In a recent TV interview, Hazim Abu Ismail, a candidate for Egypt’s presidency with affiliations to both the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafis, made clear that the hijab, or veil for women, would be enforced under his leadership. More importantly, along the way he exposed his general views—that there is little freedom under Islam. Especially telling is the military analogy he used: being a Muslim is like being a member of the military; you must obey all its dictates, including dress codes. He fails to add, however, that, whereas much military service is voluntary, in Islam, if you are simply born to Muslim parents, then you have joined Islam—whether you like it or not. Hence, all the persecution of Muslim apostates. But, as Abu Ismail puts it, “This is Islam.” Translated excerpts of the interview follow:
 Abu Ismail: “I have nothing to do with it!.. This is Islam.” |
Host: You have already begun to try to impose a particular dress code for us.
Abu Ismail: I’ve begun to? It’s the Lord of the Worlds [Allah] who said so. I have nothing to do with it!
Host: Allah left it for me to decide as a personal freedom.
Abu Ismail: Who said that? Where’d you get that from. See, that’s the whole point: If you claim that Allah considers it your personal freedom, show me your reference? Nobody has ever said that—except for people have no understanding of Sharia.
Host: There is “no coercion in religion” [Koran 2:256].
Abu Ismail: This is concerning the creed, you don’t force someone to convert to Islam.
Host: So when Allah in the Koran mentions “religion,” it is synonymous with “creed”?
Abu Ismail: Exactly.
Host: So when He says “today I have perfected your religion for you” [Koran 5:3], He is only talking about the “creed.”
Abu Ismail: Yes; for example, when you say “no coercion to join the Military Academy,” it means that you are free to join or not—but if you do join, then you are obliged to wear their uniform, to attend their classes, to attend the training with them, and to obey their leader.
Host: There is a problem here—shall I say to the unveiled woman who wants to avoid hijab that she should change her creed?
Abu Ismail: Exactly, bravo. If she is a Muslim. You see, this is the difficulty; this is Islam. Does she want to be a Muslim and not obey Allah’s rules? Let them say so; that’s all I ask; let them be honorable and just speak up.
A bold challenge, considering that “speaking up” about not wanting to follow “Allah’s rules” in Muslim countries can get one attacked, hounded, imprisoned, and killed.
Welcome to the new Egypt!
“It’s the Lord of the Worlds [Allah] who said so. I have nothing to do with it!”
I’m not Muslim and have limited knowledge, but IMHO it appears that he equates the hadith with the Spoken/Revealed/Inviolate Word of the Deity.
IIRC, it was Daniel Pipes who pointed out that there was enormous potential for forgery in the creation of those “sayings”.
Therefore, how solid is the theological ground which Abu Ismail is trying to stand upon?
His theological ground is solid. Remember, Allah’s commands are not just recorded in the Quran, but in the saying and doings of Muhammad, the hadith, the tradition. That’s why most Muslims are called “Sunnis,” they are the people who follow tradition/hadith. Also, shari’a law is made up of the Quran, hadith, and consensus of Muslim scholars, all of which agree that the hijab is mandatory for women.
Whatever his “theological” position, he’s an idiot into the ninth dimension. And a dangerous one, at that.
It is alleged that his sayings and doings are recorded in the hadith. IIRC, not all Muslims agree with that evaluation.
Salafiists take the hadith as gospel — possibly because the hadith were originally constructed, centuries ago, to support a “salafiist” mindset.
That they were “originally constructed” (i.e., artificially created) is my hunch — my strong suspicion, based upon the sum of evidence.
Salafiist/Qutbist Islam is a collosal con job — a deliberate twisting, back in ancient times, of a Message which the Arab descendents of Abraham’s other son didn’t want to hear. … Theologically, something doesn’t jibe.
I should be specific about “theological grounds.”
Just because certain other Muslim scholars say so, that does not make his logical foundation rational or tenable.
Islam has NOT been subjected to the radical theological/philosophical (even lunatic) examination which Judaism/Christianity has undergone. (Google the Mu’tazili School.) That’s deliberate. The traditional power structures in Islam have resisted it murderously. The “traditional” Schools are almost certifiably paranoid.
How refreshing it is, this Arab Spring.
Unlike Irish Spring, entirely.
And a plane ride to America don’t change Muslims into Jeffersonians or raise I.Q.s. I say stop all immigration. You can’t effectively govern 300 million people anyway and our resources and environment are taking it on the chin. When Las Vegas and surrounding polities start talking about a pipeline for Great Lakes water, you know it’s time to shrink this population back to 200 million just for starters. There should at least be some kind of national dialogue on this issue; right now there is none and we just can’t cozen 400 then 500 then a billion – what is the point of us committing that kind of suicide with the extra population being almost entirely from the failed Third World?
Liberation is slavery. We have always been at war with Eastasia.
Buffoon. Are muslims such unfettered little boys that the mere sight of a woman drives them mad? No, they are mad already. Buffoon, thrice over.
Come and get me. Taste lead, believers.
Don’t take me wrong.
This Salafiist *sshole is just that. If you don’t believe exactly as he does, you are “going to H*ll”. I had a Southern Baptist grandmother who was like that.
His, however, philosophical/religious position is essentially murderous.
He is evil.
/rant off