For years now I have observed, repeatedly, that Muslims who try to bring Islam in line with otherwise universally accepted notions of equality of rights face opposition from Muslim hardliners who charge them with disloyalty to Islam. Here is more evidence. "Sudan’s Turabi - Muslim women can marry Christian or Jew," from the Sudan Tribune, with thanks to Kaiser:
April 11, 2006 (KHARTOUM) — In a lecture entitled "The Role of Women in Just Governance" which was delivered by the leader of the opposition Popular Congress Party, Hassen Al Turabi, at the headquarters of Umma — Party Mubarak al Fadil faction — in Khartoum, Turabi said a Muslim women can marry a Christian or Jew.Turabi described the teachings that a Muslim woman should not marry a Christian or Jew as misguided teachings intended to confuse and keep women behind. He explained that the practice has its origins in war times which were used against those fighting with Muslims, but which ceased once hostilities were over.
He also said that Al Hujab (the Islamic veil) —women face and head cover— was meant for women to cover their breasts as one of good practices and was not intended to be generalised to wrap up all the woman body according to the Quranic verses given by Allah for this particular purpose. It was worn as sign of respect and as a curtain to separate Prophet Wives and his guests....
Turabi raised huge reactions among Islamic scholars in Sudan. Some of them proposed to try him as an apostate.
Wow. He said that in Khartoum?
Hope he had a getaway car waiting.
yeah really, I hope he's not dead, I actually can't even believe that he hasn't been imprisoned yet.
"Some of them proposed to try him as an apostate."
Were the reactions universally negative? Is there any evidence that some of the Islamic scholars agree? Ifind it hard to believe that Hassen Al Turabi would be so bold entirely without evidence of support. Then again, he might be willing to be the first Islamic martyr in the true sense of the word.
What quran and ahadith is this Al-Turabi reading from? I like what he's saying but on what grounds does he stand?
This is a very intersting article, and it is encouraging to hear such speeches especially from the sudanese opposition leader.
It is noteworthy that after his recent release he made a statement regarding the west which went something like this
"Because our justice system cannot maintain justice for all the people, international justice comes to complement our system"
A good thing !
But he concluded that: "Freedom of the press is still curbed through censorship. Political parties are still banned. Public rallies, which have now spread all over the world, are banned. Liberties are forbidden and freedom has no place in the new constitution", "We will be ruled through emergency laws as in all Arab countries. Only one party rules
A bad thing !
I wonder if he was branded an apostate for his political ideas rather than the speech on veils.
Having lived and worked in Sudan, I remember Turabi. While he is progressive on some issues with respect to women's rights, and apostasy. (He spoke loudly against Afghanistan's decision to prosecute Abdul Rahman), he has also worked to protect homosexuals in Sudan.
The fact that he is the head opposition leader should be indicative that some Muslims are ready for some reform. That said, Turabi has been a vocal supporter for the genocide of the Darfurians, and has based his justification on traditional principles of jihad.
This is a little confusing. Cover your face to hide your breasts? But perhaps the thinking is along the following lines:
Intrigued by Thomas" comment that "Turabi has been a vocal supporter for the genocide of the Darfurians, and has based his justification on traditional principles of jihad.", I stumbled across this Slate article by Lee Smith about the man in question:
http://www.slate.com/id/2104814/
"President Jafaar an-Nimeiri's decision to impose sharia, or Islamic law, throughout the country in 1983 renewed tensions between the two parties, and war broke out again. Nimeiri's Islamicization project was urged on by Sudan's Muslim Brotherhood, including its leading ideologue and the country's attorney general, Hassan al-Turabi. The man who would later become known for inviting Osama Bin Laden to make his home in Khartoum in 1991 has long been a central figure in Sudanese politics. Turabi's brother-in-law Sadeq al-Mahdi ran the country from 1985 until 1989, when the NIF and current ruler Lt.-Gen. Omar al-Bashir came to power in a military coup that Turabi supported. Indeed, as the one-time spiritual guide of the NIF, Turabi was said to be the power behind the throne and thus most likely supplied the government with its additional rationale for continuing the war—jihad. After all, Khartoum was fighting to protect Islam and sharia against non-Muslims. Many of the Christians and animists who resisted sharia and refused to convert to Islam were killed, with the death toll from two decades of fighting recently estimated at around 2 million."
He certainly sounds like an Islamist. But then, it also sounds like he is well aware of the inherent Arab supremacy and racism of Islam and is recruting non-Arab Muslims to his cause:
"Turabi was arrested in March for allegedly plotting against Bashir and, for reasons that remain unclear, he is expected to be released soon. Four years ago, Turabi was put under house arrest and formed the Popular Congress. When the PC was looking for allies to bring down the central government, writes Danish aid worker Anders Hastrup, "The marginalized region of Western Darfur, with its Islamic tribes and its ambivalent and, occasionally, rebellious attitude towards Khartoum was an obvious place to look." The PC made common cause with the Darfur rebels and also circulated The Black Book, a pamphlet that, Hastrup writes, documented "Khartoum's neglect and ostracism of the western tribes in the decision-making process, and showed that the great majority of important positions in the country were filled by figures from a northern Arab background."
"Ammar Abdulhamid is a Syrian writer and rights activist whose Tharwa Project Web site documents the status of minorities throughout the Middle East and North Africa. He explained to me that "there is a very serious issue of racial discrimination, of Arabs against non-Arabs, in Sudan," which Turabi turned to his advantage. "He was reaching out to non-Arab elements in his struggle against Bashir," says Abdulhamid. "And he's become the rebels' spiritual guide."
What isn't clear is where Turabi actually stands - whether or not he's a sheer opportunist. I would certainly welcome more insight on this issue from Thomas or maybe even from some Sudanese who are online and able to shed some insight here.
... Muslims who try to bring Islam in line with otherwise universally accepted notions of equality of rights face opposition from Muslim hardliners...
This is a fiction. There are no Moslem reformers. There are no Moslem hardliners. Islam itself is hardline, without exception, with absolutely no jiggleroom, always, like it or not. The Koranic "god" commanded this.
You are either a Moslem or an apostate. If you're an ex-Moslem apostate, you are in recovery and attempting to re-integrate into humanity, whether your new self is an Infidel believer, a newborn pagan, an agnostic, or an atheist.
This is my fatwa.
A poster above says “some Muslims are ready for some reform.”
No doubt “some” Muslims would welcome “some” reform, especially those being brutalized within their own belief.
From what basis would “some” reform be derived?
Hassan al-Turabi was one of the sudanese muslims particularly responsible for the public execution of Mahmoud Taha (one of the more actually liberal muslim reformers of the 20th century, although still a muslim zealot) for sedition and apostasy from islam in 1985. Is this the same al-Turabi? I believe it is. It seems to me a mistake to view al-Turabi as an authentic reformer (in the sense that most JW/DW readers would use that word). Sudanese politics are somewhat complicated and marked by fallings-out within the ruling elite. That some persons oppose the currently ruling islamic elite does not mean that they are truly "liberal" in the best 20th century sense of that word.
Trying to reform Islam always runs into a tactical wall:
The reformers will not be terrorists, and, without that weapon on their side, they will always lose to those who feel no such compunction. Especially since the Koran is replete with excuses to be as demonic for "God" as you wish.
Those seeking to metaphor-icalize Islam's vicious, murderous suras will be a weak minority, easily destroyed by extremist 'traditionalists'.
We face the same weakness of moral-restraint, but are luckily not a minority facing a billion Islamicists.
Our scientific advances and overwhelming weapons balance their immoral, unrestricted terror.
As dangerous as they wish to be, we are still stronger.
And the more horrifically they strike at us, the less restraint we will feel in defending ourselves.
Their lack of self-control will doom them. But our decency will doom a lot of us to be the sacrificial victims needed for the survivors to feel justified in responding harshly.
A damned stupid equation, but one that people in the West, unused to real suffering, masochistically demand.
Unaware of history, they try to palaver with a frenzy of sharks.
Eventually they'll just sicken of the waste of their own people in this futile exercise of 'reasonableness' and obliterate the predators.
"Strong reasons make strong actions."
-Shakespeare.
Caroline & del,
I'm glad you posted that link above. I somehow remembered that Turabi was not kosher.
I was puzzled on why this guy should now be 'a reformer', as if there was such a thing!
He is a strange fellow. At times he is an opportunist. But he has taken single issues and driven them from a reformist perspective. It is ironic about his role in Mohammed Taha's death considering he now does not advocate the death penalty for apostasy (apostasy by itself that is) (Maybe there is no inconsistency).
The politics of Sudan are complicated. At times there is pretty robust discussion between the ruling party and the opposition on Islamic issues that propobably would never happen in any other Muslim country.
To be effective, reformers must act gradually (I know many of us here believe that we do not have to time to wait for such gradual reform). I think Turabi has done this. A reformer who puts all of his cards on the table, will find himself in the shoes of Kassim Ahmed or Rashid Khalifa.
A partial reason why groups like the Free Muslim Coailition fail, is because we have alienated Muslims, by not employing a degree of gradualism. It just makes strategic sense. Granted some here, don't necessarily want Islam to reform (this is not inteneded to be a criticism either), but this is the reality I think.
If more Muslim leaders engaged in the sort of discussions Turabi does, (please note I do not endorse him or everything he says. I know that he has used the doctrine of jihad to defend the genocide of the peoiple of the south and darfur).
Said Ibrahiim is similar (although not in political power). He has employed similar tactics of gradualism. And he has not as Turabi has advocated for death and jihad. Yet he has been largely unscathed in Egypt and heads the Ibn Khaldoun Centre until last week's fatwa.
It is the same Turabi, at one time (about 40 years ago) it might have been possible to call him a moderate, back when he was studying at the Sorbonne. Since then, he's been a jihadist 'spiritual leader' like Yassin, and was good buddies with OBL when he was in Sudan. He's possibly trying to gain 'moderate' credentials in the West in preparation for some powerplay. It's rumored that he's behind the JEM and SLA campaign that kicked off the whole Darfur genocide. In a country where the truth is taken as lightly as it is in Sudan, I wouldn't swear to the accuracy of that.
He's a total bastard, all he wants is power, and if there's anyone (on Earth) who would be worse to have in charge of the GoS in Khartoum than Omar Al Bashir, it's probably him. They used to be buddies until about 2000.
Meantime, the situation in Chad is looking grim. And yes, the Chadian rebels were based out of Sudan, but that's common practice all over Africa.
Doolz-- funny you should mention that.
A bit of analysis on the Chad situation:
http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_display.cfm?blog_id=281
Thomas
When I read the name "Hassan Turabi", the immidiate idea that came to mind was an Islamist of the type of Mullah Omar, Gulbuddin Heqmatyar, Omar al Bashir, and other such retrogrades.
I may be wrong here, but in 1984, when President Nimeiry, who had until then been an ally of Egypt, suddenly decided to start making his government more Islamic, the reason seemed clear when he was removed in a coup, and Islamists took power. I was under the impression that Turabi was a part of that campaign.
On the topic of gradualism, while that might be a good strategy by dissenters within an Islamic country, the reason I think most Jihadwatchers oppose it here is that as Infidels in Infidel dominated societies, we are not at a strategic disadvantage vis a vis Muslims, and therefore shouldn't be kowtowing to them. Whenever we are in control in any Muslim country, be it Afghanistan or Iraq, either that country becomes a modern democracy with support for pluralism, including, maybe especially religious pluralism, or we level that country. The gradualist movement is something I could understand if it were coming from, say, Coptic leaders in Egypt or Shia leaders in Saudi Arabia, who stand to get beheaded should they take a more strident approach. That is not something that should hold an infidel power back.
Another point worth noting is that when we back any of these movements, like the Free Muslim Coalition, it is like a poison pill - it reduces their credibility in the eyes of the Ummah, since in the debate between them and Muslim fanatics, the Muslim fanatics can use the fact that the FMC is backed by Infidels to butress their claims that they are traitors. So, as infidels, regardless of whether we want them to succeed, or whether we don't believe that reform in Islam is possible (I tend to the latter, on the grounds that if it were possible, it would have happened), the best thing that we can do is to stay out of their internal squabbles.
The only thing that we should be doing is ensuring that as few infidels as possible have any illusions regarding Islam, and doing what we can to minimize the dangers to our socities, from banning Islamic immigration and marginalizing the practice of Islam, to arming ourselves so that we can militarily take on the OIC, should the need arise. If the reformers prevail, well and good, but we need to see genuine evidence of that. If they fail, then we get to take on Islam militarily, and the sooner we trounce them in a war and then ban Islam in the same way Nazism was banned in 1946, the better it would be for all 6b people worldwide - including the current prisoners of Islam.
You are correct about Turabi. He was involved in the Islamist revival in Sudan. But he has always been slightly more moderate than those in power in terms of certain core issues like apostasy and womens rights (and even homosexual rights). I certainly would not put him in the same ideological camp as Mullah Omar; Mullah Omar is an absolutist; Tarabi, who has a background in Sufism is not as dogmatic. But at the end of day, his "moderation" has not ben good enough to make a significant difference in Sudan.
I would not expect non-Muslims to accept the notion of gradualism. And your point is well taken. Your point about FMC is also well taken. FMC's focus should not be on trying to convince your average American that the real Islam is that of peace, we should be convincing the Islamists. But we are not doing this. Instead we are doing the opposite. We have failed to develop any sort of theological underpinning for our existence. Which is truly disturbing, and leads many, including some astute observes at JW, that FMC is merely fodder.
Islam will NEVER reform, unless it is forced to, externally.
Such comments by a Muslim leader in a Muslim country are unprecedented ones. Such brave attempts should be welcomed. In recent times, some sane Muslims have started mustering courage to speak frankly without caring for Mullahs.
But is there any room for reforms in Islam? In Islam everything is codified in the Quran or Hadith and there is no room for reforms. At the best only reinterpretation of sayings can be welcomed by Muslims.
Turabi has been a great islamist and a hard-liner, we was very friend of Khomeini, and they want an union of shia-sunni, a bit islam ecumenism.
These news are new for me, and I doubt very much. I am sceptical.
He is a politician. If he is making this sort of comment, and whether he believes in them or not, it means that he feels there is a constituency out there to which they will appeal. And this, to me, is the most interesting feature of all. I think we ought to follow events in Sudan more closely, just to see whether he really manages to build up a following on this kind of policies among Muslim Sudanese, or whether he is just deluding himself and runs into a brick wall. Indeed, the issue is not even whether he will be murdered for his statements or not, but whether, if that happens, he will become a martyr to his side and generate a political movement, or whether, if he dies, he will just be forgotten like so many would-be Muslim reformers.
Thomas:
One of the big new advantages reformers have is the anonynmity and the ubiquity of the thoroughly networked internet. For example, you can propogate your ideas with your website by making sure it is interlinked to as many relevant websites as possible, so that it will get as many Google hits as possible, with the ultimate goal of becoming a central "hub" so that every Muslim who goes to the internet to learn about Islam cannot help but find new and positive ideas jogging around in their minds.
On a more sinister note, the violent jihadists have already doing this, as have many Islamists. So there's a bit of an information race going on.
Understanding the concept of the ummah allows many Muslims to mobilize the power of the internet, despite lack of technological sophistication.
Here's an example, from Islamic-world website:
"PLAN (specific - short term and long term):
1. Create and maintain the number one Islamic web site in the world.
2. Bring attention to and make available information concerning the positive, more accurate word view and the broad understanding of the laws of learning necessary to bring about a just and right Islamic world.
3. Establish links to every Islamic site on the Internet(probably over 50,000).
4. Daily commentary on important international news events from an Islamic perspective.
5. Polls to assess the opinion of Muslims worldwide on various issues important to Islam.
6. Act as a clearinghouse to compile and disseminate information in regard to all ideas of benefit to the fulfillment of Islam and for programs to implement these ideas.
7. Announcement of and information regarding important Islamic activities worldwide.
8. Public acknowledgement and support for activities being done on behalf of Islam (including an Islamic site of the week, a top ten Islamic sites list and periodic awards for 'special' Islamic sites).
9. Joining of resources between organizations, individuals and locations.
10. Provide information on how to successfully fulfill our responsibility to Allah in commanding the right and forbidding the wrong, including examples of subtle rights and wrongs that often go unnoticed while being important in their influence upon the ummah.
11. Da'wah resources will be made available both online and as downloadable written and multimedia works.
12. Promote the dissemination of cheaply photocopied downloaded materials in areas of the world with limited access to electronic information technology.
13. Islamic educational resources will be made available both online and as downloadable written and multimedia works.
14. Electronic publication of Islamic works.
15. Access to online instruction in Qur'an, Islamic sciences and Arabic.
16. Islamic search engine.
17. Subject specific moderated chat rooms.
18. Development of an 'Islamic Net' separate from the Internet.
19. Place at least one computer terminal in every Mosque in the world linked to the Islamic Network in order to help create a united ummah through the availability of virtually instantaneous communication among all the world's Muslims.
(NOTE: In both our short term and long term plans implementation will take place as quickly as manpower, resources, facilities and finances allow.)"
one of the great things about the internet is that its an excellent idea-spreading tool, once you understand the rules. Read "Linked:the new Science of Networks" by Albert-László Barabási for more relevant info on the nature of the WWW.