Past Present & Future

thanks for that recommendation nazli ( and Hakim too) - i will look that up. And of course i realize i can’t get ALL the information in the world from the net - as that would depend on everything having been published in book form having been scanned in etc. i do have access to libraries you know. 
But perhaps you would be suprised at how easy it is to access older books online - there has been a big drive in the last 10 years or so to get a lot of Islamic texts, tafsirs, sirah, etc. online, out of print publications scanned in etc. And bibliographies too -which are easy to look up online - and then go hunt the book down, or again, see if there is an electronic copy on the net. Any researcher worth their salt knows the value of the net as a giant electronic index if nothing else.

as i said, i’m planning to put up bibliographies and links to articles where they are available - on a page on my blog. right now, anyone can have a look through my del.icio.us bookmarks if they’re interested.

By sonia on Jul 18, 2007

Ahem! Why do you think that’s an exaggeration Rasheed?

achelois - i’ve just dropped you a line from my work account, ( which i can’t check over weekends though..just to point out) cheers, and thanks for that.

By sonia on Jul 19, 2007

good point nazli - of course at the end of the day without knowledge of Classical Arabic there are many texts one won’t be able to read, which is interesting isn’t it - for the vast majority of muslims who don’t know any arabic! ( well apart from being able to decipher the characters in order to recite the Quran)

There are many Islamic bookstores on the internet now - they’re a good place to see what’s available in English and what isn’t - and then go and find them in a library etc.  This particular one called Wardah Books 

specialises in English books

By sonia on Jul 20, 2007

this bookstore has a good selection in english as well

i’m on the opposite end of the scale when it comes to discussions on the meaning of ritual in other languages i’m afraid, just doesn’t and didn’t make any sense to me - but of course it is not for me to say anything about anyone else’s preferences/etc. If it is meaningful to them in some way ( which it must be for them to carry on doing it) that’s their choice. but personally speaking, the whole ’salat’ in arabic thing was the biggest barrier to ’successful inculcation of religion’ for me -first as a child - then later as a teenager.

By sonia on Jul 20, 2007

hi sumera, thanks for that - i’ll take a look at what Rasheed said. yeah they would have been a bit miffed i suppose! generally what seems to happen when people ‘convert’!
I am aware that some women do ejaculate on reaching orgasm, but the hadith seems to indicate it was ‘normal’ and still comes up with a funny explanation for a child looking like which parent! it sounded a bit superstitious to me, like an old wives tale. anyway, i personally found it strange.

By sonia on Jul 21, 2007

i can’t say that Rasheed’s line of reasoning on your post-( sorry!) i.e. him trying to explain away why that excerpt isn’t original sin-y - makes ANY sense to me. He says Adam and Eve ‘introduced’ disloyalty because they were the first people to be disloyal! What a strange bit of logic.  that should also then mean - being the the first people, then they ‘introduced’ behaviour - full stop. good or bad - they “introduced” it. which as i see it, is a particularly odd concept, but perhaps it makes sense to some. ( bit like the whole creationism thing. ) So seeing as you could proclaim that about everything - ‘new’ as Adam and Eve’s “introduction” -what’s the point of making that connection?  maybe i’m a bit thick, but unless we bring a ‘blame’ factor into it, i can’t see the point unless its some abstruse discussion on existentialism or something.
Sumera, your comment to Rasheed about this all - makes good sense, to me anyway!
iin any case, what would be the point in saying such a thing? ( this Hadith i mean, not Rasheed’s explaining away of odd Hadiths in a highly determined fashion. (sidenote -I wonder if he could have used such logic to explain away Christianity’s foibles?) After all -it sounds a bit like the dodgy logic used to explain the Trinity, to me. you know an explanation that’s not really an explanation.
so yeah - what could the point possibly be for a Hadith saying that the first person who introduced murder - has a share of the burden. WHat’s the moral of the story, or the learning we are meant to get from this particular one?

By sonia on Jul 21, 2007

heh good one Sin, yep.

By sonia on Jul 23, 2007

good points! especially the bit about the angels! i’m reading that article you sent me Suroor - thanks very much for that, i’m annoyed i cant get access to JSTOR anymore..

By sonia on Jul 25, 2007

hadiths - as a body of text - are tied in (as far as my very little research indicates to me) in as much as the 9th century scholars used them to clarify their understanding of the Quran. A reading of Quranic tafsir will show us that very often, the scholars were using [ particular] hadiths to justify whatever particular interpretation they were proposing. Or explain their understanding of the ‘context’.
of course, people would have to know tafsir in detail to work out which hadith was cross-referenced where.
and of course, if you want to review that process anyway, ( Quranic interpretations) like Asma barlas does - it makes sense to keep this interlinking - in mind.

but more generally ( not about specific sources) what has the role of the Sunnah been - in shaping Islamic heritage and fiqh? Quite a crucial one I would have thought. Yes I might not read any more hadiths ever again, but it is eye-opening if only to see where so many of the south asian village maulvis are getting their ideas from. ( whereas before, my parents always said, ah no they just made it up.) Yes it might still be the case that yes the hadiths might be made up, but given how important they are in the Islamic tradition, it’s not suprising to me - now - that all the maulvis are wandering around thinking what they do.

At the very least, i would imagine muslims need to know what is actually in the texts that are supposed to be part of the tradition! then of course, you use your brain to figure out what you think about it.

By sonia on Jul 26, 2007

Harmonie - thanks and a very good point!!

By sonia on Jul 26, 2007

been on holiday Haleem - sorry! i should’ve posted a ‘hiatus’ message - but was too busy in the run-up for even that.

fugstar - “you feminists” -( sounds a bit dismissive that) well i’ll speak for myself - why am i obsessed with hadith busting? ooh i dunno, i guess because religion is supposed to be all that and clearly it isn’t - in my point of view anyway - and if it can’t stand up to a little critique, well then. i’ve highlighted a few that i think are strange - if you don’t find anything weird about it, that’s your view and you’re welcome to it! for me personally, yes i have issues with the religion i grew up with, and I’m sure being female influenced that- but it hardly stopped at that, had i been male i think i would have still had issues ( of course i don’t know that) i perceive there are many problems with religion ( not just islam) and theism overall - and I am entitled to that view, as you are yours. if you feel someone you don’t want to hear what people with no commitment to Islam are thinking, that’s your prerogative.
but please don’t tar all my readers with the same brush- i think there are many people who read and post comments here and may fall into ‘feminist’ category, ( but most probably don’t self-define as such, i certainly don’t meself, the term to me implies a bias towards women when actually what im interested in is all about individual human rights, regardless of gender ) and whilst some may have issues with some hadiths, or particular aspects of some hadiths, that doesn’t mean that they are ‘hadith-busters’ or are anti-religion. not at all.

and also to point out:  i haven’t actually written on whether feminism is incompatible with religion. there are plenty of people who are religious and feel there is space for their ‘feminist’ thoughts within that and i definitely respect their viewpoints and certainly don’t think it’s an ‘invalid’ position.

i’m sorry if you’ve felt you need to take such a “defensive” line to my posts, and if they have ‘offended’ you.  but in any case, “good luck talking to yourselves”, well possibly you should have said ’self’ - and that’s fine, its a blog after all - its for me to express myself. i haven’t got a ‘crew’ or anything who sit and agree with me on everything - hardly, most of the comments if you look around are anything but ‘agreeing’ type comments.

By sonia on Sep 7, 2007

yes he is absolutely right of course, and is eloquent about it. there is a huge array of conflicting opinions, indeed that’s what starts every person- who is brought up as a muslim - search for the ‘truth’.

By sonia on Sep 28, 2007

Yes, actually, I daresay we shouldn’t take these ’snapshots’. We should read all the Hadith collections, then come back and comment. I’ve been reading the various Books in Sahih Muslim and Bukhari, and yes, taken together, they do paint an even more “interesting” picture of the Prophet, even more “damning” if anything. ( in my eyes, and i bet if i republished some of them, gave the bloke another name, like Harry or something, and then I’m sure more Muslims would be offended. It is because it is our precious Revered Holy Prophet that we find it so difficult to accept that they are saying what they are saying! a man has sex with all his wives in one night - what kind of material is that to record for posterity? What is someone meant to think a few centuries down the line?)

The full picture of the Hadith, I am sorry to say, presents a picture which is certainly not to my taste- if i am being diplomatic. and these are stories from the Horse’s Mouth! I find it interestingly bizarre, that a religion which goes around saying its founder was a Holy Man, should allow such material to be published and distributed!! What incredible psychology.

By sonia on Oct 30, 2007

Yes excuse me folks, but i will simply have to link to the next instalment in the Hadith series ( why stop when you have started!!) Seeing as Mullahs like to scrutinize  everyone’s sex lives..

Volume 1, Book 5, Number 268:

Narrated Qatada:

Anas bin Malik said, “The Prophet used to visit all his wives in a round, during the day and night and they were eleven in number.” I asked Anas, “Had the Prophet the strength for it?” Anas replied, “We used to say that the Prophet was given the strength of thirty (men).” And Sa’id said on the authority of Qatada that Anas had told him about nine wives only (not eleven).

By sonia on Oct 30, 2007

heh, nothing ‘wrong’ with it per se of course, (if you like that sort of thing, personally i’d prefer a prophet spent more time reading - or something, even smoking some pot and reflecting on life, perhaps) my comment was seeing as the Mullah’s like to scrutinise and comment on everyone else’s sex life, I thought we should keep our revered Prophet’s raunchy examples in front of us, and as a good reminder of sexual standards for men to follow./ Other than providing some kind of standard, what was the point of including the Prophet’s sexual exploits? Well perhaps given the material the Bible is filled with, it’s hardly surprising. Good wholesome family reading.
( oh and there i was thinking all along, that this whole polygamy thing was about a different night for each wife etc, i daresay even the polygyny supporters would be PISSED if they only got a 1/4 night turn! wham bam thank you mam comes to mind. But never mind me, if it says so in the Hadith, then why should we criticise frat boy behaviour eh? the more the merrier isn’t it. our prophet i’m sure would be revered by teenage boys all over the world - why hasn’t anyone told them this stuff? Being a Muslim man certainly seems to have its perks, but then again, perhaps these were just tasty morsels for the Prophet alone. Who wouldn’t want to be a Prophet at this rate? i’m suprised more people haven’t had a shot themselves at setting themselves up as Messiahs. Just think - all those people to get indignant on your behalf all those centuries down the line. “Do anything you like, you’re the Prophet, you can do no wrong.”

and yes, i suppose i am a victim of my ‘nafs’ - why not? {who knows what is false and what is not!} what else should i be a victim of - predestination? God’s will? Perhaps God is employing me as a tool - you shouldn’t be too hasty in your judgement - you never know do you? I have been meditating recently, mind you, not in a cave though.
i don’t mind, either which way. I don’t expect people to not theorize on why I might think the way I do. i’m perfectly willing to realize my reality is just that - my perception, no one else’s.

the questions i ask are actually perfectly obvious: man tomorrow rides up, and wins lots of battles, gets all the girls, gets lots of territory, says he’s the messiah, sent by god, don’t you know, it would be rather funny if none of us said, “oh yeah? you ain’t just saying that to make it all ok what you’re doing?” obviously he may well be sent down by God, and equally he may be a charlatan. 50% 50% chance. i wouldn’t want to bet my soul on that kind of outcome, but hey that’s me. if it makes people happier to think that the memo did come from God, well then. if i’ve learned anything, its that the power of the idea of God is very powerful - why should we not all use it when it comes handy? Dismissing religion is dismissing one of the most powerful propaganda tools out there, i wonder if Dawkins has thought of that. If i were him, i’d announce myself the new Messiah on my next TV appearance, and convert the masses.

mind you, i always thought, the idea of a ‘prophet’ is so undemocratic - and a single communication channel - why could the memo not have been broadcast to all of us?

what a lot of tangents i am going off on - must mean i am enjoying myself. the simple fact that people get so defensive - when the charlatan question is raised, is what i find intriguing about the effects of religion. very interesting to study. in the end, it doesn’t really matter does it? we’ll all die and some of us will be in for a shock, we might find out God is Hindu, God is a lesbian - who knows! God might even ask us all why we were so gullible, that we failed all the tests and let some sleazy old men fool us, who twisted God’s word in order to be God’s viceregent on earth. Terrible.
i wonder if it will be like an Agatha Christie whodunit.

By sonia on Oct 31, 2007

thanks faisal! yes that is quite funny isn’t it. TDH i know what you mean.

omar, each to their own. of course humans will have different norms. however, does “God” not transcend culture? seems not!

By sonia on Dec 30, 2007

but regarding your wider point Omar, about what ‘islam’ is or isn’t - i am not focusing on actually, i was going by - as someone brought up as a Muslim - what is accepted as texts central to ‘islam’ whatever that is.

By sonia on Dec 30, 2007

thanks for your comments Omar. Yes it is interesting that religions are not more honest about what they are really about, personally i think it is ridiculous that they are portrayed by those who wish to disseminate them - as being about ethics and morality. Clearly it is not, so I feel that is a significant misrepresentation, and hence my interest in pointing that out. Once that is set aside, there are many interesting aspects - for example as with Sufism, and with any ideas of a metaphysical nature - of course. To criticise religion for its negativities, most notably its attempt to control social organisation through reference to the metaphysical - is hardly to sound a death-knell to introspection or reflection on any level, metaphysical or not, spiritual or otherwise, however people choose to define such things for themselves.  I should have thought that was obvious to any intelligent reader.
As far as i can see, group identity and the historical dimension are really the main facets of what Islam is to most Muslims. And of course people are free - and should be - to believe in what they like, for reasons which they deem fit and correct. I do think that the morality element should be made much clearer though, if for reasons of honesty if nothing else.

I had forgotten to respond to your point about norms about sexual morality varying between cultures - which is of course often the case, to different degrees. However there are many shared aspects. And i think with what i am discussing here - its pretty obvious that my assumption is that - in all our human cultures, capture and rape by victor - however justified/’normalized’ it may be to the victor/(or people who see the victor’s side of things) , it is certainly universal that the victims - or victim’s families, would also feel traumatized by it, and find it unacceptable.

you may feel free to disagree with that, for whatever reason, or on the grounds of moral relativity, or lack of knowledge about people in those situations throughout history. (i would say it has been a very common situation. most recently we have the bangladesh and pakistan situation and the ‘disputes’ about women being raped).

and yes, you can call me a fundmentalist for having such an opinion. ( i do feel it is a pretty fundamental facet of being human -empathy - and recognising what your “victim” is going to be going through, because you damn well ought to know that you’d feel the same yourself. without that empathy, we’d all be sociopaths. not connecting how we feel when something is done to us, with doing that same thing to someone else. but perhaps that’s the point, we humans are probably more sociopathic than we realise.)

but i digress. I am operating on the principle that if your wife was raped tomorrow by some enemy soldier, you wouldn’t like it, regardless of any justification that may be proffered, and that that would be a perfectly normal human reaction, and that is something i strongly empathize with.
If the Muslim men’s wives had been similarly captured and ‘used’ ( if you dont want to use the term ‘rape’) by some Mecca men, for example, i feel pretty sure the Muslims would have had some objections. ( Which is also tied up with doing it to the other side first, so you are victor, and not the victim and have it done to you)

Would you disagree with that?

Or would you suggest that if the Muslim’s men’s wives had been captured by their enemy after victory over the Muslim men - and did the same sort of thing - “married” them - or had sexual relations with them which they claimed were legitimate - that the victims would not have an issue? Would not dispute that the Meccans had no ‘legitimate’ claim to having sex with the Muslim wives conquered, or even worse! having sex with the Prophet’s wives. yes - why dont’ you think about that - are you suggesting you wouldn’t find it offensive - why you’d find it blasphemous wouldn’t you. And if he were an ordinary man - you think he wouldn’t mind having his wife taken by some conquering soldier?

That suggest to me that they knew full well how the ‘other’ side would be feeling. I think we all know that for centuries - in the desert - and elsewhere - conquerors taking the local women has always been a way at getting at the local men. As it still is now unfortunately in many conflicts, and also in peacetime - ordering the rape of a woman to humiliate her tribe, her men -we all know many instances of this. Certainly in Bedouin desert tribal customs which were around before and at the time of Mohammed.

But perhaps religion - like war - exhibits sociopathy?

I am less concerned with any notion of the divine or the lack thereof - i am more concerned with human behaviour - ( and the excuses we provide ourselves) perhaps i should make that clearer. I am only interested in religion as a good case-study on human beings and our behaviour, and our beliefs.

By sonia on Jan 16, 2008

thanks for your comments douglas! and i hope you had a lovely start to the new year! i had a great time thanks - hope to be writing back here again about it very soon..

i definitely intend to look up Omar’s recommended texts. I just noticed though he said

There are many Western scholars who have invested their time to explain Islam in a way people with a Western background can comprehend it.
..Since it has to make sense. Religions don’t spread solely by and for power.)

i wonder if he perhaps thinks i haven’t a Muslim background , and that i grew up in the ‘West’? and not in the “Global South”? certainly it seems like perhaps he assumes i didnt spend most of my formative growing up years in the Middle East? I have of course - through my own experience - of being a ‘born’ Muslim - an idea of what keeps most of us as Muslims, (most of whom dont know jack about dimensions, vertical or otherwise, and couldn’t care less one way or the other i feel) even those of us who might wish to not be really, and again i dont think this very different to other religions elsewhere. and i think the experience of Muslims in majority muslim countries is different to Muslims living in non-majority countries, for example, in the US or UK etc. So i don’t have any personal experience of the Western Muslim persepctive - e.g. the ‘British Muslim’ experience, or the American Muslim experience.

And i know very little about what drives those who convert to Islam in the West, ( and elsewhere) - so hence reading blogs of folks like Umar Lee very anthropologically interesting for me. ( the way its tied up with notions of race and what appear to be cultural superiority/inferiority complexes - i find thoroughly fascinating! I wonder what the reaction to Islam’s history of imperialism is, these guys seem to be generally obsessed with ‘white imperialism’ and appear to see Islam as some sort of ‘antidote’. Which of course it may offer now to them , but in the same way the “West” has its negative history, so too does the history of Islam and its expansion around the world, i’m interested to see how objective people can be about these things, there’s a little bit of ‘hero worship’ going on it seems..again very interesting sociologically)

To sum up, i think i used to know very little about what people seem to refer to as a “Western” conception of Islam - whether of non-Muslims -and Muslims who grew up in the “West”. Obviously given the hoo-ha since 9/11 its been very interesting to follow the way this whole thing is framed.

I would say i definitely have a different angle i’m approaching all this stuff with, i’ve been talking mostly about the wider context of my own journey through religion - and about one specific aspect.  so i think ive been approaching it from the lens of my own personal background and story. WHIch is after all - what blogs are for - aren’t they!

By sonia on Jan 17, 2008

thank you very much dear douglas, i too have learnt a lot from reading about other people’s thoughts and perspectives.

By sonia on Jan 18, 2008

heh douglas you do come up with questions!

i suspect there is really a multitude of questions/complexities in what you ask.

firstly there’s so much confusion about terminology, people mean different things by similar terms, feminist islam ( would mean different things to different people) are we talking about ‘Islam’ or are we talking about feminists. are we talking about people wanting to reform Islam ( like say..Irshad Manji or someone) or are we talking about wanting to change social practices that may be bound up with religious belief. And if we’re talking about changing what actually passes as ‘religion’ - well that’s a whole different topic altogether with its own sub-questions. What we mean by “religion” - lots of people are there to protect orthodoxy, are we talking about looking at new religious interpretation etc. And what do most people thinkof when they think ‘religion’ anyway? Something abstract or something real. i think its always linked to why religion is important to people. i’m a bit post-modern ( and wussy and soppy and very un- “stern -enlightenment-Modernist-” in my wanting to have people happy, if religion is a comfort blanket, i think we need to work with that, not necessarily against it ( of course this doesn’t mean one can’t go on being critical at the same time)
or is the whole thing about comparing different kinds of feminisms in a competitive kind of way ( which for some people, there seems to be some big competition out there, frankly its a bit spiteful and meow! so i dont find it very interesting.) we should be critical of anything and any -ism we find!

personally i think women who are religious who are going to pass it on to their kids are the ones with lots of responsibility in passing things on, how they bring up their sons and daughters, and that is a big thing, so i think its great so many women are thinking about feminism and their religion together, how they can fit, etc. they’re more likely to make a difference to the lives of the kids being brought up Muslim. in the end people obviously have the freedom ( and have done in many ways) to make religion into what they want ( the evolution of Christianity and what it means to people is interesting)

i think its useful speaking out our minds too, so that people realise they’re not the only ones with questions in their heads. we can only share our thought processes. I dont know if im right or not about god or the lack thereof, i find religion to be not useful for me, but clearly that is not necessarily the case for the vast majority of people who are born in the indian subcontinent ( for example) and for whom, faith of some kind or other will be a big part of their lives and their social spheres. so id rather people infused a bit of ‘feminism’ into that, so slowly religious customs over time become less problematic for women. (e.g. FGM being practices by muslim women who say its to do with religious requirements)

Overall i do find intellectually interesting people whose thinking lead them to look for an explanation of what appear to be contradictions between what is believed to be good intent in religion and the disparity between real practice, and often what is actually written in text. this of course opens up the business of religious interpretation. asma barlas is is very interesting person to read on this, no doubt amongst others. {’unreading’ patriarchal interpretations} i dont know very much about it but its generally about working out how much of what is religious canon is due to subjective interpretation etc. Of course there is a big battle with orthodox thinkers trying to protect those who have that monopoly pretty much sown up tight, but again, its about how widely these ideas get disseminated and spark people’s own questions, and through that, eventually, social practices. So i am interestedly looking on.

but at the end of the day, we as people need to work out for ourselves- on the world, earthly level, im not talking about metaphysics here, or the deity or not thing, the reality of our social practices- obviously being connected to how what we think and behave, how we teach children and pass memes on. if we can’t be critical enough to work out how its all interconnected, phooey, but well then its our responsibility to accept our agency in that too, can’t be going off and shoving it ‘off’ onto ’someone else’. ‘he did it!’…

By sonia on Jan 24, 2008