Homosexuality and Islam

The following article presents what is currently known about homosexuality from a religious perspective and a historical and scientific one.  The aim is to merely present the information to raise awareness, leaving conclusions to the reader in what is such a complex and sensitive issue.  However, I have included a suggested 'ruling' at the end to enhance the debate.

Terminology

The term homosexuality, as we understand it today, is a relatively new one, entering the Oxford English Dictionary in 1892. The notion of 'sexuality' and that someone can 'be' a homosexual as part of their identity has only existed since the 19th century. This is not to say that same-sex relationships are a new phenomenon or were not known about previously, but rather 'homosexuality' was seen as an act that you 'did' only and not part of who you 'are.'

Same gender sexual relations are mentioned in Islamic scriptural sources and classical Islamic scholarship, but they make no mention of 'homosexuality' since they pre-date the term.  To make a distinction between the 'state' of homosexuality and the 'act' is essential because no one is held accountable for what they 'are' in Islamic Law, but rather what they 'do.'  As such to say that Islamic Law forbids homosexuality or otherwise is false; Islamic Law cannot hold anyone accountable for thoughts, preferences or desires, only for actions.  Therefore homosexuality is considered neutral in Islamic Law, where it makes judgements is with certain sexual acts between specific categories of people.  This is an important point to make because in Islam some one who is 'homosexual' is no less beloved by God and remains a valued member of the Muslim community.

Prejudiced views of people who describe themselves as homosexual can often be the result of misunderstanding these terms and incorrectly transferring negative views of an act to the practitioner. Islamic Law is an objective tool for organising and guiding society, not for making personal judgements since only God can see into someone's heart.  Scholars in fact speak of two Laws; the outward law which humans use to encourage virtuous behaviour and the real law which is only known to God.  For example, praying is always viewed outwardly as virtuous, however if done with the incorrect intention of haughtiness or to show off, in reality is an act repugnant to God.

Marriage makes sex permissible

The Qur'an implies that the only permissible sexual interaction is with one's spouse (or slave but this is for another discussion):

{[Those] who guard their chastity from all but their spouses or their slave-girls––there is no blame attached to [relations with] these, but those whose desires exceed this limit are truly transgressors} [70:29-30]

The use of the word 'azawj' - translated as spouses here - means 'the opposite of a pair together in union' and can refer to either a wife or husband, but importantly for our discussion is that azawj is gender specific i.e. that marriage is between a man and a woman. The Arabic construction stresses that sex is only permissible within a marriage, thus implying all sexual acts outside of marriage are impermissible such as: fornication, adultery, bestiality, masturbation and sex between people of the same gender.  Some of these acts are prohibited specifically and some are given prescribed punishments, such as adultery: {Strike the adulteress and the adulterer one hundred times. Do not let compassion for them keep you from carrying out God’s law––if you believe in God and the Last Day––and ensure that a group of believers witnesses the punishment.} [24:2].  Sex between people of the same gender, however, is not proscribed in such explicitly legal terms elsewhere in the Qur'an.

Sodom and Gamorrah (The People of Lot)

The people of Sodom and Gamorrah are mentioned in a number of places in the Qur'an, described as a people of 'excess' that: {lust after men, waylay travellers, and commit evil in your gatherings.} [29:29].  Among others, the primary sin mentioned is anal sex between males, or sodomy (liwat).  Liwat, like the word sodomy, derives from the story of Sodom and Gamorrah, it is not a Qur'anic term but a short hand for 'the practice of the people of Lot.'

{We sent Lot and he said to his people, ‘How can you practise this outrage? No one in the world has outdone you in this. You lust after men rather than women! You transgress all bounds!’ The only response his people gave was to say [to one another], ‘Drive them out of your town! These men want to keep themselves chaste!’ We saved him and his kinsfolk– apart from his wife who stayed behind– and We showered upon [the rest of] them a rain [of destruction]. See the fate of the evildoers.} [7:80-84]

Lot charges his people with:'ityaan ar-rijaal shahwatan min duunin nisaa,' which word-for-word translates as: coming to men with desires instead of women.  The verse is general and can have many meanings and 'shahwatan' (desires) can be in both a positive or negative sense, it is describing men desiring men in the same variety of forms that women can be desired by men; lustfully or lovingly.  Since there is no further clarification in the Qur'an the verse could be understood to mean anything from a loving kiss to anal rape.  However elsewhere the story suggests a negative understanding of 'shahwatan' as an overpowering lust: {By your life [Prophet], they wandered on in their wild intoxication} [15:72] Consumed, they set upon Lot and the angels he hosted: {The people of the town came along, revelling, and he told them, ‘These are my guests, do not disgrace me. Fear God, and do not shame me.’ They answered, ‘Have we not told you not to interfere [between us and] anyone else?’He said, ‘My daughters are here, if you must.’} [15:67-71] 'My daughters' is generally understood by commentators, such as ibn Kathir (d. 1373) to be figurative and refer to the town's peoples' own wives.  Ibn Kathir also understands that Lot even had to push them back from entering the house, while the door was locked: {He [Lot] said, ‘If only I had the strength to stop you or could rely on strong support!’} [11:80].

The word translated as 'outrage' in 7:80 of Lot's speech - which commentators by consensus have understood to be male to male anal sex - in Arabic is 'faahisha' which is the same word used for adultery elsewhere in the Qur'an: {And do not go anywhere near adultery: it is an outrage, and an evil path.} [17:32]. 

Why were the people of Lot destroyed?

A common explanation for the destruction of Sodom and Gamorrah is their sexual indiscretions and it has been argued that anyone doing likewise should receive the same fate.  However this would seem a speculative argument uncharacteristic of the certitude required for Islamic Criminal Law. The Qur'an mentions the punishment of the people of Lot with other tribes collectively due to rejecting God's Prophets: {If they reject you [Prophet], so did the people of Noah before them, and those of Ad, Thamud, Abraham, Lot, Midian. Moses too was called a liar. I gave the disbelievers time, but in the end I punished them. How I condemned them!} [22:42-44].

Ibn Hazm (d. 1064) argues in Al Mullah: "God's act of retribution against Lot's Tribe is not due to the reasons they suppose.  Rather God says to them: {The people of Lot rejected the warnings. We released a stonebearing wind against them, all except the family of Lot. We saved them before dawn as a favour from Us: this is how We reward the thankful. He warned them of Our onslaught, but they dismissed the warning– they even demanded his guests from him– so We sealed their eyes–‘Taste My [terrible] punishment and [the fulfilment of] My warnings!'} [54:33-37].  God also says: {‘Have no fear or grief: we shall certainly save you and your household, except for your wife– she will be one of those who stay behind} [29:33].  God has declared a clear text declaring that the Tribe of Lot had disbelieved in their prophet and therefore sent upon them a storm of stones.  The divine stoning which punished them was not for one type of immorality (faahishah) in specific, but was rather for their infidelity and rejection (kufr).  Those who claim that stoning is the punishment for this immorality (faahishah meaning male anal sex) are not following the command of God unless the one guilty of it is a rejecter of God's Prophet.  Their claim that the Qur'an justifies the punishment of stoning is null and void, since their action contradicts the explicit meaning of its words."

Lot's wife also received the same fate as the people of Sodom and Gamorrah owing to her disbelief and clearly not for any sexual indiscretion.  If the argument is made that people should be rained upon by stones for anal sex then under the same reasoning we might think the crime of killing a female camel should be being buried alive due to the story of Salih and the people of Thamud (see Qur'an 7:73-78), which is clearly not so.

Parallels between Sodom and Gamorrah and Ancient Greece?

Sexual culture in the ancient world was not homogeneous and some were radically different from today.  A brief look at ancient Athens may provide a better understanding of how understandings of sexuality have differed between cultures.

In Classical Greece men held a superior role to women; women were legally seen as minors under an elite free-man's guardianship.  Sex reflected this social imbalance, it was not seen as an experienced shared, but as something done to another for male pleasure; the active male party dominating the passive female party.  This was also expressed societally as active free-men dominated lesser groups of people such as prostitutes, foreigners and slaves.  Specific acts such as sodomy or masturbation were not moral concerns, but rather the act of penetration; whom it was done to and by whom. Penetration symbolised masculinity and social status. It was considered demeaning for a free-born man to desire to be penetrated since this would equate his status to that of a slave or woman, rather he was encouraged to penetrate.

Gender was seen as a 'one-sex model' where men could be feminized by losing vital body 'heat' with excessive amounts of sexual intercourse with 'cold' female bodies.  Although sex was seen as good for health, too much could cause this transient gender to change.  Male gender identity was therefore fragile and the boundaries of masculinity were aggressively guarded.  Sex with women was seen as necessary for procreation but sex with a male was considered superior, as the ancient Greek dialogue, Erotes, summarises: "Marriage is a remedy devised by the necessity of procreation, but male love alone must rule the heart of a philosopher... Just because commerce with women has an older pedigree than that with boys, do not disdain the latter. Let’s remember that the very first discoveries were prompted by need, but those which arose from progress are only the better for it, and worthier of our esteem."

The people of Sodom and Gamorrah in The Qur'an were characterised collectively for their excessive sexual lust for males and anal sex.  Perhaps they shared similar views of sexual culture with the Ancient Greeks?  Which may then mean the thrust of the Qur'anic disapproval is less to do with same-gender sexual relations - for example female exclusive sex is never mentioned - but rather masculine lust and the sexual and social domination by male elites.

Islamic Criminal Law

Before looking at various legal opinion on same gender sex it is important to know the difference between the burden of proof and the burden of punishment in Islamic Criminal Law.  All criminal acts are dealt with through the due process of law in a court with careful scrutiny of the evidence by one or many official judges (qadi).  There are two types of punishment in Islamic Law: hadd and ta'zir.

Hadd means prevention and is the uppermost punishment allowed for some specific crimes, which are: murder, theft, adultery, fornication, unsubstantiated accusations of adultery, drunkenness, brigandage and rebellion.  Each of these crimes have been mentioned in the sacred texts explicitly with prescribed punishments and burdens of proof.  For example theft has the uppermost punishment of severing of the hand and requires that a sane adult with intent to steal covertly takes an item of substantial value from behind a locked door that was witnessed by two upright people.  Failure to meet the defined criteria satisfactorily results in the uppermost punishment (hadd) being lifted.  There is a difference between proof of a crime and proof of hadd punishment however, therefore should the judge find the evidence incriminating, but not sufficient of hadd then the lesser discretionary punishment of ta'zir will be applied.  Ta'zir is at the judges or states discretion and may be a fine, prison or lashing etc.  Generally Muslims have preferred instant punishments such as lashing (the maximum is 10 strikes for ta'zir) over prison as it deprives others of a husband or father etc.

The judge is obliged to look for doubt in order to lessen the sentence: "Prevent the application of hadd punishments because of ambiguity" (ibn Adi narrated by ibn Abbas).  Islamic Criminal Law's appearance of severity is understood to deter and raise awareness of God's distaste for those crimes but its application of mercy is to suppress criminality rather than enact retribution; severely punishing only the most flagrant disregards of the law.  In fact many crimes in Islamic Law have such heavy burdens of proof that they become a type of 'legal fiction'; R Peters notes in his excellent book 'Crime and Punishment in Islamic Law,' that historically hadd punishments were rarely carried out if at all!

The ruling of sodomy (liwat) in Islamic Law

There is scholarly consensus (ijma') that anal sex is not only a sin, but a crime punishable by the courts. There is agreement that anal sex with one's wife has the lesser punishment of ta'zir.  This is also in cases of anal sex fornication and adultery with a woman due to the doubt whether the analogy of anal sex with vaginal sex holds since there is no risk of pregnancy.  Anal sex between males is where scholars have differed.  The Hanbali's went with the apparent meaning of hadith, such as: 'Whomever you find doing the act of the people of Lot, then stone both the uppermost and the lowermost' [Tabari] and therefore awarded male sodomisers the hadd punishment of adultery.  Along with all cases of adultery the burden of proof for hadd requires that it must be witnessed by four upright people who actually see penetration in a publicly accessible place (spying is impermissible and invalid evidence). The Maliki and Shafi'i schools find weakness in this narration as evidence although award the same punishment, since they draw an analogy with adultery owing to the shared Qur'anic usage of the word faahishah (see above) and hadith such as: 'if a man commits an act of sex with a man, they are both adulterers,' [Bayhaqi]. Shafi'i disagrees that the one it is done to can be analogised to an adulterer (the narration of the hadith has weakness) and therefore awards ta'zir for this person.  Abu Hanifa of the Hanafi School and ibn Hazm of the Dhahiri School disagree and said male sodomy receives only ta'zir (for public lewdness) since the analogy with adultery does not work as sodomy is not like adultery as there is no risk of pregnancy etc and the evidences suggesting otherwise are doubtful in authenticity and not sufficient for hadd; by definition hadd must be certain.

In practice, however, throughout the Muslim World people practising same-gender sex were tacitly tolerated in-keeping with the indirect Qur'anic prohibition.  Authors have even described classical Islamic society as 'homosexual-friendly' environments that has a 'rich archive of same-sex desires and expressions' written by the elites of their respective societies (see 'Sexuality, Desire and Ethics' by S. Kugle).  Medieval European polemics towards the Muslim World often criticised its positive view of sexuality and sensuality as barbaric by comparison to the purity of Christianity, according to Crusader literature in : 'the vice of sodomy was not only tolerated in Muslim society, but actively encouraged and openly practised,'  (see 'Re-Orientating Desire' by M. Uebel). This may well have been an exaggeration, but it shows that homosexuals generally fared much better historically in the Muslim World than in Europe.

Muslim society generally was more accepting of homosexual desire, the best poetry being considered that of the love of the beardless youth, although people would publicly remain chaste.  The Rector of al-Azhar (Islam's foremost university) A al Sharbrawi (d. 1758), for example, wrote homoerotic poetry (diwan) that was revered and 'well known among people,' but he also affirms the prohibition of sodomy in Islamic Law: 'I have chastity by natural disposition, not affection; my conscience desists from sin.' The Egyptian scholar Rifa'ah al Tahawi visiting Paris in the early 19th century notes his surprise at European attitudes: 'amongst the laudable traits of their character, similar really to those of the Bedouin, is their not being inclined toward loving male youths and eulogizing them in poetry, for this is something unmentionable for them contrary to their nature and morals.'

Women to women sex

There is no explicit mention of women having sex with women in the Qur'an and rarely elsewhere in Islamic literature. A very few hadith mention female to female sex as an extra marital faahishah: 'if a woman commits an act of sex with a woman, they are both adulteresses.' [Bayhaqi].  The scholars of Islam are in general agreement that sex between women exclusively is a sin and punishable by the courts, but there is no hadd punishment, ta'zir is applied, since woman to woman sex includes no penetration by a penis which is how sexual intercourse is legally defined.

Homosexuality and biology

From the 18th century onwards sexual practices were the object of scientific research, which gave birth to its own field; sexology.  The term sexuality was invented at this time; 'possession of sexual powers, or capabilities of sexual feeling' Oxford Dictionary 1879.  Throughout the 19th and 20th century sexual behaviour and gender were considered to be the outcome of biological drives and hormones.  People who engaged in 'sodomy' were considered a separate type of person resulting from abnormal biological instincts; 'the homosexual was now a species,' (Foucault). Homosexuality was viewed as an illness due to some biological imbalance. However, these conclusions were more the result of concerns of the time than empirical evidence. A purely biological model of the human proved to be crude and overly simplistic, by not taking into account psychological and social factors for example, and lost credibility.

Biological models of sexuality were reinvigorated by the attempt to map the entire sequence of human DNA.  Belief that a 'gay gene' could explain homosexual behaviour was encouraged by Hamer finding of a link between genetic make-up and sexual orientation in 1993.  Despite these finding being welcomed by both pro and anti gay movements, they are scientifically highly contested.

A few biological characteristics have been found to be over represented amongst those who identify themselves as homosexual, such as a greater proportion of left handedness, however sexual orientation cannot be predicted biologically.

Homosexuality and psychology

Sigmund Freud's Psychoanalytical model was very well received, becoming hugely popular to the point where his publications in the USA and Britain were almost seen as a type of holy scripture.  In Freud's essays on the theory of sexuality (1905) he conceptualised sexual desire as an ever present unconscious drive - part of the libido - that either is satisfied by conforming to or conflicting with socially acceptable behaviour.  Some of his works included disturbed patients who were homosexual, not so much to devise a coherent theory on homosexuality, but rather to illuminate what is normative sexuality.  Zealous followers however, later evolved his work into a complete theory identifying homosexuality along with all manner of new terms for sexual deviancy as a psycho-pathology, the influential psychoanalyst of the 50's Bergler even concluding: 'there are no healthy homosexuals.'  Like other psycho-pathologies homosexuality was seen as caused by a conflict due to an aberrant childhood experience that continues to play out in adulthood.  Yet Freud made no such claims in-fact writing the complete opposite: 'homosexuality is assuredly no advantage but it is nothing to be ashamed of, no vice, no degradation, it cannot be classified as an illness; we consider it to be a variation of the sexual function produced by a certain arrest in development.' Freud later goes on to explain to an anxious mother that her son's sexuality is not a mental illness unless it is perceived as such: 'what analysis can do for your son runs in a different line.  If he is unhappy, neurotic, torn by conflicts, inhibited in social life, analysis may bring harmony, peace of mind, full efficiency, whether he remains homosexual or gets changed.'

Evelyn Hooker quashed any such theories of homosexuality as a psychological pathology in "The adjustment of the overt male homosexual" (1958) by showing there were no significant differences in mental health between 'equivalent' groupings of homosexual and heterosexual males. Her findings did not have the profound effect they should have had, being overpowered by the cultural momentum of psychiatry at the time that insisted homosexuality was an illness; a view finally relinquished when homosexuality was removed from the International Classification of Illnesses in 1992.

Homosexuality and sociology

The first published survey on sexual behaviour was undertaken by Alfred Kinsey (d. 1956) in the USA in 1948 entitled 'Sexual behaviour in the human male.'  Amongst the statistical analysis he found that 37% of males reported at least one homo-erotic experience up to the state of orgasm in their lives. His research was both criticised and misrepresented owing to the sensational findings.  A more robust study (The social organization of sexuality: sexual practices in the US) was carried out in 1992 which found 7.1% of males and 3.8% of females reported some type of sexual contact with someone of the same gender since puberty and 2.8% of males and 1.4% of females described themselves as bisexual or homosexual. Kinsey's findings showed sexual behaviour was a continuum and that people did not generally fit into neat homo/hetero categories, he concluded that homosexual behaviour was simply something one did due to socialisation and culture.

Summary

Same-sex eroticism may be, for some, a mere hedonistic desire or a phase in someone's identity complex, but for a comparatively small minority it is a natural sexuality that brings harmony, love and happiness.  There have been many theories about homosexual relations by both religious and non-religious thinkers, but given all the research what can we say of homosexuality?

F. Mondimore summarises his book 'A natural history of homosexuality' with: "The preponderance of the scientific evidence is converging on a view that homosexual people have had of themselves for as long as any had the courage to record it.  Homosexuality is a natural, abiding, normal sexuality for some people.  it is not a disease state, not simply a behaviour, and not subject to change.  It develops in some individuals as a result of influences of heredity, pre-natal development, childhood experience, and cultural milieu in varying combinations.  No one influence seems either necessary or sufficient - homosexual orientation is a possible outcome in many different circumstances because the human mind is uniquely evolved to be rich in possibilities."

Islam promotes formal responsible relationships between men and women.  There are no Qur'anic verses that unequivocally condemn or forbid same sex relationships, rather their illicitness is implied.  Some hadith are more explicit, however their authenticity is debated.  The destruction of Sodom and Gamorrah is only loosely linked to same-gender sex, it seems more to do with the separation of sex from love, lust and masculine domination.  Classical scholarship defined same gender sex as a crime, perhaps not so much in of itself, but rather to block the means for sex to societally slip into irresponsible pleasure seeking and exploitation.  In practice classical Muslim societies employed a 'don't ask, don't tell' policy toward same gender sex.

The 19th century re-classification of same-sex intimacy as a 'homosexual' identity and illness unintentionally caused the aggressive sexual politics of today.  The inequality before the law and persecution through enforced treatments suffered by this newly identified minority brought about opposition, gay rights becoming part of the larger civil rights movements during the mid 20th century.  Sexual politics demands secular courts and religious leaders answer if marriage is enjoyed by heterosexuals only or if religious groups can legitimately exclude homosexuals? Until these questions are satisfactorily dealt with they will continue to fester and polarise people into opposing camps.  No longer is mere tolerance an acceptable approach.

Concluding remarks

The conflict between classical Islamic interpretation of same-sex intimacy as immoral with modern research showing it both naturally occurring and potentially no less healthy than heterosexual relationships has inspired much literature to resolve the two opposing evidences.  Some - particularly from fundamentalist groups - have used denial, refusing to engage with homosexuality falsely seeing it as a 'western' or 'modern' problem.  Others have gone to the other extreme by either denying Islam explicitly or in part by denying classical scholarship, rejecting hadith as a source of evidence and re-interpreting the Qur'an's ambiguity to deny any negativity toward same gender sex.  Most however are moving towards a more nuanced approach to the classical view, Abdul Hakim Murad (aka Dr. T J Winter), for example, accepts that 'homosexuality is an innate disposition,' showing more awareness and explicitly stating homosexuals are no less human or Muslim, but homosexuals are religiously required to abstain from acting on their homo-erotic 'tendencies,' as a test from God. 

Muslims are generally ill equipped to discuss homosexuality as there is no formal conception of sexuality in Islam's religious works.  The formalisation of a coherent theory of sexuality is of paramount importance so Muslims can productively engage with sexual politics and those, at present, who are pushed to the peripheries of our community. Modern understanding has moved on a long way from clearly defined groups of the past such as male/female and hetero/homosexual, instead seeing gender and sexuality as separate and on a continuum.  No longer can it be thought that a gay man must be like a woman and in some way effeminate, a man might be both gay and masculine, completely happy with both his sexuality and gender.  This language barrier is where communication breaks down; 'homosexual' might bring images of Sodom and Gamorrah to the mind of many Muslims whilst others might think of Sir Elton John and his husband David Furnish, for which the comparison between the two is simply untenable.  Same gender relationships historically were always extra-marital, whilst the modern conception of 'homosexual' as one seeking exclusive life-long relationships is a fundamentally new category of person.

The undeniable presence of homosexuality within our communities asks the question, what are we to do with the exception to the rule?  Is it preferable to dictate that people conform to a particular system for the overall benefit of the community or should formal exceptions be made to allow homosexuals to experience love?  Both are possible in Islam.

God knows best

Additional: Suggested 'ruling'

This is an unofficial ruling merely to further the debate.  Perhaps it could be given to religious authorities to challenge outmoded positions that require suitable justification either for or against for clarification.

The verses in 7:29-30 clearly state God's plan for mankind to generally be in married 'heterosexual' relationships.  However there is nothing directly relating to 'homosexual' relationships.  Any wrong doings by the people of Sodom and Gamorrah are not commanded prohibitions, but are moral lessons to be learned.  It tells us that a society prevalent and characterised by male to male 'desire' is contrary to this plan and was criticised by His prophet.  Sexual acts outside of marriage are prohibited absolutely. 'Homosexual' acts generally are not 'unequivocally' prohibited and so are prohibited 'probabilistically,' which is why ta'zir is applied and not hadd. Anal sex is agreed (ijma') to be prohibited between all parties.  Most people have a choice and so irrespective of their desires/feelings/inclinations must choose heterosexual married relationships only.  However there are a minority of people who have no choice since they can only successfully participate in 'homosexual' relationships exclusively: ibn Abidīn states in Radd Al Mukhtar: "… the general texts are construed  in  reference to what is prevalent and common and not in reference to what is uncommon and unknown." Love is an essential need for human existence. Forbidding homosexual relationships for those who are 'exclusively homosexual' is a great difficulty. Therefore due to this difficulty 'homosexual exclusive' people should be able to marry in a special contract, such as a civil marriage, in a similar manner as a 'heterosexual' marriage as a dispensation (rukhsah): {So truly where there is hardship there is also ease} [94:5].

There may be a difficulty in identifying the 'exclusively homosexual,' but I believe the above affirms the classical position whilst accounting for the advent of new research.

God knows best

Further Reading

Ali, Kecia (2010). Sexual Ethics in Islam. One World Publications

El Rouayheb, Khaled (2005). Before Homosexuality in the Arab-Islamic World, 1500-1800. University of Chicago Press 

Kugle, Scott (2010). Homosexuality in Islam. One World Publications

Mondimore, Francis (1996). A Natural History of Homosexuality. The John Hopkins University Press

Mottier, Veronique (2008). Sexuality: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press.

Winter, Timothy. The Fall of the Family, available here http://www.missionislam.com/family/fall_of_family.htm

The Wahhabi Jihad

“This Wahhabi version of Sunni Islam… is a huge threat to Britain and the British people because it’s popular and very well-funded… particularly by the Saudi Arabians. Where do we go from here? First of all stop winding up real hard liners to recruit… by getting out of their countries and stop interfering.  The only place Britain has an interest in interfering in the Middle East… is Saudi Arabia… because here you have a tiny Sunni Wahhabi over lordship ruling and oppressing… and they’re the ones funding terrorism… they’re the real problem and we should interfere there as far as this… an embargo on Saudi Arabia… no help to Saudi Arabia… no trade to Saudi Arabia… until Saudi Arabia reforms… and in particular stops funding terror and Islamisation in the West.  Until they do that Saudi Arabia is the great enemy of Britain, France, America and the enemy in fact of the whole of damned humanity because of this poison, this appalling thing mascaraing as a religion that they are working to force on the whole World.  And we should look to bring down the House of Saud and … let the Saudi’s replace it with something better… and finally sending home every last Wahhabi.” - Nick Griffin speaking in July 2013 after his visit and Syria.

As a British born student of Sunni Islam, I largely agree with him!

Muslims are not all the same

Wahhabis account for less than 3% of the World’s Muslim population, most of whom live in Saudi Arabia.  Wahhabism is a puritanical movement that is considered outside of ahul sunnah wal jamat or the Sunni majority; a majority of nearly 87%.  Muslims are not one homogenous group and neither are their interpretations of Islam.  It would be inaccurate to say that Islam or Muslims generally are violent or anti-Western since research does not show this.  The Gallup international poll found that of the 7% of Muslims who thought the 9/11 attacks were in some way justified gave a political reason only and no reference to Islam, whilst the 93% majority most commonly gave the response that Islam prohibited such atrocities.  Likewise the Joint Intelligence Committee (April 2005) identified no religious reasons for membership to terrorist organisations, but rather opposition to the war on Iraq and socio-economic problems.  Neither is the West a source of hatred in the Muslim World, The Gallup poll found that unfavourable views of the USA and Canada – the same region but with different foreign policies, if you will – differed greatly, for example 66% of Kuwaitis have an unfavourable view of the USA, but only 3% viewed the same of Canada.  Muslims also are generally devoted to their religion and hold it in high esteem.  The Gallup poll found that 100% of Egyptian Muslims identified Islam as playing an important role in their life, as did 99% in Indonesia, Bangladesh and 98% in Morocco, and with 70% here among British Muslims, reflecting similar figures to other Western European countries. Therefore to blame Islam generally as the source of ‘jihadist’ terrorism – bearing in mind that the vast majority of victims are Muslim - is unfair and simply fuels the fire of extremism because these same ‘jihadists’ use anti-Islamic sentiments from the West to underhandedly recruit Muslims who by default hold their religion in high regard. So what differentiates these ‘jihadist’ terrorists who identify themselves as Muslim from the overwhelming majority of Muslims who do not identify with them?

Sunni Islam

Sunni Islam has been the mainstay in the Muslims World for the religion’s fourteen hundred year existence, it is what most people refer to when they mean Islam.  Muslims virtually unanimously agree on the key beliefs, practices and scriptural sources of Islam, where they differ however is in interpretation.  Shi’ism - the other significant traditional group making up some 6% of Muslims Worldwide – puts the authority of interpretation in the hands of individual expert scholars whom the laity are obliged follow. Sunnism sees the role of scholars as more collegial and the authority of interpretation is with the consensus.  This has given rise to Sunni Islam being a continuum of opinion rather than a single body of thought.  The continual and almost limitless debate however is moderated and protected from spiralling off to extremes by an agreed canon of authoritative texts.  This canon of Sunni Islam fixes where Islam will not go and so protects the religion and the World from terrorism in the name of Islam.  Wahhabism contrasts starkly with Sunnism and Shi’ism by belligerently rejecting the expert opinion and authoritative texts that maintain moderation for a single narrow and literal interpretation.

Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab

Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab (d. 1791), Wahhabism’s founder, came from a family of scholars in the Nejd region of central Arabia, however he did not finish his education as his younger brother Sulayman did.  It is not clear whether he was expelled or simply left the local seminary that his father lectured, but his father was said to be unhappy with his elder son as he was a poor student and was arrogantly defiant of his teachers.  Abd al Wahhab preached his anti-intellectual, anti-mystical and sectarian message only after his father’s death to much criticism from the entire scholastic community, fiercest of all by his own brother Sulayman, on the basis his views were ignorant, arrogant and had no precedence in Islamic history.  Abd al Wahhab claimed the community had diverged from the first generation – known as the Salaf – which he imagined as a utopian period, and he saw the centuries of scholastic debate and development as heretical innovations extending the meaning of extreme terms such as devil, polytheist and apostate to the scholars of Islam and anyone who didn’t agree with him. Unlike the normative view that made a distinction between fiqh – man’s attempt to reason and understand God’s Will - and Shariah - God’s immutable Will - Abd al Wahhab made no such distinction;  the literal outward meaning of the scripture was God’s Will.   The view that God entrusted man with guidance and the ability to reason right and wrong empowering him to take responsibility for his own actions was reduced to simply following a detailed set of instructions; those who did were saved and those who did not were damned! His ideas were reactionary; trying to find certitude in literal readings of the scripture as an answer to the uncertainty of the times he lived in and the challenges of modernity.

The Establishment of Saudi Arabia

In 1745 Abd al Wahhab’s zealous revolution was joined by the then Bedouin warlord of Ad Diriyah, Muhammad ibn Saud.  The pair successfully established the first militant state in central Arabia and it grew rapidly conquering its capital Riyadh in 1773.  Even after Abd al Wahhab’s death in 1791 the movement continued to expand eventually conquering the two holy sites of Mecca and Madinah by 1806.  After a number of years of indiscriminately murdering tens of thousands of Muslims and pilgrims claiming them apostates, stopping the annual pilgrimage (hajj) and openly rebelling to Ottoman authority the Sultan sent the governor of Egypt Muhammad Ali to restore order and control.  Mecca and Medina were retaken in 1812 and the entire Saudi state was eventually vanquished by 1818.  Although the Wahhabi intolerance, hate and fanaticism remained despite its military suppression by the Ottomans.   After its collapse in 1922 there was no resistance to Abd al Aziz ibn Saud’s (d. 1953) eventual bloody reestablishment of the Saudi state based on the puritanical theology of Wahhabism and the Bedouin tribal culture.  This new model of an ‘Islamic’ state restricted personal liberty forcing its unwilling subjects to abide to a very specific code of conduct unlike their Ottoman predecessors who had tolerated diverse religious and cultural practices.

Saudi Arabia’s control of the holy cities of Mecca and Medina was deeply unpopular throughout the 1920’s to the 1960’s because the belief system was at odds with the rest of the Muslims World.  Secular regimes such as Nasser’s Egypt also saw the theocratic government in Saudi Arabia as historically retarded.  Saudi Arabia faced many challenges to their custodianship of the Holy Cities, Nasser even attempted to overthrow the Saudi government in the 1970’s.  Coinciding with the discovery of oil and its sharp rise in price the Saudi government decided to aggressively export the Wahhabi creed to gain acceptance, initially funding other fundamentalist organizations and a decade later creating a more sophisticated network.  One of my teachers who was a student in the Muslim World during the 80’s said that in every seat of learning there were funded people to deliberately try and undermine the lecturer and promote Wahhabi thought. Wahhabism however did not spread under its founder’s namesake as it would have appeared just another school of thought within Islam, rather the Wahhabis view is it as Islam and so they prefer the term Salafi meaning from the illustrious first generation, the Salaf.

Wahhabis rebranding to Salafis

The term Salafi pre-dates Wahhabism to the medieval reformer ibn Taymiyyah (d. 1328) and is a term that has been used by any reformist seeking legitimacy in their attempt to refer back to the ‘golden age’ of The Prophet Muhammad and his Companions.  As such Salafism is a broad term covering all manner of groups from liberal reformers to moderates to Islamists and jihadist terrorists.  What connects them is the same fundamental methodology; Muslims should directly reinterpret the source texts in light of the modern demands of today.  This approach has not been entirely negative or without merit as it has revived an intellectual movement that has blown some of the dust off a rather stagnated scholastic tradition.  Salafism per se is not actively hostile to the classical scholastic tradition or indeed even anti-Western, in fact some have stove to legitimise modern ideas such as democracy, constitutionalism and the nation state within Islam.  The term Salafism is more palatable to Muslims generally as it is hard to disagree with, at least to some extent.  It only becomes intolerant in the form of the exported Saudi Salafism, but since the 70’s the two terms have slowly become synonymous marking a great victory for the Wahhabi propaganda machine.

Sayyid Qutb and Islamism

Not all Saudis are Wahhabis and not all Wahhabis are terrorists, in fact the majority are not, however the likes of the Taliban and Osama bin Laden are Wahhabis, what differentiates them is an additional ‘Islamist’ political view.  Abd al Wahhab’s movement was purely religious aimed at purging the community of its heretical deviance, it had no global political aspirations per se.  Sayyid Qutb (d. 1966), a Salafi and a member of the Muslim Brotherhood (although not entirely its representative), however incorporated an Islamo-Marxist political model in which he divides the world into two; either Muslim or Jahiliyyah (pre Islamic time of darkness and ignorance).  Ignoring usual norms he redefined many terms and ideas, identifying Muslim society as only one in which they live in complete obedience to Islamic Law.  Qutb writes in his famous Milestones: ‘there is no Islam in a land where Islam is not dominant… [it is our] God-given right to step forward and take control of the political authority so that it may establish the Divine system on Earth.’ He saw that everyone need not be Muslim but must live under Islamic Law as this was the only source of true justice and so he viewed there was a perpetual war against the jahiliyyah.  Qutb’s name became legendary when he was sentenced to death for his ideas by Egypt’s then ruler Gamal Nasser, he is seen as a martyr even by those who disagree with him and so his ideas have gained wider acceptance.

Qutb’s ideas contrast sharply with Sunni thought.  He revived medieval terms from a by-gone era, such as dar al-Islam (abode of Islam) and dar al-harb (abode of war) to justify his dichotomous World view, but chose to ignore other terms such as dar al-suhl (abode of neutrality) or dar al-amman (abode of agreement), let alone the scholastic debate that such non scriptural terms are too simplistic and have no bearing on the modern World.  Qutb also polarised these terms from their classically nuanced meanings, for example Abu Hanifa (d. 767) - the most influential jurist in all Islamic history – defined dar al-Islam as anywhere where one could pray the five daily prayers at the mosque unhindered, which would therefore make modern Britain and indeed the Western World dar al-Islam.  Neither does Qutb’s obligation for Muslims to live under Islamic Law in its entirety take into account the Prophetic examples of those who did not.  Oppressed Muslims fled Mecca at the behest of the Prophet Muhammad to migrate to the non-Muslim King of Abyssinia, known as the Negus, because of his trustworthiness and tolerance.  In fact ibn Hisham’s (d. 833) famous autobiography of the Prophet, quotes the refuges as actually praying for the Negus’ fair and just rule to continue!  Sunni thought does not promote political domination, but rather religious freedom; as Patricia Crone observed in her book on Islamic political thought, God’s Rule, The Prophet Muhammad’s only interest politically was in ensuring the freedom for Muslims to practice their religion.

Jihadist Wahhabis as Kharijites

We might term these modern terrorists then as ‘Jihadist Wahhabis’ to be specific, but they have also been described by the last great scholar of Al Azhar Muhammad Abu Zahra (d. 1974), who witnessed their appearance and growth, as Kharijites as have many other scholars including most recently Muhammad Tahir ul Qadri (b. 1951).  Imam Shahrastani (d. 1153) defined the Kharijites in his famous book on heresiology as: ‘Anyone who revolts against the Muslim government that enjoys the support of the community.’  Kharijite is the Muslim name given to those of rebellious intent, who stir up civil strife, label the Muslim community apostates and kill indiscriminately.  This is an important definition because the Kharijites are considered to have left the fold of Islam and are actually described by the Prophet Muhammad as the worst of all creation and a religious obligation to oppose at every level.  From a Sunni perspective then there is a jihad (literally it means struggle), but not against the West or non-Muslims or corrupt governments or indeed anyone else that the Jihadist Wahhabis identify, but it is actually against the Jihadists themselves.

The Jihad against the Kharijites

One of the most important thinkers of our time is Khaled Abou el Fadl, he represents the best of classical Islamic scholarship and Western education.  In his outstanding book The Great Theft he identifies two poles that are both a product of and a reaction to modernity; the puritan and the moderates.  The puritans reject modernity and the moderates accept it.  There is an irreconcilable tension between the two so that the very faith of Islam will be defined by one of these poles.  The vast majority of Muslims repulsed by the ugly act of violence committed by the puritans have already sided with the moderates.  Puritans although in the minority pose a formidable foe because of their control of the Holy Cities and their aggressive zealous well-funded propaganda machine.  As el Fadl sates: “To win this very real war that has done inestimable damage to so many Muslims and to the truth of the Islamic faith, it is absolutely imperative to declare a counter-jihad against the puritan heresy.”  He recommends Muslims need to be as equally loud against the Puritan acts of violence such as having public demonstrations denouncing the violence and flood the market with moderate literature to drown puritanical ones.  He also calls for moderates to rekindle the charitable nature of Muslims to set up private endowment to establish moderate seminaries to counter the ever increasing puritan ones.  He also implores Non-Muslims to become educated about Islam to remove prejudice, as prejudice plays into the hands of the puritans, who translate every anti-Islamic book into Arabic and use it as a recruitment manual.  He also asks Western governments to bring about just and fair solutions to the Israel-Palestine conflict and withdraw as much as possible from the Middle East to remove ammunition for puritans to justify ‘jihadist’ terrorism and to stop lending support to countries that use torture, such as Saudi, Syria, Egypt, Israel etc as torture is a factory processing line for terrorists – Sayyid Qutb himself being the victim of torture.

Concluding remarks

Islam is no more violent or less relevant to modern Britain than Christianity or any other of the main religions, it possess the same flexibility to adapt and meet the World’s contemporary challenges.  If, as el Fadl encourages, Muslims anchor themselves in a humanistic understanding of Islam and nurture the foundational virtues of mercy and moderation, they can make a very real and positive contribution to the modern World whilst remaining true to Islam.  But for this to happen Muslims must also take responsibility in leading the intellectual fight against the puritanical Wahhabi poison that threatens the faith of Islam and the lives of Muslims and non-Muslims alike.  To do this Muslims must engage positively with the wider British public and the political systems and structures in place as they facilitate freedom of religious practice and outright reject Saudi funding and Wahhabi influence because they do not.  Working with the people of Britain rather than looking abroad will sooth tensions and allow Islam to manifest organically as something naturally British ensuring the security of the British people and the practice of Islam by its Muslims.

Bibliography and further reading

Defending the Transgressed by Censuring the Reckless Against the Killing of Civilians, 2005, M A Al Akiti, AQSA Press, Oxford, UK. A brief legal verdict by one of the foremost Islamic scholars of today showing how terrorists attacks fail to fulfil the conditions of jihad on the grounds they carried out with no legitimate authority, against impermissible targets and with impermissible means.  He also identifies some of the perversions of jihadist Wahhabi interpretations.

Fatwa on Terrorism and Suicide Bombings, 2010, M. Tahir ul Qadri, Minhaj ul-Quran International, London, UK. Detailed legal verdict that was stamped by Al Azhar, Sunni Islam’s most authoritative institution, giving robust Islamic jurisprudential justifications and legal precedent for why terrorism, rebellion, indiscriminate killing of innocents and suicide bombings are impermissible and that the terrorists that view these attacks as rewarded in Islam are Kharijites and apostates.

Is Religion Dangerous, 2006, K. Ward, Lion Hudson, Oxford, UK. An interesting argument for religion as a vehicle of peace and a general overview of the very human nature of extremists in any religion or belief system.  Chapter 3 gives a concise overview of Qutb’s beliefs and influences.

The Future of Islam, 2013, J L Esposito, Oxford University Press, New York, USA. Accessible account of Islam and the prevailing opinions currently in the Muslims World and explores the main issues facing Islam in the 21^st century such as is Islam’s compatibility with democracy.

The Great Theft: wrestling Islam from the extremists, 2007, K. A. el Fadl, Harpiner, San Francisco, USA. One of the world's preeminent Islamic scholars argues that Islam is currently passing through a transformative moment similar to the reformation.  He delineates beliefs and practices of moderate Muslims, distinguishing these from the extremists and builds a vision for a moderate Islam.

The Muslims 500: The World’s 500 Most Influential Muslims, 2013/14, 2013, Prof. S. Abdallah Schleifer (editor), RISSC, Amman, Jordon. Chapter 1 ‘The House of Islam’, pp19-30, gives an accessible clear and brief overview of the details and demography of the groups that make up the Muslim population Worldwide.

God's Rule - Government and Islam: Six Centuries of Medieval Islamic Political Thought, 2010, P. Crone, Columbia University Press, New York, USA. A detailed reconstruction and analysis of Islamic political thought focusing on its intellectual development during the six centuries from the rise of Islam to the Mongol invasions. Academic but accessible reading of the source texts in their contexts and relating to the modern reader by comparing it with medieval European and modern political thought.

The Oxford History of Islam, 1999, J. L. Esposito (editor), Oxford University Press, New York, USA.  Arguably the foremost book on Islamic history.  Chapter 12 gives a concise overview of the context and reasons behind the reformist movements in the 18^th and 19^th centuries, of which Wahhabism is one of them.

Dogs in Shariah

In the name of God; Most Compassionate, Most Merciful

I was walking in the park and a Muslim man became quite distressed by a dog that wanted to play.  Whilst I understand the man's concern for religious cleanliness, I think perhaps if he was more aware of the facts he may be less inclined to overreact and avoid the ill feeling with the non-Muslim dog owners.

Please note all mention below relating to cleanliness are in terms of ritual purity for prayer.  Dirt, unhygenic or harmful substances and ritual impurity are separate things. Something we may consider dirty, such as soil is ritually pure and acceptable to pray in, whilst something hygenic like wine or sterile like urine is unacceptable to pray in and considered impure.  Ritual purity is part of the acts of worship (ibadat) and beyond reason.

Dogs are Man's Best Friend

The most famous tale of a dog in the Qur'an is in the chapter of the cave (18, Surah al Kahf) where a loyal dog guards some companions who, trying to escape corruption and persecution, by a miracle sleep for one hundred years safely in a cave until the tyrants had passed:

{[Prophet], do you find the Companions in the Cave and al-Raqim so wondrous, among all Our other signs? When the young men sought refuge in the cave and said, ‘Our Lord, grant us Your mercy, and find us a good way out of our ordeal,’ We sealed their ears [with sleep] in the cave for years. Then We woke them so that We could make clear which of the two parties was better able to work out how long they had been there.} [18:9-12]

Al-Raqim in this verse has been interpreted as either the name of the mountain in which the cave was situated, the name of their dog, or an inscription bearing their names.

The famous Qur'anic exegete al Qurtubi (d. 1273 CE) in the commentary of 2:38 says:  Wahb ibn Munabbih said: "When Adam descended to Earth, Iblis (the devil) said to the wild animals: 'This is your enemy, so destroy him.'  They gathered and elected the dog as their leader, saying: 'You are the boldest of us.' When Adam saw that, he was confused.  Gabriel came to him and said: 'Stroke the dog's head.'  He did so.  When the animals saw that the dog was friendly to Adam, they scattered.  The dog sought security and Adam gave it to him and he remained with him and his sons from then on."

Dogs are generally seen in a positive regard as loyal animals, and it is well known that they were kept by the companions as guard dogs.

Dog's cleanliness

Abu Hurayrah has narrated a number of hadith concerning the washing of utensils licked by a dog.  In one narration The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: "the utensil licked by a dog is to be washed three times," [Dar'qutni].  In another: “The cleansing of the utensil belonging to one of you, after it has been licked by a dog, is to wash it seven times, using soil for cleaning the first time.” [Muslim]

The Hanafi's went with the first hadith; to quote Al Hidayah: "Its tongue has contact with the water and not the utensil, thus, if the utensil has become impure the water must be more so.  This tradition conveys impurity and the number of washings."  They interpret the second hadith of seven washes as that: "issued earlier in Islam" i.e. abrogated.

The Shafi'i's went with the second hadith in terms of washes and agree that a dog's saliva is impure (See Reliance of the Traveller).  They went as far as saying the whole dog is impure since its impurity comes from inside the animal.  The Hanafi's disagree here and say that it is only the saliva as the hair, nails, skin etc that come off a dog are pure along with all other animals.

The Malik's disagree and argues that the above hadiths are of recommendation and so the dog is entirely pure.  The reason is that it seems to contradict the verse concerning lawful food, which states:  {[This includes] what you have taught your birds and beasts of prey to catch} [5:4].  If the dog's saliva really were impure then the prey would also become impure as it touches it.  They also argued that the number stipulate of three or seven is excessive as it is sufficient to remove impurity with washing something once, thus are a recommended act of worship only (see Bidayat al Mujtahid).

Owning a Dog

The Muslims have viewed dogs as working animals, the modern concept of pets was not familiar to the early Muslim community.  Most scholars have ruled it impermissible - a minority more leniently say disliked - to have a dog except as a working animal owing to the hadiths:

The Prophet (peace be upon him said): “Whoever acquires a dog, with the exception of a dog for hunting, or guarding sheep, or protecting the harvest, then a large portion of his reward will be diminished every day.” [Bukhari]

the Prophet (peace be upon him) said, “The angels do not enter a house that has a dog or a picture.” [Bukhari]

The Shafi’i's say: "It is permissible to keep a dog for hunting, agriculture, or herding without disagreement ... There are two positions ... concerning keeping them to protect homes and neighbourhoods and the most correct one is permissibility."  The Hanafi's agree, al Hidayah says: "Having a dog is prohibitively disliked (makruh tahriman).  However, there is no harm in acquiring a hunting dog, or a guard dog to protect one’s sheep or property."

The Maliki's say: “it is permissible to keep dogs for all beneficial purposes, and to ward off harm, even if it is not in the wilderness where thieves are feared."

Conclusion

Summarising the above we see that dogs are generally seen as problematic when wishing to pray either for ritual purity or for the more mystical reason of scaring away angels.  However, they are loyal and trusted animals that perform all manner of useful functions and for this reason are permissible to keep for a need.  Although it appears they should be kept outside or at least limit the rooms they go in (i.e. not the prayer room).  I might just add that here in the UK where people love their dogs it might be wise socially to take the most lenient position and remember the positive view Islam has of dogs, since the rabid dogs that various hadith show enmity toward (some infamously have 'jet black dog' or 'al kalb al aswad al bahim,' whilst other versions have 'the dog that bites indiscriminately' or 'al kalb al 'aqur,' see here) are not on these shores.  Also owning a rescue dog may be another reason for keeping one, since it has the beneficial purposes mentioned and is an act of charity.

And God know best

The Horsemeat Scandal

In the name of God; The Most Merciful, Most Compassionate,

The horse meat scandal has provoked much discussion, so much so that I was asked was horse meat halal?

Horses in the Qur'an

The Qur'an's comprehensive verses on livestock read:

{And livestock––He created them too. You derive warmth and other benefits from them: you get food from them; you find beauty in them when you bring them home to rest and when you drive them out to pasture. They carry your loads to lands you yourselves could not reach without great hardship––truly your Lord is kind and merciful––horses, mules, and donkeys for you to ride and use for show, and other things you know nothing about. God points out the right path, for some paths lead the wrong way: if He wished, He could guide you all.} [16:5-9]

The verse identifies the purpose of a horse as a riding animal and an adornment, whilst identifying cattle as a food source amongst other uses.  In such a comprehensive discussion of livestock prohibition of the horse, mule and donkey is implied as they are not mentioned as a type of food source.

Horses in the Sunnah

There are many narrations that either suggest prohibition of horse meat or permissibility, such as:

Khalid ibn al-Walid (God be pleased with him) narrates that: "the Messenger of God (God bless him & give him peace) forbade the meat of horses, mules and donkeys." [Ahmad, Abu Dawud, Nasa'i and Ibn Majah]

Jabir (God be pleased with him) narrates: "The Prophet (God bless him & give him peace) prohibited the meat of domesticated donkey and he permitted the (eating of) horse meat on the day of Khaibar." [Bukhari and Muslim]

Scholarly views

Scholars have differed over the ruling of horse meat, but have generally considered it permissibility but with a preference to avoid it.

The foundational text Mukhtasar al Quduri, written by Abu'l Hassan al Quduri (d. 1036 CE) reads: "It is not permitted to eat the meat of the domestic donkey or [of] the mule, and it is disapproved to eat the meat of the horse according to Abu Hanifa, may God have mercy on him."

Both Abu Hanifa's students - who are considered his equals - Abu Yusuf and Muhammad Ash-Shaybani considered horse meat permissible.  From the other two schools Imam Malik agreed with Abu Hanifa and Imam Shafi'i agreed with the two students.

The argument to reconcile the evidences is that either the hadith prohibiting horsemeat are not of outright prohibition but of stressing that whilst permissible it is an abomination or that the hadith permitting horse meat abrogates the previous ruling.  Others argued that since there is no disagreement on the donkey and the horse is the same by analogy it too is prohibited, but owing to the clear contradiction of Jabir's narration during an extreme situation (the conflict at Khaibar) it is reduced to that of prohibitively disliked (makruh tahriman).

Conclusion

Providing horse meat is slaughtered according to Islamic Law - A Muslim, Jew or Christian mentions the name of God whilst slitting the throat (both jugular veins, windpipe and oesophagus) so that blood flows - then it is permissible to eat however it is religiously precautionary to avoid it.  Of course it is also scandalous in Islamic Law to be dishonest and call something beef when it has horse meat in it although it is not good etiquette to question or doubt the seller unless there is clear evidence to the contrary.

And God knows best

Jihad and Terrorism

In the Name of God, The Most Merciful, Most Compassionate,

The fact that Jihad and Terrorism are seen as related by some requires a post because anyone who knows the difference, knows they are not remotely related.

Linguistic Meaning of Jihad

Jihad derives from the Arabic j-h-d, which means struggle or striving.  The translation as Holy War is misleading as the Arabic word for war is either harb or qital.  Jihad has many nuanced meanings - Muslim narrates thirteen different types - related to struggling, undergoing hardship and forbearing great difficulty.  The Prophet (peace be upon him) described the best jihad as: "a word of justice in the presence of an unjust ruler." [ibn Maja].  Another important jihad, is jihad an-nafs; when the Prophet (peace be upon him) returned from an expedition Jabir narrates that he said: "You have returned from the lesser jihad to the greater jihad." He was asked what the greater jihad was and he replied "The servant's struggle with his whims and passions." [Ihya, Grazali].  In fact, of the forty-one places j-h-d appears - in some form - in the Qur'an it only relates to war on ten occasions.  This specific type of jihad is known as jihad as-Saif (struggle of the sword).

Jihad of the Sword

The Muslim historian and father of sociology, Ibn Khaldun (d. 1406), notes that man has always fought since his creation and identifies four types of war.  Of the unjust illegal wars, which he terms the wars of outrage and sedition (hurub baghy wa fitna), are wars caused by competing tribes and families and wars caused by hostility solely for the purpose of seizing property and wealth.  The others he terms the jihad and just (hurub jihad wa 'adl) which he includes jihad and dynastic wars to keep order subdue secedes and the rebellious. He distinguishes between the just war and jihad, although there is overlap (see below).  Whilst a just war might be for the benefit of the community politically, such as preserving public order; jihad is for the benefit of the community religiously.  In the same way that the 'greater jihad' struggles with the inward elements that try to destroy one's faith, the 'lesser jihad' struggles with the outward elements that try to destroy the faith.

Jihad as-Saif is not an objective of Islamic Law, but a means with the aim of removing the threat of war or hostility towards the religion, as Rumi (d. 1273 CE) poetically puts it: “Knowledge and wealth and office and rank and fortune are a mischief in the hands of the evil-natured. Therefore the Jihad was made obligatory on true believers for this purpose, namely, that they might take the spear-point from the hand of the madman.”

Jihad and the Just War

Sometimes Western minds familiar with Christianity find religious legislation for war as something strange. Islam's formation has two phases - Mekkah and Madinah - the earlier phase was similar to Jesus' misson and the later was not; more like that of the Prophet-King David (peace be upon them both).

During the early period in Mekkah the Muslims had suffered greatly during most of their 13 year stay as a minority, the Muslims were commanded to 'turn the other cheek' [Matt 5:39] very much as in the New Testament: {turn away from them and say, ‘Peace’: they will come to know.} [23:96] and {Tell the believers to forgive those who do not fear God’s days [of punishment] ––He will requite people for what they have done.} [45:14] among others.  It was in the latter Madinan phase once the first Islamic State was established that the permission to fight was revealed: {Those who have been attacked are permitted to take up arms because they have been wronged– God has the power to help them – those who have been driven unjustly from their homes only for saying, ‘Our Lord is God.’ If God did not repel some people by means of others, many monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques, where God’s name is much invoked, would have been destroyed. God is sure to help those who help His cause– God is strong and mighty} [22:39-40].

The permission to fight came because innocent people were being persecuted due to an unjust tribal systems that preyed on the weak and for no other fault than religious difference.  Here Islam differs from Christianity, in that it was a political body during the lifetime of the founder and so has the ethics of war as part of its foundation.  Chrstianity when it became a political body after its founder developed its own ethics of war in the Just War theory (bellum iustum).  St Augustine of Hippo (d 430 CE) outlined three principles that must be included for a war to be just: a proclomation by a legitimate authority, a just cause such as repelling invaders, and the right intention so as to minimise damage and loss of life.  There are many parallels between these principles and a valid jihad (see J. Kelsay, Just War and Jihad).

Qur'anic objectives of Jihad as-Saif

Jihad as-Saif may be called by the khalif (Ruler of the Muslim faith) or a recognised ruler acting on his behalf to either repel aggressors, secure freedom for Muslims to practise Islam, save weak oppressed people from tyrannical leaders, bring peace between waring Muslim factions and to punish treachery.

Jihad maybe waged to protect the religion from foreign invaders:  {Fight in God’s cause against those who fight you, but do not overstep the limits: God does not love those who overstep the limits. Kill them wherever you encounter them, and drive them out from where they drove you out, for persecution is more serious than killing. Do not fight them at the Sacred Mosque unless they fight you there. If they do fight you, kill them– this is what such disbelievers deserve– but if they stop, then God is most forgiving and merciful} [2:190-192]

Jihad may also be waged against those who: oppress Muslims for their beliefs, to secure their freedom to practise Islam, and show hostility in censoring da'wah (invitation to Islam): {Fight them until there is no more persecution, and worship is devoted to God. If they cease hostilities, there can be no [further] hostility, except towards aggressors.} [2:193] and {[Believers], fight them until there is no more persecution, and all worship is devoted to God alone: if they desist, then God sees all that they do} [8:39].  And in a similar way, it may be waged against oppressive regimes that persecute its inhabitants by arbitrary power and silencing those who speak out.  This is very similar to the concept of Humanitarian International Law: {Why should you not fight in God’s cause and for those oppressed men, women, and children who cry out, ‘Lord, rescue us from this town whose people are oppressors! By Your grace, give us a protector and give us a helper!’?} [4:75]

Jihad may also be waged against those who bring disunity and discord.  Either those that have broken a covenant by way of punishment: {The worst creatures in the sight of God are those who reject Him and will not believe; who, whenever you [Prophet] make a treaty with them, break it, for they have no fear of God. If you meet them in battle, make a fearsome example of them to those who come after them, so that they may take heed.} [8:55-57] Or Muslim factions fighting amongst themselves: {If two groups of the believers fight, you [believers] should try to reconcile them; if one of them is [clearly] oppressing the other, fight the oppressors until they submit to God’s command, then make a just and even-handed reconciliation between the two of them: God loves those who are even-handed. The believers are brothers, so make peace between your two brothers and be mindful of God, so that you may be given mercy.} [49:9-10]

Qur'anic objectives of Jihad not condoned

Forced conversions are invalid in Islamic Law as it comes under coercion (ikrah), which invalidates any contract etc: {There is no compulsion in religion: true guidance has become distinct from error} [2:256].  In addition the objective of Islam was never to make everyone Muslim, there are many explicit verses to this effect, such as: {Had your Lord willed, all the people on earth would have believed. So can you [Prophet] compel people to believe?} [10.99], [32:13], [11:118] and [64:2].  Muslims are to invite non Muslims to Islam, but they are free to refuse: {There truly is a message in this for the servants of God! It was only as a mercy that We sent you [Prophet] to all people. Say, ‘What is revealed to me is that your God is one God– will you submit to Him?’ But if they turn away, say, ‘I have proclaimed the message fairly to you all. I do not know whether the judgement you are promised is near or far} [21:106-109]

Jihad is not perpetual war as peace treaties may be negotiated: {But if they incline towards peace, you must also incline towards it, and put your trust in God} [8:61].  The Prophet (peace be upon him) negotiated cessation of hostilities with the Mekkan idolaters for ten years in the treaty of al Hudaybiyyah, which the Qur'an calls a manifest victory: {Truly We have opened up a path to clear triumph for you [Prophet], so that God may forgive you your past and future sins, complete His grace upon you, guide you to a straight path, and help you mightily} [48:1-3]

Misunderstandings

It is claimed that the verse 9:5 {When the [four] forbidden months are over, wherever you encounter the idolaters, kill them, seize them, besiege them, wait for them at every lookout post; but if they turn [to God], maintain the prayer, and pay the prescribed alms, let them go on their way, for God is most forgiving and merciful.} known as the verse of the sword (ayat as-saif) abrogates (naskh) the previous rulings, discussed above.  From the context of the verse it is in reference to the to the Mekkan idolaters who broke a peace treaty specifically and not to non Muslims generally. As such Abu Hanifa and Imam Ahmad considered the verse void after the eradication of polytheism from the Arabian peninsula.  Confusion can also arise from the expression naskh.  Works by earlier scholars used this to refer to a verse that limited the meaning of others and not to overrule another as it is now understood (see: T. Usmani, An Approach to the Qur'anic Sciences).  Also if 9:5 were truly to supersede other verses, this would mean some 140 verses of the Qur'an were abrogated making most of the Qur'anic injunctions non-sensical.  Scholars differ as to which verses actually supersede others, Imam Suyuti (d. 1505 CE) identified twenty and Shah Waliullah Dehlawi (d. 1762 CE) only five, none of them have included this verse as one of them.

The hadith: "I have been ordered to fight against the people until they testify there is no god except God" [Bukhari] also is used to propogate the idea of perpetual war.  The meaning of "people" in the above is confirmed by consensus (ijma) to refer to the same "mushrikin" (idolators) of 9:5 above, and so only applied to the Arab idolators (muskhriku l- 'arab) during the Prophet's life and the early years of the Rightly guided Caliphs and not even to any other non-Muslims.

Another verse often used erroneously is 9:29: {Fight those of the People of the Book who do not [truly] believe in God and the Last Day, who do not forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden, who do not obey the rule of justice, until they pay the tax and agree to submit}.  Again this verse is not general, but specific to the battle of Tabuk (see S. Usmani, Ma'ariful Qur'an) when the Muslim armies were facing an invading Byzantine army; the Muslims were worried about facing fellow worshippers of God and so this verse was revealed to reassure them of the Byzantine disbelief (see infidel).  Again it makes no sense in the way it is paraded by some to mean a perpetual war to all Christians and Jews as verse 3:113-114 clearly states that they are not all the same.  In addition there are many positive verses towards both Jews and Christians; 5:82 identifies Christians as the closest in love to Muslims. In clear contradiction to this erroneous view is the hadith narrated from Malik that the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: "leave the [Christian] Ethipopians in peace as long as they leave you alone."

Islamic texts were written not to be taken off the shelf, but as an 'aide memoire' for a scholar to teach from.  So if you pick up a common text such as Mukhtasar al Quduri and turn to the chapter Siyar (Campaigns) you read: "Fighting unbelievers is obligatory, even if they do not initiate against us."  This clearly can be taken the wrong way by the uneducated.  The author assumes you are reading this with a teacher and have a basic grounding in Islam first.  So the obligation he speaks of is not individual, but communal (fard kifayyah) such that if jihad is legitimately called against hostile unbelievers some people eligible must answer the call (see 9:22 and 2:216).  Likewise the reference to non initiated violence is describing that a jihad may be waged for humanitarian reasons etc (see above) and not just as a response to invasion.

Early Islamic conquests

The rapid expansion of the early Muslims has sometimes been described as Islam being 'spread by the sword.'  Such a description is grossly misleading; the notion that Islam was spread by forced conversions is historically inaccurate, since places like Syria and Egypt took more than five hundred years to become majority Muslim populations (see Oxford History of Islam).  Initial military success for the Muslims came as the unified Arabs fought with the surrounding hostile Byzantine and Persian empires, unlike the Ethipoians, that had tirelessly fought each other over the region for some five hundred years.  Interestingly whilst the Byzantines saw the Muslims as the daemons of the anti-Christ, the Christians from non Orthodox denominations that fleaed their Imperial persecution welcomed the Muslims as peace makers and saw them as the prophesied descendants of Ishmael to punish the Byzantines for their heresy (see H Goddard, History of Muslim-Christian relations).

After the administration of the 'Rightly Guided Caliphs' came the hugely unpopular Ummayads (658 - 750 CE).  They were the descendants of the Mekkan nobles, that the Prophet (peace be upon him) first fought, and ran the Muslim Empire in a similar fashion.  The tribal system required constant skirmishes for economic growth, making them the only government in Islamic history to have a foreign policy of perpetual war, for which they collapsed as a direct result (see Blankship, The End of the Jihad State).  The foremost Western non-Muslim interpreter of Islam Prof. Montgomery Watt (d. 2006) noted in his book Islamic Political Thought that these early skirmishes by the Ummayads had no interest in religion or conversion and so cannot be thought of as Jihad.  Therefore the rapid expansion of the Muslims' borders were not what was remarkable about Islamic history, because other dynasties such as the Mongols also enjoyed a similar rate of expansion, but rather the social cohesion which has continued until today.

Are modern Muslims violent?

Europol regularly produce official statistics of terrorism in Europe, in 2007 (the year of the 7/7 bombings, London) they identified that 0.4% of all terrorist activity in Europe was caused by people from a Muslim background, the largest by far - 88% - were political separatist groups like Defra and the IRA.  The Gallup international pole found that of the 7% of Muslims who thought the 9/11 attacks were in some way justified gave a political reason only and no reference to Islam, whilst the 93% that thought they were not justified most commonly gave the response that Islam prohibited such atrocities (see Esposito, The Future of Islam).  In April 2005 the Joint Intelligence Committee identified reasons for membership to terrorist organisations to be things like opposition to the war on Iraq, disaffection with community leaders and low socio-economic backgrounds.  These important statistics do not of course deny there is a problem, but they identify the problem as social and political rather than religious in nature.  Muslims are no more inclined to violence than any other human and have just the same concerns for economic well being and education for their children etc, which the Gallup report also shows.

Terrorism

The origins of modern militant movements stems from ideas first initiated by Jamal al-Din al-Afghani (d. 1897) as a reaction to growing Western colonialist influences in the Middle East (see: N Keddie, An Islamic Response to Imperialism).  Sayyid Qutub (d. 1966) took this further and - ignoring classical scholarship - re-invented Islamic ideas in a Lenninist violent revolutionary style; ideas he ironically studied in the US.  He infamously changed Islam into a religio-political movement and proposed the notion that jihad is a perpetual war between dar al Islam (abode of Islam) and the jahaliyyah (literally ignorant) in a perpetual abode of war (dar al harb).  Prof. K Ward in his book "Is Religion Dangerous?" Further explains the un-Islamic sources of Qutub's ideas and points out that whilst people can corrupt and use any ideology for their own personal gains the advantage religion has over say Marxism and Lenninism is that it has the tools to identify such concepts as immoral.


Suicide bombings are completely alien to Islamic history and are a reprehensible innovation (bi'dah) borrowed from the Sri Lankan Marxist group the Tamil Tigers.  The first suicide attack in the 'Muslim World' was committed on a bus in Jerusalem in 1994 and never in Iraq until the presence of US forces in 2003.  These suicide attacks fail on three counts: authority, method and target.  The authority for a legitimate jihad must come from the Khalif or a recognised government for which none have.  The method of suicide is a mortal sin (for the sane) in Islam and will result in perpetually repeating the act in hell for all eternity.  The targets by these bombers are non-combatants which are completely forbidden to kill.  Scholars identify that the only targets are those 'capable of hostility' (to quote al Hidayah), thus prohibiting non combatants such as women, children, the elderly, holy people like monks and priests, hermits, farmers, the blind and insane, the only exception being people on the battlefield armed and fighting. (See Sh. Affifi's excellent article for details here)

Dr Tahir ul Qadri in his Fatwa on Terrorism - a book stamped by Al Azhar (Islam's foremost University) - he likens the belief systems of these so called 'Jihadist' to that of the Khawarij, a group the majority of Muslim scholars throughout history have considered disbelievers (kuffar).  The Prophet (peace be upon him) described them as: "the worst of all creation" [Ahmed] and warned that they will come from the East be young foolish and brainwashed with shaven heads, unkempt beards and lower garments that come high up the leg (A remarkably accurate description! All found in Bukhari).  The Khawarij are considered disbelievers, as many of these 'Jihadist,' groups because they actually deny the unequivocal verse: {If anyone kills a person– unless in retribution for murder or spreading corruption in the land– it is as if he kills all mankind, while if any saves a life it is as if he saves the lives of all mankind.} [5:32].  To murder someone is a grave sin, however one can still be a Muslim just a bad one, but to believe that Islam condones the murder of innocents, such that one will be rewarded in the afterlife is an act of disbelief because it is to deny Islam itself.  These terrorists - generally speaking - are not actually Muslim at all.

Conclusion

The topic is potentially endless and requires much historical, social as well as legal analysis, but the above should give a fairly sound basis for showing that those that think Islam is a violent religion looking for World domination are either ignorant or dishonest.  Of the dishonest sought, Robert Spencer, often makes arguments in an underhand manner, such as using terms from a bygone era as dar al Islam (abode of Islam) and darl al Harb (abode of war) to suggest a clash of civilisations without defining them, analysing whether such historically medieval terms are still applicable and ignoring other terms such as dar al Aman (abode of agreement) where safe conduct is assured.  Of this last term, dar al aman probably accounts for most of the modern World since the agreement of International Laws and the bill of Human Rights between nations, as Al Hidayah notes: "it is not lawful for him (one under agreement) to transgress against any of their wealth or their persons... Transgression after this amounts to treachery, and treachery is prohibited."  In addition Abu Hanifa is said to have defined dar al Islam as anywhere where prayer at the mosque for all five prayers can be performed without hindrance, which then makes the UK dar al Islam and places like Egypt and Syria not. Although this is not the only definition, it becomes clear that the discussion is more complex than some suggest.

Perhaps as a last thought in an amazing hadith, the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: "There will come a tribulation during which one who sits will be better than one who stands, one who stands will be better than one who walks, and one who walks will be better than one who runs. Someone asked, What do you advise if someone enters my house to kill me? He said, 'Be like the better of the two sons of Adam (i.e. resign yourself).'" (Muslim, Tirmidhi.)

And God knows best

Further reading

Dr Ali Gomaa's (Grand Mufti of Egypt) article titled Jihad in Islam: Myths and Facts