All hail the priesthood of illiterate believers!

What exactly is this “strict form of Islamic Law”; al- Shabab would like to impose on the semi-literate masses of Somalia?

The one which will allow them to randomly abduct and stone 13 year old girls whom they have “suspected” of committing “adultery” to death?

The one which will allow them to police the Salat?

The one which allow them to destroy all of the traditional Islamic architecture of Somalia and wage a total war against an assortment of practices which have historically been integral to traditional orthodox Sunni Islam?

Once again, I am afraid we are seeing the fruits of the "Islamic reformation" which the Friedman’s, Manji’s, and Rushdie’s of the world have so fervently campaigned for right before our very eyes! It is quite evident from their words and actions that Al-Shabab like their Islamic modernist counterparts Hamas,



In this paper I will briefly analyze the origins and evolution of early Islamic modernism and its political expression in the Arab world by using the religious studies methods we discussed in class.

The Origins of Islamic Modernism
Islamic modernism was born out of the Muslim world’s initial encounter with western modernity and colonialism during the early 19th to the early 20th centuries. It like its secular nationalist counterparts was but one of many responses to the changing social, political, and economic landscape of the Middle East during the time. However, what distinguished it from its innumerable secular oriented rivals was its distinctively religious character and global appeal.

While different variants of secular nationalism sought to appeal to and unite specific ethno-linguistic groups residing in the greater Muslim world, Islamic modernists sought to appeal to all Muslims regardless of their ethnic, racial, or linguistic make up. They also sought formulate a common Islamic political and cultural identity that would bring about pan-Islamic unity and serve as both an instrument for the modernization of the Muslim world and a rallying call against European Imperialism.

It was the proponents of Islamic modernism’s moderate and fairly nuanced approach regarding the modernization of the Muslim world which highlighted the voluminous difference between them and their secular oriented counterparts and ultimately guaranteed their ideologies wholesale incorporation into the social and cultural fabrics of numerous societies throughout the Muslim world.(Hamzawy p.6) While Islamic modernism’s ideological opponents called for the rash and immediate discarding of the judicial and political aspects of Islamic law in favor of a coercive overnight secularization process and the wholesale importation of western legal systems, Islamic modernists like Jamal ad-Din al-Afghani, Muhammad `Abduh, and Rashid Rida only called for the discarding of the traditional, nuanced, understanding of these aspects of the law in favor of the judicial process of Ijtihad (Housain p.108-109).

Like their reformist counterparts the Wahhabis of Arabia, Islamic modernists rejected the four traditional schools of Islamic Jurisprudence which have historically transmitted Islamic Law, because they held the staunch opinion that it was the Muslim world’s lack of innovation and stringent insistence on the imitation of their medieval forefathers which brought about their scientific and economic stagnation as well as their humiliating military downfall and wholesale degradation. As the Islamic modernist and future intellectual forefather of the Muslim Brotherhood Muhammad Abduh put it “The supposed superiority of the ancients was a mere pretext to keep intact the absurdities of the past.”(Engineer p.165)

In place of classical Islamic Law, Abduh and his fellow Islamic modernists advocated the development of a new hermeneutical technique which would interpret Islam’s sacred texts in a “rational and liberal manner in light of modern times”. This ‘new and enlightened” exegesis of the sacred texts according to Abduh and his cohorts would bring about “Islamic brotherhood, tolerance, and social justice” (Housain p.108). Time of course would ultimately show that the monstrously sophomoric and unsophisticated hermeneutical method of the Islamic modernists would not produce “brotherhood, tolerance, and social justice” but rather it would produce a trend in modern Islamic thought known as the ‘Islamisation of Knowledge” which would go on to bare poisonous fruits like Mummer al-Kaddafi’s murderously oppressive concept of ‘Islamic Socialism’, Ruhollah Khomeini’s menacingly fascistic “Islamic Constitutional Republic” and Abul Ala Maududi’s infamous brand of Leninism in religious garb. It is of course important to note that none of the above mentioned movements are a product of the explicit teachings of the founders of Islamic modernism, but rather a product of the reckless individualistic reformist ethos which they propagated.

The Muslim Brotherhood
While the Islamic modernist’s programs of Pan-Muslim unity and Islamic modernization were appealing to small sector within the larger secularized Muslim intelligentsia, their agenda for social, political, economic, and educational reform remained largely theoretical and unheard of by members of the general population in the Arab world until the formation of the Muslim Brotherhood in 1929. Following the founding of the brotherhood by the Islamic school teacher and Rashid Rida idolizer Hassan al-Banna; the Islamic modernists began implementing wide scale programs promoting social and economic change on a grass roots level. Initially the brotherhood concentrated its energies on creating a welfare society in Egypt, however it eventually gained its massive popularity in the Arab world through it militantly vocal opposition to the colonization of Muslim lands including British occupied Palestine by organizing mass protest rallies; a tactic which eventually garnered the organization a large amount of popular support both in Egypt as well as in neighboring nations in the Levant.(Abu Amar p.11) By the time the state of Israel was founded in 1948 the Muslim Brotherhood had grown from its initial seven members to a highly sophisticated socio-political organization with a membership base consisting of over two Million people, an additional three branches of its organization established in the Levant and a highly publicized military confrontation with the State of Israel.( Housain p.72) The Muslim Brotherhoods fortunes however were about to take a drastic turn for the worst.

In 1952 after a four year period of Arab unrest and discontent over Arab forces is defeat at the hands of the Israelis during the 1948 war of Israeli Independence, a group of secular Arab nationalist officers in the Egyptian Army with the moral support of the Brotherhood overthrew the Egyptian Monarchy and established a secular Arab Republic in its place, ushering in a new era in Middle Eastern History (Housain p.165). Initially the relationship between the Muslim Brotherhood and the new secular established were so good that the Brotherhood was popularly labeled the “party of the government” (Abu Amar p. 7) however this honeymoon was short lived. In 1954 after a fall out with Jamal abd al-Nasser the leader of the Free Officers movement which seized power, regarding the terms of an evacuation treaty between Britain and Egypt, an attempt was made on Nasser’s life and the Muslim Brotherhood ended up bearing the blunt of the blame for the would be assassination effort. (Abu Amar p. 8) Following the incident, Nasser ordered the immediate arrest of all key Muslim Brotherhood members and and high profile affiliates. The incidents of systematic and widespread oppression and brutality on the part of the Egyptian government against the Muslim Brotherhood which would take place in the following decade would eventually cause the wholesale political radicalization of what has otherwise been a historically non-violent socio-political organization.

The Mainstreamization of Islamic Modernism
While the Muslim Brotherhood temporarily found themselves in the lime light, it would be their organization in particular and ideological movement in general which would find itself having the last laugh and not their Arab nationalist rivalries. Following Nasser’s imprisonment of his adversaries, and massive decade long popularity surge after the 1956 Suez War, he and his entourage were faced with what humiliating anomy-esq defeat of the greater Arab world’s collective military forces at the hands of a nation state the size of Togo. Indeed it was this event which many Middle East historians have deemed to be a turning point in the regions history.

Following the Arab world’s humiliating defeat in 1967 a plethora of theodicean questions regarding the spiritual state of the Arab nation and their relationship with the God of Abraham began to be asked by Arab societies from the Atlantic to the Gulf. Many Arabs found it extremely difficult to grasp why God would grant the ‘evil prophet killers’ of Israel such a momentous victory against the Arab peoples?( Housain p.169) The answer according to the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist organizations in the Muslim world was quite simple: God was punishing the Arab masses for their violation of the dictates of the Shariah, wholesale embracement of secularism and socialism, support for Nasser’s vehemently anti-Muslim regime, and alignment with the Godless ‘Evil Empire’ known as the Soviet Union.( Housain p.169) According to the Brotherhood, God would naturally favor the State of Israel over the Muslims who turned their backs on their religion because it was a “religious state founded on Judaism”. (Housain p.169-170) The Arab world’s reflection on these questions as well as the arson attack on the al-Aqsa Mosque, and the founding of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, eventually gave way to the wholesale social embracement of Islamic Modernism.










To my knowledge not one of the four schools of Islamic Jurisprudence which have historically transmitted the Shariah sanction any of the activities I have mentioned above.




_______________________________________________________________________
While the feeble minded Islamists of Najdi persuasion may temporarily bring the failed state of Somalia out of a Hobbesian state of nature, in the end their fascistic Islamist tendencies will work to the determent of not only the impoverished and illiterate Somalia masses, but the Muslim Ummah as a whole.



The Way Forward
The Somali Militants should reject the deviant Wahhabi teachings of their Saudi funders and embrace traditional Sunni Islam. They should discard their doctrine of Sola Scriptura and fallacy ridden hermeneutics when it comes to the law and subscribe to one of the traditional schools of Islamic Jurisprudence. Their can be NO SHARIAH without FIQH.

More European Moral Hypocrisy

Europe: EU court rules headscarf ban not a human rights violation


As I noted in my May 2008 post on Freedom of Speech:

A Few Quick Thoughts On Sarah Palin

From her messianic mantra regarding the epic battle between 'good and evil' to her unveiling of Vladimir Putin's nefarious plan to invade Alaska, Sarah Palin has once again illustrated her profound ignorance of international affairs as well as her inability to construct a coherent sentence.

In her latest interview with CBS's Katie Couric , the Alaskan governor was asked why she would not "second guess" Israel if they decided to launch a preemptive strike against the Iranian Republic. Palin responded:

We shouldn't second guess Israel's security efforts because we cannot ever afford to send a message that we would allow a second Holocaust.

Palin's answer is patently absurd. No objective observer with the capacity to reason can deny the fact that the balance of power in the Middle East is on the side of the Israeli's for the following reasons:

1.Israel's conventional forces are vastly superior to those of it's neighbors.[1]

2.Israel is the only country in the region which is in possession of three hundred nuclear warheads and a delivery system which can reach southern Sweden.[2]

If a Shoah were to occur in the Middle East..... I am fairly certain the Israelis would not be on the receiving end.

Following her bizarre statement, Palin goes into a rambling mantra (thankfully not in tongues) that would have been more appropriate coming out of the mouth of a mildly-retarded four year old rather then a women aspiring for the second highest office in the land.

As Katie Couric pressed Palin on the Israel question, the Vice Presidential hopeful responded:

It is obvious to me who the good guys are in this one and who the bad guys are. The bad guys are the ones who say Israel is a stinking corpse and should be wiped off the face of the earth. That's not a good guy who is saying that. Now, one who would seek to protect the good guys in this, the leaders of Israel and her friends, her allies, including the United States, in my world, those are the good guys.

"Good Guys and Bad Guys"?

How very articulate.

But then again what do you expect from someone who holds the stringent belief that men and dinosaurs walked the earth together hand in hand less then 6000 years ago?

How about someone who receives protection from the evil doings of Alaskan witches ?

Or how about someone who believes that the United States is on a "holy mission from God" in Iraq ?

Has it dawned on Palin that morality has no relation to politics?

Has it dawned on Palin that in international relations we enumerate our priorities on secular, long term interests rather then abstract values?

Has it dawned on Palin that an attempt to incorporate morality into politics would not be in the best interest of the State of Israel by the admission of its own leaders? If I remember correctly it was David Ben-Gurion who told Nahum Goldmann at the Zionist world conference:

If I were an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country . . . There has been anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that? [3]

On Democracy Promotion

Following her asinine responses, Couric asks Palin about the Bush administration's "Freedom Agenda".

Couric: When President Bush ran for office, he opposed nation-building. But he has spent, as you know, much of his presidency promoting democracy around the world. What lessons have you learned from Iraq? And how specifically will you try to spread democracy throughout the world?

Palin: Specifically, we will make every effort possible to help spread democracy for those who desire freedom, independence, tolerance, respect for equality. That is the whole goal here in fighting terrorism also. It's not just to keep the people safe, but to be able to usher in democratic values and ideals around this, around the world.

Both the underlining premise of Couric's question and Palin's response to it are utterly nonsensical. The United States has never been interested in embarking upon an altruistic crusade to spread "democratic values and ideals" around the world. The United States like all rational actors on the world stage has always been interested in advancing her national interests.

The United States has illustrated her non-commitment to the democratization of the greater Middle East on numerous occasions.

When the Front of Islamic Salvation won a staggering 188 of 232 seats in the first round of parliamentary elections in Algeria on December, 26, 1991, the United States supported the brutal Algerian junta's decision to move the nation from civilian rule to military dictatorship under the guise of preventing "fundamentalists from ceasing power".-perhaps our military would kindly do the same in the rare event that McCain/Palin actually make it to the white house- [4]

Another more recent example of America's relentless attempts to undermine democracy in the Middle East took place on January 26 2006. On this historic date the Muslim brotherhood's infamous sister organization Hamas won 76 out of 132 parliamentary seats in the first free and fair election ever held in the wretched entity known as the "Palestinian Territories".

Following the militant organization's predictable win the noble "flag bearers of democracy" decided to impose an international embargo on the territories in order to collectively punish the elected and the electorate.[5]

The Arab world is not the only victim of America's historical campaign against democracy. The United States has overthrown over 14 governments(four of which where more or les democratic) in the past fifty years. [6]

As Stephen Walt noted in his Taming American Power: The Global Response to U.S. Primacy; it is not America's realist approach to foreign policy which enrages the impoverished masses across the third world, it is her moral hypocrisy.

With that being said, their are two more things I would like to touch up on. The first deals with Governor Palin's comments regarding the motives behind the September 11th, 2001 terrorist attacks and the second deals with the comments she would have recently made at Hammarskjold Plaza(her appearance was canceled) regarding the Iranian governments 'support for terrorism', and it's persecution of "countless" people "simply because they are Jewish".

Because they hate: Al-Quida's Motive's for the September 11th, 2001 Terrorist Attacks

In a recent interview with Charlie Gibson, Palin was asked why the September 11th hijackers attacked the United States. Her response was:

PALIN: You know, there is a very small percentage of Islamic believers who are extreme and they are violent and they do not believe in American ideals, and they attacked us.... because we’re a democratic, we are a free, and we are a free-thinking society.

Palin's response is erroneous, puerile and perpetually nonsensical. Anyone who has studied Al-Quida is well aware of the fact that the terrorist organization attacked the United States on September 11th because of their utter disdain for American foreign policy in the Middle East.

According to the 9/11 Commission report Khalid Sheikh Mohammed the architect of the September 11th terrorist attacks on the world trade center and the pentagon was ‘primarily motivated by the Palestinian Issue’. The report went on to state; “By his own account, Khalid Sheik Muhammad’s animus toward the United States stemmed not from his experience there as a student, but rather from his violent disagreement with U.S foreign policy favoring Israel”[7]

The mastermind of the 1993 world trade center bombing; Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s nephew sent a letter to the New York Times stating “We declare our responsibility for the explosion on the mentioned building. This action was done in response for the American political, economical, and military support to Israel the state of terrorism."[8]

On October 7, 2001 Osama Bin Laden issued a statement to further clarify his organizations motives for the attack. During his recorded rant Bin Laden stated:

"We swore that America wouldn't live in security until we live it truly in Palestine. This showed the reality of America, which puts Israel's interest above its own people's interest. America won't get out of this crisis until it gets out of the Arabian Peninsula, and until it stops its support of Israel." [9]

It's important to note that Al-Quida and her affiliates are not the only ones who harbor a deep seething resentment of American foreign policy.

According to a poll conducted by the Pew research center in 2003: 99% of Palestinians, 96% Jordanians, and 88% of Pakistanis have a unfavorable or very unfavorable view of the United States.[10]

Another poll published by Zogby International showed that 98% of Egyptians, 94% of Saudi’s, and 88% of Moroccans also have a unfavorable view of the United States.[11]

The 9/11 commission report noted that American foreign policy regarding the Israeli/Palestinian conflict was the main source of anti-American outrage throughout the Arab and Muslim world.[12]

If the United States wishes to curtail political radicalization and extremism in the Muslim world, the next administration needs to intact fundamental changes in it's eastern Mediterranean policies.

Terrorism, Barbarism, and Anti-semitism Oh My!

Below are a few of my thoughts regarding the remarks Sarah Palin was suppose to give at an anti-Iran protest rally at Hammarskjold Plaza.

Iran is not only a regional threat; it threatens the entire world. It is the no. 1 state sponsor of terrorism. It sponsors the world's most vicious terrorist groups, Hamas and Hezbollah.

1. Palin fails to demonstrate how Iran posses a security threat to the "entire world". Both Hamas and Hizbollah are regional terrorist organizations which threaten the security interests of the state of Israel and Lebanon not the International Community.

2. Almost every nation in the history of mankind has supported non-governmental organizations who engage in asymmetrical warfare in hopes of advancing their national interests. Neither Iran, Israel, nor the United States are exceptions to this rule.

The State of Israel supported Hamas for nearly 20 years through direct and indirect aid in hopes of creating a counterbalance to the highly popular secular-nationalist Palestinian Liberation Organization.The United States supported the likes of the Contras in Nicaragua, the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan, and the Unita and the FNLA in Angola to further her geo-political interests during the Cold War.[13]

If we are to accept the lexical definition of terrorism, then surly the deliberate low-intensity tactics the United States employed during the 90's which caused the slow and agonizing deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children under the age of five, would constitute as act's of terrorism? [14]

Is terrorism or is terrorism not the deliberate use of coercion against innocent civilians in order to further ones political interests?

Enough with the meaningless sermons and half-assed attempts to incorporate morality into politics….. sadly the two have no relation.

As for Iran posing a threat to regional stability.... perhaps Israel and the United States should have thought about that before they decided to overthrow the Iraqi political organization which was responsible for countering Iran's imperial ambitions for over 25 years?

Politically-motivated abductions, torture, death by stoning, flogging,and amputations are just some of its state-sanctioned punishments. It is said that the measure of a country is the treatment of its most vulnerable citizens. By that standard, the Iranian government is both oppressive and barbaric.

1. Oppression and barbarism are subjective terms. What actions constitute as the former or the later are simply a matter of opinion.

2. Iran is a sovereign nation state. The Executive branch of the Iranian government reserves the right to use any form of coercion it deems necessary in order to ensure that the laws legislated by the Iranian majlis are adhered to within the bounds of her internationally recognized boarders.

3. As for "politically motivated abductions" and "torture" ; the United States is no moral position to lecture other nations regarding these matters.

They have persecuted countless people simply because they are Jewish

This accusation is without merit. Iran houses the second largest Jewish community in the Middle East and virtually no persecution has been reported.[15][16] The Iranian state recognizes Judaism as an official state religion and the Iranian constitution reserves seats in parliament for representatives of the Jewish community. Iranian Jew's are also allowed to govern themselves in accordance with their own religious law![17][18][19]

One can therefore conclude that the Iranian government treats it's Jewish minority better then the United States treats it's Muslim minority. The United States constitution does not grant it's Muslim minority seats in Congress nor does it allow them to govern themselves in accordance to the dictates of Islamic Law. In fact the United States currently has pending legislation (Jihad Prevention Act ) which sanctions the deportation of all Muslims who advocate the use of Shariah (50% of which regulates religious rituals such as prayer, fasting, etc.) in the United States.

The Way Forward

The United States needs to develop a new approach when it comes to dealing with the Iranians.

The use of economic coercion and the funding of violent Al-Quida linked terrorist organizations residing within Iran in hopes of destabilizing the Shia Republic have produced no results. [19] It is time the American government sits down with the Iranian regime and offers them a carrot they simply can not refuse.

Citations and References

1. Uri Bar‐Joseph, "The Paradox of Israeli Power," Survival, Vol. 46, No. 4 (Winter 2004‐05), pp. 137‐156

2.World Security: Challenges for a New Century by Michael T. Klare, Yogesh Chandrani, Daniel C. Thomas, Five College Program in Peace and World Security Studies (Mass.) - 1998, p. 143

3. The Domestic Sources of American Foreign Policy: Insights and Evidence by Eugene R. Wittkopf, James M. McCormick,2008, pg.96

4. DeRouen, Karl R. Bleemy, Paul. International Security and the United States: An Encyclopedia p.31, 2007.

5.Mamdani, Mahmoud. "Good Muslim Bad Muslim: America, The Cold War, and the Roots of Terror." New York: Pantheon/Random House, 2004 p.43-45/ Also see Szamuely, George. "Israel's Hamas" originally published in The New York Press, Volume 15, Issue 17.

6. Kinzer, Stephen, Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq, Times Books, 2006.

7. The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (New York: Norton, 2004)

8.Steve Coll, Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001

9. BBC NEWS Sunday, 7 October, 2001, Bin Laden's warning: full text

10. Poll Shows Growing Arab Rancor at U.S.". The Washington Post. By Dafna Linzer, Friday, July 23, 2004; Page A26

11. The Anti-Americans: Do foreigners really hate us--or is it just pollsters? by Fouad Ajami Thursday, July 3, 2003 The Wall Street Journal

12. Walt, Stephen M.; Mearsheimer, John J. (2007). The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. p. 63-64

13.Mamdani, Mahmoud. "Good Muslim Bad Muslim: America, The Cold War, and the Roots of Terror." New York: Pantheon/Random House, 2004 p73-81

14.Cornell, Drucilla. Defending Ideals: War, Democracy, and Political Struggles. 2004. p.43-44

15. Shatzmiller, Maya. "Nationalism and Minority Identities in Islamic Societies" p.162

16. Kjeilen, Tore. "Iran: Religions & Peoples". Looklex Encyclopedia. Retrieved on 2008-10-01.

17. Keddie, Nikki R. Richard,Yann. "Modern Iran roots and results of revolution" p.321

18.Michael E. Bonine, Nikki R. Keddie. "Modern Iran: The Dialectics of Continuity and Change"

19. Jews in Iran - Australian TV - 1/2

20. Seymour Hersh: US Training Jundullah and MEK for Bombing Preparation.

Jesus Christ: A Comparison of the Muslim and Christian Conceptions of the Historical Figure

The Effects Of The Crusades On The Muslim Psyche