What isn't wrong with Maryam Namazie’s view of Sharia law ?

Apologies this article has now moved to the new site.
Click here

Does Allah order Female Genital Mutilation ?

Apologies, this article has now moved to the new site. Click here.

A call to Muslim apologetics.

Apologies, this article has now moved to the new site. Click here.

“How Accurate would it be to say that the Qur’ān and Law are Intimately connected?” Classical vs. Modernist

Apologies, this article has now moved to the new site. Click here

The Jewel Of Medina hysteria - Here we go again.

As a child, I remember watching one of my favourite superhero cartoons. A hideous monster with immense powers was unleashed on the innocent citizens of a made-up city in super hero world. One by one the superheroes were beaten by the monster and with each attempt, as the super heroes failed, the monster appeared to get stronger they realised their failing - each time the super heroes struck at the Monster, it was drawing on their strength and getting more powerful.

I have been inundated with emails about the recent release of the polemical, not to say highly distasteful, Jewel of Medina. My main concern relating to this issue is that someone out there is going to do something crazy. We know that four people have already been arrested in London over an alleged attack on the publisher – I am praying there will be not further incidents.
Why do Muslims fall for it every time? Why do we always get duped by “let’s see what we can do to wind up Muslims and get a story from a random hot-head?”

First it was global upheaval, following the publication of cartoons in the Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten. More than 100 people died in the ensuing protests. As you may recall, London had its own angry protests, images of Muslims beamed all over the world calling for violence, whilst covering their faces, the very images in the psyche of non –muslins when videos of innocent captives are killed on camera at the hands of violent extremists. Those Muslims who attended may have felt they did something for the sake of Allah. From a simplistic point of view, I take your point. However, when one examines the impact it plays on the political arena, it was exactly what our enemies wanted to happen. If I was the Caliph (you never know!), I would probably have been tempted to lash you for your political naivety. We played right into their hands. The forces that work against us relished those moments and furthered their demonisation case against us as an “extreme, violent and alien community living in our midst.” I can just imagine them, “Fools” they cackle, whilst watching us dig our own graves. The prophet once said: “A Muslim is never bitten from the same hole twice.” Not only do we get bitten the second time, but actually out-stretch our hand.

Let me stop you in your tracks before you say “fear Allah brother, the hadith says we should x , y and z”. This is the type of simplistic reasoning in political Islam is the thorn in the side of the Muslims, with ignorant zealots representing us in the public space. For example, one extraordinary and horrific example of following divine rules without applying common sense occurred in 2002 when fire broke out at a girls' school in Mecca. Saudi religious police were ordered that those trying to escape were properly attired in headscarves and black abayas, i.e. covered. Eyewitness accounts told of girls being forced back into the burning building to retrieve their head-coverings. Several who went back died in the blaze - the price of enforcing this rigid outlook or principles. “But we must follow Quran and Sunnah, you cry,” yes we do, there is no need to state the obvious here. Taking into account the whole picture is not in any shape or form not following the Quran and Sunnah.

The best thing we can do is hit them where it hurts. “Don’t give them free publicity!” If you want this monster to die, ignore it. It might be the best weapon we have. The greatest irony is that no doubt more copies will be sold due to this Muslim backlash.

I’m angered by these attacks against our beloved Messenger as much as any Muslim but not to the extent of being prepared to put a smile on the faces of our critics by giving them exactly what they want from us – a reaction. For me these slurs are pure ad hominem, an indication that these polemicists have to resort to playing dirty as they can’t take us on honorably, through argument and reason.

No doubt I will be branded a "Moderate" by some and that too would be an ad hominem.

Adam Deen

Go ahead and sin because God loves you.

Apologies, this article has now moved to the new site. Click here

Responding to Usama Hasan's Muslim apes.

PLEASE VISIT ADAM DEEN'S new site
Click here

Edited 1/12/10

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/11/religion.darwinbicentenary

In this piece, the otherwise well respected Usama Hasan, founder of the City Circle, argues that Muslims should move on from their “children's madrasa-level understanding” of creation and wholeheartedly adopt the evolutionary theory that man evolved from apes. He believes that there is no conflict between the Quran’s version of creation and this controversial and oft-contested part of the evolutionary theory. He also says that an obstacle in making this theory palatable to the Muslim community, is the publications produced by 'fundamentalist' Muslims like Harun Yahya. Fundamentalist? Why the use of this loaded term? At most, the likes of Usama Hassan can only claim that Harun Yahya's engagement with the scientific discourse was simplistic and unsuccessful at forwarding a case against the theory of evolution. He is hardly worthy of the 'extremist' label so easily metted out these days.

As a Muslim, I don’t see any conflict between science and my Islamic faith, and in this I agree with Usama's objective of reconciling the two. In particular, evolution in its general sense is not problematic for Muslims to accept. However, the contention is that of macro evolution, that species evolved from altogether different species, and that man evolved from Apes. With respect to the somewhat pompous tone of the piece, I felt it was unfounded. Dawkins is hardly the most respected scientist even though he may be amongst the most famous. Not all scientists accept that there is undeniable conclusive evidence for the evolutionary theory.

David Raup of the Field Museum of Natural History said

"We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time".
(Raup D.M., "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Field Museum of Natural History: Chicago IL, January 1979, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp.22-29, pp.24-25)

Further muddying the waters on this issue is Richard Dawkins’ very own evolutionist disciple at Oxford University, Mark Ridley, who writes:

" However, the gradual change of fossil species has never been part of the evidence for evolution. In the chapters on the fossil record in the Origin of Species Darwin showed that the record was useless for testing between evolution and special creation because it has great gaps in it. The same argument still applies. ... In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation".
Mark Ridley (zoologist, Oxford University), Who doubts evolution? New Scientist, 90:830–1, 25 June 1981

There is also dispute internally amongst scientists about the theory itself. The late Professor S J Gould, from Harvard University, argued that the degree of gradualism championed by Charles Darwin was virtually nonexistent in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species. He proposed Punctuated equilibrium, morphological stability and rare bursts of evolutionary change as an alternative.

According to John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler in the book The Anthropic Cosmological Principle. If man did evolve from apes, J.D. Barrow and F.J Tipler suggest that there would have to be ten steps in this evolution of Homosapiens. However, the process would take so long that before the process could even come close to what we look like now, the Sun would have disintegrated. Also, they calculated the odds of assembling a single gene are between and 4-180 to 4-360. The implications of this are that there simply has not been sufficient time since the formation of the earth to try a number of nucleotide base combinations that can even remotely compare to these numbers.

Given these few examples, of which many more exist, to present the case for macro evolution as a closed case is rather disingenuous on the part of Usama Hasan.

A consistent quranic evolutionary model has to incorporate the information Allah provides us, namely that Adam was made from clay and that Allah breathed into him his spirit to make him into man. One could argue that when Allah mentions these facts, he is condensing the whole evolutionary process within the verse, i.e. mentioning the start of the evolutionary stage and the end. This then leaves open the possibility of accepting the verses mentioned about creation and the contention that man evolved from apes, as both being true. For example, the clay mentioned could be the substance that brought about simple organisms, then after many years of random mutation and natural selection, apes evolved and further evolution produced homo sapiens. Then, at this evolutionary stage, Allah breathed his spirit creating the final article Adam, the first man as we know it.
However when we explore further evidences closely, we find that there are problems with this model. If we look at the verses

15:28 And lo! Thy Sustainer said unto the angels: "Behold, I am about to create mortal man out of sounding clay, out of dark slime transmuted.

15:29 and when I have formed him fully and breathed into him of My spirit, fall down before him in prostration!

I find it hard to conceive that when Allah says “Behold, I am about to create mortal man out of sounding clay...” to the Angels and Iblis, that at this moment, the entire evolutionary process started for man. The verse itself suggests that the events are happening sequentially.
A further indication is given by Allah about the process in which he created man, in the verse

55:14 He created man from sounding clay like unto pottery.

Allah provides an analogy of pottery so that we can grasp the idea in question. To inject now the theory of evolution for mankind would seem rather contrived.
Usama criticises the idea that God created Adam from clay, much as a potter makes a statue, and then breathed into him to make him a living human. Problem he is that this is not some baseless view; it is described in the Quran. Either Usama rejects the inerrancy of the Quran or he rejects the idea that man evolved from common ancestry or he has the bigger task of finding good reasons to interpret the texts concerning creation in allegorical form. Its not enough to just sideline those verses. He has to put forward an argument to support the verses pertaining to creation.

I’m all for Muslims engaging with scientific discourse and developing arguments to reconcile alleged scientific theory with Quranic verses, but the arguments need to hold their ground not only with the editor of the Guardian, but also within the Muslim community whose traditions Usama is meant to be drawing on. It is evidence of either an uninformed individual, or a defeated mentality, that Usama chose to focus on the opinion of polemical scientist Dawkins, rather than address the real wealth of theist and non-theist scientists, from top institutions, who find fault with macro-evolution. To lambast the Muslim community with anything else is to add to the confusion, not clarify it.

The next stop - Muslim homosexuality

Apologies, this article has now moved to the new site. Click here