Yaser M. Haddara

I haven’t been able to post for the last few days. Last weekend was spent in Montreal leading an LTP (Leadership Training Program) offered by MAC Youth for the Montreal area MSA’s. Inshaa Allah this weekend we’ll have another one at McMaster for the MSA’s of Southwest Ontario. More on LTP’s later inshaa Allah – it was fun! So Thursday & Friday were prep days, and Monday was catch-up day. Now I have to catch-up with my blog and the wheel keeps turning

I picked up a book that I had gotten sometime ago but hadn’t had a chance to go through it yet. It’s written by Abdullah Al-Aqeel, an Iraqi scholar educated in al-Azhar and living in Riyadh.  The book is a collection of biographies, a genre that was pioneered by our scholars of old to serve the dual sciences of history and the narration and verification of traditions. In this case, he’s dedicated the book to biographies of the leaders of Islamic revival, each in his own way scholarly, activist, or otherwise, from different parts of the World. Looking at his table of contents, he has 71 biographies. I counted 37 names that I had never heard before. Says something about my ignorance But it also, and more importantly, says something about how little we who have benefited from the legacy of these scholars, activists, and thinkers, celebrate that legacy. As our scholars of old taught us, the least we can do is make du’aa for these individuals that committed themselves to the service of God and the illumination of His path. Many of us read the books of Dr. Tariq Ramadan, but how many of us know something about the life of his father, Dr. Said Ramadan (rahimahullah)? How many of us have read the biography of Sh. Mohamed al-Khidr Hussein, the Tunisian scholar who became one of the most influential, most courageous, and most outspoken rectors of al-Azhar? Or Sh. Abdelfattah Abu Ghudda who combined eminence in the scholarship of the sciences of hadeeth and other Isalmic sciences with his activism and leadership of the Islamic movement in Syria?

I can’t translate the entire book – I don’t believe in promising myself impossible achievements. I can inshaa Allah, every once in a while, pick one of the biographies and give an abridged translation on my blog.

So here goes. For this entry, I chose Dr. Mohammad Natsir, one of the founders of the modern Islamic movement in Indonesia and the leader of the only party in Indonesian politics that took a clear stand against Sukarno when he sought to move away from a democratic parliament (it appears that Sukarno appealed to Indonesian “custom” but effectively created a dictatorship under the euphemism “guided democracy”). Because I knew so little about Indonesia, I spent some time reading about the history of Indonesian politics, and in particular the work of Sukarno and Suharto, before I put together the summary below. Any comments below on the role of Masjumi in Indonesian politics come not from the text but from my limited research. For those interested in more information I would recommend starting with Wikipedia’s entry on the history of Indonesia and a critical reading of some of the scholarly literature on Masjumi.

Dr. Mohammad Natsir
Born in 1908 in Sumatra, Dr. Natsir was influenced by his father’s scholarly pedigree. He combined religious and public education, received an ijazah from the Faculty of Tarbiya (Education) in Bandung and subsequently an honorary doctorate from the Islamic University in Jakarta. He worked as a teacher, educator, and administrator during the years of Dutch occupation. In 1945 he was approached by Dr. Mohammad Hatta (then Vice-President of Indonesia under Sukarno; Hatta would later resign in protest of Sukarno’s move towards a more autocratic rule) to help with anti-colonial efforts. He became a member of the Indonesian parliament, founded Masjumi (Council of Muslim Associations of Indonesia) in 1946, and was Minister of Information for four years. During his tenure, Masjumi opposed proposals to turn Indonesia into a confederacy and championed the unity of the republic.

In 1950, Dr. Natsir became Prime Minister of Indonesia. Within the year he had clashed with President Sukarno and resigned, remaining as a member of parliament and the leader of Masjumi, which was the 3rd largest party in Indonesian politics at the time.

Sukarno steered the country into a more autocratic direction and allied himself with the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI) througouht the 1950’s. By the late 1950’s he had banned Masjumi, and in 1961 he imprisoned Dr. Natsir together with other leaders of the movement. In 1965 a military coup led by Suharto led to the deposition of Sukarno and Dr. Natsir was released together with other political prisoners. With the leadership of the banned Masjumi, they now formed the Indonesian Council for the Islamic Call (DDII) and focused on public education, establishing masajid througouht Indonesia and supporting associations for students, labourers, farmers, and professionals.

Dr. Natsir was highly respected in international Islamic circles for his scholarship, oratory, intellectual output, role in the resistance against occupation, and principled engagement in Indonesian politics. In 1967 he was selected as vice-president of the International Islamic Conference held in Pakistan.

Sayings

“Islam is not merely a faith where the work of the Muslim is limited to worship in the narrow sense of the word; rather, Islam is the path of life for the individual, the community, and the state. Islam stands against the oppression of humanbeings by their brethren, making it imperative for Muslims to struggle for their independence. Islam also provides foundations for a free state, so that it is imperative for Muslims to run their state post-indpendence according to Islamic values.”

In 1989, in an interview he gave to a visiting reporter he said, “I do not fear the future. There is no danger from the future – it belongs to Muslims provided they are upright, and provided they exert themselves to their capacity to be upright in ourselves and in our societies.”

Asked about the people that had considerable influence upon him he said, “Haj Amin al-Husseini, Imam Hassan al-Banna, and Imam Hassan al-Hudaibi. Those are from outside Indonesia. From within it, there are Sheikh Agus Salem and Sheikh Ahmad Sarkati.”

He also has several published essays, articles, and books, mostly dealing with questions of Islam and modern civilization, the foundations of Islamic government, Islam and World peace, and similar topics. He passed away (rahimahullah) on the 15th of Sha’ban 1413, 5th of February 1993.

Jazaakumullahu khayran and thank YOU to all those that have been visiting the blog and leaving comments. It is indeed much appreciated.

A few quick responses are in order.

Abeer: thank you so much for the links. The pictures and the drawings are beautiful. Now I have to decide how to use them

Farah: thank you for looking for photos. For me to come up with the same photo you would have picked is a great compliment indeed

Suleiman: jazaakallahu khayran for all the work you’re doing to keep us all going and for your friendship and encouragement. In particular, thank you for fixing the broken links

Jaffer: thanks for the pointers. As I mentioned tonight I did try to apply them but it sounds like you would have a much easier time than me, so I’m gonna hold you to your offer :> Oh, and the EANACS reference? Inspired. Definitely Stanford!

Sha: It’s wonderful to reconnect with old friends. And how appropriate that it would be over LMotP I will email soon inshaa Allah.

Ayman, Nazir, and Yusuf: Thank you for thoughtful analyses and discussion. I really appreciated the diverse thoughts on this. I’ll wait a bit to see what others may have to say inshaa Allah. I’ll probably weigh in again after the 3rd episode. It airs up here on Wednesday, but I may have to wait again till Monday to watch it. We’ll see inshaa Allah.

One important thing I do want to bring up right now. We should not doubt other people’s intentions. It’s one thing to disagree with the show, its contents, style, crossing the boundaries, etc. It’s another thing altogether to assume that there are “secular Muslims” behind it trying to undermine the rest of the community. Zarqa is well-known in the community. She has been part of the community her entire life. She is respected and she has contributed significantly over the years. Disagreeing with her on the content or style or even the message of the show is not an excuse to doubt her intentions or her “hidden agenda”.

Just as an aside, the comment by Ayman Khafagi on “Kudos (Big Time!)” contains a better link to each episode in its entirety from google video.

Now that the custom header feature for K2 has been fixed I figured I’d play with it a bit. I don’t have an ear for music or an eye for color, so if my colors ‘trouble’ you in some sense I would not be offended at suggestions. The picture is from Cordoba. Since we anointed Cordoba House I’ve been looking for good pictures of Islamic architecture in Spain. I may decide to put up new ones in the future. If you have any good ones please share.

(This is the 10th entry on the blog since I started exactly 10 days ago. It’s been rewarding. I pray that it keeps getting better. JAK to everyone who was supportive — and that includes the people that laughed outright; you know who you are! )

I missed the 2nd episode when it first aired but finally saw it yesterday. Phenomenal scene when the Imam and the Priest march towards each other, coffee mugs sticking out in front of them, like to guys headed for an old time duel. They meet in front of the bench, turn to face us, slump onto the bench, and heave a sigh in unison! And the few lines that followed were 100% Canadian humor. I would love to see the show incorporate scenes with the priest dealing with some issues in his congregation. But I don’t do comedy for a living and noone asked me to consult for the show so don’t hold your breath .

If you don’t know what I’m talking about you don’t have enough Canadian friends but you can check it out below.

[kml_flashembed movie="http://www.youtube.com/v/j7XlPKCUh8k" width="425" height="350"/] [kml_flashembed movie="http://www.youtube.com/v/XtLh-fkOUE4" width="425" height="350"/] [kml_flashembed movie="http://www.youtube.com/v/jti2pJ77q8I" width="425" height="350"/]

Episode 2 may be found here.

So what do I really think about the episode? Well, as Amar the yuppie Imam says, the perfect Muslim solution makes noone happy, so hold on to your brotherly/sisterly tenderness, gentleness, and tolerance (see my past blog entry on the subject if you need to ) cause there’s bound to be something below that you don’t like.

1. I don’t think any part of this show is meant to be educational. Some brothers and sisters seem to think that having Muslims on television requires that we provide a speaker to discuss the five pillars and their significance. Sorry! That’s not a sitcom. And in my humble opinion, not necessary. Stick with me a while – I’ll try to convince you.
2. None of the characters are in the least way realistic. Of course not. It’s a sitcom. Think Seinfeld! None of these characters are real in their portrayal. Exaggeration is the necessary ingredient in comedy. Having said that, the characters are not completely unreal. Most of us have no trouble laughing at the accents of various uncles in an Azhar Usman routine (God bless the brother! There’s a trailblazer for you). But all of a sudden it’s on TV and a couple of million Canadians are watching and we’re thinking, “Oh no, they’ll actually that’s what Muslims are like.” No they won’t. Talk to your friends that are not Muslim. Noone expects a sitcom to actually educate. They expect it only to entertain.
3. Still on the subject of characters. Unreal, you say. Not so, say I. Imam Amar? Quintessential Toronto Yuppie. Each of you probably knows at least half a dozen bros that look, style, dress, and speak just like him. And you like the non-fat cappucino . So someone like this in real life probably doesn’t wind up being an Imam. So what. I actually have an image in mind right now of someone that looks a lot like brother Amar that’s given a couple of khutba’s here and there. The character is real. It’s the situation that’s unreal. Which is exactly what makes a sitcom (situation comedy).
4. There is sheer brilliance in a number of things that Zarqa (God bless her and guide her steps) did with this particular episode. First the way she deals with the character of Babar. I think a lot of us are a little oversensitive about a character like that being portrayed on national TV. But if you were to step back and chill just a tad I think you’ll agree that he’s being handled in a very subtle way — he’s actually being made very lovable. In this one episode, the most natural thing to do would have been to make him a total bad guy. Not so. His soft heart and his eyes when he smiles at his daughter to tell her she can go out with her friends. Her hugging him and saying, “I love you” with such happiness and passion. The sheepish expression he has at the end of the episode when he accepts Amar’s fatwa with a calm but resigned “it’s terrible”. The scene in the cafe when he almost breaks down in tears and says, “it’s embarassing to me! You women are always thinking about yourselves.” I predict that he’ll wind up being the Kramer of this show — he’ll steal every scene that he’s in and will be the fav of countless viewers.
5. Another brilliant thing is the ending. Sure, no Imam ever would give the “ruling” that Amar gave. Sure, no theological or legal analysis was given of the various positions, etc. But that’s missing the point (in my view, and I really don’t mean to offend anyone). This was the only way for the show not to take sides. Frankly I expected the show to throw out the barrier and was looking for some creative way to do it. But this is so much better. Regardless of arguments for or against, the viewer is simply left with the knowledge that in a real community this is an issue and the writer/producer simply isn’t going to take sides or try to solve it in 22 minutes. Wonderful. I happened to mention this episode and its central topic to a couple of non-Muslim women. Their immediate reaction was to recall their knowledge that in Orthodox synagogues there is a barrier. I think this show is just going to enforce the understanding that the existence of such debates in a religious community is just normal.
6. The use of sexual innuendo in the episode. For anyone that thought this was going to be a family show that your kids could stay up and watch, we now know better. Tape the show and screen it before you decide if your kids are allowed to watch any given episode. But beyond that, what’s the fuss? O.K. I really didn’t like “the pinch”. But other than that, everything that was said or done was within the limits of normalcy by Muslim standards. Check out humor in jokes told in traditional Muslim societies. Check out humor in the classic Islamic literature (more on this in a separate entry inshaa Allah). Be honest in thinking about the humor that you and I laugh at every day of the week. Most importantly, every reference to that in this particular episode had a particular function. Simplest example, and please don’t take offense. The scene where Amar looks at Rayan. The scene was done extremely quickly (alhamdulillah) and was timed so that by the end of the move when she glares at him to remind him that it’s inappropriate he’s just finishing the sentence about men looking at women. Now think of the average Canadian watching the debate as it starts and thinking of all the stereotypes about Muslim men and women in prayer, etc., and where do you think his eyes are going? And when she yells at Amar that he’s acting inappropriately at just about the same instance that he’s talking about distraction, any reasonable person watching this says “yeah, this is normal, and yeah you need to take it into account when you arrange people in prayer lines.” I don’t think you could do it better.

Let me sum up. Personally I love it. I believe that in many ways we are being too sensitive and applying an unrealistic standard. I also believe that sitcoms do not and cannot deliver a message through lecturing. Eyes glaze over and it doesn’t work. Sitcoms deliver messages (when they do) by the appeal of inidividual characters and by the paths chosen to resolve issues. The messages coming out of these episodes have been overwhelmingly positive.

Most important of all, I believe that you don’t have to agree with me for us to enjoy each other’s brotherhood, sisterhood, discussion, opinions, comments, exchange, and companionship. There are intellectual aspects to this discussion that we should continue to investigate intellectually. And there are taste aspects to this show and we should accept up front that different people have different tastes.

I look forward to your comments. Keep ‘em coming.

First of all, kudos, thank you, and jazaakallahu khayran to Suleiman for being the first to post comments here and for keeping the discussion fresh, especially when noone else does. (Not to mention his tireless efforts to make this whole site a reality).

Jazaakumullahu khayran also to everyone else that has visited my blog recently and left a trail (i.e. comments). Blogging is social software, so we need to keep up the social part of the software.  (This past weekend I heard this brilliant paper about the role social software is playing in some communities. I’m just waiting for permission from the conference organizer before I talk about the whole conference and post link to some of the papers). Offline contact and feedback is always real and appreciated, but comments on the blog give it life and sustain discussion. It’s the best way of linking up the various thoughts expressed and steering further discussion. (Besides, it feels good to see my brs’ and srs’ black and white right here; JAK).

Today’s quote was from Shakespeare, “Temptation is the fire that brings up the scum of the heart.” Not sure what he meant by that, but I do know the Quran has something to say about the multiple images contained in that sentence. The notion of fitna in the Arabic language and in Islamic usage is of separating gold from the scum in the ore. Depending on context, fitna is translated as trial or purification, pain or punishment, or events and circumstances creating great confusion and in the process testing people’s mettle.

In the last sense, our scholars have described fitna as something that “when it is approaching, every person of knowledge recognizes it; when it is over, every person of ignorance can recognize it.” Times of chaos and great confusion have to be anticipated by the cultivation of wisdom, integrity, and discipline. When the chaos is upon us, it is too late to acquire any of that and we get lost, sometimes taking many with us. But even those times can serve, as Shakespeare describes temptation, to light a fire that tests the heart.

The Quran uses both fire and water to describe fitna. In soorat al-Ra’d (13:17) God gives the parable of the rain flooding the valley and fire purifying the ore. The first is the parable for testing the heart with knoweldge and wisdom. The second is the parable for testing the heart with experience, be it temptation or peril, pleasure or pain. In both parables, and in all tests, contrast is set up between the pure and the impure, certainty and doubt, insight and ignorance. The Quran articulates the contrast as between that which is of benefit to people and that which is the scum. In Shakespear’s words, the scum of the heart is brought up. In the words of the Quran, the scum rises, but then goes away. What remains is what we need!

May I?

Every time we speak we take a risk. Words are part of our souls that we share with others. Even fake words that don’t really say what we believe or the ones by which we try to hide how we feel have autonomy and may reveal us without our control. I saw someone weep with frustration at the perceived inadequacy of words as she tried to say something wonderful to people she felt might understand. Even as we were moved by the beauty of the thought and the music of the word she reached for more and agonized to tell her story in fullness. This is how it is when we know it matters.

I had tea with two of my favorite people the other day and we started talking about this a little. They have seen me speak many times, and saw me visibly nervous only once: when I spoke at their wedding. I thought about all the times that I had been nervous for a talk and tried to articulate a thread. There were only two other times that I could recall in recent memory. One was when I spoke at an orientation event for new colleagues. I remember remarking to the event organizer at my surprise at just how jittery I felt; after so many years of public speaking I would have thought that I’d be used to it! Her insight? “These are your peers. You care very much what they think of you.”

The only other occasion was not about “speaking” although it was still very much about words — it was my months-long trepidation at starting this blog.

It is said that Abu Haneefa, the great Muslim theologian and jurist at one point suffered from some pain in his legs and preferred to extend them straight in front of him as he sat in his circle to teach. When his circle was attended by an older gentleman whose face and manner of dress and comportment exuded respectability and commanded reverence, Abu Haneefa sat with his legs tucked under him out of respect to this gentleman. As he lectured to his students he began to discuss prayer times. “The dawn prayer,” Abu Haneefa instructed “may be performed any time after the first pervasive thread of light is seen on the horizon and before the sun actually rises.” The man then raised the question, “What should be done if the sun were to rise before the first light appeared on the horizon?” To which Abu Haneefa replied, “Then, Abu Haneefa should be able to extend his legs!”

Generally, if my primary concern is the communication of an idea, I feel that I can do a reasonable job. But if I am also concerned with identifying myself or sharing an emotion then the quest is perilous. I have no idea who may be reading these words. It is quite likely that at some point someone wanders onto these pages who has never met me, knows nothing about me. What, if anything, will they surf away with? What impression will they form upon reading a single post? Does it matter? Will it matter? Will they care?

It mattered to me. Just as it mattered to be understood by my colleagues, and just as it mattered for the newlyweds to feel, not just know, how deeply I cared for them. Just as it mattered for one speaker with one group to get her story out — mattered so much she wept.

Today’s “This Day in History” was about Tokyo Rose. I found myself asking for the nth time when we as a society will ever learn the lessons of the past. I still remember the 1st gulf war and the reporting that essentially made CNN. They covered “smart” weapons as if they were computer games, or fx in cool sci-fi. Four-five years later there was a spate of news stories in print and on TV about “the failure of the media in covering the gulf war”. These were stories in which reporters lamented the failure of the media to do proper investigative reporting and their willing gullibility viz a viz government accounts of the war.

Skip ahead 14 years and we witness the media defining new standards of “sheep”-ishness as they swallow government accounts not only of the causes of a follow-up war (the mythical WMD’s) but also of the conduct and outcomes of the war and the new colonialist mandate! In the post-9/11 world it is probably going to take considerably longer before we witness another orgy of useless self-flagellation by the media.

Keyword here being useless. The ink hasn’t dried on the revelations of governmental decption with respect to the infamous WMD’s, or on the stories exposing the colossal military failure that is Iraq, and we’re already seeing the media set aside any thought of questioning or (gasp) investigative reporting when it comes to the raids in Somalia. Unquestioningly and with a straight face we are told that the strikes target al-Qaeda militants in Somalia. Neither is a thought given nor a voice raised to question the credibility of an administration that had no compunction to lie outright about a relationship between Iraq and the crimes of 9/11. Knowing full well that we have in our country a President and a military junta that are perfectly willing to cry Qaeda whenever they want to bomb somebody, we the people are still willing to go along with it. Until when?

It seems that we are doomed not to learn from the lessons of history and therefore to continually repeat it. Injustice and aggression have very real consequences, not only for their victims, but upon us as a people and a society. Iva Toguri D’Aquino was a patriot who coped as best she could in troubled times. For her struggles and sacrifice she was forcibly separated from her husband, endured the loss of her child, and spent over six years in prison with the spectre of treason hanging over her name. It took over thirty years after her ordeal for a lame-duck president to pardon her on his last day in office! And then we collectively swept her memory under the carpet (had you heard her name before today?) and proceeded to inflict the same injustices (or in some cases considerably worse) upon each other YET AGAIN! Do we honestly imagine that we can survive unscathed as a society that periodically repeats its worst excesses in a new guise? I wonder . . .