Why do we need BioIslam? Why not humbly accept ‘Traditional’ Islam, the interpretation that is taught in many a moderate masajid, or what some might label ‘Orthodox’ Islam? 1 Is not BioIslam a forbidden innovation or bidah (which we address in the FAQ)? The downside of Traditional Islam is examined through the lens of three Tragic Errors and six Inconvenient Implications.
Three Tragic Errors (TE)
- TE1 – Riq-Slavery is Halal
- TE2 – Printing is Haram
- TE3 – Messy Role Model
Six Inconvenient Implications
- Abrogation
- Sectarianism
- Satanic Verses
- A bit of Wife Beating
- Uncertainty of Miraj
- Uncertainty of Prayer Format
A detailed discussion of the first two Tragic Errors follows below, while the rest are on additional pages.
TRAGIC ERRORS
BioIslam is necessary to revive the Islamic spirit because the method of Traditional Islam has clearly failed the umma in the past millennium. This is evidenced by at least two tremendous tragic errors committed by the ulama of Traditional Islam in their narrow-minded view of what is scripturally forbidden (haram) and permitted (halal) — permitting riq-slavery and forbidding printing. These are grave errors, in both a collective and cumulative sense, in that there is no record of the ulama across the centuries speaking out against them. Any intellectually-honest Traditionalist scholar should be able to easily admit to these historical errors.2 However, some scholars, like the still-popular Shaykh Maududi (d. 1979), justify continuation of riq-slavery and criticize the ‘mental slavery’ of Muslims who ape the West in abolishing that which is divinely sanctioned.
Although the ulama of Traditional Islam undoubtedly had good intentions (niyya), and included many brilliant scholars, the substantial societal negatives listed below were a direct result of their embrace of a ‘complex system‘ that was constructed and canonized in the 2nd and 3rd Islamic century (8th and 9th century CE). If the early ulama had adopted something akin to BioIslam’s Inside Pillars and the Latent Principle approach, they would have avoided these tragic errors.
Women’s Issues â Another tragic condition, common to most traditional societies, is patriarchy and its adverse impact on women. As noted on the home page, the root cause of patriarchy is authoritarianism, which in turn is due to the cult of certitude. While legitimate debates about women’s issues remain open, based on assumptions on how much of their role in society is based on biological constraints versus social construction, there can be no righteous debate about riq-slavery and printing, hence they are addressed here with priority. The problems of Muslim women in Traditional Islamdom (and women in other societies) are extensive, and have been thoroughly documented in other works, so we will not elaborate on them here, except to say that if the Big Five problems are addressed in the manner prescribed by BioIslam, Muslim women will be benefit greatly.
TE1 – RIQ-SLAVERY IS HALAL
As noted earlier, rampant riq-slavery, was humanityâs and Islamdom’s greatest crime. Sadly, the ulama failed to speak out against it for centuries. It is particularly disappointing that it was abolished only after the West did, although it is more accurate to say ‘re-abolished’ since BioMuslims believe the Prophet abolished it. BioMuslims believe all ruler-Prophets censured slavery, to the point of elimination in their vicinity, which we label ‘near-abolished’. However, retrograde authoritarians reinstated it later, which in the case of Islam, was most likely in the first century after the Prophet ï·ș. Why should that surprise? The depredations of history would not augur a better outcome â it is no different from the rollback of the moral horizon of prior Prophets.
Further, in the case of Muhammad ï·ș, they retrojected fake facts to justify it and, about two chaotic centuries later, canonized certain books to cement it. Unlike Traditional Islam, BioIslam retroactively and categorically condemns riq-slavery. Further, the ulama malign the sublime Prophet ï·ș, by affirming his impious participation in riq-slavery, as discussed later in Messy Role Model. Although they had good intentions, the ulama had big blind spots. That led to egregious errors. As noted earlier, they were wrong for long on pivotal issues. On riq-slavery for 12 centuries. On geocentrism for 9. On prohibiting the printing press for 5 centuries. The last of these underlies our present intellectual and material poverty.
Litmus Test
As noted on the home page, since the good God surely abhors slavery, the issue of Prophetic abolition is a litmus test of whether any interpretation, of any religion, is good. Although many Quranic verses allude to slaves inherited from the pre-Islamic era, no verse expressly licenses enslaving, and many promote manumission. Thus, the highest probability narrative is that the Prophet ï·ș, at some late date in his two long decades of prophecy, ended slavery in his vicinity, by massive manumission and an end to slave-producing conquests. That assertion is not incompatible with early Traditionalist sources, iffy and incomplete as they are. For example, if chattel slavery had not been ended by the Prophet, he would have referenced it in his sahih Farewell Sermon, one that Traditionalists often cite. Next, the crucial Chronology Hurdle, a key contributor to the larger Complexity Problem. If the Quran and Hadith could be rearranged chronologically, and cross-linked intertextually, which is now sadly impossible â the sunsetting of slavery might be easily inferred by Traditionalists, too. Taken together, these three considerations provide a strong argument from silence. Most importantly, the burden of proof lies with the one who disparages the Prophet ï·ș.
The ulama prolonged slavery in the world, and reluctantly agreed to abolition long after Europe did. We use the cumbersome term ‘riq-slavery’ to highlight Islam’s superior regulation of slavery, and many rewards for manumission, versus the more brutal version practiced in the Americas. As we discuss later, if BioIslam’s Inside Pillars and the Latent Principle approach had been adopted at the outset, it would have ensured that the Prophet’s abolition of slavery would have stayed in place. A honest discussion of riq-slavery remains a taboo topic in Traditional Muslim circles, but is detailed below.
Although the Quran is very clear about the reward for manumission of slaves, and insists on the humane treatment of slaves, the elaborate institution of riq-slavery in the Islamic world was not abolished until approximately a century after the Western world legally ended it (sadly, illegal slavery continues worldwide). Did the ulama approve? Unlike frequent admonition about the ills of alcohol and other haram affairs (pun intended), there is no real record of the ulama disapproving the rampant riq-slavery prior to the 19th century abolition.
The Evidence?
There is much documentary evidence for the widespread presence of riq-slaves in the Muslim world, an organized social institution that included public slave markets (suq al raqqiq) and enslaved at least 10,000,000 and perhaps many more. It is ranked as the third worst atrocity ever [te-Pinker-BAN-p195]. The only minor bright lines are that it was first abolished by two tiny Muslim states, Senegambia and Tunis. In the late 18th century, by the ruler of Senegambia, a tiny Muslim country, was the first worldwide to abolish slavery [te-Ware-WQ-p114]. Separately, the bey of Tunis, the ruler, abolished slavery in 1846, a little after the UK but before the US [te-Bey]. However, in both cases, their influence on the wider Muslim world was too minor to trigger wider abolition. Most disappointingly, the epicenter of Islam, Saudi Arabia, was very late to abolish slave trade in 1936, and slave ownership in 1962, a century after the UK and US, respectively (although media reports lament the existence of harsh indentured servitude into the present).
Why the silence?
Why did it take so long for the ulama to find their voice on condemning riq-slavery? If the West had not abolished, would the Islamic world have of its own accord? If legal slavery returns to the West in some distant distopic future (not unthinkable), will Traditional Muslims return to their roots and reinstitute slavery? Since slavery is so antithetical to the Quranic ethos of mercy, justice, egalitarianism, freedom, solidarity and human dignity, it is a deeply embarrassing topic that Traditionalist Muslim scholars, both classical and contemporary, have been largely silent on. To the degree the Traditionalists acknowledge it, they whitewash the issue by highlighting Islam’s superiority to the slavery practiced in many Christian lands, which is wholly unsatisfying given Islam’s strong mandate for mercy and justice. Also, they downplay the difficulties and displacement it caused, and oversell the opportunity afforded by elite military slaves and slaves-turned-rulers, a feature unique to Islamdom’s riq-slavery.
The Ulama’s Response?
Apologists for Traditional Islam blame the long history of slavery on the greed of rulers and rich men. They cite many examples of manumission by the Prophet ï·ș and his companions (sahaba). However, the unfortunate reality is that there is no record of the ulama speaking out against the practice until after Europe banned it. Even worse, the ulama vigorously obstructed the efforts of Muslim reformers who, inspired by Western progress, tried to modernize Muslim society by calling for abolition. One such example is the famous Sayyid Ahmad Khan (d. 1898) in British India. In an article ‘ibtal-i ghulami‘ or the ‘refutation of slavery’, first published in 1871 and reprinted in 1893, he presents a ‘radical and complete repudiation of the legitimacy of slavery in any form’, according to a noted scholar of slavery [te-Powell-IMM-p272]. His position was affirmed by a prominent intellectual, employed as a Minister in the princely Indian state of Hyderabad, Chiragh Ali (d. 1895). The ulama were very upset by this and launched a movement to discredit Khan — in 1873 the powerful Meccan ulama issued a fatwa of kufr, branding Khan a heretic and effectively shutting down his reform movement.
Why defend it?
For too long the ulama tolerated riq-slavery opining that one cannot prohibit anything that God permitted, and which was role modeled by the Prophet, the companions (e.g. Khalifa Ali) and leading Imams (e.g. Imam Hanbal) centuries after the advent of Islam (see Prophet as a Role Model section later). One of the most influential recent Imams of Traditional Islam, Abul Ala Maududi (d. 1979) strongly defended slavery throughout his life. In a section mischievously titled ‘Mental Slavery‘ in his book ‘Purdah and the Status of Woman in Islam’, he castigates modern Muslims for blindly importing ideas from Europe and being shamed into apologizing for what he views as the legitimate Islamic institutions of Jihad, slavery and polygamy [te-mental]. He says, “The Europeans objected to Jihad and Muslims readily expressed their indignation against it; they found fault with slavery and the Muslims averred that it was absolutely unlawful in Islam”. The translator of Maududi’s book, al Ash’ari, writing in 1972, continues to defend limited slavery, although he softens Maududi’s robust defense by way of a footnote where he allows for domestic slaves only if they are acquired in war, “Islam has strictly prohibited the sale and purchase of free human beings. It has, however, permitted this in the case of prisoners of war as a necessary evil. The Muslims may either set them free as a favour, or for ransom or for exchange of Muslim prisoners of war, or keep them as slaves in their houses. But even in that case, slavery has been made as humane as possible”.
Another prominent Muslim scholar, Muhammad Hamidullah, who taught in Hyderabad’s Osmania University and later in Europe in the mid-20th century, struggles with the issue and tries to have it both ways. In 1945 he states “there is no verse in the Quran directly permitting enslavement” yet recognizing the presence of slaves in the Islamic reality and “mused that the duty to spread the faith might well be executed through slavery” [te-Hamidullah-MCoS-pXX].
Was it humane?
Was humane or elite slavery the norm in the Islamic world, as apologists for Traditional Islam contend? Not so. It is true that slavery in the Islamic world was far more humane than other forms of slavery, a point even acknowledged by Orientalist scholars like Bernard Lewis in ‘Race and Slavery in the Middle East’ [te-Lewis-bias]. It is also true that the fascinating institution of elite military slavery was unique to Islamdom. Yet, we must not assume the humane and elite aspects represent the common experience of the majority of slaves. Lewis paints a mixed picture of domestic slaves, “it would seem that while the slaves often suffered appalling privations from the moment of their capture until their arrival at their final destination, once they were placed with a family they were reasonably well treated and accepted in some degree as members of the household”. Given the tortuous mode of medieval transportation, the difficulties prior to being housed with a family should not be discounted. It is likely that in many a century, and many a geography, at least some slaves, especially the rural ones (i.e. not the domestic in-house slaves), led lives that were as miserable as that experienced in North American plantation slavery. Lewis cites as an example, “Of the Saharan salt mines it is said that no slave lived there for more than five years”. Use of rural slaves for agriculture and mining was widespread in Egypt, South Asia and East Asia (Java, Malaysia, Borneo).
How many?
Was it only rulers and the rich that engaged in slavery? Not so. According to a respected Western scholar, William Clarence-Smith, “During the Egyptian cotton boom of the 1860s and 1870s, triggered by the Civil War in the United States, even modest Egyptian peasants bought slaves” [te-Smith-IAS-p10]. His meta-analysis of various research papers in this field concludes, “there was scarcely an Iraqi family or middling Muslim household in India without a slave”. Bernard Lewis cites a document which suggests it was not just a narrow wealthy segment of society that engaged in slavery, “The large number of Pilgrims that go annually from Persia to Mecca and to Kerbala etc. return with slaves, averaging rich and poor, one to each Pilgrim” [te-Lewis-pilgrim].
How many slaves were involved? It is difficult to say, but my guess is very likely at least 10,000,000 based on our reading of the meta-analysis by Clarence-Smith of various research studies on this topic, with a high figure being 17,000,000 [how-many]. One African-Christian polemical author estimates it is perhaps as much as 112,000,000 which seems too high relative to more credible academic researchers like Clarence-Smith [te-Azumah]. Whatever the true number is, it is in the millions, i.e. large enough to have invited strong condemnation by the ulama of Traditional Islam, which it did not.
Review – Brown’s Slavery & Islam
The most intellectually honest contemporary scholars on this topic are Jonathan AC Brown and Kecia Ali, both Muslims and Professors at major US universities. Brown is a Traditionalist scholar and accurately frames this as a moral problem. A review of his book follows.
Brown’s book is, more than anything else, intellectually honest in its examination of the utter depravity of humanity. It is extensively researched and footnoted, beautifully written, and adequately angsty, given the agonizing contours of the topic. The eminent author has an extensive record of scholarship and is an enlightened Muslim, albeit a âTraditionalâ one since he believes in the integrity of the canon.
This is the second serious treatment of a troubling topic by a Muslim scholar, at least in English. The first, Dr. Kecia Aliâs âMarriage and Slavery in Early Islamâ, 2010, was of narrower scope, and I have reviewed it separately. It also boosts my faith in the scholarship of Dr. Clarence-Smith, âIslam and the Abolition of Slaveryâ, 2005, and I was wrong to once question that authorâs Islamophobic bias. Dr. Brownâs brutally honest approach is refreshing in the land of apologist scholars (of any faith), and he must be celebrated for his courage and commitment.
Brownâs approach to the Islamic sources (in this and prior books) validates the âTragic Errorâ of riq-slavery (âriqqâ in his book), and the deeply flawed narrative of Traditional Islam. The post-Quranic sources of at least the first two or three centuries of Islam are highly suspect. Instead, his copious intellectual talent could well have been used to (re)construct a worthy alternative, as BioIslam attempts to do. No interpretation of any religion is ever perfect, but some are more harmful than others â and the canonical construction of âTraditionalâ Islam has aggravated the Big Five problems. To resolve, we must go beyond a timid reform or renewal, and attempt a reconstruction led by first principles. And the book fails that objective.
Dr. Brownâs book cites an enormous number of primary sources, which confirms he is a serious scholar. In this and other publications, he displays a noble heart, and with it an acute awareness of the downside of Traditionalism, and the great reputational damage done to both Islam and its Prophet through the ages â by ulama who, despite good intentions, were bogged down by the oddities, absurdities, complexities, and conundrums of that interpretation. Despite his careful framing, this book might add fuel to the White Supremacist and Hindutva fires, and Brown has sadly been on the receiving end of dire invective in recent years. That Islamophobes are prone to exploit the sources of Traditionalists on slavery or other topics should not surprise us; their compulsions service their insecurities. However, it is worse when well-intentioned ulama such as Prof. Brown perpetuate a canonical faux-Islam, which is now well past its sell-by date.
Contra this book, the continuance of riq-slavery beyond the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad, was a Tragic Error, attributable to the flawed interpretational structure of Traditionalists. This overwrought canon was imposed upon the befuddled masses, by a guild of self-validating ulama who operated, without academic freedom, in a chaotic and politicized authoritarian milieu.
The book implies the blessed Prophet did not eliminate slavery during his lifetime, which contradicts BioIslamâs position. As noted at the outset, since the good God abhors slavery, the issue of Prophetic abolition is a litmus test of whether any interpretation, of any religion, is good. Although many Quranic verses allude to slaves inherited from the pre-Islamic era, no verse expressly licenses enslaving, and many promote manumission, as Brown confirms (p. 249).
Although the author is clear, âI believe slavery is wrongâ (p.9), the book goes all-in to confirm the Traditionalist narrative of divine consent for rampant riq-slavery. However, as noted earlier, BioMuslims believe the most probable scenario is that the Prophet, at some late date in his two long decades of prophecy, ended slavery in his vicinity, by massive manumission and an end to slave-producing conquests.
A whopping 100 pages of Notes and Bibliography undergird this magnum opus. But what is the truth of the Traditionalist sources cited? As noted on the Historical Truth page, BioMuslims believe that Islam was not born in the full light of history, to contradict the ulamaâs position (neither were other major religions). Beyond the pristine Quran, the first century of Islamic history is obscured by an impenetrable fog. Consent was manufactured about 200 years after the Prophet (and even later in the case of Christianity). Who manufactured consent and why? It is no surprise that subsequent expansionist and brutal rulers reinstituted slavery, in addition to other rollbacks of the moral horizon constructed by Muhammad. This is no different from the historical outcome of prior Prophets, upon whom be peace. Those ethical rollbacks were codified into canon about 200 years after the Prophet, by a politicized ulema that unfortunately lacked the modern protections of academic freedom. Until unbiased scholars publish more books on the politicization of faith and knowledge in early Islam (such as Prof. Fred Donnerâs At the Origins of Islam, or Prof. Omid Safiâs Politics of Knowledge), we wonât really be able to fully appreciate the grave setbacks to Islamic thought in its formative period. Is it too late for clarity on what really transpired in the first century of Islam?
BOOKâS NUGGETS ANALYZED:
p. 75 and p. 360 â HADITH OF PROPHECY â this is the highest testament to Dr. Brownâs intellectual honesty. Most Traditionalist scholars would not include the âHadith of Prophecyâ (my label), since it questions the finality of Muhammadâs prophethood, a no-go zone. âIt is reported that the Prophet said that his son Ibrahim, who was born of the Egyptian slave-concubine Mariya, would have been a prophet had he not died in childhood.â The Hadith cannot be easily tossed aside, since Ibrahimâs potential for prophethood is clearly cited in Sahih Bukhari, the gold standard of Hadith authenticity. It is also a part of the Sunan ibn Majah, which belongs to the celebrated Sahih Sittah collection. Also, as mentioned in the footnote, it has support from some scholars that Traditionalists otherwise respect, al Haythami, al Asqalani, and al Albani. Some lesser scholars disagree.
That shocking admission highlights what BioIslam has identified as a COMPLEXITY PROBLEM â a result of the twin sub-problems of an AUTHENTICITY ASSUMPTION and a CULT OF CERTAINTY. If the great Imam Bukhari could affirm such a Hadith, and knowing that he included less than 2% of what he scrupulously examined (a Sunni-Traditionalist consensus), how can we trust him on anything else? It would be interesting to know the Shia-Traditionalist position on this, since they distrust Bukhari, but it is not cited.
p. 58-60 â SEMANTIC FIELD â he discusses how the term slavery has mutated. âThe definition of slavery shows how much semantic drift has taken place in the last eight decades.â Did the term âriqqâ change in early Islamic history? As noted in the DICTIONARY PROBLEM on the BioIslam site, the first Arabic dictionary/grammar book was written by Sibawayhi about 150 years after the Quran was revealed, and its composition entailed several controversies, which persisted several centuries later. Could that somehow explain the widespread backslide to slavery after the Prophet sws?
p. 95 â UMAR’S ANTICS â âIbn âUmarâ presumably refers to Abdullah, the son of Khalifa Umar. The Index entry is missing. If so, Traditional Muslims will be disgusted to learn their favorite rightly-guided leader âpressed on the buttocks, breasts and stomachs of slave girls he was considering buying.â Once again, a brave act of intellectual honesty to include this.
p. 81-82 â MAXED OUT â more brutal honesty, âIslam also took a new direction on the issue of slave concubinage, reversing a trend in the Near East and embracing the practice fullyâ. Also, a page later, âIslam headed in the opposite direction on matters of sex. With both polygamy and sex with slave women permitted by the Quran and Prophetic precedent, the early Muslim conquerors pushed both practices to their logistical maximums⊠The Prophetâs grandson Hasan (d. 670) is reported to have ⊠had more than three hundred slave-concubines.â
p. 82 â PARAGONS AT PLAY â The above shocking factoid about Hasanâs indulgences might be dismissed as sectarian, which would be unfair. Yet, I wonder why Brown does not mention the concubines of Sunni stalwarts? We know from Kecia Aliâs work that Imam Shafii and Imam Hanbal had slave-concubines. Other sources mention the same of Khalifa Umar. If Brown dosenât trust those sources, it would be good to know. We canât expect him to chase down every indulgence, that is not the purpose of the book, but establishing it of the paragons of the Sunni (and Shia) pantheon would help. If nothing else, it would further validate BioIslamâs assertion that the moral horizon regressed after the passing of the Prophet sws.
p. 130 and 134 â BEYOND THE ELITE â leading off with an amusing tale of what flavor of slave-sex is licit, Brown is brave to admit that senior scholars such as ibn Hazm and al Suyuti had slave-concubines. He states, âamong the distinguishing features if slavery in Islamic civilization were the ubiquity of slave-concubinage (at least among the elite), and he fact that it could occur legally alongside marriage to free womenâŠâ. But it wasnât just a luxury good for the effete elite. Clarence-Smithâs aforementioned book documents its wide prevalence, âthere was scarcely an Iraqi family or middling Muslim household in India without a slaveâ (p. 10), and “During the Egyptian cotton boom of the 1860s and 1870s, triggered by the Civil War in the United States, even modest Egyptian peasants bought slaves” (p. 10). Brown similarly asserts that in the Songhay empire centered in Timbuktu in the 1500s, âslaves were ubiquitous. They could be found as concubines even among the non-eliteâŠâ (p. 124)
p. 83, 87, 366 â DON’T ASK â this should have been an easy one for the ulema to condemn, but they did not. Muslims were allowed more than just to enslave non-Muslim prisoners of war or captives. On p. 83, âBut they could purchase non-Muslim slaves from outside the lands of Islam with the assumption that their enslavement had been legitimate.â This massive loophole surely did great harm across the centuries since âcapture in war was not how slaves had mainly been acquired in Islamic civilization. They had been bought from small-scale slave dealers.â On p. 87, he quotes another scholar as saying âthe ulama willfully overlooking the reality of riqq on a civilization-wide scale.â On p. 366, in a footnote, this amounted to a âdonât ask, donât tellâ policy. This confirms BioIslamâs assertion that the ulama failed the five INSIDE PILLARS of the faith, especially the second pillar of Empathy.
p. 129 â SPARE THE ROD â âAccording to the Shariah, slaves who were disobedient, made mistakes or fled could be physically disciplined. And they certainly were⊠slaves were usually beaten until they defecated[d], recalled one slaveâŠâ. On physical discipline, he also says the majority position was âthis could not exceed what a husband/father could to do his wife or child.â (p. 98). So what was the Sharia limit for beating a wife? He dosenât say. As discussed on the Inconvenient Implications, Imam al Ghazali had a shocking view.
p. 110 â BODY COUNT â Brownâs body count is high. âAvailable data suggest that over fourteen centuries⊠tens of millions of peopleâ were brought to Muslim lands as slaves. I noted earlier, based on the meta-analysis by Clarence-Smith, the number might be 10-17 million. Dr. John Azumah, an author with much lower academic pedigree, albeit the same publisher as Brownâs book, estimates in his sole book it is perhaps as much as 112 million, but his claim rests on a poorly documented assumption that at least 80% of those captured perished during transportation. On p. 117, Brown estimates 6-7 million Black Africans were transported as slaves across the Sahara, which over twelve and a half centuries averages to about 5,000 per year.
p. 109-118 â THIRD WORST ATROCITY EVER â Brown reviews many sources to conclude how âtens of millions were sucked as slaves into Dar al-Islamâ (p. 110). An estimate he does not cite is 19 million victims by Steve Pinker, an eminent Professor, in âBetter Angels of our Natureâ (p. 195). Pinker states the âMideast Slave Tradeâ, which he restricts to 7th-19th centuries, was the third worst atrocity in human history. He sources this as a median estimate from White’s âThe Great Big Book of Horrible Thingsâ. Pinkerâs rank is an Adjusted Rank based on proportional populations, i.e. 19 million back then would have been equivalent to 132 million in the mid 20th century. This compares to an Adjusted Rank of #8 for the Atlantic Slave Trade, whose 18 million victims over four centuries adjust up to 83 million. If Azumah is too high, and others too low, is Brownâs âtens of millionsâ a reasonable middle ground â if it is, it would rank even higher in the worldâs worst atrocities? If 50 million is within scope of Brownâs âtens of millionsâ, riqq would have an Adjusted Rank of #2, ahead of the Mongol conquests.
p. 188, 200 â MISSING MORAL VOICES? â âOne of the lone voices raised against slavery qua slavery was ⊠the early Christian theologian Gregory of Nyssa (d. 394 CE)⊠wrote a passionate plea against enslaving humansâŠâ (p. 188). Later, he adds, âThe isolated voice of Gregory of Nyssa in fourth-century Anatolia shows that it was possible for a man of God to condemn slavery from both a theological and philosophical standpoint in the Late Antique Near East. The moral horizon was certainly visible to him.â(p. 200) What Brown does not consider is the problem of the absence of presence â what if there existed people with similar views who did not enter the history books? Or who did but whose stories are lost? Untold numbers of books were burned at various points in history, so that is entirely possible. If BioIslamâs thesis is true, that all ruler-Prophets eliminated slavery in their vicinity, its corollary is also likely true, that rulers silenced voices that were impediments to their atrocious aims.
p. 255 â UNABOLITION â There is no such word, âunabolitionâ, but the disgusting hypothetical of reversing abolition is supported by a few eminent scholars â Qaradawi, Usmani and the late Buti â and perhaps many more ultra-conservative ones. Brown reviews their righteous rationale, and relates it to the âJVâ (nee Obama) attempt of the inglorious ISIS (IS?) to do just that. As noted earlier, this is nothing but the logical end to the cult of certitude of Traditional Islam.
p. 150, 189 â AWAKENING â If you buy into Brownâs thesis, you will find his deepest thinking grapples with The Slavery Conundrum (p. 150-51), and the competing explanations for abolition â Moral Awakening vs. Economic Explanation (p. 189-90). Brown favors the latter, but BioIslam the former, while underlining that such Awakening occurred with the appearance of all ruler-Prophets (which excludes the first coming of Jesus), and was unsurprisingly rolled back by subsequent authoritarian leaders.
p. 287 â The Appendix that explains why Mariya is incorrectly referred to as a wife, in some sources, is particularly helpful.
BACKSLIDE – The backslide to slavery should not surprise us. As Heschel says in âThe Prophetsâ (p. 231), âHistory is a nightmare. There are more scandals, more acts of corruption, than are dreamed of in philosophy. It would be blasphemous to believe that what we witness is the end of Godâs creation. It is an act of evil to accept the state of evil as either inevitable or final. Others may be satisfied with improvement, the prophets insist upon redemption.â That is a good reason to await the second coming of a Prophet.
In conclusion, the upshot of Brownâs âSlavery Conundrumâ is to reinforce BioIslamâs claim that we live in an ahl al fatra, an era between Prophets, one without clear guidance, and where the moral horizon advanced by prior Prophets has been compromised. This is an era between Prophets, after Muhammad, but before the return of Isa/Jesus, upon whom be peace. In his second coming, he will clarify all conundrums and cleanse earthly corruption, and could rule for an extended period of piety, peace and prosperity before the eventual apocalypse. As such, BioIslam optimistically takes a convex view of history â Prophetic ascents, long decline, then a final Prophetic ascent â in contrast to the apocalyptic/declinist view of Muslims and Christians, and the tragic/cyclical view of the Greeks and Asians (p. 189).
The book confirms that much of what the ulema tell us is at least dubious, if not atrocious and downright dangerous, due to the twin problems of canonization and complexity. Clarity will emerge only when the next Prophet arrives, which will be the second coming of Isa/Jesus, upon whom be peace. As discussed in Hoping for Isa, it could be weeks or centuries until he returns, we just donât know. Until then, we must learn to navigate this transhistorical liminal space â with the nuanced ambiguity of BioIslam, the clarity of the 5 Inside Pillars, and the empirical strength of the Pro-Science Path. This is the most pragmatic approach to the Big Five problems.
Review – Ali’s Slavery & Marraige
Kecia Ali notes that Nuh Keller, a popular contemporary Sufi Imam, appears to be so embarrassed by it that he quietly omits it entirely from his English translation of al Shafi’i’s famous book Reliance of the Traveler [te-Ali-XXX-p52]. She adds that Saudi scholar Ibn Baz said in the 20th century, “If a person fears he will not do justice [between wives], then he may only marry one wife in addition to having slaves”.
TE2 – PRINTING IS HARAM
The ulama are guilty of indirectly enabling Poverty, the foremost of the Big Five problems. They did so by forbidding use of the printing press until three centuries after it was widely adopted in Europe. Lacking broad access to books, Muslim intellectuals became narrow-minded and failed to foresee the prolific poverty-eradicating potential of the Industrial Revolution. A to-print-is-haram ruling (fatawa) was passed in 1485 CE and was implemented globally across the far flung Muslim umma, a few decades after Gutenberg invented the press in Europe.
Interesting, in 1508 CE, the leader of the Ottoman Empire ulama, who sported the grandiose title of Shaykh al Islam,3 made a generous exception allowing Jews to operate their printing presses to print any books that did not relate to Islam. Jews, who had been taken refuge in Muslim lands after being driven out of Spain in 1492, had brought with them a movable type printing press from Europe. For the next two centuries, Jewish intellectual progress flourished while the Muslim access to the rapidly growing knowledge base receded. In 1727 the Sultan gave permission was given in 1727 to Ibrahim Muteferrika, a Hungarian convert to Islam, to operate a printing press but only on non-Islamic topics. However, the decree lacked broad support from the ulama and resulted in protests and riots, and the permission was withdrawn 15 years later after only 17 titles were printed.
The ulama, led by the Shaykh-al-Islam, and together with the support of the scholars of Al Azhar, the leading religious university of that era, favored the ban for three long centuries. In the words of one scholar, “fatwas issued by the scholars of al-Azhar in Egypt were in line with fatwa of Shaykh al-Islam. Thus, on may conclude, the fatwa of Shaykh al-Islam was representative of the juristic standpoint adopted by the majority of the ulamaâ [te-Ghaly-ITSI]. Similarly, in the vast Mughal Empire of South Asia, there was no printing press. This resulted in a yawning knowledge deficit relative to Europe, and which combined with the use of narrow-minded ‘closed reason’ discussed later, resulted in a loss of longstanding intellectual leadership in the sciences starting somewhere around 1600 CE [te-Saliba-XXX].
This knowledge deficit led to a consequent rise in poverty, both intellectual and visceral, relative to the non-Muslim counterparts in the West and Far East. The rest of the story is well known — as European civilizations shed off some of their medieval darkness aided by printed books, their so called ‘Enlightenment’, they were able to expand their dominion in un-enlightened and un-Christian ways through a powerful combination of slavery, mercantilism and colonialism. Within three centuries of that tragic fatawa that banned printing, Europe was clearly dominating both Muslim and non-Muslim lands.
Ironically, the printing press was opened up to the Muslims with Napoleon’s conquest of Egypt in 1798 — the first modern Muslim printing press was commissioned in 1820 by Muhammad Ali Pasha (d. 1849) who set up a bureau of translation to import into the Muslim world the knowledge of Europe, a process that progressed slowly compared to the fast and the furious pace of the translation movement by the Abbasid Caliphs in the 9th century. In South Asia, the British got possession of a printing press when they defeated their colonial rivals, the French in 1761, but it was not until the establishment of presses in three large cities in 1823 that printing took off [te-Aqeel-CPM]. Printed works aided the mid-to-late 19th century reformist efforts of Sayyid Ahmad Khan (d. 1898), who was at the forefront of the movement to substantially upgrade Muslim intellectualism. To this end, he published extensively, including the Muslim world’s first science magazine in 1866, the ‘Scientific Society Gazette’, and eventually established a successful university in 1875. Interestingly, when the relative paucity of printed books in the Muslim world was cited as a plausible cause of scientific decline relative to Christian Europe by a famous scholar, Prof. Bernard Lewis in his infamous book ‘What Went Wrong’, the Traditionalists detested and dismissed it as Orientalist bias [te-Lewis-wrong]. Now that Traditionalist Imams like the popular Shaykh Dr. Yasir Qadhi have publicly stated the same without equivocation [te-Qadhi-printing], we must replace the medieval-Muslim mindset of canonization and ‘closed reason’ with the early-Muslim culture of broad-based book learning, vigorous critical thinking, inquisitive debate and ‘open reason’, which is the spirit of BioIslam.
TE3 – MESSY ROLE MODEL
The third Tragic Error is also of great importance and is covered in the next page.
- The term Traditional is better suited than Orthodox since the version of Islam that is taught in most mosques relies substantially on the ‘tradition’ established by the Prophet, i.e. the Sunnah.
- To his credit, the tragic error of banning the printing press has been acknowledged by Shk. Dr. Yasir Qadhi, a leading Traditionalist scholar in the West.
- The grandiose title Shaykh al Islam was commandeered by ulama at various points in history; in this case, as if speaking for all of Islamdom, even though a large fraction of the Muslim population lay outside of the Ottoman domain