Note to self:
What an absolute shame, I am greatly disappointed.
If I could describe this book, it felt like the author was continuously knocking on the West’s front door but, never really being invited in. A complete apologist for this beautiful religion.
One commendable thing to me was the mention of Waraqah upon the prophet’s (pbuh) revelation. Waraqah is often forgotten in this story but was pivotal to the nature of Khadija’s response to the Prophet’s pbuh revelation. When I read this towards the beginning, I thought that I was going to be reading the words of someone who is critical yet upholds religious integrity. I was wrong.
My main issues:
1. This man is a Zionist sympathiser. He mentions how he is criticised for this, and Mr Husain, you always will be. The way that he wrote about the Nakba was as if it was just a necessary part of the establishment of a Jewish state. The holocaust was one of the worst tragedies in history, but will we support the establishment of a Jewish homeland via hypocrisy? Are Arab lives less valuable than the (contentious) right of Jews to a homeland? I couldn’t believe what I was reading! I wonder what his attitudes are towards the current genocide of Palestinians. This man is even reluctant to classify Israel as an apartheid state, his argument being that other countries also bestow fewer rights to whole groups within them (such as the treatment of the Aboriginal people by Australia). What I say to you Mr Husain is that, just because someone else is doing it, that doesn’t make it right. And just because someone else is getting away with it, it doesn’t mean that if called out, you should not be held accountable. A murderer caught or a murderer escaped is a murderer nonetheless. Due to the religious interest in the region, it simply means that this particular apartheid state has garnered more attention than others and so is more likely to be called out. And no sir, the disrepair of the Dome of the Rock has nothing to do with the Muslims. They barely have basic human rights in that land let alone have the ability to fundraise enough money to maintain the Al Aqsa compound. What a joke.
2. The way that only the romantic elements of Islam were celebrated here really bored me. Islam is concerned with spirituality yes, but equally it is a religion of practicality. If someone strikes you, you have a right to strike back, though it would be better to forgive. If you want to remain a Muslim in the sight of God, you must observe your 5 daily prayers. These are just some examples of the practical and unapologetic nature of Islam that Mr Husein so very conveniently sidesteps. Sufism is a deeply spiritual branch of Islam that is very admirable. Sufis worry less about the rules and more about intentions and the condition of the heart. In other words, this branch of Islam is digestible to the West and I suspect it’s why the writer has an affinity for it. Then we had the author’s commentary that was quite anti-salafism/Wahhabism. I completely understand his viewpoint but denoting a whole sect to terrorism is just silly. Salafis as a whole do not condone terrorism. Most “Islamic” terrorists identify as Salafis but not all Salafis are terrorists. The writer failed to make this distinction which could have gone a long way in demistifying Salafism. I suspect that the writer’s time in Salafist Saudi turned him against the sect, but there are Salafis around the world who do not incite violence and terror on others. The main issue between regular Salafis and the mainstream Ashaari creed followers are their literalist interpretations of Quranic verses/Hadith and whether or not to follow a particular madhab, not who will volunteer to blow themselves up today! I want to make clear that I am not a Salafi myself. Most Sunnis do not practice this way either. We usually follow madhab (schools of thought) that have very clear and specific rulings. We do not apologise for these rules and instead follow them knowing that we are pleasing God. Why didn’t the writer discuss this group, the real mainstream group? A non muslim from the west is much more likely to cross paths with this type of Muslim than a Salafi or even a Sufi. It would have been more responsible to discuss this group rather than perpetuating Western stereotypes of us. The writer should have explained the beauty of our customs and ways of life. It is different yes, but it isn’t any worse off.
3. I think many Muslims are becoming overly concerned with their “duty” to comment on and oppose terrorism. In the event that a terror attack occurs in the name of Islam, we should quickly denounce it and move on. Simple. Muslims are forbidden by God to be instigators of violence and even if we are defending ourselves, we are not allowed to transgress. I just think that we are giving too much time to these terrorists, ascertaining as to whether or not we consider their actions to be within the folds of Islam. Of course it’s not within the folds of Islam, next question! We need to separate ourselves completely from these lunatic people, which includes writing about them so vehemently. These terrorists are not our business so long as we make it our business to stop mentioning them. Since we (mainstream Muslims) have stopped conflating the Nation of Islam with mainstream Islam, we hardly have any kind of confusion between the two these days despite their similar names. We need to achieve something similar with “Jihadi” based terrorism and it starts with our attitude at home, ‘in the house of Islam.’
4. Sex. This topic was handled so very poorly. The writer should not have quoted statistics for assault when it is clearly not possible to sample the entire population. To honour the sensitivity of this topic, all information related to it should at least be accurate! Men in Muslim nations like to use religiosity to justify their sexual depravity. It is a common psychological method where it’s easier to get your own way with someone if you use against them something that they love. You see, a (perverted) Muslim man is much less likely to use his religion to justify raping a non-Muslim. The non Muslim has no deep love for the religion so his psychological tricks are useless here and it’s why they mainly stick to Muslim victims. This has been the case for centuries. We know that this isn’t something that our beloved Prophet Muhammad pbuh would have condoned let alone preached/practiced.
Yet again, this narrative is getting old. Men all over the world are sexually perverse, we can’t just credit this all to Muslim men now can we?
When it comes to ordinary sex between a man and a woman, Muslims have their instruction from god. Keep it brief, keep it polite and keep it PG before marriage. So the whole justifying dating thing is again, so very silly. After the nikkah (religious marriage) is completed, a couple can enjoy one another just as wildly and passionately as a non-Muslim couple can (there are a few exceptions but they are hardly dealbreakers). In fact, the use of contraception is permitted (unlike Catholicism) because Islam recognises female desire.
Also, the idea of Arab women walking around topless in early or even pre-Islamic days is absurd. Women used to wear khimars (head coverings) even before Islam was introduced. Sexual exploration was only celebrated within the confines of marriage. Even oral sex was not customary and was often used as a curse (the act was looked down upon). And this was all in pre-Islamic Arabia. So again, the notion that women were roaming around topless in Arabia is absurd.
I don’t want to spend any more time bashing a fellow Muslim’s writing. I wish him well and may God preserve him. However, I urge Mr Husain to really seek out God, even if it means that it may make his Western colleagues uncomfortable. Nothing is sweeter than pleasing your lord in the very manner that he decides.