The MIT Muslim Students Association and the Islamic Society of Boston announced a lecture by Dr. Jamal Badawi this week. The topic is Jihad, Holy War, and Terrorism, and it will be held on Wednesday, March 7 at 6 PM in MIT room 4-270.
Is the Arabic equivalent of the term "Holy War" found in the original Arabic Qur'an? Is the concept itself compatible with Qur'anic teachings? Is the term "Holy War" a proper translation of Islamic Arabic term "Jihad"? What does "Jihad" mean anyway? Does it relate in anyway to "terrorism" and what is "terrorism" after all? How about those who commit acts of "terrorism" in the name of one religion or the other? How does one deal effectively with "terrorism" and violence?
Dr. Badawi will no doubt discuss the meaning of jihad as "inner striving, exerting effort, seeking truth and goodness," which is one set of meanings. There is clearly another meaning to jihad, the violent battlefield jihad. Badawi and Robert Spencer discussed the topic last year, which can be read here. Perhaps Dr. Badawi will discuss how to dissuade young people from believing in the jihad that says it's OK to blow up trains and strap on bombs, and blow themselves and others into small pieces, for "love of jihad."
I spent about ten minutes googling Dr. Badawi this morning, and come to find out he supports the following:
- Wife beating is permissible under certain circumstances, as long as you don't strike the wife in the face or cause bodily harm. It can even save a marriage!
- Polygamy is acceptable under Islam, and it demonstrates the "vitality, flexibility and far-sightedness of teachings of Islam," whose secret lies in its "divine source," unlike the man-made laws of liberal democracies.
- Suicide bombing is acceptable , martyrdom is allowed for "repelling unprovoked aggression or resisting severe oppression." Hmmm, that could be widely interpreted to mean a great many situations.
- Apostasy is punishable by death, if the apostasy is considered to be treason (these guys are simply masters at wiggle words!).
- Regarding the rights of minorities in Muslim countries, Dr. Badawi says that the Koran protects the freedom of religion. Again, perhaps Dr. Badawi can convince the rulers of Muslim countries of this, because persecution of religious minorities is widespread in Muslim countries.
- On the same fatwa about "religious freedom," Sheikh Muhammad Nur Abdullah, ISNA President and Member of the Fiqh Council of North America, adds "But once a person converts to Islam, he should practice his faith and never change it. If he changes it, it is a major sin. Whether it is punishable by Islamic law (death? stoning?) is a debatable matter among Muslim scholars."
- Regarding proselytizing: "As for spreading any other faith in the Islamic state, non-Muslims are allowed to teach their followers about their religion, but they are not allowed to go against the mainstream of the society." Meaning we can proselytize you, but you can't proselytize us.
Is it me? Am I the crazy one here?
By what criteria are these the beliefs of a moderate Muslim? I feel like Alice in Wonderland and I just stepped into an alternate universe. Is Dr. Jamal Badawi the ISBs idea of someone who represents "a path of moderation, free of extremism"?
It would be great if the ISB invited brave voices and reformists once in a while, people like Iqbal Latif or Elham Manea, Tashbih Sayyed, Tawfik Hamid or Magdi Allam. But instead they continue to invite folks who believe in an ideology of Islamic supremacy.
To me, it sounds more like outer explosions than inner striving.
Posted by: wendy | March 06, 2007 at 02:19 PM
its amazing how many websites and blogs are there against islam. Even more amazing is how Islam keeps growing more and more. Your writing up there is out of ignorance and hatred. I thot catholism had people like Mother Teresa, but your kind exist in there too. Guess its not the religion its the followers who messed up.
Posted by: Anis | March 07, 2007 at 02:06 AM
you are not crazy.
Posted by: Kobayashi Maru | March 07, 2007 at 07:09 AM
You should be beaten -- but not on the face -- for saying such things! :-)
Posted by: Sissy Willis | March 07, 2007 at 07:33 AM
Anis writes:
>"its [sic] amazing how many websites and blogs are there against islam"
If one could say that solid journalistic digging and pulling various threads together made one "against" islam that would prove what, exactly?
>"Even more amazing is how Islam keeps growing more and more."
Are you asserting, anis, that growth is proof of truth and/or righteousness? You might want to think carefully about where that argument leads and what else might be defended by it before you make it.
>"Your [sic] writing up there is out of ignorance and hatred.
What exactly has she said that is incorrect? Please enlighten us. What has she said that is objectively hateful? (Your choice at how to perceive it doesn't count.)
>"I thot [sic] catholism [sic] had people like Mother Teresa, but your kind exist in there too."
Weren't you just saying something about being ignorant and hateful? I must have missed your prescription for how that principle ought to be applied. ;-)
>"Guess its [sic] not the religion its [sic] the followers who [are] messed up."
Now you're on to something. It is *mankind* that is messed up: http://tinyurl.com/2xg7vx
Posted by: Kobayashi Maru | March 07, 2007 at 08:03 AM
"If one could say that solid journalistic digging and pulling various threads together made one "against" islam that would prove what, exactly?"
There is no problem with journalistic digging, if its done for the sake of finding correct and right information, but there is a problem if this digging is done solely for the purpose of finding negetive aspect of something or someone. For example, the blog here, Kelly must have found numerous good things about Dr. Badawi, but none of it was mentioned. The only part mentioned were extracts from the lines , not even his whole view but the view that the author of this blog thot would present Dr. Badawi in negetive light. This is not Solid journalistic digging, this is lying.
"Are you asserting, anis, that growth is proof of truth and/or righteousness? You might want to think carefully about where that argument leads and what else might be defended by it before you make it."
Yes, i am asserting the truth and righteousness.And i am asserting that irrespective of the propaganda against Islam, people find the reality and come to Islam. Please dont tell me how and what to think.
"What exactly has she said that is incorrect? Please enlighten us. What has she said that is objectively hateful? (Your choice at how to perceive it doesn't count.)"
Its not what she said thats incorrect,but how she said is. All the statements of Dr. Badawi that she put have been extracted out and put out there out of context. There is no information on what Dr. Badawi talking was talking about or what he said before that line and what did he say after that line. I am not even sure if these are complete lines.
"Weren't you just saying something about being ignorant and hateful? I must have missed your prescription for how that principle ought to be applied. ;-)"
Yes,I was. And I am still saygin it. The purpose of this article was simply to put Dr. Badawi who is a very respected scholar, in a bad light. Even though most likely she has nothign to do with him. Its only the fact that he is a muslim, that motivates her to try to slander him.
Posted by: anis | March 07, 2007 at 11:52 AM
Anis, it's not slander to quote a man from his own writings. If you want the context of Badawi's stated beliefs on wife beating, apostasy and polgamy, then click on the link above for each statement.
I don't care what the "context" is, it is WRONG to beat your wife. Period. What is the outcome of a popular, prominent scholar saying it's OK to beat your wife? The outcome is bruised, battered women, and battered children too. It's disgraceful that Badawi supports beating women, and this mentality has no place at MIT, or anywhere else in the U.S.
I'm picking on Salafi/Wahabi/Ikhwan Islamists in the Boston area on my blog, not all Muslims. In numbers, Muslims are by far the greatest victims of the warped mentality of Islamic fundamentalists.
Posted by: miss kelly | March 07, 2007 at 04:53 PM
Haah, thankyou very much for those links for some reason i overlooked them. I read the articles and now i am more convinced that you are about picking on muslims or according to you Salafi/Wahabi/Ikhwan muslims. I would ask you and everyone of your readers to go and read the article in the link with an open mind and try to understand what Dr. Badawi is talking about. I completely agree with you that Beating ones wife or for that matter anyone is straight up wrong. And after reading the article, i know that Dr. Badawi emphasises that too.
So Yes! i was right, You were lying about Dr. Badawi and yes that is slander.
Btw do you even know what Salafi/wahabi/Ikhwan mean?? Or did you read about them like you did about Dr. Badawi? ooh or was it Fox news!!
Posted by: Anis | March 08, 2007 at 02:58 AM
Anis, I think I can see what you mean since the article in question advocates "lightly tapping" and not outright beating. I can only speak for myself here, but the problem I have with that is that I might "lightly tap" my husband or a friend to get their attention; it's hard to understand "light tapping" in the context of a punishment which is meant to be a last resort (as Dr. Badawi's article makes clear).
Therefore, either the light tapping is completely ineffective, if it is in fact only light tapping, or it is used in many men's minds to justify more severe behavior. Either way, I still don't understand why he would advocate that.
Posted by: wendy | March 08, 2007 at 11:14 AM
Anis, I use the terms Salafi and Ikhwan, which were used by a local Pakistani and an Egyptian, respectively, in correspondence with me. Both men are concerned with the narrow-minded, intolerant Islam that they see increasing in area mosques.
Posted by: miss kelly | March 10, 2007 at 10:37 AM
Hey, Wendy. I jusrt wanted to poke in and give my input on why the "light tapping" would even exist in the first place.
Of course the ideal is not to even do that, and that is stressed in Islam like in many other religions, belief systems and laws, but there's still violence in the world and people throw these ideals out the window all the time. So, basically, the purpose of having it there in the first place is to calm a violent man who's not thinking clearly(and btw this is only allowed in very specific cases as I'm sure Dr. Jamal mentioned in the article) by telling him: "ok, ok, you can beat her, just do this, this and that first and only under these conditions." So by the time he's followed all the steps he has to take first and followed the rules of the "light tapping" then he'd going to be much more calm and thinking alot more clearly and realize that he doesn't want to hurt her at all, even if it is just a light tap.
Of course people might abuse this, just like they do everything else, but it gives a way of dealing with a violent person rather than just stressing an ideal that he's going to ignore in his anger anyway. Anyways, that's how I see it!
Posted by: ElvenInk | March 26, 2007 at 08:55 AM
ElvenInk, I believe, is a convert to Islam from Catholicism (sadly). So maybe she can delude herself that angry men are going to follow set of steps to correct their disobedient wife. A guy who thinks he can boss his wife around and punish her probably won't stop at the "light tap" (no bruises, please!). Muslim women know better and many suffer for this mentality. Over 60% of the battered women in domestic abuse shelters in Holland are Muslim, even though Muslims are something like 5% of that country's population.
Posted by: miss kelly | June 06, 2007 at 11:59 PM
I am a "convert to Islam from Catholicism" as well, and my husband has never, never beaten me, neither "lightly tapped".
You know miss Kelly, my grandma (italian) told me that when she was young the catholic priest used to say that "sometimes it's good to give rebellious wives a lesson" and the husband had a godly-given right to do it.
So, it's up to the interpretation of our scriptures.
Still, I find doctor Badawi IS moderate, and I like him very much. Maybe you should read something more about him?
Posted by: silvia | June 10, 2007 at 04:43 PM
Silvia, what your grandma related to you happened probably 60-70 years ago. That was then, this is now. Other religions have moved away from the notion that a man has the right to strike his wife.
Christianity has nothing in any of its gospels, nor is there anything in the Catholic catechism, that is comparable to the explicit directive in the Koran to beat your rebellious wife. That instruction doesn't come from anyone's interpretation, it comes from Allah. Sorry, no conparison to what your grandmother's priest said. There are reasons why violence against women is so rampant in Muslim countries. Making allowances for wife-beating is one of them. Why cling to this outdated notion?
I know that many people respect Dr. Badawi and say he is progressive and moderate. I've heard he's a very gentle and learned man. But I've read enough things he has said that that are totally contrary to our Western values and to an open, democratic society.
Posted by: miss kelly | June 10, 2007 at 05:37 PM