Due to the impending 'AAOIFI Standards' course at the Markfield centre in the next few days, I have been given an exam to pass (with your du'as) in order to achieve a place with those infinitely more qualified than myself to be there.

The course will be taught by our Shaykh, Mufti Taqi al-Uthmani, as well as his sons and other teachers from his Karachi institute.

Hence, unfortunately, my Fiqh class in Cheadle will be postponed for the next two weeks, resuming again on the 15th of March insha'Allah.

The 'al-Adab al-Mufrad' circles will be continuing throughout insha'Allah. They will not be affected.

Again, my apologies for not being able to respond to those questions, emails, requests and old queries in my inbox for the next few odd weeks. I thank you for your patience, and again we request your du'as.

Now that was a fight.

And about time too.

Swiftly moving on, a few funnies for the weekend, just to get me in the mood for the next three weeks. I'll explain later.

It's all a bit naughty, but I wouldn't expect any less from Tarek...

Here is a reasonable performance by Hamza Yusuf on Danish TV; not too bad at all.

Danish TV Interview

By the way, he's right about the Arabs and Danish cheese. In fact forget the Arabs, I spent the best three years of my life living off Arla's Puck soft cheese...

:-(

And can someone tell me what on Earth Anjem Choudhry is still doing around? Is he still an Ilford boy? He doesn't seem to have changed much from back in the good old days...

Considering that we'll be moving on to the hadith of the importance of the mother in our forthcoming class this Friday, I found this beautiful piece on a tribute to mothers, posted after one of our brothers lost his own mother recently, particularly apt and touching.

All of us have oppressed our mothers, myself included. May Allah allow us all to realise their true worth and then act according to the Sunnah in order to give her the right she so deserves, Ameen.


Tribute to Mothers

Those of you who still have your mothers with you, this is something to ponder and to witness as your life unfolds. Those of you who, no longer have your mothers with you, this may be something that sparks a memory for you. Those of you who are mothers, this is something for you to think about as you move through life with your children. Those who have no children, this is something to think about when you encounter children along your life's path - you know mothering is not relegated to a biological parent only!

The young mother set her foot on the path of life. "Is this the long way?" she asked. And the guide said: "Yes, and the way is hard. And you will be old before you reach the end of it. But the end will be better than the beginning." But the young mother was happy, and she would not believe that anything could be better than these years. So she played with her children, and gathered flowers for them along the way, and bathed them in the clear streams; and the sun shone on them, and the young mother cried, "Nothing will ever be lovelier than this."

Then the night came, and the storm, and the path was dark, and the children shook with fear and cold, and the mother drew them close and covered them with her mantle, and the children said, "Mother, we are not afraid, for you are near, and no harm can come."

And the morning came, and there was a hill ahead, and the children climbed and grew weary, and the mother was weary. But at all times she said to the children, "A little patience and we are there." So the children climbed, and when they reached the top they said, "Mother, we would not have done it without you." And the mother, when she lay down at night looked up at the stars and said, "This is a better day than the last, for my children have learned fortitude in the face of hardness. Yesterday I gave them courage. Today, I have given them strength."

And the next day came strange clouds which darkened the earth, clouds of war and hate and evil, and the children groped and stumbled, and the mother said: "Look up. Lift your eyes to the light." And the children looked and saw above the clouds an everlasting glory, and it guided them beyond the darkness. And that night the mother said, "This is the best day of all, for I have shown my children the awareness of the Almighty."

And the days went on, and the weeks and the months and the years, and the mother grew old and she was little and bent. But her children were tall and strong, and walked with courage. And when the way was rough, they lifted her, for she was as light as a feather; and at last they came to a hill, and beyond they could see a shining road and golden gates flung wide. And mother said: "I have reached the end of my journey. And now I know the end is better than the beginning, for my children can walk alone, and their children after them." And the children said, "You will always walk with us, Mother, even when you have gone through the gates." And they stood and watched her as she went on alone, and the gates closed after her. And they said: "We cannot see her, but she is with us still.

A Mother like ours is more than a memory. She is a living presence."

Your Mother is always with you.

She's the whisper of the leaves as you walk down the street, she's the smell of bleach in your freshly laundered socks, she's the cool hand on your brow when you're not well. Your mother lives inside your laughter. And she's crystallized in every tear drop. She's the place you came from, your first home; and she's the map you follow with every step you take. She's your first love and your first heartbreak, and nothing on earth can separate you... not time, not space... not even death.

TO ALL OUR MOTHERS. MAY WE NEVER TAKE YOU FOR GRANTED.

Author: Unknown

This isn't too bad I suppose for starters...

This is Muhammad

Sure, the writing could have been better but I reckon we'd have spent more time arguing about the quality of the text and then ended up not producing anything at all - I know that's what would have happened if I'd tried doing something.

The links are generally poor as well, especially that 'Brief Illustrated Guide' one, which I just can't stand, yet others rave about it! Different strokes for different folks I guess.

The best link (and exception therefore) from that site is no doubt IslamToday which is really a magnificent effort for a website masha'Allah - anyway, I hope that the above Powerpoint thingy will give others the initiative to produce something even better and even more effective in defence of the honour of al-Sadiq al-Amin.

I'm usually a bit behind when it comes to good documentaries and TV stuff, although I'm ready and prepared for the visual feast that the new BBC Series promises to be.

If you have a TV, then use it. This will be worth it.

But yeah, today I got an opportunity to watch this video that was posted in the comments section of the previous post, and then realised I had heard about this around a year ago but never got to see it.

I like Morgan Spurlock's programmes; his Super Size Me is a legendary piece on Mcdonalds and very entertaining.

Likewise, if you've got nothing better to do for 45 minutes, the very least this programme on a Christian moving in with Muslims for 30 days will be, is entertaining.
I found it funny and sad in parts, but despite the obvious spin on the content to at least make it watchable for the American public, I found it on the whole courteous, factual and generally honest.

How on Earth the Shi'a got to this guy before the Haque family did (maybe they are the majority in that part of Michigan?), I have absolutely no idea. There were the Haques, a nice middle-of-the-road Hanafi family from a Deobandi Masjid, just chilling along and then suddenly the Christian is getting taught his Deen by someone who insists that the guy puts his feet in the right position first before we start dialogue.

Miskeen.

Granted, the second Shi'a centre seemed to do a lot better, and all in all, it was enjoyable viewing that should leave all of us asking the question: are we really doing enough ourselves as individuals to allay the very real fears that our respective communities have of us and Islam in general?

What pro-active steps have we taken to address the problem? What ideas have we thought about and put into practice? Some people have at least started, but surely we need to have a concerted plan to win back the hearts? Although basic and simplistic at first glance, each of these (71!) points is the door to an entire individual action-plan built around that particular plan - something that each individual community can work on and extend according to their abilities.

And as mentioned before, Prophetic Guidance (PG) is always willing to support community-based da'wah initiatives in the UK, whether logistically or financially even wherever possible insha'Allah. Email your ideas and requests to info@propheticguidance.co.uk or even leave a comment here and I'll pass it on to their committee.

I couldn't stop myself writing to utterly condemn the pathetic actions of these fools - my very own people by the way, from my own home town.

How desperately sad.

Why is it that we Muslims are so petty and stupid? What the hell did KFC do? What has smashing and rioting got to do with protecting the honour of the Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam)?!

Is this what they wanted? To terrify the innocent staff and customers of a chicken joint?! Have they shown their immense and mighty anger? Wow - what a bunch of heros.

Look how strong and honourable you are - you've even killed a child! Good job boys, you are indeed the Defenders of our Faith!

I write with fury, for this is the mindset of so many Muslims out there, that this is how we should show our honour and anger, when in fact they show nothing but ignorance.

So from one extreme, to the other. Almost equally pathetic are the claims of those who believe the true defence of the Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) is to wish him Happy Birthday. Well done Mrs Alam for ruining a quite sensible article with utter piffle, such a mind-blowingly stupid generalisation and use of stereotypes that leaves one wondering whether we will ever have any hope to catch the middle ground of moderation and following the real example of the Prophet, and yet maintain the unity of the congregation of Muslims - a true realisation of Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jama'ah.

We live in desperate hope.

The Shuyukh are like buses; none come for ages and then suddenly you get a whole stack load.

Also, it was only really until today that I realised we haven't had rain for days, but then when it came, the barakah was truly there to be witnessed.

Masha'Allah, not only was Manchester graced by Shaykh Hamza and the inimitable Shaykh and Usuli Abdullah b. Bayyah, but we also received early on in the morning his colleages from the ECFR (the European Fiqh Council for Fatwa and Research) as they held an open session for the sub-committee for Fatwa in the UK.

Shaykh Haytham al-Haddad presented a paper on 'group ijtihad' (which had many beneficial points of research, something I'd like to put up insha'Allah), there were major discussions of some previous fatwas issued by the council allowing all the attending students to argue out and understand fully, and most impressively there was a beautiful paper submitted by the honourable Sayyid, Shaykh Suhaib Hasan (hafidhahullah) in which he made some wonderful points concerning the issuing of fatwa and the problems of some earlier statements from other council members, notably Shaykh Abdullah Juday' etc.

What a day.

I'd love to post some of his points if I get the time this week, but his paper will be available on the ECFR website I believe although that needs confirming, and I'd advise any talib'l-'ilm to have a good read - Mufeed jiddan, masha'Allah.

It was also nice to see Mufti Isma'il from Bradford and Mufti Ya'qub al-Qasimi from Dewsbury just to bring some Indo-Pak flavour to proceedings. I was getting lonely out there...

Classic one-liner from Shaykh Suhayb: 'One advantage I do have of being here is that I can bring my experience from all the Indian and Pakistani councils of fatwa, which Arabs never seem to join...'

How sad. How typically Arab. How true.

Oh and despite having one of the worst Mosque committees ever, Didsbury Masjid really put a nice show on with its new conference hall and also had loads of freebies on offer. I have my own Fatwa Committee notebook now, letter-headed of course, so expect some quality fatwas coming from this end soon. Watch this space...

Which talking of dodgy fatwas, reminds me that after we met Shaykh ibn Bayyah tonight for a brief discussion (Fosis and YMO actually came good for once), it is indeed true that the statement on that arabic site was a load of bakwas (alhamdulillah) and actually might reach the level of slander as Shaykh Hamza suggested.

Shaykh Abdullah also agreed to keep some channels open for a return later this year to do something for us, so I hope to give you good news on that soon insha'Allah.

And I tell you what, that Lowry centre was nice wasn't it?

My favourite line from Shaykh Abdullah (hafidhahullah) tonight (paraphrasing/DJ mixed version):

"Islam is like Energy. We are here to bring life to life itself. We bring the world to life and give it purpose, but when this Energy is used recklessly by the ignorant then it becomes dangerous; it becomes a bomb - with devastating consequences for its reputation."

May Allah preserve all our scholars and allow us to benefit from them and act upon their light and guidance, Ameen.

Lest we forget Ya Ummat'l-Islam, lest we forget...



The despair of starving families in Niger



The Shuhada of Srebrenica insha'allah



A mother prays for her dead son in the Kashmir Earthquake



Young girl cries after her parents are killed by a US patrol, Iraq



Iraqi bombing victim



Father and son in a field hospital, Kashmir



Tsunami aftermath


Rahimahumullah al-jamee'.

I don't have time to review the last episode of Question Time on the net with the three leadership contenders for the Lib Dems - anyone have some good reviews on it?

It's nice to know that the Eye has its priorities right at least...

There should be no need to remind everyone but just in case you've been on Mars for the last few days, it is the 10th of Muharram tomorrow and hence the fast of 'Ashura is up for grabs: the whole of last year's worth of bakwas to be forgiven for the lucky winners.

Not bad eh?

And if you forgot that today was the 9th, and hence from the Sunnah to fast alongside the 10th tomorrow, then you can fast on Friday the 11th as well insha'Allah and gain the full reward bi itnillah.

And if you really want to be the Daddy Mack, then try and knock out the rest of the month in these excellent times to fast - nice and short days, late starts, early finishes, miserable weather, minimum energy expenditure - what more do you want?

Side note: my wearing of black in the next few days is not only to save on the white washing but I thought I'd show some solidarity with the Rafidhi crowd and the Iranian builders who are doing some plastering work for us.

Come on guys - they're trying to take on the world for crying out loud, the last thing they need is more patronising and snide behaviour from us Sunni lot isn't it?

Isn't it?

Ok, maybe not then.

Additional side note: solidarity does not entail self-flagellation.

:-)

I don’t wish to discuss the issue of the cartoons any further for the reasons I mentioned before but I have decided to answer the query of what I hope is a sincere questioner from a few posts back:

Guys, im on this site because ive been reading all this stuff in the media about the toons, and ive seen loads of comments on major newspapers blogs but not many were from Muslims. I would just like to know what you guys thought of the london protests, did you reckon dressing up as a suicide bomber and calling for more 911 attacks was well out of line or no? I grew up in a Muslim country, however im not Muslim. But it seems to me that Muslims are very prone to violent protesting. In fairness, what is it all in aid of? Now people are dead, it has got to the point where Muslims have killed Muslims over these cartoons. To me this just seems ridiculous. I mean you cant really expect Europeans to take these protests very seriously when Arabs are continually calling for the destruction of Israel and are printing anti-semtic cartoons in their newspapers. ( by the way im pretty much anti-zionist, so im not trying to take a pro jewish standpoint here but just using it as an example). Its just so hard to understand this and I am genuinely interested in why its so hard for Muslims to take this on the chin and move on with it, as christians did with piss christ etc. They protested vocally but they never called for death and bloodshed. We must all be open to critisism, I understand how the cartoons can offend, but they were only published in Denmark and it was the Danish Imams who brought them to Saudi and exposed them to the 1.6bn worldwide Muslim population. The Imams took these cartoons to the audience they now have. If it is so insulting to Mohammed why not have left them in the Danish press and got on with life. I think alot of westerners share my confusion on this whole issue, having grown up in the Muslim world i have more of an understanding and certainly a respect then the average person who know nothing of Islam but I still really dont understand. Do you guys think these reactions are justified?

As for the stupid statement made by 'not ready'
"They (the non muslims) have and will go out of their way to try degrade Allah and his deen and his prophet and those associated with them."
I wouldnt really give us that much credit mate, non-muslims on a whole dont care less about Allah or Islam. All we care about is not being blown up by a crazy person, and not bending our values so as not to offend muslims. Im not going to be 'going out of my way' to insult Muslims or Allah. Everyone gets offended by newspapers, why are Muslims the only ones who go killing people and each other for that matter when they are insulted. What makes them special? How does this serve the sunnah? Can someone please tell me this? I was in the middle east in october and i saw a cartoon that would definatly be offensive to a Jew but obviously they are allowed to be printed, why the double standards? And i think they should be printed just as i think the Mohammed cartoons should be printed. Someone please do me the honour of answering my questions.


So, dear Anonymous:

I agree with you that things have got out of hand, both politically and emotionally with different parties looking to further their own personal interests as opposed to those of the community, or indeed the religion itself.

As for the difference between the Muslims and other religions: I am sure that your time in the Middle East would have taught you that Muslims don’t just have a religion; they live their religion.

Part of this absolute commitment to God and His system means making His way uppermost and the priority over all our own personal interests and desires.

Furthermore, it is a core aspect of Islamic faith to hold the Prophet Muhammad (upon whom be peace and blessings) more dearer, precious, and important to ourselves than anyone else. Any Muslim who fails in this minimum requirement suffers from deficient faith, and is blameworthy, and requires further help and guidance from God.

Naturally, to hold such a love for our Prophet is not easy, and is even more difficult to explain to non-Muslims, just as it is difficult to convince the prospective buyer of a house to purchase it without entering inside and just suffice himself with glimpses of the exterior.

If anyone is married, or has wonderful parents, or beautiful adoring children, then they’ll surely recognise that the love, respect and reverence for the Prophet Muhammad must be of an incredible, overpowering, and tremendous level to leave our beloved family members behind in the pecking order.

That is why Muslims respond as they do when the Prophet is attacked, satirised, belittled etc. It is akin, nay it is worse, than one who abuses your wife or even attacks your mother, or even assaults your children.

Sounds melodramatic? It shouldn’t do. All societies, even here in the West, recognise that ‘freedom of speech’ has limits, those limits being chosen by ‘lawmakers’ who decide in their own rather restricted capacity on what is deemed ‘too offensive’ and what ‘crosses the line’. The mischievous intentions of the European newspapers was nothing else but to personally attack every single Muslim in simply the most offensive way possible – by attacking their most beloved (upon whom be peace and blessings).

As for the comparison between general satire of politicians, people, countries and even religion in a general sense, then this is an entirely different ball-game. Even on this site here, I post up satire regularly, usually making fun at Bush, or Beckham or even Muslim women in Saudi sometimes (which I often get chastised for by Muslims incidentally but hey, we all have our weaknesses), but I have never, and would never put something up that was illegal according to the Law.

Double standards do exist in the Muslim world just like it does everywhere else but they can’t be held representative of Islam no more than innocent Danish citizens who disagree with the cartoons should be attacked by ignorant criminal Muslims. Yet although it is probably not becoming of Muslims to satirise anyone in any sense, one cannot compare the satirising of ‘Israel’ or Sharon to that of the Prophets.

Your attempt to write-off attacks on Jesus (peace be upon him) is nothing praiseworthy. Do you think that to satirise and attack Jesus and the other Prophets would be our avenging of the Prophet Muhammad (upon all of them be peace and blessings)? If any Muslim did such an act, on any of the Prophets, he would be considered an apostate by the consensus of the Islamic community, and be killed under Islamic Law.

Yes, killed. The Secular West can’t understand that, but likewise Muslims are at a total loss on many of the rulings/laws found in common European and British law. If Muslims were in a powerful enough position, the BBC wouldn’t have even breathed the words ‘Jerry Springer Opera’; they wouldn’t have even conceived promoting the evil they did about Mary, the Mother of Jesus a few years ago; the Western world would be taught on how to respect the Nazarene Jesus Christ and a fortiori all of the Prophets of God, who are more closer to those who love God than their very own souls.

As for your query on violent protesting, then that shouldn’t have happened, and it wouldn’t have happened if justice was fair and equal to all men and the Europeans had done what was morally and ethically correct.

Likewise, the punishment of death in an Islamic State (perhaps similar to the charge of treason against the Head of State) for those who did such a heinous act, is an exaggerated form in order to make it clear the seriousness of the crime, as all modern penal systems attempt to do.

I don’t blame the West in not understanding this rather simple fact. Lost in the myriad of human reasoning when it comes to determining appropriate punishments for various crimes, it is little wonder that many of us in the West feel more insecure with respect to our safety and honour in the 21st Century than ever before.

You agree that we are all offended by things on a daily basis, but there are limits. As if we don’t suffer from being apathetic enough as it is, the last thing the Muslims were going to do was to just sit there and take it on the chin as you claim to be able to do. The real question is: are you enlightened and moderate for your pacifism or is the protestor noble and principled for defending the rights of others over his own?

If you have really understood what our Prophet means to us, then consider all of your questions fully answered in the best of my limited capacity and time. I would like to have gone into more detail but the reality is that this issue has been fully explained in a variety of places, even previously on this site.

Thank you for reading.

Finally, for the rest of you, someone passed me this fatwa from a little while back which will be interesting since it comes from one of my very favourite scholars, Shaykh Abdullah b. Bayyah.

It’s funny you know; you always think that nothing could ever surprise you again, but there’s always something that comes along. When would you have thought you’d see the day that Tantawi would be defending Ahl al-Sunnah…

;-)

Printed a while back, but still an interesting read.


How the West Came To Run Islamic Banks
Giants like Citigroup dominate the sector, through Islamic subsidiaries and hired Sharia scholars.

By Owen Matthews
Newsweek
Oct. 31, 2005 issue

You're a pious Muslim with a few million in oil dollars to invest. So would the perfect Islamic bank for you be Citigroup, perhaps? HSBC?

Actually, yes. Giant Western banks or, rather, their Islamic subsidiaries are leading the market for financing that complies with Qur'anic laws forbidding lending money for profit, or sponsoring un-Islamic activities such as gambling or smoking. Citigroup's Bahrain-based Citi Islamic subsidiary was first into the market in 1996, and now leads the pack with deposits of more than $6 billion. Citi and at least 10 other Western majors dwarf the biggest locally owned rival, Al Baraka of Bahrain, worth a little more than half a billion.

Westerners are drawn in by oil money. The Middle East is enjoying its fastest growth in a generation. According to Islamic Banking and Finance magazine, there are $265 billion in deposits that comply with Sharia, the law that governs the behavior of Muslims, finances included. That's up 17 percent in the past year, and by almost 10 times in the past decade, according to the U.A.E.'s Sharjah Islamic Bank. Since 1996 Dow Jones has offered indexes of stocks vetted by Sharia scholars. Now there are more than 40 Islamic indexes, and last year Islamic stocks on average outperformed the market by 5 percent.

How did Western banks come to dominate a market predicated on Islamic purity? A generation ago, an Islamic bank was just a simple investment house that, instead of paying interest on deposits, created dividends by buying and renting out property. "Islam forbids making money on money," says Alun Williams, marketing director of the new Islamic Bank of Britain. "But it does allow you to rent, and to trade." Now Western banks are using that template to pioneer Islamic credit cards, Islamic mortgages and Islamic bonds (known as /sukuks/) that during the past year have financed everything from a $1 billion upgrade of Dubai airport to Pakistani government debt. As growth picks up in the Middle East, more and more Muslim-run corporations find they need sophisticated services, from bond issues to derivatives, that so far only Western banks provide.

The Western banks gain Islamic credibility by hiring top-drawer Sharia scholars to sit on their boards. "The caliber of your scholars is the basis on which these [financial products] are marketed," says Majid Dawood, a London-based consultant on Sharia compliance. Because there are just a handful of financially literate Islamic scholars in the market, most sit on the boards of many institutions and can, says Dawood, command salaries of as much as $88,500 per year per bank. Sheik Mohammed Taqi Usmani, a former Sharia judge on the Supreme Court of Pakistan, sits on the board of Citi Islamic, HSBC, Al Baraka and eight others, and is chairman of the Dow Jones Islamic indexes' Sharia panel.

But the trend toward investing in Islamic funds really took off after 9/11, when many Muslims began bringing their money home from America. Since then, international banks like Societe Generale, BNP Paribas, Deutsche Bank and Standard Chartered have all entered the Islamic banking business. Accounting and consulting firms like Ernst Young are now offering Islamic financial services. The recently opened Islamic Bank of Britain, owned by leading Islamic banks and other institutions from the Middle East, plans to create a retail-banking chain for "average income" Muslim Britons, says Williams.

Customers in Muslim nations are driven to Western banks in part by distrust of their own banks. Prominent failures, such as the 2001 collapse of Turkey's Ilhas Finance dented depositors' faith. In Turkey, the Islamic world's largest economy, the fledgling Islamic-banking sector is lobbying the state to guarantee deposits of up to $36,000, which could in time make Turkey a major player. In Malaysia, where more than 11 percent of deposits are now Sharia-compliant, local houses like Bank Muamalat are working to gain on the multinationals. "Local Islamic banks lack sophistication," says Humayun Dar, an Islamic economist. "Customers are still more comfortable with an international name." Even if the rules are strictly local.

//© 2006 Newsweek, Inc.//

Forget what Islam says about the principle of free speech, which is a huge chapter of fiqh in itself (Kamali's magnificent book is well worth a read for those who want to learn more about that in English), here is an excellent piece on how the West should practice it's cherished ideal of 'freedom'.

It's nice to see Simon Jenkins back to his best.

I've pasted it below as one page instead of the few pages on the link:

These cartoons don't defend free speech, they threaten it
Simon Jenkins

I think, therefore I am, said the philosopher. Fine. But I think, therefore I speak? No way.

Nobody has an absolute right to freedom. Civilisation is the story of humans sacrificing freedom so as to live together in harmony. We do not need Hobbes to tell us that absolute freedom is for newborn savages. All else is compromise.

Should a right-wing Danish newspaper have carried the derisive images of Muhammad? No. Should other newspapers have repeated them and the BBC teasingly “flashed” them to prove its free-speech virility? No. Should governments apologise for them or ban them from repeating the offence? No, but that is not the issue.

A newspaper is not a monastery, its mind blind to the world and deaf to reaction. Every inch of published print reflects the views of its writers and the judgment of its editors. Every day newspapers decide on the balance of boldness, offence, taste, discretion and recklessness. They must decide who is to be allowed a voice and who not. They are curbed by libel laws, common decency and their own sense of what is acceptable to readers. Speech is free only on a mountain top; all else is editing.

Despite Britons’ robust attitude to religion, no newspaper would let a cartoonist depict Jesus Christ dropping cluster bombs, or lampoon the Holocaust. Pictures of bodies are not carried if they are likely to be seen by family members. Privacy and dignity are respected, even if such restraint is usually unknown to readers. Over every page hovers a censor, even if he is graced with the title of editor.

To imply that some great issue of censorship is raised by the Danish cartoons is nonsense. They were offensive and inflammatory. The best policy would have been to apologise and shut up. For Danish journalists to demand “Europe-wide solidarity” in the cause of free speech and to deride those who are offended as “fundamentalists . . . who have a problem with the entire western world” comes close to racial provocation. We do not go about punching people in the face to test their commitment to non-violence. To be a European should not involve initiation by religious insult.

Many people seem surprised that a multicultural crunch should have come over religion rather than race. Most incoming migrants from the Muslim world are in search of work and security. They have accepted racial discrimination and cultural subordination as the price of admission. Most Europeans, however surreptitiously, regard that subordination as reasonable.

What Muslims did not expect was that admission also required them to tolerate the ridicule of their faith and guilt by association with its wildest and most violent followers in the Middle East. Islam is an ancient and dignified religion. Like Christianity its teaching can be variously interpreted and used for bloodthirsty ends, but in itself Islam has purity and simplicity. Part of that purity lies in its abstraction and part of that abstraction is an aversion to icons.

The Danes must have known that a depiction of Allah as human or the prophet Muhammad as a terrorist would outrage Muslims. It is plain dumb to claim such blasphemy as just a joke concordant with the western way of life. Better claim it as intentionally savage, since that was how it was bound to seem. To adapt Shakespeare, what to a Christian “is but a choleric word”, to a Muslim is flat blasphemy.

Of all the casualties of globalism, religious sensibility is the most hurtful. I once noticed in Baghdad airport an otherwise respectable Iraqi woman go completely hysterical when an American guard set his sniffer dog, an “unclean” animal, on her copy of the Koran. The soldier swore at her: “Oh for Christ’s sake, shut up!” She was baffled that he cited Christ in defence of what he had done.

Likewise, to an American or British soldier, forcibly entering the women’s quarters of an Arab house at night is normal peacekeeping. To an Arab it is abhorrent, way beyond any pale. Nor do Muslims understand the West’s excusing such actions, as does Tony Blair, by comparing them favourably with those of Saddam Hussein, as if Saddam were the benchmark of international behaviour.

It is clearly hard for westerners to comprehend the dismay these gestures cause Muslims. The question is not whether Muslims should or should not “grow up” or respect freedom of speech. It is whether we truly want to share a world in peace with those who have values and religious beliefs different from our own. The demand by foreign journalists that British newspapers compound their offence shows that moral arrogance is as alive in the editing rooms of northern Europe as in the streets of Falluja. That causing religious offence should be regarded a sign of western machismo is obscene.

The traditional balance between free speech and respect for the feelings of others is evidently becoming harder to sustain. The resulting turbulence can only feed the propaganda of the right to attack or expel immigrants and those of alien culture. And it can only feed the appetite of government to restrain free speech where it really matters, as in criticising itself.

There is little doubt that had the Home Office’s original version of its religious hatred bill been enacted, publishing the cartoons would in Britain have been illegal. There was no need to prove intent to cause religious hatred, only “recklessness”. Even as amended by parliament the bill might allow a prosecution to portray the cartoons as insulting and abusive and to dismiss the allowed defence that the intention was to attack ideas rather than people.

The same zest for broad-sweep censorship was shown in Charles Clarke’s last anti-terrorism bill. Its bid (again curbed by parliament) was to outlaw the “negligent”, even if unintended, glorification of terrorism. It wanted to outlaw those whose utterances might have celebrated or glorified a violent change of government, whether or not they meant to do so. Clarke proposed to list “under order” those historical figures he regarded as terrorists and those he decided were “freedom fighters”. The latter, he intimated, might include Irish ones. This was historical censorship of truly Stalinist ambition. By such men are we now ruled.

That a modern home secretary should seek such powers illustrates the danger to which a collapse of media self-restraint might lead. Last week there were demands from some (not all) Muslim leaders for governments to “apologise” for the cartoons and somehow forbid their dissemination. It was a demand that Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, commendably rejected. It assumed that governments had in some sense allowed the cartoons and were thus in a position to atone for them. Many governments might be happy to fall into this trap and seek to control deeds for which they may have to apologise. The glib assumption of blame where none exists feeds ministerial folie de grandeur, as with Blair’s ludicrous 1997 apology for the Irish potato famine.

In all matters of self-regulation the danger is clear. If important institutions, in this case the press, will not practise self-discipline then governments will practise it for them. Ascribing evil consequences to religious faith is a sure way of causing offence. Banning such offence is an equally sure way for a politician to curry favour with a minority and thus advance the authoritarian tendency. The present Home Office needs no such encouragement.

Offending an opponent has long been a feature of polemics, just as challenging the boundaries of taste has been a feature of art. It is rightly surrounded by legal and ethical palisades. These include the laws of libel and slander and concepts such as fair comment, right of reply and not stirring racial hatred. None of them is absolute. All rely on the exercise of judgment by those in positions of power. All rely on that bulwark of democracy, tolerance of the feelings of others. This was encapsulated by Lord Clark in his defining quality of civilisation: courtesy.

Too many politicians would rather not trust the self-restraint of others and would take the power of restraint onto themselves. Recent British legislation shows that a censor is waiting round every corner. This past week must have sent his hopes soaring because of the idiot antics of a few continental journalists.

The best defence of free speech can only be to curb its excess and respect its courtesy.

In response to some queries on why I haven't written something specifically on the abuse of the Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam), then that is because:

1. Many good people have written enough about it already

2. I feel too ashamed, living in Europe, to write when I know what the Shari'ah demands of us

Let there be no doubt: the crime of belittling the Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) results in instant death for the Muslim by unanimous opinion of the scholars, and the majority believe it to be the case as well for the Dhimmi and the Musta'man (those who have peace treaties etc) living in the Muslim lands under Islamic Law. That is how serious a crime this is.

As for these Europeans that are reviling the Prophet under their 'law' then we're at a dead end. As these non-Muslims are our own people living under their own law, we are forbidden to do anything that would contravene that law. How shameful for us.

Want to get an inside opinion on how I'm feeling at the moment on this subject? Have a little read of al-Shifa by Qadhi 'Iyadh (r) or if you're feeling really upto it, al-Sarim al-Maslul by Ibn Taymiyyah (r) and then tell me to calm down.

Why do we not have Shari'ah to preserve the Prophet's honour? Where is our Ameer al-Mu'mineen to run and avenge the Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam)? Where is that strength of the Believers that would make these criminals think twice before they lie under the banner of 'free speech'?

Seeing as we have no Shari'ah and seeing as we have no Leader and seeing as that we're struggling to gather even a motley crew of good enough 'believers' to grace the word 'Islam', then let us put our heads down in shame and humiliation, and let all those who can do something they feel worthwhile, do it.

Let us boycott, let us demonstrate, let us make our feelings known, let us educate, let us show the higher ethic - but let us also realise our individual pathetic state when we know the greatest of creation has been reviled and the criminals walk around smiling, and we just talk the talk and sell more European newspapers.

Wa Allahu Musta'an.

I know I shouldn't have written anything, because I find it difficult with such topics to control anything I write or say (cf the khutbah) descending into uncontrolled emotional rhetoric - so let me stop there and have mercy on my head and let the honourable Shaykh Riyad Nadwi put it a whole lot better than I ever will.


It's a Question of Love, Newsnight, not Fear!

By Shaykh Riyad Nadwi, PhD
03 February 2006

Muslims across the world voice their displeasure at cartoons in Europe depicting the Prophet of Islam (on whom be peace) as a terrorist, and journalists repeat the well-worn mantras of "wake-up call", "freedom-of-speech in danger", "Muslims must conform to our norms", and "secularist traditions under threat", many are still wondering, "What is all the fuss about?"

Last night on the BBC Newsnight programme, Mr Stephen Green of "Christian Voice", who had earlier led the campaign against the staging of "Jerry Springer the Opera", supported the cartoons by arguing that Islam is different. As he puts it, "Christians do not blow up bombs on the London Underground". I urge Mr Green to reflect on the fact that as a Muslim who loves and respects Jesus (on whom be peace) I was also deeply offended by the clips I saw of the Jerry Springer show, and the fact that a devout Christian like Mr Bush had invaded Muslim countries and probably caused the deaths of 150,000 Muslims in less than five years did not prevent me from writing a strong letter of protest against that opera.

These cartoons are being hailed as a barometer of freedom and European tradition and many Western commentators have begun to swallow this "spin" hook, line and sinker. A prime example of this was Mr Tim Whewell's report on Newsnight yesterday, in which the newspaper editor who engineered this controversy, Flemming Rose, called for a debate about how much the "receiving country" and "migrant community" have to compromise. For good measure, Mr Whewell included in his report a scroll through several anti-Zionist cartoons from Arab newspapers, without pointing out that nowhere in the Muslim world will you find a disparaging cartoon of the Prophet Moses (on whom be peace). Nor did Mr Whewell bother to look for the numerous examples of anti-Arab and anti-Muslim cartoons in the Israeli press. Jonathan Freedland of the Guardian followed this declaring, with an air of authority, "Of course, it looks a bit rich".

The first point that seems to have eluded these journalists, and also happens to be very convenient for a certain interest group, is that Muslims still love and respect their Prophet, genuine love that is, as usual, hard to express in words.

Indeed, it is difficult to find comparisons in today's Britain to convey the intensity of this sentiment to a Western audience. Perhaps the public emotion for Princes Diana upon her death and the respect for the Queen mother can help to elaborate the point. These were people who had relatively little impact on the daily lives of those who adored them and yet I doubt that there would be any newspaper in Britain today that would publish a derogatory cartoon of either of these women. To grasp a glimpse of the attachment Muslims have to their Prophet, one would need to combine the feelings of respect and love for these two women in the British consciousness and multiply it a hundred times over. The Prophet's words and deeds impact the lives of Muslims around the world every day in countless ways, from the way they greet each other in the morning to the last words they pray at night. He is for them the perfect example of guidance and compassion, and is dearer to a Muslim than his own family.

The second point that appears to evade journalists is that these cartoons, whilst undoubtedly very effective tools for creating tension between Palestinians and Europeans in Palestine, and between Muslims and Christians worldwide, were produced with the full knowledge of the impact they would have on the Muslim heart. When someone takes a conscious decision to offend 1.5 billion people across the world, "good journalism" requires a search to discover the underlying motives. What we were offered in Mr Whewell's report, however, was superficial gloss and inaccurate comparisons.

We need to ask the real question: if Muslims are forced to leave Europe, the Arab world stops trading with the West and the Palestinians sever links with European aid institutions, all because they are unable to accept the disparaging portrayal of their beloved Prophet, which country in the world will that benefit most?

The time has come for the editors of programmes such as Newsnight to stop furthering the agenda of others by scaring people into believing that they are about to be imprisoned by a Muslim army. Instead, they should start asking intelligent questions. Shouldn't "free speech" also provide the freedom to ask why there are so many pro-Israel journalists campaigning to promote Anthony Browe's "Triumph of the East" and Giselle Littman's "Eurabia" theories of scaremongering (http://www.occri.org.uk/articles/TriumphoftheEast.htm)?

To Muslims I say in expressing your feelings on this matter, please do not play into the hands of those who have orchestrated this campaign. We need to bear in mind that their objective is not simply to denigrate the Prophet (S.W.S) but to create fitna (strife in our world) between Muslims and the rest of the World. They study our history; they know that this technique has been employed successfully in the past. In Muslim Spain, there was a coordinated campaign of sending people to stand outside Mosques after Juma to curse the Prophet. The aim was to provoke excessive reaction and create friction with the non-Muslims, and sadly it worked. This campaign was the beginning of a long process that eventually culminated in the forced removal of Muslims from Spain altogether.

Difficult as it may be to control the eruption of feelings and anger in the face of such provocation, it is absolutely imperative that we maintain focus on the real source of this problem and not get entangled in the traps they have set for us.

Remember the story of Abu Bakr, the first Caliph (R.A.) who was sitting with the Prophet Muhammad (S.W.S) while someone cursed him repeatedly from across the road. Eventually Abu Bakr's patience was spent and he responded to the curses directed at the Prophet. The Prophet thereupon got up and walked away. When Abu Bakr asked "O Prophet of God, why did you walk away when I replied to his curses?" the Prophet said: "As he began cursing me, God appointed an Angel to respond on my behalf but as soon as you responded to him the angel went away".

Our responses must be both measured and wise so that our impulsive reactions do not become a source of celebration for our antagonists. Our love for the Prophet (S.W.S) should manifest itself in our words and our actions. Our claim to love Him will appear hollow if our actions violate the standard of conduct he has set for us.

Of course, we must let people know how we feel and the injustice done by this act of spiteful mockery, but for those of us who may feel that they must respond with equally spiteful generalisations and calls for extreme actions, in contravention of the teachings of the very Prophet that we are supposed to be defending, they must realise that they would be doing exactly what was expected of them by those who have instigated this problem in the first place.

Say (O Muhammad): "If ye do love God, follow me and God will love you and forgive you your sins: For God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful." (Al-Quran 3:31)

I hope to see some of you readers for the new PG course on Adab insha'Allah starting this Friday.




It'll be very beneficial for you to follow the circle with the text itself. You can find a nice translation online here or it'd be better to use the book version that we'll be going through in the class which can be purchased at World of Islam on Wilmslow Rd, Manchester (usually at a discount if you mention it's for the lesson).

It is of course for both men and women (no children if at all possible) and there are full, brand new audio and video facilities for the sister's side, especially after the 'Eid fiasco.

I hope it proves beneficial to all, and that we can implement the little we learn to produce big results, Ameen.

Be there or be an aloo paratha.