since no Muslim state, critics alleged, had ever been governed by a woman. But Fatima Mernissi (author of Forgotten Queens of Islam) examined fifteen centuries of Islamic history and discovered that the critics were wrong. Fatimid Princess in Egypt, Sitt al Mulk ruled Egypt. Two Muslim women ruled India, Razia Sultana and Chand Bibi. Another queen Shajarat al-Durr, gained power in Cairo in 1250 C.E. like any other military leader. In fact, she brought the Muslims a victory during the Crusades and captured the King of France, Louis IX.
There were 15 or more Muslim Queens who ruled Muslim countries. (The Forgotten Queens of Islam by Fatima Mernissi).
In modern times, at least five Muslim women became heads of state or Chief Executives, like President or Prime Ministers. Benazir Bhutto of Pakistan was elected twice as Prime Minister. Begum Khaleda Zia of Bangladesh was elected twice as Prime Minister of Bangladesh. Sheikh Hasina Wajed was elected Prime Minister of Bangladesh. Dr. Tansu Ciller became Prime Minister of Turkey and Megavati Sukarnoputri was elected President of Indonesia- the most populous Muslim country in the world. It is ironic to note that no Muslim woman in the Arab countries was ever elected as head of state. It is also true for the Champion of Democracy- the USA had never had a woman president for the last 230 years. It is predicted by political pundits that either Hillary Clinton or
Condoleezza Rice might change the history of United States in the 2008 elections.
Condoleezza Rice might change the history of United States in the 2008 elections.
Today Louisville native, Muhammad Ali's daughter Laila, is a Boxing champion. Recently Iran's Shirin Ebadi won a Noble Prize for Peace. Another Iranian, Anousheh Ansari- the first Muslim woman ever to return to earth after a successful space flight.
Muslim women have become pilots, army generals, taxi drivers, police chiefs, mayors of metropolitan cities, police academy chiefs, spy agents, surgeons and have broken the glass ceilings.
In Kentuckiana three are at least one dozen Muslim women who are physicians.
For about 800 years from 800 CE to 1600 CE the Islamic world was the most advanced civilization in Medicine, Science, Technology and many other fields. Then the decline came.
Muslim women have the right to education and the right to express creativity, innovation, inventions, intellectual pursuits and opportunities for achievements.
The Necessity to Refer to the Qur'an and Sunnah
Abdul Qadir Abdul Aziz
al-Jumu'ah Magazine
al-Jumu'ah Magazine
It is necessary to refer all matters of disagreement between Muslims to Allah and His Messenger, sallallahu alayhe wa sallam. This is important for the Muslim to know and implement because it indicates the complete submission to Allah without which one would not be a Muslim.
Allah says, " If you differ in anything among yourselves, refer it to Allah and His Messenger, if you believe in Allah and the Last Day. That is best and most commendable in the end" [4:59] also, He says, "And whatever you disagree upon, its decision is with Allah" [42:10]
Ibnul Qayyim said, "Based on these verses, scholars have agreed that referring to Allah means referring to His Book, and referring to the Messenger, sallallahu alayhe wa sallam, means referring to him in person when alive, to his Sunnah after his death." The first verse of surah an-Nisaa (surah 4), is also proof that the Shari'ah has been perfected and completed. Ibnul Qayim commented on this verse, "It covers everything that the believers may disagree upon concerning their religion, from the smallest to the greatest, whether hidden or evident. And if there were not a clear solution to their disagreement in Allah's Book and His Messenger's Sunnah, or if they were not enough for that, then He would not have ordered us referral to them."
Shari'ah is the Judge and is not to be judged: This is its power and its role. This means that the Shari'ah rules and judges whether people's sayings and doings are correct or not. It judges between them when in conflict and disagreement. It confirms the right and abolishes the falsehood. This fact sometimes is violated through some wrong practices:
Fanaticism: The fanatics in the different Madha-hib, schools of thought, judge the Qur'an and Sunnah by what their Imam say. For example, Abul Hassan al-karkhy, a prominent Hanafi Imam, said, "Every verse 'in the Qur'an' that differs with our Madh-hab's understanding is either wrongly interpreted or abrogated, and the same applies to every hadeeth as well."
Democracy: Today, one of the ugly examples of people taking the Divine Shari'ah into their own hands, is the one related to the so-called democracy by taking people's opinion, directly or through their parliament, about implementing the Islamic Laws. The essence of this is subjugating the implementation of the Creator's Shari'ah to the will of His creatures or rendering it to a mere choice like any human-set constitution or laws. This is total and clear disbelief, Kufr.
In explaining the Islamic Aqueedah, Imam at-Tahawi said, concerning the one who rules with other than Allah's rule, "If he thought that ruling in accordance with what Allah has descended is not mandatory and that he has a choice in it, or he belittled it, while certain that it is Allah's judgement, then he has committed Kufr, disbelief." No one from this Ummah is faultless except the Prophet, sallallahu alayhe wa sallam. And so Allah ordered us, when in conflict, to refer to Him and to His Messenger, sallallahu alayhe wa sallam, and not to refer to anyone else's opinion or saying or laws. Hence it is understood that there can be fault in anyone's sayings except the sayings of Allah and His Messenger, sallallahu alayhe wa sallam. This also indicates that the claim of some sects that their Imams are faultless is baseless.
Asserting this principle, Imam Malik said, "Any one's sayings may be corrected except those of the Prophet, sallallahu alayhe wa sallam." And similar statements were quoted from Abu Hanifa, Ahmed, Shafi'ee and others although their exact words may differ a little. Allah says, " Had it been from other than Allah, much discrepancy would have been found" [4:82]
The referral to the Qur'an and the Sunnah has to be done by those who qualify for it, the scholars, Allah says, " If you do not know, ask of those who possess the Message." [16:43]
With regards to asking the scholars and referring to them, we caution the Muslims from two types of scholars:
1) Scholars who are deeply buried under their books and have lost contact with the outside world. Ibnul Qayim said, "The Mufti and the Governor cannot govern fairly unless they have two kinds of knowledge. The first is the understanding of the reality, being totally involved in it and being able to derive facts from what happened using evidence, indications and signs, until they are totally informed. The second is the understanding of Allah's rulings depicted in His Book or through the sayings of His Messenger, sallallahu alayhe wa sallam, and understanding how to apply them to the reality under consideration."
Also, Abu Batah al-Akbari said, "Imam Ahmed said, 'It is not acceptable for a man to establish himself as Mufti unless he has five characteristics. First, he must have the intention. If he does not have an intention, there will be no light in him or in his speech. Second, he must have the knowledge, tolerance, dignity and tranquility. Third, he has to be sure of his speech and his knowledge. Fourth, he must be self sufficient (financially). If not he will be used by people. Fifth, he must know the people."
Ibnul Qayim commented on this saying, "Knowledge of the people is a great trait that every Mufti and Governor should have. They should be involved with the people, be very knowledgeable in enjoining the good and forbidding the evil, and then applying the one to the other. Otherwise they will do more harm than good. If they are not knowledgeable about people, they might mistake the oppressor for the oppressed and the rightful for the wrong-doer, and vice versa. If they are ignorant of the people, their circumstances and their customs, they will not be able to distinguish between the good and the bad. They have to be very knowledgeable in people's cunning, deception, fraud, customs and traditions. A fatwah is subject to change depending on the time, place, customs and traditions and that is all from Allah's religion."
2) Scholars who sell themselves for worldly possessions. The Messenger of Allah, sallallahu alayhe wa sallam, said, "Keenness on money and worldly belongings will ruin someone's religion more effectively than a couple of hungry wolves can ruin in a herd of sheep, if left alone with it." (Daremi)
Ibnul Qayim said, "When people of knowledge prefer this worldly life and love it, they will definitely say what is not true about Allah, in their fatawa, judgments, sayings and actions." This is due to the fact that Allah's rulings are not always in accordance with people's desires especially those in positions of power and those who follow dubious paths. Their needs are always fulfilled in disagreement with the Truth. If the scholars and Governors have a liking to power and follow dubious paths, they will have their way only by using what opposes the truth.
Beware of these two types of scholars. Those who have lost contact with reality and those who prefer worldly affairs especially in matters concerning jihad, enjoining the good and forbidding the evil, and everything that concerns tyrant rulers. Ibn Taymiyah has described both types of scholars in one saying, "It is imperative, concerning jihad, to take the opinion of the true religious people who have experience in real life, not the people who love this world and whose views on religion are not in depth. Their opinions and the opinions of those scholars who lack contact with reality and life should not be taken."
The Mother of All Scandals
By Eric Margolis
06/20/07 "ICH" -- -- Anyone who wants to understand what really goes on in the Mideast should have a look at the scandal that erupted earlier this month over the outsized character of Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia.
Bandar has long been a renowned mover, shaker, and charmer. As Saudi ambassador to the US, the influential Bandar schmoozed official Washington for two decades. He became an intimate of the Bush family. He invested at least $60 million in Saudi funds in the Carlyle Corp., in which the Bush family has important interests. Equally significant, Prince Bandar was a particular favorite at the CIA, where he was long considered one of its prime Mideast "assets."
Bandar flew in his own personal Airbus A-340 painted in the colors of his favorite US football team, and threw lavish parties in his $135 million Aspen house and in Washington. He was Mr. SaudiAmerica. Congress, the media, and the rest of official Washington hailed Bandar as the kind of "good Arab" with whom the US was happy to do business.
After leaving Washington, Bandar returned home to become the highly influential head of national security and chief foreign policy advisor to Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah. Bandar's father, Crown Prince Sultan, is the nation's powerful defense minister and next in line to the throne. Many Saudi observers believed Bandar was being positioned to sit one day on the throne of Saudi Arabia.
On top of all this, Bandar is also a marketing genius.
The UK Guardian newspaper and BBC recently revealed that Bandar personally received over US $2 billion in "marketing fees" from the British defense firm BAE as part of the huge, 1985 al-Yamamah arms deal. Al-Yamamah means dove in Arabic. Charges of massive corruption over the Al-Yamamah deal have swirled for years. But even for the rich Saudis, $2 billion is a lot of money. That's twice what Washington's most important Arab ally, Egypt, was given.
For the Saudi royals, Britain's outgoing PM Tony Blair, and Washington, the "dove" and Bandar's $2 billion worth of payola have become one big albatross.
During the 1980's, Saudi Arabia sought to buy modern US warplanes. But the US pro-Israel lobby blocked the sale, costing the loss of billions in sales by US industry and 100,000 American jobs. The Reagan Administration advised the Saudis to go buy their warplanes from Britain.
Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was only too happy have the British defense firm, known today as BAE, sell the Saudis 120 Tornado strike aircraft, Hawk trainers, military equipment, and lucrative training and maintenance programs worth some $90–100 billion and the 100,000 jobs America lost. Over their operational lives of 20 or so years, warplanes consume six times their original cost in spare parts. These supply contract also went to BAE and other British industrial firms.
The Saudis could barely operate the modern military equipment they bought from the US, Britain, and France. Their military forces were a big zero. Most of it stayed in storage, or was operated by foreign mercenaries. The Saudi arms deals were really about buying military protection from the western powers.
All arms sales to the west's Mideast clients routinely include 10–15% "commissions" to heads of state, generals, and their cronies. These funds are traditionally channeled through middlemen, the flamboyant Adnan Kashoggi being the most notorious.
Kickbacks, rechristened "marketing fees," were of course expected in the Al-Yamamah deal. But Bandar's $2 billion set a record for size and venality. Thatcher ordered Bandar's payments carefully hidden from public gaze. They remained so until recent years when British and American government investigators began questioning secret, multi-million dollar payments to Prince Bandar routed from the UK to the shady Riggs Bank in Washington. Before it was shut down after a series of scandals, Riggs had become one of the favorite handlers of "black" money for pro-US autocratic regimes.
When Britain's Serious Fraud Office began probing BAE's secret payoffs to Bandar, Tony Blair sanctimoniously ordered the investigation shut down for "national security" reasons. The Saudis threatened to cancel their arms deals with Britain if payoff charges were made public by HM's government. Blair was trying to sell the Saudis BAE's new, high-tech Eurofighter. He blocked similar investigations by OECD, the international anti-bribery watchdog agency which was also closing in on the Saudi money trail.
Bandar denies any wrongdoing, claiming the "marketing" funds all went into a legitimate Defense Ministry account and were properly accounted for and audited.
Few believe him. The only "marketing" effort in the arms deal was payola to high Saudi officials. If the funds were legit, why all the secrecy and money laundering? Were the payments simply western "baksheesh" for Bandar and his clan? Were they to help him against his main power rival, Prince Turki Faisal, who is not seen as amenable to US and British interests as Bandar?
Could the billions have been used for covert operations, possibly with US participation? One recalls the Reagan years when money from Israel's secret sales of US arms to Iran were used to finance the Nicaraguan Contras.
The most significant effect of this revolting scandal is being felt in the Muslim world. One of the major reasons for the fast-spreading influence of militant Islamic groups like Hezbullah, Hamas, and Taliban has been their success in uprooting the Muslim world's endemic corruption and nepotism. We are so used to Islamists being demonized as "terrorists" that their highly effective and popular social accomplishments are rarely noted. In fact, their appeal and popularity is based primarily on their welfare and incorruptibility.
Islamic militants insist the west exploits their nations by keeping deeply corrupt regimes in power. In exchange for protection from their own people and neighbors, and fabulous wealth, these authoritarian Arab regimes – always termed "moderates" by western media – sell oil on the cheap to the west and do its bidding. US-installed governments in Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq, Somalia, and Afghanistan are all noted for egregious corruption, including secret payoffs from Washington to their leaders.
No wonder Prince Bandar was always so amiable and accommodating. Or that he managed to fly out a planeload of Saudis the day after 9/11 when all US flights were grounded. Or that the Bush administration was trying to position the always amenable prince as the next Saudi monarch.
The Bandar scandal is hugely embarrassing for Blair and Bush, who claim to be leading a crusade to bring democracy and good government to the benighted Muslim world. It starkly confirms Islamists' accusations that the west promotes corruption. And it dramatically exposes the dirty underbelly of the west's much-vaunted "special relationship" with the Saudi royal family.
June 19, 2007
Eric Margolis, contributing foreign editor for Sun National Media Canada, is the author of War at the Top of the World.
06/20/07 "ICH" -- -- Anyone who wants to understand what really goes on in the Mideast should have a look at the scandal that erupted earlier this month over the outsized character of Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia.
Bandar has long been a renowned mover, shaker, and charmer. As Saudi ambassador to the US, the influential Bandar schmoozed official Washington for two decades. He became an intimate of the Bush family. He invested at least $60 million in Saudi funds in the Carlyle Corp., in which the Bush family has important interests. Equally significant, Prince Bandar was a particular favorite at the CIA, where he was long considered one of its prime Mideast "assets."
Bandar flew in his own personal Airbus A-340 painted in the colors of his favorite US football team, and threw lavish parties in his $135 million Aspen house and in Washington. He was Mr. SaudiAmerica. Congress, the media, and the rest of official Washington hailed Bandar as the kind of "good Arab" with whom the US was happy to do business.
After leaving Washington, Bandar returned home to become the highly influential head of national security and chief foreign policy advisor to Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah. Bandar's father, Crown Prince Sultan, is the nation's powerful defense minister and next in line to the throne. Many Saudi observers believed Bandar was being positioned to sit one day on the throne of Saudi Arabia.
On top of all this, Bandar is also a marketing genius.
The UK Guardian newspaper and BBC recently revealed that Bandar personally received over US $2 billion in "marketing fees" from the British defense firm BAE as part of the huge, 1985 al-Yamamah arms deal. Al-Yamamah means dove in Arabic. Charges of massive corruption over the Al-Yamamah deal have swirled for years. But even for the rich Saudis, $2 billion is a lot of money. That's twice what Washington's most important Arab ally, Egypt, was given.
For the Saudi royals, Britain's outgoing PM Tony Blair, and Washington, the "dove" and Bandar's $2 billion worth of payola have become one big albatross.
During the 1980's, Saudi Arabia sought to buy modern US warplanes. But the US pro-Israel lobby blocked the sale, costing the loss of billions in sales by US industry and 100,000 American jobs. The Reagan Administration advised the Saudis to go buy their warplanes from Britain.
Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was only too happy have the British defense firm, known today as BAE, sell the Saudis 120 Tornado strike aircraft, Hawk trainers, military equipment, and lucrative training and maintenance programs worth some $90–100 billion and the 100,000 jobs America lost. Over their operational lives of 20 or so years, warplanes consume six times their original cost in spare parts. These supply contract also went to BAE and other British industrial firms.
The Saudis could barely operate the modern military equipment they bought from the US, Britain, and France. Their military forces were a big zero. Most of it stayed in storage, or was operated by foreign mercenaries. The Saudi arms deals were really about buying military protection from the western powers.
All arms sales to the west's Mideast clients routinely include 10–15% "commissions" to heads of state, generals, and their cronies. These funds are traditionally channeled through middlemen, the flamboyant Adnan Kashoggi being the most notorious.
Kickbacks, rechristened "marketing fees," were of course expected in the Al-Yamamah deal. But Bandar's $2 billion set a record for size and venality. Thatcher ordered Bandar's payments carefully hidden from public gaze. They remained so until recent years when British and American government investigators began questioning secret, multi-million dollar payments to Prince Bandar routed from the UK to the shady Riggs Bank in Washington. Before it was shut down after a series of scandals, Riggs had become one of the favorite handlers of "black" money for pro-US autocratic regimes.
When Britain's Serious Fraud Office began probing BAE's secret payoffs to Bandar, Tony Blair sanctimoniously ordered the investigation shut down for "national security" reasons. The Saudis threatened to cancel their arms deals with Britain if payoff charges were made public by HM's government. Blair was trying to sell the Saudis BAE's new, high-tech Eurofighter. He blocked similar investigations by OECD, the international anti-bribery watchdog agency which was also closing in on the Saudi money trail.
Bandar denies any wrongdoing, claiming the "marketing" funds all went into a legitimate Defense Ministry account and were properly accounted for and audited.
Few believe him. The only "marketing" effort in the arms deal was payola to high Saudi officials. If the funds were legit, why all the secrecy and money laundering? Were the payments simply western "baksheesh" for Bandar and his clan? Were they to help him against his main power rival, Prince Turki Faisal, who is not seen as amenable to US and British interests as Bandar?
Could the billions have been used for covert operations, possibly with US participation? One recalls the Reagan years when money from Israel's secret sales of US arms to Iran were used to finance the Nicaraguan Contras.
The most significant effect of this revolting scandal is being felt in the Muslim world. One of the major reasons for the fast-spreading influence of militant Islamic groups like Hezbullah, Hamas, and Taliban has been their success in uprooting the Muslim world's endemic corruption and nepotism. We are so used to Islamists being demonized as "terrorists" that their highly effective and popular social accomplishments are rarely noted. In fact, their appeal and popularity is based primarily on their welfare and incorruptibility.
Islamic militants insist the west exploits their nations by keeping deeply corrupt regimes in power. In exchange for protection from their own people and neighbors, and fabulous wealth, these authoritarian Arab regimes – always termed "moderates" by western media – sell oil on the cheap to the west and do its bidding. US-installed governments in Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq, Somalia, and Afghanistan are all noted for egregious corruption, including secret payoffs from Washington to their leaders.
No wonder Prince Bandar was always so amiable and accommodating. Or that he managed to fly out a planeload of Saudis the day after 9/11 when all US flights were grounded. Or that the Bush administration was trying to position the always amenable prince as the next Saudi monarch.
The Bandar scandal is hugely embarrassing for Blair and Bush, who claim to be leading a crusade to bring democracy and good government to the benighted Muslim world. It starkly confirms Islamists' accusations that the west promotes corruption. And it dramatically exposes the dirty underbelly of the west's much-vaunted "special relationship" with the Saudi royal family.
June 19, 2007
Eric Margolis, contributing foreign editor for Sun National Media Canada, is the author of War at the Top of the World.
__._,_.___ 
The Mother of All Scandals
By Eric Margolis
06/20/07 "ICH" -- -- Anyone who wants to understand what really goes on in the Mideast should have a look at the scandal that erupted earlier this month over the outsized character of Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia.
Bandar has long been a renowned mover, shaker, and charmer. As Saudi ambassador to the US, the influential Bandar schmoozed official Washington for two decades. He became an intimate of the Bush family. He invested at least $60 million in Saudi funds in the Carlyle Corp., in which the Bush family has important interests. Equally significant, Prince Bandar was a particular favorite at the CIA, where he was long considered one of its prime Mideast "assets."
Bandar flew in his own personal Airbus A-340 painted in the colors of his favorite US football team, and threw lavish parties in his $135 million Aspen house and in Washington. He was Mr. SaudiAmerica. Congress, the media, and the rest of official Washington hailed Bandar as the kind of "good Arab" with whom the US was happy to do business.
After leaving Washington, Bandar returned home to become the highly influential head of national security and chief foreign policy advisor to Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah. Bandar's father, Crown Prince Sultan, is the nation's powerful defense minister and next in line to the throne. Many Saudi observers believed Bandar was being positioned to sit one day on the throne of Saudi Arabia.
On top of all this, Bandar is also a marketing genius.
The UK Guardian newspaper and BBC recently revealed that Bandar personally received over US $2 billion in "marketing fees" from the British defense firm BAE as part of the huge, 1985 al-Yamamah arms deal. Al-Yamamah means dove in Arabic. Charges of massive corruption over the Al-Yamamah deal have swirled for years. But even for the rich Saudis, $2 billion is a lot of money. That's twice what Washington's most important Arab ally, Egypt, was given.
For the Saudi royals, Britain's outgoing PM Tony Blair, and Washington, the "dove" and Bandar's $2 billion worth of payola have become one big albatross.
During the 1980's, Saudi Arabia sought to buy modern US warplanes. But the US pro-Israel lobby blocked the sale, costing the loss of billions in sales by US industry and 100,000 American jobs. The Reagan Administration advised the Saudis to go buy their warplanes from Britain.
Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was only too happy have the British defense firm, known today as BAE, sell the Saudis 120 Tornado strike aircraft, Hawk trainers, military equipment, and lucrative training and maintenance programs worth some $90–100 billion and the 100,000 jobs America lost. Over their operational lives of 20 or so years, warplanes consume six times their original cost in spare parts. These supply contract also went to BAE and other British industrial firms.
The Saudis could barely operate the modern military equipment they bought from the US, Britain, and France. Their military forces were a big zero. Most of it stayed in storage, or was operated by foreign mercenaries. The Saudi arms deals were really about buying military protection from the western powers.
All arms sales to the west's Mideast clients routinely include 10–15% "commissions" to heads of state, generals, and their cronies. These funds are traditionally channeled through middlemen, the flamboyant Adnan Kashoggi being the most notorious.
Kickbacks, rechristened "marketing fees," were of course expected in the Al-Yamamah deal. But Bandar's $2 billion set a record for size and venality. Thatcher ordered Bandar's payments carefully hidden from public gaze. They remained so until recent years when British and American government investigators began questioning secret, multi-million dollar payments to Prince Bandar routed from the UK to the shady Riggs Bank in Washington. Before it was shut down after a series of scandals, Riggs had become one of the favorite handlers of "black" money for pro-US autocratic regimes.
When Britain's Serious Fraud Office began probing BAE's secret payoffs to Bandar, Tony Blair sanctimoniously ordered the investigation shut down for "national security" reasons. The Saudis threatened to cancel their arms deals with Britain if payoff charges were made public by HM's government. Blair was trying to sell the Saudis BAE's new, high-tech Eurofighter. He blocked similar investigations by OECD, the international anti-bribery watchdog agency which was also closing in on the Saudi money trail.
Bandar denies any wrongdoing, claiming the "marketing" funds all went into a legitimate Defense Ministry account and were properly accounted for and audited.
Few believe him. The only "marketing" effort in the arms deal was payola to high Saudi officials. If the funds were legit, why all the secrecy and money laundering? Were the payments simply western "baksheesh" for Bandar and his clan? Were they to help him against his main power rival, Prince Turki Faisal, who is not seen as amenable to US and British interests as Bandar?
Could the billions have been used for covert operations, possibly with US participation? One recalls the Reagan years when money from Israel's secret sales of US arms to Iran were used to finance the Nicaraguan Contras.
The most significant effect of this revolting scandal is being felt in the Muslim world. One of the major reasons for the fast-spreading influence of militant Islamic groups like Hezbullah, Hamas, and Taliban has been their success in uprooting the Muslim world's endemic corruption and nepotism. We are so used to Islamists being demonized as "terrorists" that their highly effective and popular social accomplishments are rarely noted. In fact, their appeal and popularity is based primarily on their welfare and incorruptibility.
Islamic militants insist the west exploits their nations by keeping deeply corrupt regimes in power. In exchange for protection from their own people and neighbors, and fabulous wealth, these authoritarian Arab regimes – always termed "moderates" by western media – sell oil on the cheap to the west and do its bidding. US-installed governments in Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq, Somalia, and Afghanistan are all noted for egregious corruption, including secret payoffs from Washington to their leaders.
No wonder Prince Bandar was always so amiable and accommodating. Or that he managed to fly out a planeload of Saudis the day after 9/11 when all US flights were grounded. Or that the Bush administration was trying to position the always amenable prince as the next Saudi monarch.
The Bandar scandal is hugely embarrassing for Blair and Bush, who claim to be leading a crusade to bring democracy and good government to the benighted Muslim world. It starkly confirms Islamists' accusations that the west promotes corruption. And it dramatically exposes the dirty underbelly of the west's much-vaunted "special relationship" with the Saudi royal family.
June 19, 2007
Eric Margolis, contributing foreign editor for Sun National Media Canada, is the author of War at the Top of the World.
By Eric Margolis
06/20/07 "ICH" -- -- Anyone who wants to understand what really goes on in the Mideast should have a look at the scandal that erupted earlier this month over the outsized character of Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia.
Bandar has long been a renowned mover, shaker, and charmer. As Saudi ambassador to the US, the influential Bandar schmoozed official Washington for two decades. He became an intimate of the Bush family. He invested at least $60 million in Saudi funds in the Carlyle Corp., in which the Bush family has important interests. Equally significant, Prince Bandar was a particular favorite at the CIA, where he was long considered one of its prime Mideast "assets."
Bandar flew in his own personal Airbus A-340 painted in the colors of his favorite US football team, and threw lavish parties in his $135 million Aspen house and in Washington. He was Mr. SaudiAmerica. Congress, the media, and the rest of official Washington hailed Bandar as the kind of "good Arab" with whom the US was happy to do business.
After leaving Washington, Bandar returned home to become the highly influential head of national security and chief foreign policy advisor to Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah. Bandar's father, Crown Prince Sultan, is the nation's powerful defense minister and next in line to the throne. Many Saudi observers believed Bandar was being positioned to sit one day on the throne of Saudi Arabia.
On top of all this, Bandar is also a marketing genius.
The UK Guardian newspaper and BBC recently revealed that Bandar personally received over US $2 billion in "marketing fees" from the British defense firm BAE as part of the huge, 1985 al-Yamamah arms deal. Al-Yamamah means dove in Arabic. Charges of massive corruption over the Al-Yamamah deal have swirled for years. But even for the rich Saudis, $2 billion is a lot of money. That's twice what Washington's most important Arab ally, Egypt, was given.
For the Saudi royals, Britain's outgoing PM Tony Blair, and Washington, the "dove" and Bandar's $2 billion worth of payola have become one big albatross.
During the 1980's, Saudi Arabia sought to buy modern US warplanes. But the US pro-Israel lobby blocked the sale, costing the loss of billions in sales by US industry and 100,000 American jobs. The Reagan Administration advised the Saudis to go buy their warplanes from Britain.
Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was only too happy have the British defense firm, known today as BAE, sell the Saudis 120 Tornado strike aircraft, Hawk trainers, military equipment, and lucrative training and maintenance programs worth some $90–100 billion and the 100,000 jobs America lost. Over their operational lives of 20 or so years, warplanes consume six times their original cost in spare parts. These supply contract also went to BAE and other British industrial firms.
The Saudis could barely operate the modern military equipment they bought from the US, Britain, and France. Their military forces were a big zero. Most of it stayed in storage, or was operated by foreign mercenaries. The Saudi arms deals were really about buying military protection from the western powers.
All arms sales to the west's Mideast clients routinely include 10–15% "commissions" to heads of state, generals, and their cronies. These funds are traditionally channeled through middlemen, the flamboyant Adnan Kashoggi being the most notorious.
Kickbacks, rechristened "marketing fees," were of course expected in the Al-Yamamah deal. But Bandar's $2 billion set a record for size and venality. Thatcher ordered Bandar's payments carefully hidden from public gaze. They remained so until recent years when British and American government investigators began questioning secret, multi-million dollar payments to Prince Bandar routed from the UK to the shady Riggs Bank in Washington. Before it was shut down after a series of scandals, Riggs had become one of the favorite handlers of "black" money for pro-US autocratic regimes.
When Britain's Serious Fraud Office began probing BAE's secret payoffs to Bandar, Tony Blair sanctimoniously ordered the investigation shut down for "national security" reasons. The Saudis threatened to cancel their arms deals with Britain if payoff charges were made public by HM's government. Blair was trying to sell the Saudis BAE's new, high-tech Eurofighter. He blocked similar investigations by OECD, the international anti-bribery watchdog agency which was also closing in on the Saudi money trail.
Bandar denies any wrongdoing, claiming the "marketing" funds all went into a legitimate Defense Ministry account and were properly accounted for and audited.
Few believe him. The only "marketing" effort in the arms deal was payola to high Saudi officials. If the funds were legit, why all the secrecy and money laundering? Were the payments simply western "baksheesh" for Bandar and his clan? Were they to help him against his main power rival, Prince Turki Faisal, who is not seen as amenable to US and British interests as Bandar?
Could the billions have been used for covert operations, possibly with US participation? One recalls the Reagan years when money from Israel's secret sales of US arms to Iran were used to finance the Nicaraguan Contras.
The most significant effect of this revolting scandal is being felt in the Muslim world. One of the major reasons for the fast-spreading influence of militant Islamic groups like Hezbullah, Hamas, and Taliban has been their success in uprooting the Muslim world's endemic corruption and nepotism. We are so used to Islamists being demonized as "terrorists" that their highly effective and popular social accomplishments are rarely noted. In fact, their appeal and popularity is based primarily on their welfare and incorruptibility.
Islamic militants insist the west exploits their nations by keeping deeply corrupt regimes in power. In exchange for protection from their own people and neighbors, and fabulous wealth, these authoritarian Arab regimes – always termed "moderates" by western media – sell oil on the cheap to the west and do its bidding. US-installed governments in Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq, Somalia, and Afghanistan are all noted for egregious corruption, including secret payoffs from Washington to their leaders.
No wonder Prince Bandar was always so amiable and accommodating. Or that he managed to fly out a planeload of Saudis the day after 9/11 when all US flights were grounded. Or that the Bush administration was trying to position the always amenable prince as the next Saudi monarch.
The Bandar scandal is hugely embarrassing for Blair and Bush, who claim to be leading a crusade to bring democracy and good government to the benighted Muslim world. It starkly confirms Islamists' accusations that the west promotes corruption. And it dramatically exposes the dirty underbelly of the west's much-vaunted "special relationship" with the Saudi royal family.
June 19, 2007
Eric Margolis, contributing foreign editor for Sun National Media Canada, is the author of War at the Top of the World.
The Media’s Portrayal of Islam and the Hijab This entry was posted on Friday, June 1st, 2007 at 3:25 am By Derya Goren Time, people, culture, society, and the environment we are surrounded by, can produce the formation of many perspectives regarding an issue that we see in today's society. One of many controversial topics that surround Islam is the Hijab. Many questions and generalizations are often formed in the minds of many non-Muslims in regards to the concepts behind the Hijab through the influence of the media. Throughout the years of conflict between the “West” and “Islam”, the media has strongly altered the minds of non-Muslims by negative exploitation of Islam, and Muslims, in particular on Muslim women. Misconceptions such as, “Are you bald underneath” “Do you go to sleep with that on?” to the association of “terrorism” that contrasts to what Muslim women believe the Hijab represents. A common misconception is “the Islamic Hijab is something cultural, not religious”. The use of the word “cultural” is faulty when describing the Hijab as it implies that it is a result of customs and practices that are something separate from Islam. The cultural dress is referred to the ancient Pre-Islamic Era (Jahiliyah). It is the veil from the Pre-Islamic Era that is considered as “traditional” which stops women from contributing in society. On the contrary, the Islamic Hijab is not considered as an informal tradition, nor does it lower her self-respect. The Hijab is aimed at presenting women with poise and equality in society. An example of Pre-Islamic era in our modern world is the Taliban in Afghanistan. The Taliban are a party who regard such activities un-Islamic for women, who are prohibited from exercising their primary rights. The Taliban have banned women from employment outside the home, apart from the health sector, and have terminated education for girls. Prophet Mohammad (peace & blessings be upon him) said, “Seeking knowledge is incumbent upon every Muslim”. Even Henry VIII forbid women to study the Bible when the first English translations began to appear. Its an irony although the Taliban claim their guiding philosophy on women are in place to ensure the physical protection and self-respect of women, where as, many Afghan women have been killed, beaten and publicly hung. For many Afghan women fear of being severely punished by the Taliban is their main security concern. Another misconception is “Muslim women have no right in Islam”. Islam gave women rights over 1400 years ago, which is still ignored by many Muslims and non-Muslims today. Firstly, Islam has given women the basic right to freedom of speech. In the early days of Islam, the leaders of the Islamic state regarding legal issues consulted women. Rights that were appointed to Muslim women since the beginning of time are only just surfacing for non-Muslims. In Islam, a woman is free to be whom she is inside, and protected from being portrayed as a sex symbol and lusted after. Islam praises the status of a woman by commanding that she “enjoys equal rights to those of man in everything, she stands on an equal footing with man” (Quran, Nadvi: 11) and both share mutual rights and obligations in all aspects of life. Many women are treated in ways far from Islamic ideals, yet in the name of Islam. The Taliban is an example of a cultural and political name that has been branded with Islam. There is no freedom for women if they are imprisoned in their home in the name of the Hijab and Islam. Moreover, the veil of Islam is not associated with the veil of oppression. Women that are regaining their identity and role in society, are now wearing the Hijab and are embracing its concept of liberation. They are taking their lawful places that Islam had awarded them fourteen hundred years ago. In fact, the western women had no rights nor did they have rights over their husband. Not only were woman the property of their husband but so were their possessions. In 1919 women in England fought for their rights to be elected to parliament. Because of their demands, they were imprisoned by the government and suffered greatly. It was not until the late nineteenth and early twentieth century when women were given these rights. A quote from the Quran in Surah 2: 26 states: “And for women has rights over men, similar to those of men over women.” The background history between Islam and the West will shed some light as to why Muslims are portrayed so negatively in the media. Some strong contributing factors are the medieval western conflict, the crusades, the oil crisis of the 1970s, the Lebanese civil war, the Iranian revolution, the Gulf war, and the explosive Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the September 11 bombings, the Bali Massacre and the London bombings. All these events have caused Islam to be consistently associated with violence and unresolved conflict. Furthermore, the view of Muslims as being violent typically explains why Muslims are seen to establish a threat to the West. One of the most effective ways the media attempts to somehow prevent Islam being seen in a positive frame is to develop propaganda against Muslims and Islam. The media is able to use the Hijab as a means of exploiting Muslim women, and degrading them. The media assumes, in some cases, that the actions of one Muslim are representations of the general Muslim population. This is generalization. This sets a example for members of society to abuse and degrade them. An image of a Muslim woman wearing the chador was labeled as “like death out for a walk” in the Australian Magazine, 25-26 Jan. 1995 issue. The media implied to locate the position of women in Islamic society as dominated. The image also portrayed the difference between Muslim and Western Women in today's society. In current affair programs, people watching are bombarded with images of Muslims as savage terrorists, killing innocent people with no remorse. What results from this is the viewers of these programs, recognize and accept only the labels, and therefore with Islam immediately associating it with negative images. I asked a resident from Parramatta, who wished to be kept anonymous if “the September 11th bombings altered their mind about Islam and Muslim women?” He said “I never knew Islam and the Quran preached terrorism. It has made me aware of Islam and the teachings. It increased my awareness of the complexities of Islam and politics in the Middle East including the veiling of Muslim women”. This answer shows how influential the media is towards its viewers. Throughout the western society, the practice of Muslim women wearing the Hijab has resulted in extreme points of view towards their so-called “oppression” and lack of freedom. Despite the obvious portrayal of Muslim women and myths that surround it such as; “Muslim women are oppressed”, there continues to be an abundance of Western women reverting to Islam. What Islam uses to protect women is the Hijab. This is ironic because the Western media often portray the Muslim veil as a suppressive force in a woman’s life. Every Muslim woman is required to wear a scarf or some sort of head covering and loose-fitting, modest attire. This is not a means of controlling a woman’s sexuality or suppressing her but rather, a means for protection. It implies by dressing this way she will not be seen as a mere sex symbol but will be appreciated for her intellect. Furthermore, it will not subject her to harassment. It is interesting to state the head covering for women is not an Islamic innovation but was also practiced by Judeo-Christian women centuries earlier, and yet is laughed at by the West today. Naima Omar, a student of University of Western Sydney says “It is funny to say the same veil worn by catholic nuns for God is despised and presented as a symbol of subjection and domination when it is worn by Muslim women for the intention to protect themselves and devoting themselves to God”. The term Islam means submission to the will of Allah and peace. Muslims believe Islam is not a religion but a gift that has been awarded to them. They believe Islam is the way of life and that is harmonious however the media portrays the opposite. Maria Moskovakis, 18, a Greek Orthodox says “yes of course Muslims are presented negatively in the news. An action by one Muslim is presented with so much bias. If one Muslim commits a crime, it is not the person but the religion presented that goes to trial. What we hear and see is all controlled. As El-Gharib (1996-97) noted, television, books, newspapers, and magazines are used to present Islam as being a backward and barbaric religion. It has been seen as oppressive and unjust; and more than this, it is seen as being most oppressive to women. These various forms of media misrepresent Islam in different ways, however largely achieve the same negative result the creation of a growing barrier of misunderstanding and hostility between Islam and its followers, and the West. Muslims have an obligation to fulfil which is to educate themselves, their children to gain knowledge which is ordained upon them regardless of their race, gender and marital status etc. A Hasan Hadith narrated by Ibn Majah in the Quran states: “Seeking knowledge is a duty on every Muslim” and therefore gaining knowledge is regarded as an act of worship. Stopping any Muslim regardless of age and sex is not Islamic. Dr Homer of Sweden was asked by the United Nations in 1975 to study the status of Women in the Arab countries and said: “It is the Swedish woman who should demand her freedom, as the women in the Arab countries has already reached the peak of her freedom under Islam.” From “Status Of Women In Islam” page 23. Many have become used to believing the false information that they are spoon fed every time they turn on the screen, listen to the radio or open a newspaper. Article Source: http://www.islamfortoday.com/women.htm http://www.feminist.org/afghan/facts.html http://www.karelma.com/english/history/henry-VIII.html http://www.indiatogether.org/manushi/issue98/islam.htm http://www.famsy.com/salam/Portrayal0402.htm http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Derya_Goren http://EzineArticles.com/?The-Medias-Portrayal-of-Islam-and-the-Hijab&id=382596 Source: http://rubierambo.mma-fighter.com/blog/2007/06/01/the-medias-portrayal-of-islam-and-the-hijab/
This entry was posted on Friday, June 1st, 2007 at 3:25 am
By Derya Goren
Time, people, culture, society, and the environment we are surrounded by, can produce the formation of many perspectives regarding an issue that we see in today's society. One of many controversial topics that surround Islam is the Hijab. Many questions and generalizations are often formed in the minds of many non-Muslims in regards to the concepts behind the Hijab through the influence of the media. Throughout the years of conflict between the “West” and “Islam”, the media has strongly altered the minds of non-Muslims by negative exploitation of Islam, and Muslims, in particular on Muslim women. Misconceptions such as, “Are you bald underneath” “Do you go to sleep with that on?” to the association of “terrorism” that contrasts to what Muslim women believe the Hijab represents. A common misconception is “the Islamic Hijab is something cultural, not religious”. The use of the word “cultural” is faulty when describing the Hijab as it implies that it is a result of customs and practices that are something separate from Islam. The cultural dress is referred to the ancient Pre-Islamic Era (Jahiliyah). It is the veil from the Pre-Islamic Era that is considered as “traditional” which stops women from contributing in society. On the contrary, the Islamic Hijab is not considered as an informal tradition, nor does it lower her self-respect. The Hijab is aimed at presenting women with poise and equality in society. An example of Pre-Islamic era in our modern world is the Taliban in Afghanistan. The Taliban are a party who regard such activities un-Islamic for women, who are prohibited from exercising their primary rights. The Taliban have banned women from employment outside the home, apart from the health sector, and have terminated education for girls. Prophet Mohammad (peace & blessings be upon him) said, “Seeking knowledge is incumbent upon every Muslim”. Even Henry VIII forbid women to study the Bible when the first English translations began to appear. Its an irony although the Taliban claim their guiding philosophy on women are in place to ensure the physical protection and self-respect of women, where as, many Afghan women have been killed, beaten and publicly hung. For many Afghan women fear of being severely punished by the Taliban is their main security concern. Another misconception is “Muslim women have no right in Islam”. Islam gave women rights over 1400 years ago, which is still ignored by many Muslims and non-Muslims today. Firstly, Islam has given women the basic right to freedom of speech. In the early days of Islam, the leaders of the Islamic state regarding legal issues consulted women. Rights that were appointed to Muslim women since the beginning of time are only just surfacing for non-Muslims. In Islam, a woman is free to be whom she is inside, and protected from being portrayed as a sex symbol and lusted after. Islam praises the status of a woman by commanding that she “enjoys equal rights to those of man in everything, she stands on an equal footing with man” (Quran, Nadvi: 11) and both share mutual rights and obligations in all aspects of life. Many women are treated in ways far from Islamic ideals, yet in the name of Islam. The Taliban is an example of a cultural and political name that has been branded with Islam. There is no freedom for women if they are imprisoned in their home in the name of the Hijab and Islam. Moreover, the veil of Islam is not associated with the veil of oppression. Women that are regaining their identity and role in society, are now wearing the Hijab and are embracing its concept of liberation. They are taking their lawful places that Islam had awarded them fourteen hundred years ago. In fact, the western women had no rights nor did they have rights over their husband. Not only were woman the property of their husband but so were their possessions. In 1919 women in England fought for their rights to be elected to parliament. Because of their demands, they were imprisoned by the government and suffered greatly. It was not until the late nineteenth and early twentieth century when women were given these rights. A quote from the Quran in Surah 2: 26 states:
“And for women has rights over men, similar to those of men over women.” The background history between Islam and the West will shed some light as to why Muslims are portrayed so negatively in the media. Some strong contributing factors are the medieval western conflict, the crusades, the oil crisis of the 1970s, the Lebanese civil war, the Iranian revolution, the Gulf war, and the explosive Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the September 11 bombings, the Bali Massacre and the London bombings. All these events have caused Islam to be consistently associated with violence and unresolved conflict. Furthermore, the view of Muslims as being violent typically explains why Muslims are seen to establish a threat to the West. One of the most effective ways the media attempts to somehow prevent Islam being seen in a positive frame is to develop propaganda against Muslims and Islam. The media is able to use the Hijab as a means of exploiting Muslim women, and degrading them. The media assumes, in some cases, that the actions of one Muslim are representations of the general Muslim population. This is generalization. This sets a example for members of society to abuse and degrade them. An image of a Muslim woman wearing the chador was labeled as “like death out for a walk” in the Australian Magazine, 25-26 Jan. 1995 issue. The media implied to locate the position of women in Islamic society as dominated. The image also portrayed the difference between Muslim and Western Women in today's society. In current affair programs, people watching are bombarded with images of Muslims as savage terrorists, killing innocent people with no remorse. What results from this is the viewers of these programs, recognize and accept only the labels, and therefore with Islam immediately associating it with negative images. I asked a resident from Parramatta, who wished to be kept anonymous if “the September 11th bombings altered their mind about Islam and Muslim women?” He said “I never knew Islam and the Quran preached terrorism. It has made me aware of Islam and the teachings. It increased my awareness of the complexities of Islam and politics in the Middle East including the veiling of Muslim women”. This answer shows how influential the media is towards its viewers. Throughout the western society, the practice of Muslim women wearing the Hijab has resulted in extreme points of view towards their so-called “oppression” and lack of freedom. Despite the obvious portrayal of Muslim women and myths that surround it such as; “Muslim women are oppressed”, there continues to be an abundance of Western women reverting to Islam. What Islam uses to protect women is the Hijab. This is ironic because the Western media often portray the Muslim veil as a suppressive force in a woman’s life. Every Muslim woman is required to wear a scarf or some sort of head covering and loose-fitting, modest attire. This is not a means of controlling a woman’s sexuality or suppressing her but rather, a means for protection. It implies by dressing this way she will not be seen as a mere sex symbol but will be appreciated for her intellect. Furthermore, it will not subject her to harassment. It is interesting to state the head covering for women is not an Islamic innovation but was also practiced by Judeo-Christian women centuries earlier, and yet is laughed at by the West today. Naima Omar, a student of University of Western Sydney says “It is funny to say the same veil worn by catholic nuns for God is despised and presented as a symbol of subjection and domination when it is worn by Muslim women for the intention to protect themselves and devoting themselves to God”. The term Islam means submission to the will of Allah and peace. Muslims believe Islam is not a religion but a gift that has been awarded to them. They believe Islam is the way of life and that is harmonious however the media portrays the opposite. Maria Moskovakis, 18, a Greek Orthodox says “yes of course Muslims are presented negatively in the news. An action by one Muslim is presented with so much bias. If one Muslim commits a crime, it is not the person but the religion presented that goes to trial. What we hear and see is all controlled. As El-Gharib (1996-97) noted, television, books, newspapers, and magazines are used to present Islam as being a backward and barbaric religion. It has been seen as oppressive and unjust; and more than this, it is seen as being most oppressive to women. These various forms of media misrepresent Islam in different ways, however largely achieve the same negative result the creation of a growing barrier of misunderstanding and hostility between Islam and its followers, and the West. Muslims have an obligation to fulfil which is to educate themselves, their children to gain knowledge which is ordained upon them regardless of their race, gender and marital status etc.
A Hasan Hadith narrated by Ibn Majah in the Quran states:
“Seeking knowledge is a duty on every Muslim” and therefore gaining knowledge is regarded as an act of worship. Stopping any Muslim regardless of age and sex is not Islamic. Dr Homer of Sweden was asked by the United Nations in 1975 to study the status of Women in the Arab countries and said: “It is the Swedish woman who should demand her freedom, as the women in the Arab countries has already reached the peak of her freedom under Islam.” From “Status Of Women In Islam” page 23. Many have become used to believing the false information that they are spoon fed every time they turn on the screen, listen to the radio or open a newspaper.
“And for women has rights over men, similar to those of men over women.” The background history between Islam and the West will shed some light as to why Muslims are portrayed so negatively in the media. Some strong contributing factors are the medieval western conflict, the crusades, the oil crisis of the 1970s, the Lebanese civil war, the Iranian revolution, the Gulf war, and the explosive Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the September 11 bombings, the Bali Massacre and the London bombings. All these events have caused Islam to be consistently associated with violence and unresolved conflict. Furthermore, the view of Muslims as being violent typically explains why Muslims are seen to establish a threat to the West. One of the most effective ways the media attempts to somehow prevent Islam being seen in a positive frame is to develop propaganda against Muslims and Islam. The media is able to use the Hijab as a means of exploiting Muslim women, and degrading them. The media assumes, in some cases, that the actions of one Muslim are representations of the general Muslim population. This is generalization. This sets a example for members of society to abuse and degrade them. An image of a Muslim woman wearing the chador was labeled as “like death out for a walk” in the Australian Magazine, 25-26 Jan. 1995 issue. The media implied to locate the position of women in Islamic society as dominated. The image also portrayed the difference between Muslim and Western Women in today's society. In current affair programs, people watching are bombarded with images of Muslims as savage terrorists, killing innocent people with no remorse. What results from this is the viewers of these programs, recognize and accept only the labels, and therefore with Islam immediately associating it with negative images. I asked a resident from Parramatta, who wished to be kept anonymous if “the September 11th bombings altered their mind about Islam and Muslim women?” He said “I never knew Islam and the Quran preached terrorism. It has made me aware of Islam and the teachings. It increased my awareness of the complexities of Islam and politics in the Middle East including the veiling of Muslim women”. This answer shows how influential the media is towards its viewers. Throughout the western society, the practice of Muslim women wearing the Hijab has resulted in extreme points of view towards their so-called “oppression” and lack of freedom. Despite the obvious portrayal of Muslim women and myths that surround it such as; “Muslim women are oppressed”, there continues to be an abundance of Western women reverting to Islam. What Islam uses to protect women is the Hijab. This is ironic because the Western media often portray the Muslim veil as a suppressive force in a woman’s life. Every Muslim woman is required to wear a scarf or some sort of head covering and loose-fitting, modest attire. This is not a means of controlling a woman’s sexuality or suppressing her but rather, a means for protection. It implies by dressing this way she will not be seen as a mere sex symbol but will be appreciated for her intellect. Furthermore, it will not subject her to harassment. It is interesting to state the head covering for women is not an Islamic innovation but was also practiced by Judeo-Christian women centuries earlier, and yet is laughed at by the West today. Naima Omar, a student of University of Western Sydney says “It is funny to say the same veil worn by catholic nuns for God is despised and presented as a symbol of subjection and domination when it is worn by Muslim women for the intention to protect themselves and devoting themselves to God”. The term Islam means submission to the will of Allah and peace. Muslims believe Islam is not a religion but a gift that has been awarded to them. They believe Islam is the way of life and that is harmonious however the media portrays the opposite. Maria Moskovakis, 18, a Greek Orthodox says “yes of course Muslims are presented negatively in the news. An action by one Muslim is presented with so much bias. If one Muslim commits a crime, it is not the person but the religion presented that goes to trial. What we hear and see is all controlled. As El-Gharib (1996-97) noted, television, books, newspapers, and magazines are used to present Islam as being a backward and barbaric religion. It has been seen as oppressive and unjust; and more than this, it is seen as being most oppressive to women. These various forms of media misrepresent Islam in different ways, however largely achieve the same negative result the creation of a growing barrier of misunderstanding and hostility between Islam and its followers, and the West. Muslims have an obligation to fulfil which is to educate themselves, their children to gain knowledge which is ordained upon them regardless of their race, gender and marital status etc.
A Hasan Hadith narrated by Ibn Majah in the Quran states:
“Seeking knowledge is a duty on every Muslim” and therefore gaining knowledge is regarded as an act of worship. Stopping any Muslim regardless of age and sex is not Islamic. Dr Homer of Sweden was asked by the United Nations in 1975 to study the status of Women in the Arab countries and said: “It is the Swedish woman who should demand her freedom, as the women in the Arab countries has already reached the peak of her freedom under Islam.” From “Status Of Women In Islam” page 23. Many have become used to believing the false information that they are spoon fed every time they turn on the screen, listen to the radio or open a newspaper.
The Language of the Friday (Jumu'ah) Khutbah
Muhammad Taqi Usmani
Preface:
In substantial number of mosques in different parts of USA and some other western countries the Khutbah of Friday is delivered in English or other local languages. My respected brother Dr. Muhammad Ismail Madani asked me to explain the correct Shari'ah position about the language of the Khutbah. Certain articles have appeared in Urdu for the purpose but the English knowing people cannot benefit from them, therefore, it was suggested by my learned brother that I should write an article in English. The present booklet is meant to fulfill this need and I hope that it will clarify doubts on the subject. I would request the readers to consider the points raised in this article with an impartial and unbiased approach because the matter relates to a very important Islamic mode of worship. May Allah guide us to the straight path according to His own pleasure.
Muhammad Taqi Usmani
In substantial number of mosques in different parts of USA and some other western countries the Khutbah of Friday is delivered in English or other local languages. My respected brother Dr. Muhammad Ismail Madani asked me to explain the correct Shari'ah position about the language of the Khutbah. Certain articles have appeared in Urdu for the purpose but the English knowing people cannot benefit from them, therefore, it was suggested by my learned brother that I should write an article in English. The present booklet is meant to fulfill this need and I hope that it will clarify doubts on the subject. I would request the readers to consider the points raised in this article with an impartial and unbiased approach because the matter relates to a very important Islamic mode of worship. May Allah guide us to the straight path according to His own pleasure.
Muhammad Taqi Usmani
It is one of the basic requirements of the Friday prayer that it should be preceded by a Khutbah (sermon) delivered by the Imam. It is Wajib (mandatory) for every Muslim to attend the Khutbah from the very beginning. Being a part of the Jumu'ah prayer; it has some special rules and traits which distinguish it from the normal lectures given on other occasions. One of these special traits is that like the prayer (Salah) it is delivered in Arabic. All the Muslims have been delivering the Khutbah of Friday in no other language than Arabic, even where the audience does not understand its meaning. It was in the present century for the first time that the idea of delivering the Khutbah in other languages emerged in some Muslim societies where majority of the audience could not understand Arabic properly. The intention behind this change was that without letting the people understand its contents, the Khutbah can hardly be of a meaningful use for the general people who are addressed by it. Conversely, if Khutbah is delivered in a local language, a very useful message can be conveyed through it every Friday and it can serve as an effective medium for educating people in a wide area of Islamic teachings.
Apparently, the argument seems to be very logical. That is why it has found currency in the countries far from the centers of deeper Islamic knowledge. But before we accept it on its face value, we should first examine it in. the light of the Holy Qur'an, the Sunnah of the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم , the practice of his companions and the juristic views adopted by different schools of Islamic jurisprudence.
It is true that Islam being a universal religion, does not want to restrict it to a particular race or language. The Holy Qur'an has mentioned in express terms:
Apparently, the argument seems to be very logical. That is why it has found currency in the countries far from the centers of deeper Islamic knowledge. But before we accept it on its face value, we should first examine it in. the light of the Holy Qur'an, the Sunnah of the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم , the practice of his companions and the juristic views adopted by different schools of Islamic jurisprudence.
It is true that Islam being a universal religion, does not want to restrict it to a particular race or language. The Holy Qur'an has mentioned in express terms:
و ما ارسلنا من رسول الا بلسان قومه
"We never sent, a messenger but in the language of the nation he was sent to".
The Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم was so keen to convey the Islamic message to all foreign nations in their own languages that he sent some of his companions, like Zayd ibn Harithah رضى الله عنه to Syria to learn the Hebrew and the Syriac languages, so that he may preach Islam to the nations who did not know Arabic.
But at the same time, we notice that while leaving a wide spectrum of education and preaching open to any language convenient for the purpose, Islam has specified some limited functions to be performed in Arabic only. For example, it is mandatory for every Muslim to perform his five times prayers (Salah) in Arabic. This rule applies to all non-Arabs also who cannot normally understand what they are reciting, rather, sometimes it is difficult for them to learn the exact pronunciation of the Arabic words used in the prayers. Likewise, Adhan is the call for attending the congregation of Salah. It is addressed to the local people. But it is made obligatory that it is pronounced in Arabic. Its translation into any other language is not acceptable. Similarly, while performing Hajj we are directed to read talbiyah (لبيك اللهمّ لبيك) in Arabic. The translation of these words cannot serve the purpose. While greeting each other, we are obligated to say "السلام عليكم" in the exact Arabic words. "Peace Upon You" an exact translation of "السلام عليكم" cannot fulfill the requirement of the recognized (masnoon) greeting even though the former expression is more comprehensible for an English knowing person than the latter. Similarly, while commencing an important work it is desirable to say "بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم ". These specific Arabic words may be translated into English or any other language easily understood by the speaker and the addressee but it will always be preferable to recite the original Arabic words.
The emphasis on exact Arabic words in some such matters is not based on any bias in favor of the Arabic language, because Islam has always been proponent of inter-nationalism rather than nationalism. The Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم has himself eradicated the prides based on race, color and language. He announced in his landmark sermon of his last Hajj that:
لا فضل لعربى على عجمى
"An Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab".
However, for being an internationally united ummah, the Muslim should have some common features, specially in the ways of their worship. The modes of worship which require some oral recitations have, therefore, been prescribed in a manner that all recitations are carried out in one common language, regardless of the linguistic affiliation of the reciters. Arabic has been selected for this purpose, because it is the language in which Qur'an was revealed and in which the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم addressed the humankind. The Holy Qur'an and Sunnah of the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم have been taken as the basic resources from where the rules of Shari'ah are deduced. Both being in Arabic, it is always desirable that a Muslim acquaints himself with it to the best possible extent. To make Arabic a common medium of expression for all Muslims, at least in the ritual recitings, serves this purpose also. When a non-Arab Muslim performs prayer in Arabic five times a day , he automatically establishes a strong relationship with the Qur'anic language which makes him understand a number of the terms and phrases used in the Holy Qur'an and Sunnah.
In short, it is enjoined upon the Muslims in some modes of worship that their oral recitations must be in Arabic. Therefore, to resolve the issue of the language of Khutbah we will have to examine whether the Khutbah of Friday is a form of worship or it is an ordinary lecture meant only to educate people.
The following points may help knowing the correct position in this respect:
1. It is established by authentic resources that the Khutbah of Friday is a part of the prayer and stands for two Rak`at of prayer. Every day, other than Friday, the prayer of zuhr consist of four Rak`ats, while on Friday the number of Rak`at of the Jumu`ah prayer has been reduced to two, and the other two Rak`ats have been substituted by the Khutbah. Sayyidna Umar ,رضى الله عنه, the second caliph of the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم says:
The Khutbah has been prescribed in lieu of two rakats. Whosoever fails to deliver Khutbah must pray four rakat.
2. The Holy Qur'an has named the Khutbah as Dhikr in the following verse:
"O! believers, when there is a call for Salah on Friday, rush for the Dhikr of Allah and leave trade". (al-Jumu'ah: 9)
Here the word 'Dhikr' stands for the Khutbah, because after hearing the Adhan, the Salah (prayer) does not start immediately. What starts after Adhan is Khutbah. That is why the Holy Qur'an did not say, 'When there is a call for prayer, rush for the prayer", rather it has said, "when there is a call for prayer, rush for the Dhikr of Allah. It is for this reason that all the Muslim schools of jurists are unanimous on the point that it is necessary upon every Muslim to set out for the Masjid as soon as he hears the call and should reach the Masjid at a time when the Khutbah is yet to start because hearing the full Khutbah is wajib (mandatory).
This is sufficient to prove that the Holy Qur'an has used the word 'Dhikr' for the Khutbah. Dhikr means 'recitation of the name of Allah' as against 'Tadhkir' which means 'giving advice', 'to educate' or 'to admonish'. This is a clear indication from the Holy Qur'an that the basic purpose of Khutbah is Dhikr and not the Tadhkir and that it is a part of the worship rather than being a normal lecture.
3. At another place, the Holy Qur'an has referred to the Khutbah of Friday as "the recitation of the Holy Qur'an". The Holy verse says:
"And when the Qur'an is recited before you, listen to it carefully and be silent, so that you receive mercy".
(al-Arafat: 204)
According to a large number of commentators the recitation of the Qur'an in this verse refers to the Khutbah delivered before the prayer of Jumu`ah. Here again the word of recitation is used for the Khutbah which indicates that it is very similar to the recitation of Qur'anic verses during performing prayers.
In a number of authentic Ahadith also, the Khutbah of Friday has been referred to as Dhikr. For example in a Hadith reported by Imam al-Bukhari the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم , while persuading Muslims to go to the Masjid on Friday at the earliest, has said:
"Because when the Imam comes out (to deliver Khutbah) the angels come to listen to the Dhikr". (Sahib al-Bukhari v. 1, p. 121)
In another narration, the same principle has been established in the following words:
"Because when imam comes out (for Khutbah) the angels close their books (recording the noble deeds) and listen to the Dhikr (i.e. Khutbah)". (Sahih al-Bukhari V.1, p. 127)
Based on this particular characteristic of the Khutbah of Friday it is admittedly subject to certain rules which are not applicable to normal religious lectures. Some of these rules are the following:
(i) It is a mandatory requirement for a valid Khutbah on Friday to contain at least one verse from, the Holy Qur'an without which the Khutbah is not valid, while in normal lectures no recitation from the Holy Qur'an is necessary.
(ii) Another mandatory rule is that it must contain some words in praise of Allah Almighty and for sending Salah (durood) to the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم while no such requirement is mandatory in the case of normal lectures.
(iii) The Khutbah being a part of the prayer no one from the audience is allowed to utter a single word during Khutbah. The Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم has emphasized on this principle in the following words:
"If you speak during Khutbah on Friday, you commit absurdity."
"Whoever says to his friend while Imam is delivering Khutbah on Friday 'keep quiet' commits absurdity."
It is obvious that the words 'keep quiet' do not disturb the Khutbah, nor do they stop one from hearing its contents. Rather, they may induce others to maintain silence. Still, the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم has forbidden to utter these words during the Khutbah of Friday. The reason is that the Khutbah of Friday enjoys the same status as the Salah itself. While offering Salah, one cannot even say, 'keep quiet' to stop someone from speaking. Similar rule has been applied to Khutbah also, which is another indication that the Khutbah of Friday is not like a normal lecture. It is a part of Salah, therefore, most of the rules applicable to Salah are also applicable to it.
4. The Khutbah has been held as a prerequisite for the Friday prayer. No Friday prayer is valid without a Khutbah. All the Muslim jurists are unanimous on this point. Had it beers a normal lecture for the purpose of preaching, it would have nothing to do with the validity of the Jumu`ah prayer.
5. It is admitted by all that the Khutbah must be delivered after the commencement of the prescribed time of Jumu'ah prayer. If the Khutbah is delivered before the .prescribed time it is not valid, even if the prayer is offered within the prescribed time. In this case, both the Khutbah and the prayer will have to be I repeated. (al-Bahr al-Ra'iq v. 2 p. 158)
If the purpose of the Khutbah is nothing but preaching or education, it should have been acceptable Jumu'ah prayer and the prayer is offered after the commencement of the prescribed time. This strictness about the time of the Khutbah further confirms that it is a part of the Salah and is subject to the similar rules as rules provided for Salah..
6. If the Imam confines himself to the hamd (praising Allah) and Salah (Durood) for the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم and to reciting some verses from the Holy Qur'an, and making some Du'a (supplication) and does not utter a single word to preach or to educate people, the Khutbah is held to be valid and the Salah of Jumu`ah can be offered after that. Had the purpose been to educate people, it would have been the main ingredient of the Khutbah to say at least a few words for this purpose without which it should not have been a valid Khutbah. But it has been held valid even without the words of preaching or educating. Sayyidina Uthman رضى الله عنه delivered his first Khutbah (after he assumed the charge of Khilafat) exactly in this fashion and did not say a single word for the purpose of preaching. Still his Khutbah was held as valid. It was in the presence of the Sahabah رضى الله عنهم but no one from them challenged the validity of such a Khutbah.
This is again a clear proof of the fact that the basic purpose of the Khutbah is Dhikr and not Tadhkir. Being a part of the Jumu'ah prayer, it is a form of worship and not basically a method of preaching and education.
The Khutbah has been prescribed in lieu of two rakats. Whosoever fails to deliver Khutbah must pray four rakat.
2. The Holy Qur'an has named the Khutbah as Dhikr in the following verse:
"O! believers, when there is a call for Salah on Friday, rush for the Dhikr of Allah and leave trade". (al-Jumu'ah: 9)
Here the word 'Dhikr' stands for the Khutbah, because after hearing the Adhan, the Salah (prayer) does not start immediately. What starts after Adhan is Khutbah. That is why the Holy Qur'an did not say, 'When there is a call for prayer, rush for the prayer", rather it has said, "when there is a call for prayer, rush for the Dhikr of Allah. It is for this reason that all the Muslim schools of jurists are unanimous on the point that it is necessary upon every Muslim to set out for the Masjid as soon as he hears the call and should reach the Masjid at a time when the Khutbah is yet to start because hearing the full Khutbah is wajib (mandatory).
This is sufficient to prove that the Holy Qur'an has used the word 'Dhikr' for the Khutbah. Dhikr means 'recitation of the name of Allah' as against 'Tadhkir' which means 'giving advice', 'to educate' or 'to admonish'. This is a clear indication from the Holy Qur'an that the basic purpose of Khutbah is Dhikr and not the Tadhkir and that it is a part of the worship rather than being a normal lecture.
3. At another place, the Holy Qur'an has referred to the Khutbah of Friday as "the recitation of the Holy Qur'an". The Holy verse says:
"And when the Qur'an is recited before you, listen to it carefully and be silent, so that you receive mercy".
(al-Arafat: 204)
According to a large number of commentators the recitation of the Qur'an in this verse refers to the Khutbah delivered before the prayer of Jumu`ah. Here again the word of recitation is used for the Khutbah which indicates that it is very similar to the recitation of Qur'anic verses during performing prayers.
In a number of authentic Ahadith also, the Khutbah of Friday has been referred to as Dhikr. For example in a Hadith reported by Imam al-Bukhari the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم , while persuading Muslims to go to the Masjid on Friday at the earliest, has said:
"Because when the Imam comes out (to deliver Khutbah) the angels come to listen to the Dhikr". (Sahib al-Bukhari v. 1, p. 121)
In another narration, the same principle has been established in the following words:
"Because when imam comes out (for Khutbah) the angels close their books (recording the noble deeds) and listen to the Dhikr (i.e. Khutbah)". (Sahih al-Bukhari V.1, p. 127)
Based on this particular characteristic of the Khutbah of Friday it is admittedly subject to certain rules which are not applicable to normal religious lectures. Some of these rules are the following:
(i) It is a mandatory requirement for a valid Khutbah on Friday to contain at least one verse from, the Holy Qur'an without which the Khutbah is not valid, while in normal lectures no recitation from the Holy Qur'an is necessary.
(ii) Another mandatory rule is that it must contain some words in praise of Allah Almighty and for sending Salah (durood) to the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم while no such requirement is mandatory in the case of normal lectures.
(iii) The Khutbah being a part of the prayer no one from the audience is allowed to utter a single word during Khutbah. The Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم has emphasized on this principle in the following words:
"If you speak during Khutbah on Friday, you commit absurdity."
"Whoever says to his friend while Imam is delivering Khutbah on Friday 'keep quiet' commits absurdity."
It is obvious that the words 'keep quiet' do not disturb the Khutbah, nor do they stop one from hearing its contents. Rather, they may induce others to maintain silence. Still, the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم has forbidden to utter these words during the Khutbah of Friday. The reason is that the Khutbah of Friday enjoys the same status as the Salah itself. While offering Salah, one cannot even say, 'keep quiet' to stop someone from speaking. Similar rule has been applied to Khutbah also, which is another indication that the Khutbah of Friday is not like a normal lecture. It is a part of Salah, therefore, most of the rules applicable to Salah are also applicable to it.
4. The Khutbah has been held as a prerequisite for the Friday prayer. No Friday prayer is valid without a Khutbah. All the Muslim jurists are unanimous on this point. Had it beers a normal lecture for the purpose of preaching, it would have nothing to do with the validity of the Jumu`ah prayer.
5. It is admitted by all that the Khutbah must be delivered after the commencement of the prescribed time of Jumu'ah prayer. If the Khutbah is delivered before the .prescribed time it is not valid, even if the prayer is offered within the prescribed time. In this case, both the Khutbah and the prayer will have to be I repeated. (al-Bahr al-Ra'iq v. 2 p. 158)
If the purpose of the Khutbah is nothing but preaching or education, it should have been acceptable Jumu'ah prayer and the prayer is offered after the commencement of the prescribed time. This strictness about the time of the Khutbah further confirms that it is a part of the Salah and is subject to the similar rules as rules provided for Salah..
6. If the Imam confines himself to the hamd (praising Allah) and Salah (Durood) for the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم and to reciting some verses from the Holy Qur'an, and making some Du'a (supplication) and does not utter a single word to preach or to educate people, the Khutbah is held to be valid and the Salah of Jumu`ah can be offered after that. Had the purpose been to educate people, it would have been the main ingredient of the Khutbah to say at least a few words for this purpose without which it should not have been a valid Khutbah. But it has been held valid even without the words of preaching or educating. Sayyidina Uthman رضى الله عنه delivered his first Khutbah (after he assumed the charge of Khilafat) exactly in this fashion and did not say a single word for the purpose of preaching. Still his Khutbah was held as valid. It was in the presence of the Sahabah رضى الله عنهم but no one from them challenged the validity of such a Khutbah.
This is again a clear proof of the fact that the basic purpose of the Khutbah is Dhikr and not Tadhkir. Being a part of the Jumu'ah prayer, it is a form of worship and not basically a method of preaching and education.
All these points go a long way to prove that, unlike normal lectures or sermons, certain rules peculiar to Salah have been prescribed for the Khutbah of Jumu'ah. It is in this context that it has been held necessary that it should be delivered in Arabic only. Just as Salah cannot be performed in any language other than Arabic the Khutbah of Jumu'ah too, cannot be delivered in any other language. That is why the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم never tried to direct his companions to deliver the Khutbah in the local language where the audience could not understand Arabic. Even the audience of the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم sometimes included non-Arabs, but' he never tried to get his Khutbah translated by an interpreter like he did while he spoke to foreign delegations.
After the demise of the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم the noble companions conquered a vast area of the globe. Even in the days of Sayyidna Umar رضى الله عنه the whole Persia and a major part of the Roman Empire was brought under the Muslim rule, and thousands of non-Arab people embraced Islam, so much so that. the majority of the Muslims living in Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Egypt were non-Arabs. These new converts were in desperate need of being educated in their own language, so that they may acquire proper knowledge of the basic Islamic rules and principles. It was not the age of printing, publishing and modern audio-visual instruments, therefore, the
only source of acquiring knowledge was the personal contact. Still, the companions of the Holy
Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم never thought about delivering the Friday Khutbah in the local languages, nor did they ever arrange for an interpreter to get it translated simultaneously. One cannot argue that the Sahabah could not speak the local languages, because a large number of them, was either non-Arab by origin, like Salman al-Farisi, Suhayb al-Rumi, Bilal al-Habashi رضى الله عنهم اجمعين or has, learnt the local languages, like Zayd bin Harithahرضى الله عنه . It was universally accepted that, like the Salah and Adhan, the Khutbah of Friday must be delivered in Arabic, and it is not permissible to deliver it in any other language, even when the audience are not able to understand Arabic, because it is basically a form o Dhikr or worship, and not a source of education. If the audience understand Arabic, it can also serve a secondary purpose of educating them, but it is not the basic ingredient or the exclusive objective of Khutbah.
The Rulings of the recognized jurists:
This position is unanimously held by all the four schools of the Islamic jurisprudence. Their specific rulings are reproduced below:
Maliki School:
The Maliki scholars are very specific in declaring this rule. Al-Dasuqi, the well-known Maliki jurist, writes:
"And it is a condition for the validity of Jumu'ah that the Khutbah is delivered in Arabic, even though the people are non-Arabs and do not know the Arabic language. Therefore, if there is nobody who can deliver Khutbah in Arabic properly, the prayer of Jumu'ah is not obligatory on them (in which case they will offer the zuhr prayer)".
In Minah-al Jalil, another recognized book of Maliki jurisprudence, the principle has been mentioned in a greater detail:
"And two Khutbahs are necessary before Salah, and it is a condition that both of them are in Arabic, and are delivered aloud, even though the audience are non-Arabs or are dumb. If no one is found who can deliver them in Arabic then the Jumu`ah prayer is not obligatory on such people. Similarly, if all of them are deaf, no Jumu'ah is obligatory on them.
Al-Hattab, the most quoted Maliki jurist, writes in this Jawahir-al-iklil:
"So, if the Imam delivered the Khutbah after Salah, it is, necessary that he performs Salah again immediately after the Khutbah, otherwise (if considerable time has passed after the Khutbah, both Khutbah and Salah should be performed again, because it is a condition for the validity of Jumu'ah prayer that both the Khutbahs are followed immediately by Salah, and that both of them are delivered in Arabic, even though the people are non-Arabs who do not understand Arabic".
Al-Adawi, another Maliki jurist, mentions the principle in the following words:
"It is necessary that the Khutbah is in Arabic. Therefore, the Khutbah delivered in any other language is void. If no one from the people knows 'Arabic, and the Imam knows it, the Ummah is obligatory but if the Imam does not know Arabic, the obligation of Jumu'ah prayer is no more effective".
The same principle has been established by all the recognized books of Maliki jurisprudence.
Shafii School:
Similar principle has been accepted by the Shaffi jurists also. Al-Ramli is one of the famous Shafii jurists of the later days who has been relied upon by the Muftis of Shafii school. He writes:
"And it is a condition (for the validity of Khutbah) that it is delivered in Arabic. This is to follow the way of the Sahabah and their decedants. And to learn Arabic (for the purpose of delivering Khutbah) is Fard al-Kifayah, therefore, it is sufficient that at least one man learns it... But if no one learns it, all of them will be sinful and their Jumu'ah prayer will not be acceptable. Instead, they will have to perform zuhr prayer. However, if it is not at all possible (due t o short time) that the Arabic is learnt, then it is permissible that the Imam delivers Khutbah in his own language, even though the people do not understand it... If somebody raises the question as to what purpose can be served by the Khutbah when it is not understood by the people, our answer would be that the purpose is served when the people merely know that the Khutbah is being delivered, because it is expressedly mentioned that if the audience listen to the Khutbah and do not understand its meaning, it is still a valid Khutbah."
The same rulings are given in other recognized books of Shafii school also
Hambali School:
The Hambali school is no different from the main stream of the Muslim scholars. They too are of the belief that the Khutbah must be delivered in Arabic. However, they say that if nobody is found who can deliver it in Arabic, then in that case only the Khutbah may be delivered in some other language. But so far as there is a single person who can speak Arabic, it is necessary that he delivers it in Arabic, even though the audience do not understand its meanings. Al-Buhooti, the renowned jurist of the Hambali School, writes:
"And the Khutbah is not valid if it is delivered in any language other than Arabic when somebody is able to deliver it in Arabic. It is like the recitation of the Holy Qur'an (in prayer) which cannot be done in a non-Arab language. However, the Khutbah in any other language is valid only if nobody can deliver it in Arabic. Nevertheless, the recitation of the Holy Qur'an (as a part of the Khutbah) is not valid except in Arabic. If somebody cannot recite in Arabic, it is obligatory on him to recite a Dhikr instead of a verse of the Holy Qur'an, like in Salah (the person who cannot recite the Qur'anic verses is required to make Dhikr)."
The same rules are also mentioned in other books of the Hambali school.
(See for example: 2:113 كتاب الفروع لابن مفلح )
Hanafi School:
The Hanafi school of Islamic jurisprudence also agrees with the former three schools in the principle that the Friday Khutbah should be delivered in Arabic and it is not permissible to deliver it in any other language. However, there is a slight difference of opinion about some details of this principle. Imam Abu Yousuf and Imam Muhammad, the two pupils of Imam Abu Hanifah are of the view that a non-Arabic Khutbah is not acceptable in the sense that it cannot fulfill the requirement of Jumu'ah prayer, therefore, no Jumu`ah prayer can be offered after it. Rather, the Khutbah must be delivered again in Arabic without which the following Jumu'ah prayer will not be valid. However, if no one from the community is able to deliver an Arabic Khutbah, then only in that case a non-Arabic Khutbah may fulfill the requirement based on the doctrine of necessity. The view of Imam Abu Yousuf and Imam Muhammad, in this respect, is close to the views of Imam Shafii and Imam Ahmad bin Hambal.
Imam Abu Hanifah, on the other hand, says that although it is Makrooh (impermissible) to deliver Khutbah in a non-Arab language yet if someone violates this principle and delivers it in any other language, then the requirement of Khutbah will be held as fulfilled and the Jumu`ah prayer offered after it will be valid.
Some people misunderstood the position of Imam Abu Hanifah in this matter from two different angels:
Firstly, some writers claim that this view represents the earlier position of Imam Abu Hanifah and he had, later on, withdrawn from it and had concurred to the view of his two pupils.
This statement is not correct. In fact, there are two separate issues which should not be confused. One issue is whether or not the recitation of the Holy Qur'an in a non-Arabic language is acceptable. It is with regard to this issue that Imam Abu Hanifah had an earlier view which accepted the recitation even in a non-Arab language, but later on, he recalled this view and concurred with the view of his two pupils and all other jurists who do not hold any recitation of Qur'an during Salah as valid unless it is in the original Arabic language. It is now settled with consensus and Imam Abu Hanifah does no longer differ from this unanimous position of the Muslim jurists.
The second issue relates to the Khutbah of Friday and to some other Adhkar of Salah like الله اكبر etc. This issue is still a matter of difference between Imam Abu Hanifah and other jurists including Imam Abu Yousuf and Imam Muhammad who are of the view that the Khutbah in a non-Arabic language is not at all acceptable, and no Jumu'ah prayer is valid after such a Khutbah, while Imam Abu Hanifah says that, despite being Makrooh, a non-Arabic Khutbah is recognized to the extent that it validates the Jumu`ah prayer performed after it. This view of Imam Abu Hanifah still holds good and he did never resile from it. (راجع رد المحتار)
The second misconception with regard to the position of Imam Abu Hanifah in the issue of Khutbah is that some people have misinterpreted his view to say that a non-Arabic Khutbah is quite permissible according to Imam Abu Hanifah.
This is again a wrong statement. Imam Abu Hanifah does not hold it quite permissible to deliver Khutbah in a non-Arabic language. He holds it "Makrooh Tahreeman", a term almost analogous to 'impermissible', which means that it is not allowed to deliver Khutbah in a language other than Arabic. However, if somebody commits this Makrooh (impermissible) act, his Khutbah will not be deemed as void, and the Jumu'ah prayer performed after it will be valid.
To properly understand his position, one must recall that the Khutbah is a condition precedent to the validity of Jumu`ah prayer. Without Khutbah, Jumu`ah prayer is void. Now most of the jurists, including Imam Abu Yousuf and Imam Muhammad are of the opinion that a non-Arabic Khutbah is not acceptable at all. If somebody delivers it in a non-Arabic language it can never be held as a Khutbah of Friday, therefore, it will not fulfill the condition of Jumu'ah prayer and no Jumu'ah prayer can be performed after it unless an Arabic Khutbah is delivered again.
Imam Abu Hanifah differs from them in this aspect only. He says that admittedly, a non-Arabic Khutbah is Makrooh or impermissible, yet the non-Arabic language does not render it as void. Therefore, it can be used for fulfilling the condition of the Jumu'ah prayer. Therefore, the people who attend such a Khutbah can participate in the Jumu'ah prayer and the obligation of Jumu'ah will be held as discharged.
It is thus evident that all the four recognized schools of Islamic Fiqh are unanimous on the point that the Khutbah must be delivered in Arabic. The Maliki jurists have gone to the extent that if no Arabic-knowing person is available for delivering Khutbah, the Jumu'ah is converted into Zuhr prayer. The Shafii jurists say that in this case the Muslims are under an obligation to appoint someone to learn as much Arabic words as may be sufficient to articulate a shortest possible Khutbah. However, if the time is too short to learn, then the Khutbah may be delivered in any other possible language. Similar is the view of the Hanbali jurists who insist that in this case the Imam may confine himself to the short words of Dhikr
like سبحان الله or الحمدلله.
(1:146 الفتاوى الهندية)
This being allowed,. he need not resort to delivering Khutbah in any other language.
This analysis would show that the exceptions conceded by the Shafii or Hanbali schools relate to the rare situation where nobody is able to utter a few words in Arabic. This situation is similar to a situation where a person embraces Islam and does not find time to learn the basic ingredients of Salah in which case he is allowed to utter a few words of Dhikr in whatever manner he can. Obviously, the rule governing this rare phenomenon cannot be applied to the normal situations where Khutbah can be delivered in Arabic.
It must be noted here that all those who have allowed some exceptions to the general rule have done so only when a capable person to deliver Arabic Khutbah is not available. But no jurist has ever allowed such a concession to a situation where such a capable person is available but the audience do not understand Arabic. Conversely, each one of them has clearly mentioned that the rule will remain effective even when the audience do not understand the meaning of Khutbah.
It should be remembered that all these juristic rulings were given at a time when Islam had spread all over the world, and the Muslim community was not confined to the Arabian Peninsula; rather Millions of the Muslims belonged to non-Arab countries who did not know Arabic. In the beginning of the Islamic history even Syria, Iraq, Egypt and other Northern countries of Africa were non-Arabs. Their residents did not know Arabic. Moreover, Iran, India, Turkey, China and all the Eastern Muslim countries are still non-Arabs and very few of their residents know Arabic. The need for their Islamic education was too obvious to be doubted. Khutbah to use it as a source of education. Evidently, the jurists quoted above were not unaware of the need to educate the common people, nor were they heedless to the basic requirements of the community. Still, their consistent practice throughout centuries was that the Khutbah of Jumu'ah was always delivered in Arabic. No one from the non-Arab audience has ever raised objection against it, nor did the leaders of the Muslim -thought ever try to change its language. They knew that there are many other occasions to deliver lectures in the local language to educate people, but the Khutbah of Friday, like Salah, has some peculiar characteristics, which should not be disturbed.
In order to benefit from the congregation of Friday and to use this occasion for educating common people, the non-Arab Muslim communities started a lecture in the local language before the second Adhan or after the Jumu'ah prayer. For centuries the Muslims in India, Pakistan, China and the countries of Central Asia arrange for a general lecture in the local language before the second Adhan of Jumu'ah. But after the second Adhan the Arabic Khutbah is delivered followed by the Jumu'ah prayer. In some places, the lecture in the local language is arranged after the Jumu`ah prayer is over. Through this practice, the non-Arab Muslims have on the one hand, preserved the distinct characteristics of the Khutbah and maintained the consistent practice of the Ummah and on the other hand, they have availed of this opportunity for educating the common people also.
Some people raise two objections against this practice. First, with regard to its acceptability from the Shari'ah point of view, and second, with reference to its practical aspect. The first objection is that the lecture in the local language is an addition to the recognized components of the Jumu'ah congregation. It is tantamount to raising the number of Khutbah from two to three. According to them, this kind of addition should be regarded as 'bidah' (an innovation) because it has no precedent in the practice of the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم or his noble companions. This objection, however, is not valid for two reasons:
After the demise of the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم the noble companions conquered a vast area of the globe. Even in the days of Sayyidna Umar رضى الله عنه the whole Persia and a major part of the Roman Empire was brought under the Muslim rule, and thousands of non-Arab people embraced Islam, so much so that. the majority of the Muslims living in Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Egypt were non-Arabs. These new converts were in desperate need of being educated in their own language, so that they may acquire proper knowledge of the basic Islamic rules and principles. It was not the age of printing, publishing and modern audio-visual instruments, therefore, the
only source of acquiring knowledge was the personal contact. Still, the companions of the Holy
Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم never thought about delivering the Friday Khutbah in the local languages, nor did they ever arrange for an interpreter to get it translated simultaneously. One cannot argue that the Sahabah could not speak the local languages, because a large number of them, was either non-Arab by origin, like Salman al-Farisi, Suhayb al-Rumi, Bilal al-Habashi رضى الله عنهم اجمعين or has, learnt the local languages, like Zayd bin Harithahرضى الله عنه . It was universally accepted that, like the Salah and Adhan, the Khutbah of Friday must be delivered in Arabic, and it is not permissible to deliver it in any other language, even when the audience are not able to understand Arabic, because it is basically a form o Dhikr or worship, and not a source of education. If the audience understand Arabic, it can also serve a secondary purpose of educating them, but it is not the basic ingredient or the exclusive objective of Khutbah.
The Rulings of the recognized jurists:
This position is unanimously held by all the four schools of the Islamic jurisprudence. Their specific rulings are reproduced below:
Maliki School:
The Maliki scholars are very specific in declaring this rule. Al-Dasuqi, the well-known Maliki jurist, writes:
"And it is a condition for the validity of Jumu'ah that the Khutbah is delivered in Arabic, even though the people are non-Arabs and do not know the Arabic language. Therefore, if there is nobody who can deliver Khutbah in Arabic properly, the prayer of Jumu'ah is not obligatory on them (in which case they will offer the zuhr prayer)".
In Minah-al Jalil, another recognized book of Maliki jurisprudence, the principle has been mentioned in a greater detail:
"And two Khutbahs are necessary before Salah, and it is a condition that both of them are in Arabic, and are delivered aloud, even though the audience are non-Arabs or are dumb. If no one is found who can deliver them in Arabic then the Jumu`ah prayer is not obligatory on such people. Similarly, if all of them are deaf, no Jumu'ah is obligatory on them.
Al-Hattab, the most quoted Maliki jurist, writes in this Jawahir-al-iklil:
"So, if the Imam delivered the Khutbah after Salah, it is, necessary that he performs Salah again immediately after the Khutbah, otherwise (if considerable time has passed after the Khutbah, both Khutbah and Salah should be performed again, because it is a condition for the validity of Jumu'ah prayer that both the Khutbahs are followed immediately by Salah, and that both of them are delivered in Arabic, even though the people are non-Arabs who do not understand Arabic".
Al-Adawi, another Maliki jurist, mentions the principle in the following words:
"It is necessary that the Khutbah is in Arabic. Therefore, the Khutbah delivered in any other language is void. If no one from the people knows 'Arabic, and the Imam knows it, the Ummah is obligatory but if the Imam does not know Arabic, the obligation of Jumu'ah prayer is no more effective".
The same principle has been established by all the recognized books of Maliki jurisprudence.
Shafii School:
Similar principle has been accepted by the Shaffi jurists also. Al-Ramli is one of the famous Shafii jurists of the later days who has been relied upon by the Muftis of Shafii school. He writes:
"And it is a condition (for the validity of Khutbah) that it is delivered in Arabic. This is to follow the way of the Sahabah and their decedants. And to learn Arabic (for the purpose of delivering Khutbah) is Fard al-Kifayah, therefore, it is sufficient that at least one man learns it... But if no one learns it, all of them will be sinful and their Jumu'ah prayer will not be acceptable. Instead, they will have to perform zuhr prayer. However, if it is not at all possible (due t o short time) that the Arabic is learnt, then it is permissible that the Imam delivers Khutbah in his own language, even though the people do not understand it... If somebody raises the question as to what purpose can be served by the Khutbah when it is not understood by the people, our answer would be that the purpose is served when the people merely know that the Khutbah is being delivered, because it is expressedly mentioned that if the audience listen to the Khutbah and do not understand its meaning, it is still a valid Khutbah."
The same rulings are given in other recognized books of Shafii school also
Hambali School:
The Hambali school is no different from the main stream of the Muslim scholars. They too are of the belief that the Khutbah must be delivered in Arabic. However, they say that if nobody is found who can deliver it in Arabic, then in that case only the Khutbah may be delivered in some other language. But so far as there is a single person who can speak Arabic, it is necessary that he delivers it in Arabic, even though the audience do not understand its meanings. Al-Buhooti, the renowned jurist of the Hambali School, writes:
"And the Khutbah is not valid if it is delivered in any language other than Arabic when somebody is able to deliver it in Arabic. It is like the recitation of the Holy Qur'an (in prayer) which cannot be done in a non-Arab language. However, the Khutbah in any other language is valid only if nobody can deliver it in Arabic. Nevertheless, the recitation of the Holy Qur'an (as a part of the Khutbah) is not valid except in Arabic. If somebody cannot recite in Arabic, it is obligatory on him to recite a Dhikr instead of a verse of the Holy Qur'an, like in Salah (the person who cannot recite the Qur'anic verses is required to make Dhikr)."
The same rules are also mentioned in other books of the Hambali school.
(See for example: 2:113 كتاب الفروع لابن مفلح )
Hanafi School:
The Hanafi school of Islamic jurisprudence also agrees with the former three schools in the principle that the Friday Khutbah should be delivered in Arabic and it is not permissible to deliver it in any other language. However, there is a slight difference of opinion about some details of this principle. Imam Abu Yousuf and Imam Muhammad, the two pupils of Imam Abu Hanifah are of the view that a non-Arabic Khutbah is not acceptable in the sense that it cannot fulfill the requirement of Jumu'ah prayer, therefore, no Jumu`ah prayer can be offered after it. Rather, the Khutbah must be delivered again in Arabic without which the following Jumu'ah prayer will not be valid. However, if no one from the community is able to deliver an Arabic Khutbah, then only in that case a non-Arabic Khutbah may fulfill the requirement based on the doctrine of necessity. The view of Imam Abu Yousuf and Imam Muhammad, in this respect, is close to the views of Imam Shafii and Imam Ahmad bin Hambal.
Imam Abu Hanifah, on the other hand, says that although it is Makrooh (impermissible) to deliver Khutbah in a non-Arab language yet if someone violates this principle and delivers it in any other language, then the requirement of Khutbah will be held as fulfilled and the Jumu`ah prayer offered after it will be valid.
Some people misunderstood the position of Imam Abu Hanifah in this matter from two different angels:
Firstly, some writers claim that this view represents the earlier position of Imam Abu Hanifah and he had, later on, withdrawn from it and had concurred to the view of his two pupils.
This statement is not correct. In fact, there are two separate issues which should not be confused. One issue is whether or not the recitation of the Holy Qur'an in a non-Arabic language is acceptable. It is with regard to this issue that Imam Abu Hanifah had an earlier view which accepted the recitation even in a non-Arab language, but later on, he recalled this view and concurred with the view of his two pupils and all other jurists who do not hold any recitation of Qur'an during Salah as valid unless it is in the original Arabic language. It is now settled with consensus and Imam Abu Hanifah does no longer differ from this unanimous position of the Muslim jurists.
The second issue relates to the Khutbah of Friday and to some other Adhkar of Salah like الله اكبر etc. This issue is still a matter of difference between Imam Abu Hanifah and other jurists including Imam Abu Yousuf and Imam Muhammad who are of the view that the Khutbah in a non-Arabic language is not at all acceptable, and no Jumu'ah prayer is valid after such a Khutbah, while Imam Abu Hanifah says that, despite being Makrooh, a non-Arabic Khutbah is recognized to the extent that it validates the Jumu`ah prayer performed after it. This view of Imam Abu Hanifah still holds good and he did never resile from it. (راجع رد المحتار)
The second misconception with regard to the position of Imam Abu Hanifah in the issue of Khutbah is that some people have misinterpreted his view to say that a non-Arabic Khutbah is quite permissible according to Imam Abu Hanifah.
This is again a wrong statement. Imam Abu Hanifah does not hold it quite permissible to deliver Khutbah in a non-Arabic language. He holds it "Makrooh Tahreeman", a term almost analogous to 'impermissible', which means that it is not allowed to deliver Khutbah in a language other than Arabic. However, if somebody commits this Makrooh (impermissible) act, his Khutbah will not be deemed as void, and the Jumu'ah prayer performed after it will be valid.
To properly understand his position, one must recall that the Khutbah is a condition precedent to the validity of Jumu`ah prayer. Without Khutbah, Jumu`ah prayer is void. Now most of the jurists, including Imam Abu Yousuf and Imam Muhammad are of the opinion that a non-Arabic Khutbah is not acceptable at all. If somebody delivers it in a non-Arabic language it can never be held as a Khutbah of Friday, therefore, it will not fulfill the condition of Jumu'ah prayer and no Jumu'ah prayer can be performed after it unless an Arabic Khutbah is delivered again.
Imam Abu Hanifah differs from them in this aspect only. He says that admittedly, a non-Arabic Khutbah is Makrooh or impermissible, yet the non-Arabic language does not render it as void. Therefore, it can be used for fulfilling the condition of the Jumu'ah prayer. Therefore, the people who attend such a Khutbah can participate in the Jumu'ah prayer and the obligation of Jumu'ah will be held as discharged.
It is thus evident that all the four recognized schools of Islamic Fiqh are unanimous on the point that the Khutbah must be delivered in Arabic. The Maliki jurists have gone to the extent that if no Arabic-knowing person is available for delivering Khutbah, the Jumu'ah is converted into Zuhr prayer. The Shafii jurists say that in this case the Muslims are under an obligation to appoint someone to learn as much Arabic words as may be sufficient to articulate a shortest possible Khutbah. However, if the time is too short to learn, then the Khutbah may be delivered in any other possible language. Similar is the view of the Hanbali jurists who insist that in this case the Imam may confine himself to the short words of Dhikr
like سبحان الله or الحمدلله.
(1:146 الفتاوى الهندية)
This being allowed,. he need not resort to delivering Khutbah in any other language.
This analysis would show that the exceptions conceded by the Shafii or Hanbali schools relate to the rare situation where nobody is able to utter a few words in Arabic. This situation is similar to a situation where a person embraces Islam and does not find time to learn the basic ingredients of Salah in which case he is allowed to utter a few words of Dhikr in whatever manner he can. Obviously, the rule governing this rare phenomenon cannot be applied to the normal situations where Khutbah can be delivered in Arabic.
It must be noted here that all those who have allowed some exceptions to the general rule have done so only when a capable person to deliver Arabic Khutbah is not available. But no jurist has ever allowed such a concession to a situation where such a capable person is available but the audience do not understand Arabic. Conversely, each one of them has clearly mentioned that the rule will remain effective even when the audience do not understand the meaning of Khutbah.
It should be remembered that all these juristic rulings were given at a time when Islam had spread all over the world, and the Muslim community was not confined to the Arabian Peninsula; rather Millions of the Muslims belonged to non-Arab countries who did not know Arabic. In the beginning of the Islamic history even Syria, Iraq, Egypt and other Northern countries of Africa were non-Arabs. Their residents did not know Arabic. Moreover, Iran, India, Turkey, China and all the Eastern Muslim countries are still non-Arabs and very few of their residents know Arabic. The need for their Islamic education was too obvious to be doubted. Khutbah to use it as a source of education. Evidently, the jurists quoted above were not unaware of the need to educate the common people, nor were they heedless to the basic requirements of the community. Still, their consistent practice throughout centuries was that the Khutbah of Jumu'ah was always delivered in Arabic. No one from the non-Arab audience has ever raised objection against it, nor did the leaders of the Muslim -thought ever try to change its language. They knew that there are many other occasions to deliver lectures in the local language to educate people, but the Khutbah of Friday, like Salah, has some peculiar characteristics, which should not be disturbed.
In order to benefit from the congregation of Friday and to use this occasion for educating common people, the non-Arab Muslim communities started a lecture in the local language before the second Adhan or after the Jumu'ah prayer. For centuries the Muslims in India, Pakistan, China and the countries of Central Asia arrange for a general lecture in the local language before the second Adhan of Jumu'ah. But after the second Adhan the Arabic Khutbah is delivered followed by the Jumu'ah prayer. In some places, the lecture in the local language is arranged after the Jumu`ah prayer is over. Through this practice, the non-Arab Muslims have on the one hand, preserved the distinct characteristics of the Khutbah and maintained the consistent practice of the Ummah and on the other hand, they have availed of this opportunity for educating the common people also.
Some people raise two objections against this practice. First, with regard to its acceptability from the Shari'ah point of view, and second, with reference to its practical aspect. The first objection is that the lecture in the local language is an addition to the recognized components of the Jumu'ah congregation. It is tantamount to raising the number of Khutbah from two to three. According to them, this kind of addition should be regarded as 'bidah' (an innovation) because it has no precedent in the practice of the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم or his noble companions. This objection, however, is not valid for two reasons:
Firstly, it is not correct to term every new practice as 'bidah'. In fact, a new practice becomes 'bidah' only when it is taken to be a part of the ritual practices, or is held to be wajib (obligatory) or masnoon (a practice prescribed by the Holy
Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم. If a new practice is adopted simply for the sake of convenience arid neither it is held as obligatory, nor masnoon, and nobody is compelled to follow it, nor a person is blamed for avoiding it, rather it is taken to be mubah (permissible), then such a practice cannot be held as 'bidah'. For example building of minarets or domes over the mosque is a new practice which did not exist in the days of the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم , but it has never been termed as 'bidah' for the simple reason that this practice is not taken to be wajib or masnoon. Nobody has ever thought that it is necessary for a mosque to have minarets and domes, or that a mosque without domes and minarets is not a Masjid. This practice has been adopted for the sake of convenience only, therefore, it is not a bidah or a prohibited innovation in religion. Similarly, a lecture before the second Adhan of Jumu'ah, in whatever language it may be, is not a bidah, because nobody deems it a part of the Jumu`ah prayer, nor is it held to be wajib or masnoon. It has been adopted for the sake of convenience and no one is compelled to deliver it, nor to attend it. If no such lecture is delivered, nobody believes that the Jumu`ah congregation is deficient or incomplete. Therefore, this additional lecture cannot be held as bidah, even though it is presumed that it is a new practice adopted by the Muslims of later days.
Secondly, it is not correct to assume that this additional lecture has no precedent in the earlier days of the Islamic history. In fact, it is reported by several authentic sources that Sayyidna Umar رضى الله عنه had permitted Sayyidna Tamim al-Dari رضى الله عنه to give a lecture sermon in the masjid before Sayyidna Umar رضى الله عنه comes out to deliver the Khutbah of Friday. This practice of Sayyidna Umar رضى الله عنه reveals two points; firstly, that such an additional lecture is permissible, anal secondly that this additional lecture is meant exclusively to educate people, while the formal Friday Khutbah has other elements, otherwise it was needless to have an additional lecture for education while both were in Arabic.
The second objection against this practice is that it is not feasible, specially in the countries where Friday is not observed as a weekly holiday. In such countries the people come to attend the Jumu`ah prayer from their working places and have to go back to their work in a shortest possible time. Therefore, it is difficult for them to attend an additional lecture before the Khutbah.
But this difficulty can easily be resolved by shortening the Arabic Khutbah and by using the time so saved for the lecture in the local language. I have seen that almost in every mosque in India, Pakistan, China, South Africa and in a large number of the mosques in UK, USA and Canada, both the Khutbah and a preceding lecture are easily combined within the time officially allowed for the Jumu'ah prayer and it has created no difficulty at all. The only requirement for this practice is that the speaker of the additional lecture remains to-the-point, which is advisable otherwise also.
It is sometimes argued that even if the Khutbah is delivered in a local language, it is always started by some Arabic words containing Hamd (praise to Allah Subhanahu) and Salah (prayer for Allah's blessing) for the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم and at least one verse from the Holy Qur'an. This much is enough for fulfilling the necessary requirements of a valid Arabic Khutbah. After this necessary requirements, the rest of the Khutbah may be delivered in any language.
But this argument overlooks the point that it is a Sunnah that the Arabic Khutbah is followed by the Jumu'ah prayer immediately without considerable gap between the two. Therefore, this practice, too, is not in harmony with the masnoon way of delivering a Khutbah.
Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم. If a new practice is adopted simply for the sake of convenience arid neither it is held as obligatory, nor masnoon, and nobody is compelled to follow it, nor a person is blamed for avoiding it, rather it is taken to be mubah (permissible), then such a practice cannot be held as 'bidah'. For example building of minarets or domes over the mosque is a new practice which did not exist in the days of the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم , but it has never been termed as 'bidah' for the simple reason that this practice is not taken to be wajib or masnoon. Nobody has ever thought that it is necessary for a mosque to have minarets and domes, or that a mosque without domes and minarets is not a Masjid. This practice has been adopted for the sake of convenience only, therefore, it is not a bidah or a prohibited innovation in religion. Similarly, a lecture before the second Adhan of Jumu'ah, in whatever language it may be, is not a bidah, because nobody deems it a part of the Jumu`ah prayer, nor is it held to be wajib or masnoon. It has been adopted for the sake of convenience and no one is compelled to deliver it, nor to attend it. If no such lecture is delivered, nobody believes that the Jumu`ah congregation is deficient or incomplete. Therefore, this additional lecture cannot be held as bidah, even though it is presumed that it is a new practice adopted by the Muslims of later days.
Secondly, it is not correct to assume that this additional lecture has no precedent in the earlier days of the Islamic history. In fact, it is reported by several authentic sources that Sayyidna Umar رضى الله عنه had permitted Sayyidna Tamim al-Dari رضى الله عنه to give a lecture sermon in the masjid before Sayyidna Umar رضى الله عنه comes out to deliver the Khutbah of Friday. This practice of Sayyidna Umar رضى الله عنه reveals two points; firstly, that such an additional lecture is permissible, anal secondly that this additional lecture is meant exclusively to educate people, while the formal Friday Khutbah has other elements, otherwise it was needless to have an additional lecture for education while both were in Arabic.
The second objection against this practice is that it is not feasible, specially in the countries where Friday is not observed as a weekly holiday. In such countries the people come to attend the Jumu`ah prayer from their working places and have to go back to their work in a shortest possible time. Therefore, it is difficult for them to attend an additional lecture before the Khutbah.
But this difficulty can easily be resolved by shortening the Arabic Khutbah and by using the time so saved for the lecture in the local language. I have seen that almost in every mosque in India, Pakistan, China, South Africa and in a large number of the mosques in UK, USA and Canada, both the Khutbah and a preceding lecture are easily combined within the time officially allowed for the Jumu'ah prayer and it has created no difficulty at all. The only requirement for this practice is that the speaker of the additional lecture remains to-the-point, which is advisable otherwise also.
It is sometimes argued that even if the Khutbah is delivered in a local language, it is always started by some Arabic words containing Hamd (praise to Allah Subhanahu) and Salah (prayer for Allah's blessing) for the Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم and at least one verse from the Holy Qur'an. This much is enough for fulfilling the necessary requirements of a valid Arabic Khutbah. After this necessary requirements, the rest of the Khutbah may be delivered in any language.
But this argument overlooks the point that it is a Sunnah that the Arabic Khutbah is followed by the Jumu'ah prayer immediately without considerable gap between the two. Therefore, this practice, too, is not in harmony with the masnoon way of delivering a Khutbah.
Our brothers who insist that the Friday Khutbah must be delivered in a local language are requested to consider the following points in the light of the foregoing discussion:
1. The consistent practice of the Ummah throughout centuries has been to deliver the Friday Khutbah in Arabic even in the non-Arab countries. Why should the contemporary Muslims deviate from the consistent practice?
2. Khutbah is a part of the Jumu`ah prayer, hence a mode of worship. The modes of worship are not open to our rational opinion. They have certain prescribed forms which must permanent act and should never be changed through our rational arguments. Once this door is opened in one form of worship, there is no reason why other forms are not subjected to similar changes. The argument in favor of an Urdu or English Khutbah may open the door for an Urdu or English Adhan and Salah also on the same analogy. The ways of worship are meant for creating a sense of obedience and submission. A Muslim is supposed to perform these acts as an obedient slave of Allah, without questioning the rationality of these acts, otherwise throwing stones on the Jamarat of Mina or rushing across Safa and Marwah are all apparently irrational acts; but, being the slaves of Allah, we have to perform these acts as modes of worship. This is exactly what the word 'Ibadah' means. Any alteration in these ways on the basis of one's opinion is contrary to the very sense and philosophy of 'Ibadah' or worship.
3. All the recognized schools of Islamic jurisprudence are unanimous on the point that delivering Friday Khutbah in Arabic is obligatory. Most of the jurists have gone to the extent that in case the Khutbah is delivered in any other language, no Jumu`ah prayer offered after it is valid. Some others (like Imam Abu Hanifah) hold the non-Arabic Khutbah as valid in the sense that the Jumu'ah, prayers offered after it is- not void, yet at the same time they hold this practice to be impermissible, which means that the impermissibility of a non-Arabic Khutbah is a point of consensus between all the recognized schools of Islamic Fiqh.
A deviation from such a consensus can hardly render a service to the Muslim community except to create differences and disputes between them. It may be seen that practically, this deviation has divided Muslims and their mosques into two groups. Even if it is accepted for the sake of argument that the non-Arabic Khutbah is permissible, it is at the most permissible and not obligatory, and if a permissible act may cause disunity among the Muslims, the greater interest of the Muslim Ummah requires that it should be abandoned. The Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم , dropped the idea of rebuilding the kabah on Abrahamic foundation merely because it might have created disputes, even though the proposed construction of the kabah was not only permissible, but also advisable. If such a pious act may be avoided for the sake of unity, the newly invented custom of delivering Khutbah in a non-Arabic language deserves all the more to be avoided for maintaining unity.
4. Those who believe that the Khutbah may be delivered in a non-Arabic language do not believe that the Arabic Khutbah is not permissible, while the followers of the four recognized schools of Islamic Fiqh believe that a non-Arabic Khutbah is not permissible. It means that an Arabic Khutbah is permissible according to all, while a non-Arabic Khutbah is not permissible . according to the majority of the Muslims in the world. Obviously, in such a situation, the preferable practice would be the one which is permissible according to all the Muslims, so that every individual may be satisfied that he is performing the required worship in a permissible manner.
2. Khutbah is a part of the Jumu`ah prayer, hence a mode of worship. The modes of worship are not open to our rational opinion. They have certain prescribed forms which must permanent act and should never be changed through our rational arguments. Once this door is opened in one form of worship, there is no reason why other forms are not subjected to similar changes. The argument in favor of an Urdu or English Khutbah may open the door for an Urdu or English Adhan and Salah also on the same analogy. The ways of worship are meant for creating a sense of obedience and submission. A Muslim is supposed to perform these acts as an obedient slave of Allah, without questioning the rationality of these acts, otherwise throwing stones on the Jamarat of Mina or rushing across Safa and Marwah are all apparently irrational acts; but, being the slaves of Allah, we have to perform these acts as modes of worship. This is exactly what the word 'Ibadah' means. Any alteration in these ways on the basis of one's opinion is contrary to the very sense and philosophy of 'Ibadah' or worship.
3. All the recognized schools of Islamic jurisprudence are unanimous on the point that delivering Friday Khutbah in Arabic is obligatory. Most of the jurists have gone to the extent that in case the Khutbah is delivered in any other language, no Jumu`ah prayer offered after it is valid. Some others (like Imam Abu Hanifah) hold the non-Arabic Khutbah as valid in the sense that the Jumu'ah, prayers offered after it is- not void, yet at the same time they hold this practice to be impermissible, which means that the impermissibility of a non-Arabic Khutbah is a point of consensus between all the recognized schools of Islamic Fiqh.
A deviation from such a consensus can hardly render a service to the Muslim community except to create differences and disputes between them. It may be seen that practically, this deviation has divided Muslims and their mosques into two groups. Even if it is accepted for the sake of argument that the non-Arabic Khutbah is permissible, it is at the most permissible and not obligatory, and if a permissible act may cause disunity among the Muslims, the greater interest of the Muslim Ummah requires that it should be abandoned. The Holy Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم , dropped the idea of rebuilding the kabah on Abrahamic foundation merely because it might have created disputes, even though the proposed construction of the kabah was not only permissible, but also advisable. If such a pious act may be avoided for the sake of unity, the newly invented custom of delivering Khutbah in a non-Arabic language deserves all the more to be avoided for maintaining unity.
4. Those who believe that the Khutbah may be delivered in a non-Arabic language do not believe that the Arabic Khutbah is not permissible, while the followers of the four recognized schools of Islamic Fiqh believe that a non-Arabic Khutbah is not permissible. It means that an Arabic Khutbah is permissible according to all, while a non-Arabic Khutbah is not permissible . according to the majority of the Muslims in the world. Obviously, in such a situation, the preferable practice would be the one which is permissible according to all the Muslims, so that every individual may be satisfied that he is performing the required worship in a permissible manner.
Instead of making it a matter of prestige we should mould our ways in accordance with the interest of the Ummah as a whole. May Allah grant us Taufiq to act according to His pleasure.
Article Taken (with Thanks) from AlAshrafia____
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)