The incoherence of Ghazali

I wrote a brief piece for eteraz.org about my feeling of alienation from the discussion of the meaning of Ashura elsewhere in the Islamsphere. In a nutshell, I think that well-meaning Sunnis who try to frame the sacrifice of Imam Husain as a struggle against tyranny and injustice are vastly understating its importance. It's akin to appreciating the Qur'an solely for being a book of eloquent poetry, with a nice fancy cover.

In the discussion that ensued, someone took issue with my contention that there is concensus on the evil of Yazid (LA), quoting extensively from the reknowned Islamic philosopher Al-Ghazali:

"How should it be allowable to curse a Muslim," [Ghazali] asks, "when it is not permitted to curse the beasts of the field, and we have been prohibited from doing so ? . . . Now, it is certain that Yazid was a Muslim, but it is not certain that he slew Husayn or that he ordered or consented to, his death, and as long as these circumstances remain uncertain, it is not allowable to believe that he acted so. Besides, it is forbidden to think ill of a Muslim, since God has said: 'Be not ready to entertain suspicions of another, for it may be that these suspicions are a sin.'

Emphases mine. I find it somewhat ironic that the above was invoked as an example of Ghazali's famed tolerance, even though Ghazali's logic might well be applied to Osama bin Laden. I am in fact partly grateful to Daniel Haar for finding and transcribing the quotation above, for it cements my utter distaste for Ghazali, who was an enemy of the Mu'tazili and on the wrong side of philosophy from Thomas Aquinas and Ibn Rushd (Averroes).

Let us be unafraid to label a thinker "wrong" for our convictions are no lesser than theirs. I respect Ghazali for his achievements but do not respect his conclusions and will not hesitate to label them as wrongly conceived and reasoned. Since he was an enemy of Reason, and preferred the Will of Allah alone as the prime mover of events in the world, his wrongness is hardly a surprise.

Ghazali's contention that the "circumstances remain uncertain" surrounding the culpability of Yazid (LA) in ordering the death of Imam Husain (AS) is simply risible. As for Ghazali's incredibly disingenous interpretation of Qur'an 49:12 that "it is forbidden to think ill of a Muslim" (in fact, the ayat is a general discussion of backbiting or qiyas, and does not single out muslims in any way for applicability. Ghazali's sheer gall in equating an honest historical narrative of Yazid's treachery with "backbiting" is simply obscene).

The taint of Ghazali's apologism still pervades the muslim world and hinders a clear condemnation of evil in the name of Islam - far too many people who would not hesitate to condemn OBL were he a Jew are instead agnostic to his crimes. All in the name of a false muslim solidarity - ironic indeed, given that the victims of Al Qaeda are overwhelmingly muslim themselves!

My views on Ghazali are of course informed by my sectarian identity and theologic education in that context. Others rise to Ghazali's defense, but I don't see any reason to inject false balance when I have my conviction and faith already tipping the scale.

Haj 1427H

This year I had an oppoertunity to perform Haj (the annual pilgrimage for Muslims). This was my first time and I was very anxious and worried about the event prior to going. I heard all sorts of stories about the hardships of Haj with over 2.5 million visitors. I also saw something about how local governments in Medina missed golden opportunity to receive blessings and goodwill from the visiting mulsim brothers and sisters.

We arrived on Dec 17th first to Medina, the Prophet Muhammad (SA) city and the location of Masjid-Al-Nabawi Islam's second holiest location after Makkah and the Haram of Kaabah. Other than the usual feelings a person gets about visiting these holy sites, I wanted to share a few reflections of what I saw from the local government and their practices.

Thousands upon thousands flock to Medina to pay their respects to Rasululah (SA) at this Masjid and his grave site in Medina. Whether you were Shia or Sunni, people throng to the site. Why, you ask? It was obvious that the draw of the site and the holy meaning(s) of the masjid was attracting the people. Then why are the Saudi religious police preventing the muslim brothers from paying their respects properly. What I saw was the local police preventing their Muslm brothers from truly performing all the rituals. There are numerous accounts of these events and when I saw them first hand, it was sad but true. I understand that different Muslim traditions and sects have their own beliefs, but blocking a fellow muslim brother to just perform a few rituals that spiritually lifts him / her and to allow them to experience their own fullfillment of their once in a lifetime trip is a crime against Islam. It is disrespecting the legacy of the Rasullulah (AS). It goes against the grain of the basics of Islam.

The same can be said about Jannatul-Baqi - the Prophets graveyard where the Shia sect have their most respected leaders including the Ahelebait (progeny and family) of Rasululah (AS) - Molatena Fatema (AS), Imam Hassan (AS), Imam Ali-Zainul Abidin (AS), Imam Jafer-Us-Sadiq (AS) and Imam Bakir (AS) and many more. Again the Saudi local police has a huge banner outside which says that one should not consider coming to the gravesite anything but a reminder of death and what it means to you. It says, paying respects to the dead should not be more than just that. They misuse a hadith to make this point. This is all well and good, but again Islam is a huge body of people with many different interpretation. We are not here to debate who is right and wrong but rather to allow muslims of various traditions to express himself freely and show the beautiful diversity of our culture. Why keep the Baqi grounds closed at all times except for a meager 3 hours in a day? Why prevent people from allowing them to pay their respect their way at the gravesite? What purpose does it serve for the police other than impose and opress their own Muslim brothers? The local government claims they are custodians of these holy sites and it is their "privilage" to serve the Muslim Ummah! I would respectfully diagree and say that they are doing everything BUT serving their brothers.

Don't get me wrong, the local government spends millions on infrastructure but keep in mind they are not doing it for free! The country receives almost unlimited economic benefits from Muslims visiting these holy sites and during Haj they charge almost $300 per head in fees. This is not free by any means. Furthermore, the multitude economic benefit of Mulsims buying and conducting tourist commerce when they visit these sites is also a huge benefit to the government.

It is sad that the Saudi government is trapped in their Wahabi principals and are missing the opportunity to serve their fellow brothers and show the diversity and yet unity in Islam. Instead of receiving barakaat (blessings) of prayers from their Muslim brothers for serving them, they receive the wrath of Millions of Muslims feeling a little disappointed after every Haj. What a missed opportunity indeed!!!

Taqqiya!

Apparently, Barack Obama (or as his detractors call him, Barry Saddam Hussein Osama) has "concealed" being a muslim all these years. And, to some, this makes him the Islamist Manchurian Candidate.

I've got a lengthy piece on the issue at DailyKos - please recommend it if you have an account there.

woah

I hadno idea until right now how horrible my blog looks in Internet Explorer. I'm a Firefox guy, myself. Apologies to you long-suffering IE readers. Will try to make it look better sometime. In the meantime, may I suggest.. *ahem*

Enlightenment, humbug

I've been meaning to write a critique of the Enlightenment for some time now, but am still formulating my own argument. I am more of an Enlightenment man than not, but as a philosophy it is incomplete, and there is nothing within it that can both be true in a universal sense and also the sole domain of Christianity; what is needed is a generalized restatement of the neccessary parts.

In the meantime however Daniel Larison takes on the big E from his own Christian perspective, and I say bravo:

...it is entirely possible to accept that God created everything without having to insist upon the absolute literal interpretation of every number (many of which are clearly symbolic in any case) in the Bible. It is also possible to accept that God created all living things while also acknowledging that evolution is a plausible explanation for how living beings change over time. It is possible to despise Voltaire as an impious fool and loathe Locke as a treacherous stockjobbing mountebank and to view their ideas with disdain without insisting that we live in caves and eat raw meat while dying of the plague.

I've added his post the Enlightenment feed, which also features prominently on the sidebar at Super-Rational.

dhaaaaaaLLeen

Svend White had an interesting post which attracted a tangential critique from irascible old Lounsbury, on the matter of transliteration (note: NOT translation) from Arabic to English. The irony of Lounsbury taking someone to task for being pretentious aside, the discussion at Aqoul actually got interesting enough for me to chime in. Also check out Willow's commentary at Eteraz. All in all, a satisfying intra-Islamsphere familial squabble.

interview with Sayyed Mohammad Ali El Husseini

Michael Totten interviews the soft-spoken moderate Shia cleric at his home in Lebanon. There is much wisdom that Sayyid Husseini has to offer, such as:

“I believe that plenty of the Western people believe that there are two kinds of people,” Husseini said. “Some who believe in peace and God and some that believe in violence and the devil. While I was in Germany, I met a student. He told me that I am a Muslim, that I am a terrorist. I told him that he is the German, that he burned people. I said Why are you talking to me? I didn’t burn anybody. I told him also that I didn’t terrorize anybody, and that I was the first person to condemn what Osama bin Laden did to America on 9/11. I told him that we, the Shia people, in Iraq we were the first victims. Saddam killed civilian people, he cut off our heads, he blew up our houses. I told him that Hitler burned the Jews. Nobody in the world has done what he did. Then I told him we are the same. You are German, and you are not Hitler. I am a Muslim, but I am not Osama bin Laden.”

However, Michael has his own insights as well:

It’s extraordinary how the violent extremists of the Middle East have managed to portray themselves as mainstream in front of Westerners. In some countries, such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia, perhaps at least the passive supporters of Islamists really are mainstream. In most places, though, they are not. Religiously moderate Muslims are easy to find in the Middle East, especially in modern countries like Turkey and Lebanon. But they get precious little attention in the media. Those with the rocket launchers and the self-detonation belts are more newsworthy and get much more press.

This is why demands of moderate muslims to somehow account for or do something about the extremists are so misguided. Read Totten's entire interview with Husseini - it's a fantastic interview. And support Michael's travels in the Middle East as well.