Little Big Men

In His Name

The difference between modern science, as developed in Europe during the Renaissance, and Medieval science, lies primarily in methodology. The former is grounded in a belief that the world is ultimately understandable through empirical observation; the latter sacrifices observation on the altar of faith. What is often forgotten is that the modern methodology was first realized in the Muslim world, which applied its intellectual rigor not only to natural phenomena, but also to law and society.

During the Crusades (12th-14th century CE), many Muslim commentators made numerous observations as regards the culture of the invading forces. Their reporting barely hid contempt: In one case, a group of French Crusaders argued to a Muslim observer that, in order to determine their comrade’s innocence or guilt in relation to a supposed crime, they would tie weights to his legs and see if he floated or drowned in a lake. If he floated, he was guilty; if he drowned, he was innocent. As well as dead.

Needless to say, the Muslim observer was both amused and horrified: How could people survive on such illogic? But beware the dangers of xenophobic arrogance! When once the Muslim world prided itself on the realization of moderation, wisdom and tolerance in its ethos, today it often seems to think such restraints offensive creations of the West. Those who propose their introduction and application are often ridiculed for something akin to selling out.

On the one hand, we Muslims consider ourselves irreproachable: The source of all violence, sin and injustice is the infidel West. On the other hand, we are horribly sensitive. Everything hurts our feelings: not only weapons, but even beauty pageants and snide comments in largely irrelevant newspapers. We’re little men pretending to be big, all the while conscious that others can stand taller.

An example: In response to the twin attacks on Israeli property (an attack on a hotel, and a failed attack on an airliner) in Mombasa, Kenya, a Muslim “scholar” was asked to give his opinion. He explained that such violence was caused by the oppression of Palestinians. Meanwhile, a Kenyan woman was filmed by Qatar’s al-Jazeera television station, crying for her daughter, who was killed in the blast. Through her tears, she remarked, “I don’t even know where Israel is.”

While doubtlessly Israel is a racist state (as democratic as South Africa before 1994), and Palestinians are subject to all the indignities and inhumanities of a brutal, prolonged military occupation, this does not explain, justify or make up for what happened in Kenya – assuming a Muslim group was behind it, as is rather likely from most preliminary evidence.

On the heels of such violence, many critics of Islam as a social ideal raise their voices, finding plentiful material for complaint. Salman Rushdie’s recent New York Times article is one such example. It is painful for me to read and agree with important points of an article condemning the degradation of Islamic civilization by such a figure as Salman Rushdie, for whom I have little respect. But the article I refer to does contain some points which strike both true and hard.

There is an annual beauty pageant for the title of Miss World; apparently, the winner is the most beautiful woman in the world, though I see little empirical evidence to support this claim. There is a country called Nigeria, a populous nation torn between a Muslim north and a Christian south, which was to host the 2002 Miss World Pageant. And then, there is a female writer (I will not name her) working for a Nigerian newspaper called ThisDay, who said something I am sure she very much regrets, both for its meaning and its timing.

Over the last few years, Nigeria has been the scene of religious tension and all-out violence; the toll has been sickeningly high. To add fuel to the fire, there has been a conflict over legal jurisdiction, as northern Muslim provinces choose to implement Islamic law, against the wishes of the Christian population and the central government, which has been caught in a balancing act.

That certain ThisDay writer pushed balancing act into free-fall when she published an article claiming that, were the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) alive today, he would have certainly married one of the Miss World contestants. She wrote it perhaps to convince Muslims that the pageant was not such a bad idea, though one doubts her efforts met with great success. Indeed, quite the opposite.

Before the publishing of that ThisDay article, Nigerian Muslim groups had succeeded in having the swimsuit portion of the Miss World contest removed; after the publishing of said article, the Miss World contestants were lucky to get out alive.

Some Islamic scholars -- though they do not represent Nigeria’s highest Islamic organizations – argued that the article was a direct attack on the character of Muhammad (peace be upon him), which I agree with. But then they argued that the writer should be killed for her libel. Ahem.

In obedience to the spirit of this hasty decree, some Nigerian Muslims went on a rampage, burning down ThisDay headquarters and getting two hundred people killed in their indignation. Two hundred people who had nothing to do with the publishing of that article. Not too surprisingly, the writer of the article fled Nigeria. I imagine she and Salman Rushdie are enjoying dinner somewhere, trading war stories of a sort.

There are two problems here, beyond the obviously tragic loss of life and property, and that is both the reaction of certain scholars to the article, and the Muslim reaction to this supposedly scholarly reaction. While one can and should blame the rioters for their actions, I believe the greatest culpability lies with those scholars, who are responsible for their community. Kind of like the old Billy Joel song, “We Didn’t Start the Fire.” Except we try to fight fire with fire. Everything burns faster.

For a jurist to issue a fatwa (a non-binding legal opinion), calling for the death of a certain journalist, is troublesome; the fact that this judgment came in the absence of serious analysis, or even a trial (hell, even a mock trial would have ameliorated some of my outrage), is disgusting. Perhaps the Islamic legal concept of Istis-hab, the idea that argues that the burden of proof is on the accuser, and not the accused, is no longer in force. It seems likely. In its ideal, Islamic law is a wonderfully flexible system that seeks the establishment of social justice, individual rights and communal harmony; in practice, it is everything but that.

These days, Islamic law boils down to banning music from public buses and keeping women out of sight, all the better to keep them out of mind. While beards lengthen, minds tighten. Pants rise above the ankles, but standards fall to the lowest of the law. We have fallen victim to an insidious herd mentality, confusing the ideal of spiritual humanity and unity with the totalitarian anesthetic of religious nationalism.

But I would be lying if I said this did not affect me either. In truth, I found writing this article to be a difficult task; I felt as if I would be wrongly airing dirty laundry. But I was able to convince myself that this laundry is more than visible, but altogether tangible, in the misery and suffering of countless innocents, who often suffer because Muslim innocents also suffer. Such a twisted perversion of morality.

Happily, Nigeria’s highest Islamic bodies, composed of the ranking scholars of the country, condemned the death sentence against the ThisDay writer and urged calm, as opposed to agitating for further agitation. If only Muslims could do a little more of the deep thinking exemplified by these Nigerian scholars.

A Muslim is supposed to stand for justice, not in the way of it. I am not proposing that we mindlessly tow the line of the West, or any other grouping, for indeed, there is no monopoly on terrorism, injustice and oppression. Rightly we ask why Israel and America’s evils are swept under the rug, while violence in our communities becomes their hallmark. But we should be strong enough to rise above hypocrisy. The facts of our situation should not cause us to corrupt our faith, so as to allow it to become a vehicle for terrorism, injustice and oppression.

But that is all it shall be, should we continue to allow five year-olds charge of our faith.


“Has it not reached our pious oracle’s ear, that in the Mosque
such sermonizing nowadays has grown rhymeless and reasonless?”
- Allama Iqbal (“Jihad”)