Western media reports on Wahabism

27 posts in this topic

Posted · Report post

I am interested to know as to how many of you have seen the current Western media reports on Wahabism and its effects on Muslim countries. I will quote the following documentaries, interviews and news items:

o This week's PBS broadcast on Wahabi schools in Pakistan. What was shown was a cache of arms amassed by the such madrassah's. Saudi Arabia was mentioned as the donor sponsoring such madrassah's in Pakistan. Multan's madrassahs were especially shown.

o Senator Joseph Biden's interview with Charlie Rose on PBS. This senator chairs the foreign affairs committee. There were a couple of points the senator mentioned:

1. That the people involved in the terrorist acts in the US were all Wahabis, the mainstream belief in Saudi Arabia. But he said that he believed that not all Wahabis are terrorists.

2. He also mentioned that once the war in Afghanistan was over, he wanted the US to have in his words, "a heart-to-heart talk with Saudi Arabia to stop funding the fundamental schools in other countries."

o PBS interviews on Wahabism that show a connection between fundamentalist views, Pakistani Madrassahs, Talibans and Saudi orthodox views.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saudi/analyses/wahhabism.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saudi/analyses/madrassas.html

Have you seen this angle of the Western media? What do you all think about the above reports? What do you think will be the effects of these efforts by the Western powers on Saudi Arabia and consequently on the madrassah's in Pakistan?

These are some of the URLs that I am quoting. There are a whole lot more that I left out.

\

RAZA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

The moderate pseudo liberal muslim geniuses have not yet got the idea of abolishing jihad from the deen altogether, however, this is where its headed and thats what the rhetoric is all about.. The idea and the call from the western circles and by our own moderates is to revamp the deen, to amend and alter the sharia to cater to modernity and changing times... This is not the first time this has and fortunately for all the Akbars and Abul Kalam Azads there will be Mujadid Alifsanis, Mohiuddens (Aurangzeb), and Maudidis

And much to the delight of our fellow shias may I add:

Islam zinda hota hai her Karbala kay baad...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Salaam,

BEWARE. I think this is a consipiracy to divide and rule. I don't think we, muslims, should fall into this trap. They want us to think more and more in terms of sects. We must shun, abhor and reject this concept from its roots. What's going to now happen is what they tried to do with the Shia's during the Iran hostage crisis. Shia's were effectively singled out as the violent, intolerant, west-hating sect of muslims. I can't imagine this bode well at all for Shia-Sunni harmony.

We should all come together on a single platform and collectively condemn terrorism/extremism whereever it resides, in any faith, sect or creed. We must educate everyone (including ourselves) that terrorism / extremism has nothing to do with Islam and that there are clear distinctions. I know we've done this but we must be more vehement about it and do it repeatedly.

But above all, don't EVER agree with anyone who states this or the other sect to advocate extreme violence or terrorism. Should any of this be allowed, there will be grave consequences for all muslims everywhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Behjat bhai,

Would you care to elaborate what exactly is extremism and fundamentalism? Is it praying five times a day, having a beard and observing all the basics of the deen....Is doing Jihad extremist and fundamentalist? Should Jihad be abolished because of its violent nature and because its backward and only applicable to the 7th century?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

AOA,

Lets not buy into western term for Jihad which only means Struggle by sword (at least that what they beleive), toughest Jihad and greatest Jihad is against ones self which certainly is not voilent. I feel extremly furstrated to see muslims in Afghanistan and even in Pakistan use weapons against each out to show their disagreement, turn around and justify it as Jihad. Muslims Ulemas really need to come forward and put a stop to this voilent form of so called Jihad against each other.

AH

Syed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Did anyone see the series on BBC World, Talking Islam?

The first one was on Jihad and the second one on Sharia.

It was moderated by Professor John Esposito who is the director of Cambridge University's program for Muslim Christian Understanding (I think).

The panel consisted of

Dr. Suhaib Hassan (Born in India, raised in Pakistan and educated in Medina)

Hazrat Pir Faiz Siddiqui

Ayatollah Fadhel Milani (Shia scholar from Iraq, and representative of Ayatollah Khamenei - The spiritual leader of Iran)

Dr. Tariq Ramadhan (His grandfather founded the Egyptian Islamic Brotherhood - Hasan Al Banna)

Shamma Abdin (Palestinian - apparently an authority on the Quran. She didn't wear a hijab though)

I must say it was very interesting. The people who interested me the most were Ayatollah Fadhel Milani and Tariq Ramadhan. Even though they both belonged to different schools of thought. They had almost identical views on Sharia.

The people whose views disturbed me the most were Suhaib Hassan and Pir Faiz Siddiqui. Also Shamma Abdin's views were at some times quite 'MODERNIZED', and some times quite enlightening.

Anyways did anyone see it? What did you guys think of it? I think it was a great attempt to create understanding in the west about Islam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Maisum Ali

What did Hazrat Pir Faiz Siddiqui & Dr. Suhaib Hassan said that worried you?

And what did Ayatollah Fadhel Milani and Tariq Ramadhan say that you agreed with?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Well, on the Sharia program. The issue of inheritance came up.

Shamma Abdin was the first to say that men are allowed 2/3 because they are responsible for the well being of their sisters and their family. Islamic society is a patriocal society where the man of the household is responsible for the wellbeing of his family and the sisters that he may have. If the person refuses to except the responsibility then the inheritance issue does not apply to him.

On that, Dr. Suhaib Hassan, said right away that the issue of inheritance has nothing to do with the responsibility. It has to do with gender. Men get 2/3 because they are men and women get 1/3 because they are women.

I found that very disturbing, especially because it was being broadcasted all over the world.

To that Ayatollah Fadhel Milani, got pretty agitated and spoke very sternly that the issue has nothing to do with gender and is based on responsibility. He did not speak on the issue raised by Shamma Abdin that if the person does not agree to take responsibility, the wealth should be distributed evenly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

There was another issue raised about the Taliban government.

I wasn't too distrubed by Hazrat Faiz Siddiquis remarks. I just didn't agree with them.

He said that it is an attempt at establishing an Islamic government and that it should be respected. He also said that countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia have also had their short falls. So the Taliban should not be singled out.

What I liked about Dr. Tariq Ramadan's comment on that was that he brought up the point of 'Punishment'. He said that to implement an Islamic Society, one should never start with the 'Punishment'. One should make sure that everyone is well off. That social justice is promoted first. And then after establishing all this, the punishment should be erected.

For example: Stealing. He said that, the Taliban government should have made sure that everyone has food to eat, clothes to wear. So that they don't have a reason to steal. And if after providing all these essentials, someone steals, then the 'Had' should be applied to him.

Shamma Abdin brought up a point that during the times of famine, the people weren't dealt the punishment, if they stole food.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

"Shamma Abdin brought up a point that during the times of famine, the people weren't dealt the punishment, if they stole food."

Not only that, even if somebody steals food because they dont have the money to buy it, the same applies..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Saad Hasan wrote:

Behjat bhai,

Would you care to elaborate what exactly is extremism and fundamentalism? Is it praying five times a day, having a beard and observing all the basics of the deen....Is doing Jihad extremist and fundamentalist? Should Jihad be abolished because of its violent nature and because its backward and only applicable to the 7th century?

Saad bhai,

Assalamu alaikum. Yaar naraaz to na ho naa. Since 9/11, I've delivered 7 lectures at various fora, churches, universities and have been interviewed on the radio for an hour, alhamdulillah. Let me elaborate what I've told everyone else before.

Firstly, I never used the term 'fundamentalist'. I used extremist / terrorist. You're welcome to review my post. There is a stark difference between fundamentalist and extremist. 'Extremism' is taking literal meanings of any set of theological instructions and twisting and manipulating them to suit one's narrow views. In other words, going to extremes to attempt to validate one's viwepoint. 'Fundamentalism' on the other hand refers to just the opposite. In other words, it refers to the concept of adhering to the essence of certain theological fundamentals. Unfortunately, in the 1920's the term was first used in today's connotations by the Catholics in the US who were at odds with the Protestants who were taking up arms to vehemently support their views of attempting to sticking to the fundamentals of christianity and were accusing the catholics to have diverted from the original essence of christianity. Rightly or wrongly, since then the word fundamentalist became synonymous with extremist.

In light of the above, I'd love to be called a fundamentalist (if it weren't for the sociologically negative connotations) but never an extremist. I do have a beard, alhamdulillah and yes, I pray without fail, 5 times daily. None of these actions are extreme, rather simply fundamental.

i hope this clears up some misconceptions about terminology. I should have clarified this before my point in the original post. As Aristotle said, "should you wish to engage in a discussion with me, define your terms--lest we debate them defeating the purpose".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

On that, Dr. Suhaib Hassan, said right away that the issue of inheritance has nothing to do with the responsibility. It has to do with gender. Men get 2/3 because they are men and women get 1/3 because they are women.

What Dr. Hassan has said is very much correct because there is no where in the Qur'an and the authentic Sunnah where it implies that inheritance is based on "responsibility" or "equity."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Behjat bhai,

Sorry if I came out too strong and thanks for the clarification, however you left out Jihad, Is Jihad-fis-saif extreme or is it a fundamental of the deen?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

This is an extremely interesting site of an organization based in London, that aims for the reform of Islam in SA away from all the sold-out Sheikhs and the Saud royal family. Their address is:

http://islah.org/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Originally posted by Saad Hasan

Behjat bhai,

Sorry if I came out too strong and thanks for the clarification, however you left out Jihad, Is Jihad-fis-saif extreme or is it a fundamental of the deen?

Salaam Saad,

Jihad fis-saif is a conditional jihad. Jihadun-nafs is not. Is it a fundamental of the deen? Well, jihadun-nafs is and jihad fis-saif is conditionally fundamental. That is why jihadun nafs need not be declared and is taken upon by one's own self and jihad fis-saif is one that needs to be declared by a Qazi or an Ameer. There are several categories of jihad that are little understood. I am myself trying to learn the intricacies of such. Upon returning from a ghazwah, Rasool SAWS declared, "now that we're back from small jihad, the big jihad begins". Meaning clearly that armed conflict is small jihad and jihadun nafs is the greater one.

Jihad fis-saif may become extreme if the reasons are un-Islamic. Damage to property, killing of innocents, civilians, making uncalled-for aggression, killing the POW's, killing women, children, elderly, and those who wave the white flag becomes extreme. In other words, the rules of engagement are stiff and require an edict. Any violation of such would be extreme and, thus, would nullify it to labelled jihad from an Islamic standpoint whether the perpetrator claims it to be divine or not.

Please do not take this to be the final word. It is merely my understanding from my study. May Allah guide us all. Ameen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Originally posted by H Khan

On that, Dr. Suhaib Hassan, said right away that the issue of inheritance has nothing to do with the responsibility. It has to do with gender. Men get 2/3 because they are men and women get 1/3 because they are women.

What Dr. Hassan has said is very much correct because there is no where in the Qur'an and the authentic Sunnah where it implies that inheritance is based on "responsibility" or "equity."

Can you please give me some proof? From what I see, it's two ulemas against the other two. So any hadiths might be helpful. I remember reading somewhere that it is a matter of responsibility. I'l try to dig it up for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Question:

Under Islamic law, why is a woman’s share of the inherited wealth only half that of a man?

Answer:

The Glorious Qur’an contains specific and detailed guidance regarding the division of the inherited wealth, among the rightful beneficiaries.

The Qur'anic verses that contain guidance regarding inheritance are:

Surah Baqarah, chapter 2 verse 180

Surah Baqarah, chapter 2 verse 240

Surah Nisa, chapter 4 verse 7-9

Surah Nisa, chapter 4 verse 19

Surah Nisa, chapter 4 verse 33 and

Surah Maidah, chapter 5 verse 106-108

There are three verses in the Qur'an that broadly describe the share of close relatives i.e. Surah Nisah chapter 4 verses 11, 12 and 176. The translation of these verses are as follows:

"Allah (swt) (thus) directs you as regards your children's (inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females, if only daughters, two or more, their share is two-thirds of the inheritance; If only one, her share is a half.

For parents, a sixth share of the inheritance to each, if the deceased left children; If no children, and the parents are the (only) heirs, the mother has a third; if the deceased left brothers (or sisters) the mother has a sixth. (The distribution in all cases is) after the payment of legacies and debts. Ye know not whether your parents or your children are nearest to you in benefit. These are settled portions ordained by Allah; and Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise.

In what your wives leave, your share is half. If they leave no child; but if they leave a child, ye get a fourth; after payment of legacies and debts. In what ye leave, their share is a fourth, if ye leave no child; but if ye leave a child, they get an eight; after payment of legacies and debts. If the man or woman whose inheritance is in question, has left neither ascendants nor descendants, but has left a brother or a sister, each one of the two gets a sixth; but if more than two, they share in a third; after payment of legacies and debts; so that no loss is caused (to anyone). Thus it is ordained by Allah; and Allah is All-Knowing Most Forbearing"

[Al-Qur'an 4:11-12]

"They ask thee for a legal decision. Say: Allah directs (them) about those who leave no descendants or ascendants as heirs. If it is a man that dies, leaving a sister but no child, she shall have half the inheritance. If (such a deceased was) a woman who left no child, Her brother takes her inheritance. If there are two sisters, they shall have two thirds of the inheritance (between them). If there are brothers and sisters, (they share), the male having twice the share of the female. Thus doth Allah (swt) makes clear to you (His knowledge of all things).

[Al-Qur'an 4:176]

In most of the cases, a woman inherits half of what her male counterpart inherits. However, this is not always the case. In case the deceased has left no ascendant or descendent but has left the uterine brother and sister, each of the two inherit one sixth. If the deceased has left children, both the parents that is mother and father get an equal share and inherit one sixth each. In certain cases, a woman can also inherit a share that is double that of the male. If the deceased is a woman who has left no children, brothers or sisters and is survived only by her husband, mother and father, the husband inherits half the property while the mother inherits one third and the father the remaining one sixth. In this particular case, the mother inherits a share that is double that of the father. It is true that as a general rule, in most cases, the female inherits a share that is half that of the male. For instance in the following cases:

daughter inherits half of what the son inherits,

wife inherits 1/8th and husband 1/4th if the deceased has no children.

Wife inherits 1/4th and husband 1/2 if the deceased has children

If the deceased has no ascendant or descendent, the sister inherits a share that is half that of the brother.

In Islam a woman has no financial obligation and the economical responsibility lies on the shoulders of the man. Before a woman is married it is the duty of the father or brother to look after the lodging, boarding, clothing and other financial requirements of the woman. After she is married it is the duty of the husband or the son. Islam holds the man financially responsible for fulfilling the needs of his family. In order to do be able to fulfill the responsibility the men get double the share of the inheritance. For example, if a man dies leaving about Rs. One Hundred and Fifty Thousand, for the children (i.e one son and one daughter) the son inherits One Hundred Thousand rupees and the daughter only Fifty Thousand rupees. Out of the one hundred thousand which the son inherits, as his duty towards his family, he may have to spend on them almost the entire amount or say about eighty thousand and thus he has a small percentage of inheritance, say about twenty thousand, left for himself. On the other hand, the daughter, who inherits fifty thousand is not bound to spend a single penny on anybody. She can keep the entire amount for herself. Would you prefer inheriting one hundred thousand rupees and spending eighty thousand from it, or inheriting fifty thousand rupees and having the entire amount to yourself?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Maisum Ali,

Thank you for showing the evidence from the Qur'an on the Hukum of inheritance.

As you can see these ayah are only defining the portions of inheritance on gender rather than resposibility or equity. Your last paragraph is someone's understanding of the ayah but not a direct Hukum from the Qur'an and the authentic Sunnah.

Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allâh has made one of them to excel the other, and because they spend (to support them) from their means...{An-Nisa # 34} .

The above ayah clearly states that men and women are not equal viz gender and the word Qur'an uses is "Fadhl" meaning supperior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allâh has made one of them to excel the other, and because they spend (to support them) from their means...{An-Nisa # 34} .

Thank you.

But if you look at it, this ayah really gives you two reasons.

1) Men excel Women (physically? mentally? or just overall?)

2) Because they spend to support them (which is my point)

Now the second part is quite clear. The first part, we really don't know what aspects are being talked about here. Let me get a hold of a tafseer.

The Ayah goes both ways, and I acknowledge your point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

This is an online Tafseer by Dr. Ahmad Shafaat. I have never heard of the guy. I am at work and don't have a hard copy tafseer with me so I'll have to make do with whatever I can find online.

1) "Because God has favored some of them more than others". It is not explicitly stated here who is favored more than whom but in view of the context it is probable that men are understood in some way to be favored more than women. But in what way? Again no answer is given in the verse under consideration or elsewhere in the Qur'an. But we can justifiably take the reference to physical strength and energy in which men generally excel women and which enables men to guard women against some of the dangers to which they may be exposed in society and to take care of some of their needs.

From the statement that God has favored men more than women in some ways we should not conclude, as many careless readers of the Qur'an do, that Islam views men superior to women. For this statement does not exclude the possibility that in some other ways women may be favored more than men. Indeed observation shows that women are in general more patient, caring and have a more developed intuition than men.

Moreover, the Holy Qur'an makes it clear that while there are many favors of God that He bestows on His creatures in different measures, there is only one favor which determines the superiority of one member of the human species over another and that is taqwa or God consciousness. Thus wealth, strength, health, intelligence, position, education, etc. are all favors of God but we cannot say that a wealthier person is superior to a poorer person, a stronger person is superior is superior to a physically feeble person and so on. we can say only that a more muttaqi person is superior to a less muttaqi person. In the words of the Holy Qur'an:

"The nobler among you in the sight of God is the more muttaqi (righteous) among you." (49:13)

Taqwa (righteousness, God consciousness) is that divine favor of God on which the right use of all other favors of God depends. The more of this quality of taqwa a person has the more the other favors of God benefit him.

Thus the fact that man has been favored in some ways more than woman does not automatically make him superior to her. It is only when his taqwa is more than hers that he can from the Qur'anic point of view be considered superior to her. And when a person's taqwa increases to a worthwhile level the question of his superiority does not interest him, for he or she realizes that all praises are due to God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Maisum,

Again Dr. Ahmad Shafat is drawing his own conclusion from the Qur'an and Sunnah (which he has not quoted a single one) while mixing different aspects of Deen i.e. Taqwa.

What the basic question was if interitance in Islaam is based on gender or not?

Answer, is very clear that is, yes, inheritance is based on gender. But if we, Muslims, like to rationalize this Hukum to logically present Islaam to the people of other faiths espicially Christians in the west, than this is different story which I call as been "apologictic" about Islaam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Originally posted by H Khan

Answer, is very clear that is, yes, inheritance is based on gender. But if we, Muslims, like to rationalize this Hukum to logically present Islaam to the people of other faiths espicially Christians in the west, than this is different story which I call as been "apologictic" about Islaam.

Actually, its "apologetic".

I fail to see why you introduce the West into discussions about Islam? Far more important is what Muslims think. Fortunately, most Muslims are indeed able to think for themselves and don't necessarilly follow one school or the other blindly, though that does appear to irk some of our more extremist brethren. Introducing the "West" is just a means of belittling another person's arguments by suggesting they are unable to think for themselves. In the instance above, it is clear that Maisum Ali has spent a lot of time researching this issue whereas you have been a little lazy in supporting your argument... hence the easy recourse to the "West".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

fameen,

Try to read my post carefully and than draw your western/Oxford boy conclusions.

As usual you always take words/sentences out of context.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

H Khan bhai,

You probably hit fameen's soft spot here, there is an attempt on the part of our esteemed progressive moderate muslims of presenting Islam in a way which is pleasing and more acceptable to the west.

Just imagine the horror of only men allowed to marry more then once, where is the gender equality, women should be extended the same luxury, the cutting of the hands of the thieves, waging Jihad, how barbaric. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: How 7th centuryesque, we should abolish Jihad, introduce gender equality so women can have the same share in inheritance, can be imams and lead the prayers, and when they down in the rukooh, I can maybe check out their booty, and when they are pregnant and on their period, that would not limit their ability to head a country, infact it will be really nice for a change when in comes our female leader with her water broken and all, just imagine. Better yet, there should be no stopping the homosexuals amongst us to open up a masjid exclusively for them. As you can see the brand of Islam parcticed by the fandatics and extremists has no place in today's world, it was only meant for the people living in the 7th century and inface we don't even have follow the religion at all, just having arabic/muslim names should suffice.

Deen o siysat hon judaa

To reh jaati hai chengaizi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Salaam,

Saad, you are brutally accurate. You didn't respond to my last post, all OK?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites