Shariah TV

A number of serious points have been made against Channel 4's Shariah TV programme by Michael Mumisa in the Independent:

A Birmingham cleric who received his training at Medina University in Saudi Arabia told a shocked audience that "Islam allows a man to beat his wife as long as he does not break bones or leave bruises". In programme three, another Saudi-trained cleric from Brixton went on to explain why and how Muslims should circumcise young girls and women: "It is necessary to cut off the clitoris and the labia otherwise a woman's sexual urges will become uncontrollable. The shariah allows it."

Let's ignore Mumisa's throw-the-baby-out agenda that Qur'an and hadith shouldn't be brought into the programme at all. Shariah TV for their part stand firm:

A spokesperson for Shariah TV defended the programme and claimed that the views expressed by the clerics on the panel represent the majority of opinion among Muslims in Britain. "Whenever we had moderate Muslim scholars on the panel expressing their opinions, the audience kept on booing them and on a number of occasions we had to stop filming due to disruptions from an angry audience," he explained.

Their research can only be said to be poor - these are not majority opinions. Anyone opposing the quoted views above would not be facing a lynch mob, and its wrong of Channel 4 to suggest they would. I also wonder what their definition of "moderate" is.

Does anyone know who did get booed, and what for?

Comments

[Sunny]

Whoops. Didn't go exactly according to plan then

[Yasmin Mahdi]

I for one was really disappointed with that programme. The panel of scholars - with all due respect - were very simplistic with their responses to the questions, and really failed to provide the diversity of opinion that exists within shariah on quite a few controversial matters. The fiqh of muslim minorities was something I would like to have seen mentioned - the idea (as I understand it) that as muslims in the west, it's getting the priorities right that matters, not the number of halal boxes you can tick.

It was always a case of this is Islamically right or this is Islamically wrong; would have been nicer if they dug a little deeper to give an indication of what the underlying reasons/values were behind the issues.

[Rasheed Eldin]

Mumisa, it seems, is not a credible person: he refuses to resolve the contradictions in his statements about homosexuality. More details of that at my blog.

And I also wrote about previous series of Shariah TV:

"It’s such an artificial environment: a few scholars of varying levels of expertise sit among a group of supposedly perplexed teenagers who put their carefully prepared questions forward for answers that they’re probably not that interested in taking. The scholars disagree with each other on air, leading to the impression that they don’t really know what they’re talking about. Sometimes that is actually the case. At other times, if they’d talked amongst themselves before filming, they would have come across much more coherently and helpfully for the audience."

[Yusuf Smith]

Salaams,

The position about removing the labia is not even a minority opinion. It's a cultural practice and an injury meriting blood-money, as is stated in the Reliance of the Traveller.

That "scholar" was talking out of his hat. He should not have been on there at all. Who was he, by the way?

[Sulayman Patel]

I do not agree with most of the views expressed by the 'ulama who appeared on Shariah TV. However, I do not think that the fact that the 'Ulama' differ among themselves on air should be seen as a problem. If anything it demonstrates that Islam accommodates differences of opinion among 'ulama. We would be worried if they all agree on everything. I am pleased that someone finally had the guts to write a critique of Shariah TV in a mainsteam leading British newspaper. The article was excellent, it criticised the views expressed by the panellists and not the personalities or characters of the people who expressed those views. To me, this means the writer is credible as a scholar because he observed the Islamic ethics of ikhtilaf (Differences) by avoiding attacking the characters of the scholars on Shariah TV as that would be haram and would also undermine his own credibility. I disagree with my brother Rasheed Eldin. Is the fact that someone has not responded to the calls "to resolve contradictions" in his statements on a given topic sufficient evidence to question their credibility? If that was the case then we would have to question the credibility of many scholars from the past who refused to be drawn into debates to explain their views; the likes of Imam al-Ghazali, Imam Malik, Imam Abu Hanifa, Imam Jalal al-Din Suyuti, Ibn Taymiyya, Imam al-Nasai (the compilor of Sunan Nasai) to name just a few (May Allah be pleased with them all). Moreover, the 'ulama of the past and present have always agreed that criticism directed at an 'Alim (scholar) by a person or people from his own time (his contemporaries) is not credible or considered as it may be motivated by ego or personal reasons (pure prejudice, jealousy, etc).

[Rasheed Eldin]

Sulayman, there are varying meanings for the word "scholar" - it's absurd to compare someone who's done a few degrees in South African and British universities with someone steeped in classical learning and acknowledged by the masters of their generation and ever since. Doing an MPhil at Birmingham University doesn't make you the new Hujjat al-Islam or Shaykh al-Islam!

I find your other point a complete red herring, and I hope you've just not thought it through. Is it that as soon as someone starts to call himself a "Shaykh", nobody should bother to criticise him, as such criticisms are going to be prejudiced?

What nonsense. Even in Western acadaemia, peer review is one of the pillars that sustains quality. Islam holds truth and evidential authority even more sacred.

I will continue to criticise Mumisa's position, and demand that he clarifies it, as long as he keeps mixing with the discredited "progressives" and supporting the cause of the Queer Muslim movement.

[Sadat]

I side with the ulema who steer the leading questions steadfastly sticking to the basic tenets of the faith.

The programme is a primer and was never intended to be a one-stop-shop on all hadiths.

But I have a big problem with the leading questions. For instance, beating a wife or children is portrayed as barbaric without understanding the context. So the anchor (what's her name) who likes to show off her secular education tries endlessly to catch the ulema off-guarded over some petty faux pas.

Beware of the munafiqs.

[Yusuf Smith]

As-Salaamu 'alaikum,

Is there anyone who can answer my question on who the "scholar" was who talked about removing the labia as if this was the Islamic position?

[Sulayman Patel]

Rasheed Eldin – Hey Dude, chill out. There is no need to get all worked out. I was simply expressing an opinion and I do not think I insulted anyone. If I did then I am sorry. Hey, man, you are free to criticise whoever you want. It’s a free world. You need to develop some humility man because with that attitude no one will take you or your arguments seriously. People will think that you are just an immature youngster sitting in his bedroom in his mother’s house with a PC and some basic Islamic books looking out to pick fights online with fellow geeks. I do not believe that that is the kind of person you are, but others might think just think so and dismiss you. Good luck man, you can insult whoever you want online or “criticise” as you call it. Just remember that when you decided to “continue to criticise the position” of anyone - as you put it - you allow that person to set the agenda for your thoughts and ideas. In other words, you unwittingly become the person’s “intellectual slave”. You reduce yourself to a mere commentator of a person’s views. You should be developing your own thoughts independent of what others are saying and setting your own agenda. For example, I have noticed that you are a former homosexual who repented and you like homosexual staff and how you have decided to dedicated your internet blog and your life to converting fellow homosexuals to the right path. Maybe that is your calling and you should direct your energy and thoughts to that, setting the agenda in that field, not just reacting or responding to others’ views as you are doing right now but being there in the front. If you do so, you will contribute something positive to Islam and Muslims. Do not allow your raison detre to be determined and dictated by others. I also think that you should learn some adab al-ikhtilaf (etiquettes of disagreement.

[Sulayman Patel]

DID ANYONE WATCH CHANNEL4 TV'S DOCUMENTARY "The Fundamentalists"? What did you think of it? According to some viewers, the director described some of the groups he met at "Muslim Fundamentalists", "Christian Fundamentalists","Hindu Fundamentalists", etc, but when he visited the Jewish Settlers in Israel who are considered by other Jews to be extremist he described them as "Religious Jews". Is that true?

[Rasheed Eldin]

Sulayman, that was the most patronising comment I've seen in a while. Feel free to come back on any point of substance if you like, but save the adab lessons. (Not that I don't need them.)

You made 2 incorrect assumptions: one about my mood, and another about my background. I am not, as you have "noticed", a "former homosexual" - and there is nowhere I have said I am.

Rather, I am a researcher focusing on this issue, relying on scholarship while not claiming it for myself. And unlike some, I am willing to put my views/research out there for people to analyse and criticise freely.

[Sulayman Patel]

Rasheed Eldin - I apologise for assuming that you are a former homosexual. I visited your blog and there were just so many comments from what I thought were former homosexuals, links to former homosexual organisations/groups, and I thought that you could be one. I also did not understand why one would see it necessary to dedicate a blog or time to homosexual discussions when there are other more pressing issues for the Ummah unless of the person was one or formerly involved in it. There is an old Arabic saying: "Man Ahabba Shay'an akthara dhikrahu!" I again apologise, that is my mistake. It is nothing to be ashamed of though, in fact, it is a commendable thing. While I may have made a mistake about your background as a homosexual or gay, I still believe that my point about your attitude was valid and accurate judging from your first reply to my message here. Your second reply was polite and civilised. In your second reply you were still able to make your point without being insulting or rude. The Prophet said: "Speak the Truth even though it may be bitter." He did not say: "Speak the Truth in a bitter way!" Good luck on your research. Which research institution are you working with? Can you please give me names of some of your published works? I would love to read them. Thanks in advance.

[Rasheed Eldin]

If you are interested in discussing me or my work, do it at my blog, not here. There are plenty of issues affecting the Ummah, but with respect, you know nothing about what I do to serve the Ummah in other ways.

And do we criticise other people who specialise in one thing for not doing all the other things? The issue of "gay Muslims" is an increasing concern, and I'm among a few people who are doing something about it. There are people (the StraightWay Foundation) who work to help Muslims who have same-sex attractions, including those who might call themselves "former homosexuals".

My own primary focus is critiquing the "queer Muslim" movement, which has been allowed for too long to confuse people and try to redefine Islam to suit their desires.

[fugstar]

give shariah tv a break folks, its not there fault that educational planning in saudi america is the craziest thing.

i hope that the saudi educated 'scholars' got some feedback from the programmers, and their colleagues.

problem is, that these folks are seldom told that they are stupid and probably arent scholars in the 'deeply read, socially aware, intelligent term of the word.

shariah tv should brings some people from the Islamic Uni of Malaysia, someone like Prof Kamali.

tbh shariah tv has consulted billions of people over what they are doing, it'll get better, but its only tv.

[Sulayman Patel]

Rasheed Eldin - Thanks for the response. I will check the blog you suggested. Yes, I agree with you, it is true that people should specialise and focus on different topics and issues. The Prophet encouraged and described various Sahaba as specialising on specific topics (we read this in the Khutba every Friday: Wa a'lamhum bil halal wal haram Mu'adh Ibn Jabal, wa aqdahum 'Ali, etc). There was a very famous debate between al-Ghazali, al-Mawardi, and others regarding specialisation (if it was good or bad for the ummah) and the view that ermerged from there was that it is good and important. The Muslims of the past hardly spent enough time analysing homosexual issues and now some people should be doing so. I checked the educational background of the author of The Independent article from very reliable sources and it is confirmed that he: Memorised the Qur'an when he was 7 years old from his grandfather who was a well-known scholar of that region, he studied full-time classical Arabic language, literature, and grammar and classical/traditional Islamic studies with the 'ulama from Africa (Southern Africa, Sudan, Egypt, West Africa) , Middle East (Shaykh Muhammad Ali al-Sabuni the tafsir scholar who wrote Safwat tafasir, Mukhtasar Ibn Kathir and other works, Shaykh Abu Gudda the late Hanafi scholar, Shaykh Umar Fallata the Hadith scholar from West Africa based in Saudi Arabia and considered as Saudi Arabia's foremost Muhaddith), Pakistani & Indian Ulama, and has Sanad from them. He received the al-Azhari University's qualification in classical Islamic studies and also did studies in the Darul Uloom (which we know offers traditional/classical studies) before joining the secular universities for further studies. Of course, all this does not make him Hujatul Islam or Shaykhul Islam but I just thought that I should correct your version and understanding of the man's background just as I had misunderstood yours. Allah says in the Qur'an: "O ye who believe! Be steadfast witnesses for Allah in equity, and let not hatred of any people seduce you that ye deal not justly. Deal justly, that is nearer to your duty. Observe your duty to Allah. Lo! Allah is Informed of what ye do" (Al-Maida: verse 8).
The best thing to do is to focus on people's arguments and views and not their personalities because we may be crossing a line in shari'a. We can passionately criticise their views and then let people judge for themselves about their characters. The 'ulama of the past would always say: "Nahkum bi zawahir wa-allahu mutawwali sara'ir" - "We judge according to what we can see and Allah is in charge of the unseen" in order to avoid the sin of personal attack s and innaccurate information. Even Imam Bukhari and Imam Tirmidhi(May Allah be pleased with them)made similar allegations against Imam Abu Hanifa (may Allah be pleased with him) based on misinformation and accused him of leaving the Sunna and of being "from among Ahl al-Bid'a" (Tirmidhi's own words in his Sunan Tirmidhi in the discussion of 'Ish'ar al-Budna - Kitab al-Haj).

[Rasheed Eldin]

Thanks for the info, but I don't know why you are posing as a neutral observer in this. It seems you are just like your colleagues Zaynab Robinson Muhammad and Omaru Abdullahi Toure who posted comments at my site.

Or do you deny that you are in fact AT the Al-Mahdi Institute, and know Mumisa personally?

"The best thing to do is to focus on people's arguments and views and not their personalities because we may be crossing a line in shari'a."
I say: fine, so let him clarify his views instead of sending students and friends to attack me for questioning his stance on homosexuality. What he has told journalists is documented and known: so what has he to say for himself?

[Sulayman Patel]

Rasheed Eldin – Why should it matter who I know or I do not know personally? Are we here to discuss who we know personally or to engage if fruitful discussions that may benefit us all? The answer to your question is an emphatic NO, I DO NOT know personally any of the people you mentioned and I wish I knew them personally just as I wish I knew you and all other Muslims personally. You actually believe that I or anyone would sit down with people and conspire to “attack you or anyone”? You must be a pretty very important person indeed to deserve that much of attention and strategising…. Unlike other people, I have better things to do with my time to lose sleep over petty issues. Do not be paranoid. Remember the Prophet said: Iyyakum wa zann fa’inna zann akdhabul hadith!” – “Beware of suspicion! For indeed suspicion is the worst form of lying!” In other words, people who make conclusions based on suspicion are not credible because they are most likely to deceive others and lie. I have just noticed that when you fail to respond effectively to an argument you resort to personal/character attacks and nitty picking. That is very immature and unsophisticated. I personally do not care what problems you may have with other people or who has not responded to you and made you feel very angry and unappreciated/unimportant. It is none of my business. It is between you and them. Maybe if you knew how to discuss with people with respect they would take you serious and treat you with respect. I just wish you should stop making baseless allegations and accusations against every person who come online to discuss with fellow Muslims and exchange ideas. If you say that there are other people, apart from me, “attacking you” then you should ask yourself if there is something wrong with your method and approach that needs improving instead of assuming that there is a big conspiracy to get you. In one of you previous comments here you mentioned that you have the right to do what you call “criticism” or people’s ideas. It is very strange that when you attack people’s characters you call it “criticism” and when others show fault in your methods and approach you call that an “attack” on you. You use words like “nonsense” to describe some of my points. That hardly sounds like criticism to me or anyone who knows what the term means in its scholarly usage. I ignored that word and did not respond or take it personal because I thought that you probably did not mean it as a personal insult and you simply did not know the scholarly conventions of engaging in discussions.
You also made an important point that “peer review is one of the pillars that sustains(sic) quality.” But you see my brother; the words are “peer” and “review.” You have to be a peer to qualify to review a person or for your review to be considered. What are your credentials? What qualifications, if any, do you have? You mentioned that you do research and I asked you a simple question that any researcher would be glad to answer: What research institute are you affiliated with? Can I have your bibliography (a list of your peer reviewed published research)? You did not answer me. I was asking, not to test you, but out of interest so that I could read your works, if they exist. I do not mean internet postings that have not been reviewed or published by a reputable publisher. Anyone can post material on the internet and unless if they have the credentials and qualifications in their field they cannot be taken serious.
The irony is that we can actually find out data about the background of the scholars and ‘ulama you have attacked and we are able to establish for ourselves if they are reliable, credible, or not but we know nothing at all about you or your background apart from the fact that you may or may not have been a homosexual. How do we know if you are credible and reliable? You are what scholars would classify as “Majhul” in the transmission of reports and you can find out what that term means in hadith studies if you do not know. A “majhul” person is not considered credible or reliable by the consensus and unanimous decision of all Muslim scholars. You simply use the name Rasheed Eldin which is not enough to tell us who you are or what you do that qualifies you to talk and write about Islam. Everyone has the freedom to comment on Islam and write what they want but they should not expect to be taken serious if they do not provide their credentials and qualifications. My brother, you need to come out of the closet (no pun intended) and provide your details for others to know. If you continue to hide under the name Rasheed Eldin people will be forgiven for assuming that you have something to hide; that you are either a homosexual or former homosexual who is atoning for his sins. I reached the same conclusion after visiting your blog which is full of homosexual discussion. Your obsession with people’s personalities is very gay brother. Why would anyone who is not queer or never had queer relationships/experiences want to dedicate a blog to discussion on homosexuals? What motivates such a person? Are they suppressed fantasies?
Take this site for example – osamasaeed.org – we know that it was set up by a man called Osama Saeed and although we do not know him personally we know who he is, what he is, and what he does, because he has provided us with the information here on his website. He is telling us that, “look this is me and you can make up your mind if you want to agree with me or not based on what you know.” That is the Sunna of the Prophet who instructed us that we should always do our best to introduce ourselves to our Muslims brothers and sisters and give enough details so that they know who we are. If you say that I, Sulayman Patel, have also not given enough details about myself my answer is simple: I am not running a blog to discuss Islam, I simply came to take part in an interesting discussion on Osama’s website and did not know that I would run into the internet weirdoes everyone warns us against, I am also not attacking people and telling others who is reliable and who is not because I would have to tell people who I am to make such a judgement. So I am just passing through and may never return to this website, after seeing that some people here are not interested in intellectual exchanges but in adversarial confrontation which they mistake for “debate” and “criticism”. This will be my last posting here and if I offended anyone I ask them and then Allah to forgive me. So my brother Rasheed Eldin, you won the argument and insults, you can go and celebrate. It was great running into you. Take care and May Allah protect us all from fitna.

[Rasheed Eldin]

Were you or were you not writing from the Al-Mahdi Institute in Birmingham?

[ainelivia]

A little late to the debate, however,

"It is necessary to cut off the clitoris and the labia otherwise a woman's sexual urges will become uncontrollable. The shariah allows it."

A woman's sexual urges? Hold on lads, who's sexual urges prop up a billion £ porn industry and all it's peripherals??

Oh let's blame women for existing.

What planet is this guy on?