Sunni Sister has a post that links to the Question and Answer section of “Sunni Path.” The inquisitor asks if women’s rights declined after the incident of the Battle of the Camel because people apparently frowned upon the Mother of the Believers, Aisha, for being involved in a “political” matter. The answer was very enlightening, but I feel that it did not address some critical questions of my own (not surprisingly, since I ask a lot of questions).

Although the respected person of knowledge who answered the question, did clear up that women in Islam were much more independent and free thinking than under jahiliyyah, despite to what the inquisitor had been told by western academics, she did not really explain why the people frowned upon Aisha’s involvement; because they certainly did.

From what I understand, they frowned upon her actions because they were wrong, not because she was a “woman sticking her nose into political matters.” For that matter, everyone else involved on the side of those supposedly “avenging the death of ‘Uthman” were likewise frowned upon because of this incident. Although the orientalists might argue that Aisha’s subsequent withdrawl from political life was an indication that she acknowledged women’s “role in the background,” I would argue that she withdrew because she acknowledged wrongdoing and wanted to clear herself from it.

When someone does something wrong and knows it, they try hard not to repeat that act. When she was captured, and her army was defeated, she was treated with respect and honor, like the Mother of the Believers, and not like a captive. This undoubtedly left an impression on her that the person she was fighting was not some common lad from the backstreets of Makkah, who happened to have become caliph and was not fulfilling his alleged duty (i.e. avenging the wrongful death of ‘Uthman).

Nay, this was the Amir of the Muslim Ummah, the inheritor of the prophetic mission, the gate to the City of Knowledge, the champion of the Muslim army, the Commander of the Faithful, the Proof of Allah on earth, Imam Ali ibn Abi Talib (may Allah extend His blessings and peace to encompass him).

Perhaps Aisha recognized that and relented. If anything, that shows that women tend to be less stubborn and bull-headed than men. Others, such as Mu’awiyah b. Abi Sufyan, never learned that lesson. Allah knows best.

Many months ago, I posted some thoughts on “Reforming Islam” from the perspective of “Progressive Muslims.” This is not all that different from the perspective of an ex-Muslim, namely Ayaan Hirsi Ali, but it is profoundly more alarming to the average Muslim to hear someone who claims to be an ex-Muslim (although even that is doubtful) say something like, “Muhammad is, seen by our Western standards, a perverse man”.

She does not apologize for her attacks on Islam (under the guise of “reform”), but she does insist that they are not attacks at all. “I want to reform Islam,” she says with complete honesty, yet she has alienated herself from the very people she seeks to reform. And that is the real problem. Female circumcision, domestic violence, subjugation, and other social customs that oppress women are not inherent in Islam. They are the problems of people who happen to be Muslim, much as she probably was. One could argue that those problems are more obvious in western countries than in the Middle East. Every time a Muslim woman sees a billboard with a half-naked Christian woman selling beer, she probably thinks of that poor model as being “oppressed” but she does not blame that oppression on Christianity.

There is a sense of irony in the fact that the people Hirsi Ali wishes to reform are a lot like her. She undoubtedly received “Islamic education”, but it was apparently neither Islamic nor educating. Those who attack her, who would love to remove her from the planet, most likely view Islam the same way that she does. When she says that Islam is oppressing, they want to kill her, not because she’s wrong, but because she’s right, and how dare a woman speak the truth about her own oppression!

For that reason, a blogger from City of Brass applauds her for her bravery in standing up against the oppression of women. At the same time, however, he/she makes it clear that the applaud is not for her lack of proper understanding of Islam. She is not an ‘alim (scholar of religion), the blogger writes, but an ally.

But this is not the way of Islam, not even of the “liberal-minded” Muslims who also believe Islam should be reformed. There is a certain etiquette in “enjoining the good and forbidding the evil” that seems to be missing from Hirsi Ali’s understanding. She, Salman Rushdie, and others like them believe in offending to make their point, but such a stance renders their entire platform invalid. If she was truly interested in reforming Islam, why would she offend its adherents? They become more like the person who has been hurt by another and abuses him to get back at him. Yes, intentionally offending someone is abuse. That is an Islamic principle, and someone who wishes to reform Islam should know that before trying to teach Muslims anything.

I, who could be described as a modern Muslim who practices traditional Islam (and by that I do not mean Sunni Islam, sorry), I see her as neither an ‘alim nor an ally. She is a victim, and most of her responses to people who criticize her sounds as though she has been victimized. Unfortunately, someone who has been victimized and has not been properly treated for it tends to return to her abusers. It creates a depressing cycle of abuse. That does not mean she is asking for the abuse but rather that she does not know any other way. To her, that is the way Islam is. She wants to change it but does not know how.

Of course, she is wrong on both accounts. Islam is not oppressive and it does not need change. Many Muslims need change, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali is one of the non-Muslims who needs to know al-Islam (the true path of peaceful submission to God). In a way, perhaps her migration to America will be good for her. Like many other American Muslims, I chose Islam. It did not beat me over the head and force me to submit.

If I see her on the street, I will not kill her, beat her, curse her, or applaud her. I will feel sorry for her.

Following up on my previous post, I thought that it would be interesting to view the attitude of the Prophet’s pure household (peace be upon them) towards slaves in contrast to that of the ruling parties of their times, mainly the Umayyad and ‘Abbassid regimes.

Baqir Sharif al-Qarashi writes,

“When Islam spread in the first times and its brave mujahidin liberated many lands of the world to summon them to Allah, the movement and bringing of slaves became very wide. We think that many kinds of such slaves were taken illegally, for the ruling authorities in those times did not observe the Islamic precepts in respect with them.

Madinah markets “were full of slave traders who brought slaves to sell them; a street in Baghdad was called Slave Street (Murjj al-Dhahab, vol 3, p. 316), in which slaves were shown and sold.”

“As for the attitude of Ahl al-bayt toward those unfortunate slaves, it was merciful and kind to them. They bought as many of them as they could and freed them for Allah’s sake…

“Imam Musa motivated and urged his companions to marry female slaves, saying: ‘Marry female slaves, for they have cleverness and intellects many women do not have. (Al-Ithaf bi Hub al-Ashraf, p. 55).

Imam Musa al-Kazim’s mother was a slave purchased for his father Imam Ja’far al-Sadiq (peace be upon them).

It is reported that, after she was purchased, Imam Muhammad al-Baqir (peace be upon him) said to her, “What is your name?”

“Hamida” she answered with a voice dripping shamefulness.

The Imam gave her a medal of honor and dignity, saying: “You are praiseworthy (Hamida) in this world and praised (Mahmuda) in the hereafter.”

The Imam happily turned to his son and granted her to him. (Usul al-Kafi, vol 1, p. 476) Abu ‘Abd Allah (al-Sadiq) married her; she was the dearest, most beloved, and preferred of all his wives to him.”

Source: Hayat al-Imam Musa b. Ja’far al-Kazim by Baqir Sharif al-Qarashi (ISBN: 964-438-639-6).

There are a number of points that can be drawn from the above examples:

1. The Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) was merciful and kind to all slaves, and his objective was to give them freedom, not only of the physical kind but also a liberation of the mind and soul through al-Islam.

2. The Imams of Ahlul-bayt continued the Prophet’s legacy, despite efforts of the ruling powers to return to the practices of al-Jahilyya (age of ignorance).

3. Islam demolished the class system of the Arabs, replacing artificial marriage criteria with the criterion of taqwa (God consciousness). A few Muslims, even to this day still practice a tribal class system in relation to marriage and dealings, despite it being prohibited in Islam.

4. Many of the Imams of Ahlul-bayt were children of former slave women, all pious, righteous, and wise mothers and wives. Even Prophet Ismail, son of Abraham, was himself the child of a servant of his wife, Sarah (peace be upon them all).

5. By raising the status of slaves and equalizing corrupted class systems, Islam initiates the institution of slavery to gradually fade away.

I noticed Ginny’s post on Black Slaves some time ago but haven’t had the chance to respond. In a nutshell she wanted an answer to those African Americans who condemn Islam for the “Arab slave trade” that existed long before “peculiar institution” in the Americas. Being white, she felt that, coming from her, it would just sound like a white person defending the Arab injustices against blacks. Well, she’s right, it probably would. So, as an African American, I will speak on her behalf.

There are a number of reasons why one cannot compare slavery in the Islamic context with that of America’s slavery:

1. Islam was designed to eventually abolish slavery. It was a gradual approach (for various reasons). It laid tremendous reward on the freeing of slaves.

2. Many slaves before Islam were mistreated. After Islam, slavery was intended to be limited to prisoners of war. Someone could not be born into slavery, and simply accepting Islam would have been enough to gain freedom.

3. Slaves were treated as equals in Islam. They sat at the same tables with their “masters” and enjoyed the full rights of citizenship. In America, slaves were not even viewed as human at all.

4. After the death of the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) there were undoubtedly abuses of slavery in the Arab world. Many of the Arabs under the Umayyad and ‘Abbassid regimes (which were themselves mostly corrupted), did trade slaves, but they neither represented Islam nor Arabs. They were individuals who will answer before Allah just as the white slave masters of the American south will.

5. American slavery stripped enslaved Africans of their identity. Their culture, language, religion, arts, etc were all erased. I have no way of tracing my ancestry or culture. We have no history as a people because of what was taken from us. The cruelty is unimaginable, and the ramifications of it extended beyond just the lives of the slaves but into future generations for the remainder of time. You cannot overstate how important culture is to the lives of a people. To remove that from them completely and to force them to adopt something foreign is permanently damaging.

6. I will not stand here and defend every Arab slave trader, but in turn, someone should not judge Islam based on their actions. White slave masters tried to use the Bible and Christianity to justify their treatment of enslaved Africans, and one should not judge Christianity based on their actions.

Finally, slavery does not have a place in Islam, and it is not an Islamic principle or concept. Islam offered a solution the problem of slavery. Whether or not individuals followed the regulations on slavery laid forth by Islam is another matter entirely.