The Rise and Fall of the Gaza Converts

Interesting:

…In a 2025 talk at Georgetown’s Berkley Center for Religion, Peace, and World Affairs, researcher Dan Nilsson DeHanas discussed his research on Gen Z Muslims at university campuses in the U.K. and Australia. DeHanas said that the internet has created “a sense of perpetual solidarity” between Muslims and converts who are coming to Islam through a postmodern personal bricolage, concern for traditionally progressive causes like Palestine and climate change (the effects of which are felt keenly in the Middle East and North Africa, where many Muslims live), and the pursuit of “main character energy,” which he defines as “This sense that you’re actually engaging in the plot of something that’s real and exciting, like a feature film. You can’t just sit in the back. You have to go and drive the bus, or be right in the middle of everything.”

That impulse—to live faith as performance, to experience belief as a kind of public participation—also helps explain how quickly the online fervor curdled. The “revert wave” crested at the exact moment when Gaza dominated every conversation. But attention is its own ecosystem, and as Gaza faded from the algorithmic spotlight, so did the reverts’ audience.

Meanwhile, the antisemitic and misogynistic rhetoric of some online Muslim influencers, including reverts, became harder and harder to ignore. Kari, a woman who converted to Islam because of Gaza and posts about her reversion under the handle @izdzdaan, regularly intersperses videos of herself in hijab calling for decolonization in the name of missing indigenous two-spirit women with reposts of Tucker Carlson’s anti-Israel videos. Even some of the young Muslim women who spoke to DeHanas’ research team said that the misogyny is leaping off the screen and into real life, where young men they don’t know feel free to weigh in on how they dress and act. It “seems more possible today to say more radical things than you would have said before,” DeHanas said…

Source: The Rise and Fall of the Gaza Converts

Islamic preacher barred from entering Canada for speaking tour, months after being banned from U.K.

Seems like the right call. Question about a religious exemption for hate speech as proposed by the Bloc much more thorny as one looks at the potential impact across many religions and sects:

…Mr. Blanchet said his party plans to table an amendment to the government’s Combatting Hate bill to stop religion from being used as a defence for hate speech. 

The proposed change to the Criminal Code would abolish a defence allowing a person who incites hatred to escape prosecution if their words are based on religious beliefs or a religious text.

Canadian Identity Minister Steven Guilbeault replied that the Liberals shared the Bloc’s aim to combat hatred and would welcome amendments to the bill.

“We will hear from experts, subject-matter experts, and are willing to work with the Bloc Québécois, with all parties in this House to ensure that hate speech is not in Canada,” he replied. 

Jeremy Bellefeuille, spokesperson for Justice Minister Sean Fraser, said in a text message that the minister “is open to hearing expert testimony in committee.”…

Source: Islamic preacher barred from entering Canada for speaking tour, months after being banned from U.K.

A Long Fight to Keep a Closer Eye on Madrasas Unravels in Pakistan

Not exactly great preparation for the future and progress:

They draw millions of poor Pakistani children with the simple promise of free education, meals and housing. For devout families, they offer Islamic learning rooted in ancient tradition.

But to the Pakistani government and Western counterterrorism officials, the religious seminaries known as madrasas also represent a potential threat. The institutions have long been accused of contributing to violence and radicalization, supplying recruits for the Taliban, Al Qaeda and other militant groups.

Now, Pakistan’s Islamic schools are at the center of an intense political clash — one that jeopardizes years of hard-won progress toward bringing the seminaries under the government’s regulatory umbrella.

The conflict goes back to 2019, when the government enacted a sweeping overhaul requiring madrasas to register with the Ministry of Education. The effort, meant to increase accountability for institutions that have historically operated with minimal state oversight, was strongly backed by Pakistan’s military but faced vehement resistance from Islamist political parties.

In October 2024, the largest of those parties, Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam, secured a deal with the government to end the registration requirement. Under the agreement, madrasas would be registered as they had been before 2019, under a colonial-era law governing charitable, scientific and educational groups. That law provides little oversight of curriculums, activities or funding.

In exchange, Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam agreed to support unrelated constitutional amendments on judicial appointments that had set off a firestorm of controversy.

As the end of the year approached, however, the government had still not implemented the change. It cited concerns that reverting to the older system could undermine counterterrorism efforts, weaken oversight and breach international commitments to combat money laundering and terrorism financing.

The delay triggered threats of anti-government protests in Islamabad, the capital, adding to the government’s challenges amid frequent marches by supporters of Imran Khan, the ousted prime minister.

“We are firm on the agreed madrasa registration terms and will ensure they are upheld,” Maulana Fazlur Rehman, the chief of Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam, warned in Parliament last month. “If the government deviates, the decision won’t be made in Parliament, but on the streets.”

Late last week, the government finally approved the new registration provision, allowing madrasas to choose between modern oversight and the colonial-era framework. The move, in effect, discards the 2019 efforts to reform religious schools in favor of short-term political stability.

When Pakistan was created 77 years ago, madrasas numbered in the dozens. They gained prominence and grew significantly in the 1980s, when U.S. and Arab funding transformed them into recruitment hubs for Islamic volunteers to fight Soviet forces in neighboring Afghanistan. Today, there are about 30,000 madrasas in Pakistan…

Source: A Long Fight to Keep a Closer Eye on Madrasas Unravels in Pakistan

Bouchard: Laïcité, méfions-nous du va-t-en-guerre

Always interesting to read Bouchard, with his sensible analysis and recommendations:

Je suis fermement opposé aux pratiques qui viennent d’être exposées dans nos écoles. Elles sont nettement contraires aux valeurs de notre société et il faut y mettre fin. Mais de quelle façon ?

Parti en guerre contre l’islamisme (« On va se battre ») comme si une vague déferlait sur le Québec, M. Legault veut immédiatement sortir l’artillerie lourde : durcir la Loi sur la laïcité de l’État, l’enchâsser dans une constitution, utiliser la disposition de dérogation, « sortir » la religion des écoles et des lieux publics. Il y a certes un problème, mais une intervention précipitée, mal calibrée, pourrait l’aggraver plutôt que de le régler. Nous connaissons mal la situation, des enquêtes viennent tout juste de commencer. Voici quelques questions à considérer.

1) Quelle est l’ampleur du problème ? Gardons-nous de généraliser hâtivement. Nous savons actuellement que moins de vingt écoles sont concernées. Est-ce la pointe de l’iceberg ? Ou l’iceberg lui-même ? Qu’en est-il des 2757 établissements primaires et secondaires recensés au Québec ? Et qu’en est-il des universités et des cégeps ? Nous l’ignorons.

En passant, ce que nous savons des dérapages provient du travail des médias. Sinon, quand le public en aurait-il été informé ?

2) Quelle est la source du problème ? Les situations dénoncées peuvent être imputables à diverses causes : a) les responsables, à tous les niveaux décisionnels, en étaient informés, mais ont choisi de les cacher ; b) les responsables immédiats le savaient et ont fait leur devoir, mais leurs messages se sont « perdus » plus haut ; c) des responsables, à un niveau quelconque, ont jugé que les pratiques concernées ne méritaient pas qu’on s’y attarde ; d) des acteurs, victimes d’intimidation, se sont tus. Encore là, nous ne savons pas.

Il s’agissait peut-être de peu de choses au départ. Le problème a pu s’accentuer à la faveur de l’inaction prolongée des gestionnaires. Dans le cas de l’école Bedford, on sait que les transgressions avaient cours depuis sept ans. Il est troublant que le ministère de l’Éducation n’ait pas été saisi de ces écarts ou que, l’ayant été, il n’ait rien fait.

3) Un problème d’intégration culturelle ? Il paraît clair que des éléments très localisés (jusqu’à preuve du contraire) d’un fondamentalisme islamique s’activent dans les écoles. Fondamentalisme ? J’entends par là le fait de a) reconnaître une priorité absolue à des valeurs religieuses ; b) se fermer à tout assouplissement ; c) s’adonner à l’endoctrinement.

Ce semble être un phénomène neuf ici. Aucune mention n’en a été faite au cours des nombreuses consultations conduites auprès de la communauté scientifique et auprès du grand public par la commission que j’ai coprésidée avec Charles Taylor.

Nous faisons face à un choc culturel. Qu’il soit ou non le fait d’une nouvelle génération, il témoigne d’un rejet de valeurs primordiales promues par notre société. Nous devons mieux connaître les conditions dans lesquelles des catégories de croyants en viennent à se comporter d’une manière inacceptable dans des institutions aussi névralgiques que le système scolaire.

4) Interdire les prières en public ? Qu’entend-on exactement par là ? On parle des attroupements de fidèles accomplissant un rituel religieux sur un trottoir ou une place. Qu’est-ce qu’un attroupement : deux personnes ? Cinq ? Dix ? Visera-t-on aussi le dévot qui, devant l’oratoire Saint-Joseph, s’arrête pour faire une génuflexion et le signe de la croix ? Qu’entend-on par « lieux publics » ? Par « prières » ? Comment démêler le religieux et le spirituel ? Et qu’advient-il des droits fondamentaux ? Enfin, toutes les religions seront-elles visées ? On aura noté que le premier ministre ne parle que des « islamistes ».

Bonne chance aux spécialistes qui rédigeront les nouvelles directives. Et bonne chance à ceux et celles qui devront les appliquer.

5) « Sortir » le religieux des écoles ? Comment procédera-t-on ? Il faudra distinguer l’endoctrinement et l’enseignement des religions, statuer sur les anciens séminaires laïcisés subventionnés par l’État et qui abritent une chapelle encore active. Et si notre premier ministre est cohérent, il devra fermer les écoles religieuses. Osera-t-il le faire ? Sinon, qui le prendra au sérieux ?

Selon un texte de Radio-Canada (avril 2022), notre gouvernement subventionnerait cinquante établissements privés ayant « une vocation religieuse explicite ».

6) Quoi faire ? Comment ? Comment contrer les expressions répréhensibles de convictions profondément enracinées dans le religieux ? Cette tâche appelle de la prudence et du doigté dictés par une approche réfléchie, expérimentée. Possédons-nous les outils psychologiques et sociologiques requis ?

Nous avons un centre de prévention de la radicalisation créé par la Ville de Montréal depuis une dizaine d’années. Il a fait ses preuves, surtout à l’échelle des individus, sauf erreur. Disposons-nous d’une expertise spécifique sur le plan collectif ? Saurons-nous traiter correctement des réalités aussi complexes, potentiellement explosives ?

7) Une déchirure sociétale à la française ? Des interventions à l’emporte-pièce pourraient donner à court terme l’illusion d’un succès, mais elles pourraient aussi activer le feu qu’on voulait éteindre. Évitons, si possible, de reproduire ici la situation de la France : un clivage profond, terreau de violences, devenu ingérable.

Au premier ministre de jouer…

Quel parti va prendre M. Legault ? Cédant à l’émoi du moment et en quête d’un gain électoral facile, va-t-il choisir d’en découdre et risquer de provoquer un durcissement, d’ériger un mur ? Ou optera-t-il pour la prudence afin d’y voir plus clair avant d’agir ?

Ce texte n’est pas une invitation à la complaisance ou à la mollesse. C’est une invitation à donner une chance à la prévention (sensibilisation, mises en garde, négociations, mises au pas, sanctions au besoin) avant de recourir à l’artillerie lourde. C’est une invitation à bien baliser le parcours avant de s’y engager. Et n’excluons pas que le cadre juridique actuel, appliqué rigoureusement, puisse offrir les moyens de ramener les choses à l’ordre. C’est ce que croient plusieurs juristes.

Source: Laïcité, méfions-nous du va-t-en-guerre

I strongly oppose the practices that have just been exposed in our schools. They are clearly contrary to the values of our society and must be put to an end. But in what way?

Gone to war against Islamism (“On va se battre”) as if a wave was sweeping over Quebec, Mr. Legault immediately wants to take out the heavy artillery: toughen the Law on the Secularism of the State, enshrine it in a constitution, use the exemption provision, “take” religion out of schools and public places. There is certainly a problem, but a hasty, poorly calibrated intervention could aggravate it rather than solve it. We do not know much about the situation, investigations have just begun. Here are some questions to consider.

1) What is the extent of the problem? Let us be careful not to generalize hastily. We currently know that less than twenty schools are affected. Is this the tip of the iceberg? Or the iceberg itself? What about the 2757 primary and secondary schools identified in Quebec? And what about universities and CEGEPs? We do not know it.

By the way, what we know about skids comes from the work of the media. Otherwise, when would the public have been informed?

2) What is the source of the problem? The situations denounced can be attributed to various causes: a) those responsible, at all decision-making levels, were informed, but chose to hide them; b) the immediate officials knew it and did their duty, but their messages were “lost” above; c) those responsible, at some level, judged that the practices concerned did not deserve to be dwelling on; d) actors, victims of intimidation, fell silent. Again, we don’t know.

It may have been a few things at the beginning. The problem may have been exacerbated by the prolonged inaction of managers. In the case of the Bedford School, we know that the transgressions had been taking place for seven years. It is disturbing that the Ministry of Education has not been seized of these discrepancies or that, having been, it has done nothing.

3) A problem of cultural integration? It seems clear that very localized elements (until proven otherwise) of Islamic fundamentalism are being activated in schools. Fundamentalism? I mean a) recognizing absolute priority to religious values; b) closing to any relaxation; c) indocting indoctrination.

It seems to be a new phenomenon here. No mention of this was made during the many consultations conducted with the scientific community and with the general public by the commission that I co-chaired with Charles Taylor.

We are facing a cultural shock. Whether or not it is the fact of a new generation, it testifies to a rejection of primordial values promoted by our society. We need to better understand the conditions under which categories of believers come to behave in an unacceptable way in institutions as neuralgic as the school system.

4) Prohibit prayers in public? What exactly do we mean by that? There is talk of crowds of worshippers performing a religious ritual on a sidewalk or square. What is a crowd: two people? Five? Ten? Will we also aim at the devotee who, in front of the Saint-Joseph oratory, stops to make a genuflection and the sign of the cross? What is meant by “public places”? By “prayers”? How to disentangle the religious and the spiritual? And what happens to fundamental rights? Finally, will all religions be targeted? It will have been noted that the Prime Minister only speaks of “Islamists”.

Good luck to the specialists who will write the new guidelines. And good luck to those who will have to apply them.

5) “Take out” the religious from schools? How will we proceed? It will be necessary to distinguish the indoctrination and the teaching of religions, to rule on the old secularized seminars subsidized by the State and which house a chapel that is still active. And if our prime minister is consistent, he will have to close religious schools. Will he dare to do it? Otherwise, who will take it seriously?

According to a text from Radio-Canada (April 2022), our government would subsidize fifty private institutions with “an explicit religious vocation”.

6) What to do? How? How to counter the reprehensible expressions of convictions deeply rooted in the religious? This task calls for prudence and tact dictated by a thoughtful, experienced approach. Do we have the necessary psychological and sociological tools?

We have a radicalization prevention center created by the City of Montreal for about ten years. It has proven itself, especially at the level of individuals, unless I am mistaken. Do we have specific expertise at the collective level? Will we be able to properly deal with such complex, potentially explosive realities?

7) A French societal tear? Cookie-cutter interventions could give the illusion of success in the short term, but they could also activate the fire we wanted to put out. Let’s avoid, if possible, reproducing here the situation of France: a deep cleavage, a breeding ground for violence, which has become unmanageable.

It’s up to the Prime Minister to play…

Which side will Mr. Legault? Giving in to the emotion of the moment and in search of an easy electoral gain, will he choose to fight and risk causing a hardening, erecting a wall? Or will he opt for caution in order to see more clearly before acting?

This text is not an invitation to complacency or softness. It is an invitation to give prevention a chance (awareness, warnings, negotiations, steps, sanctions if necessary) before resorting to heavy artillery. It is an invitation to mark the course before committing to it. And let’s not rule out that the current legal framework, rigorously applied, can offer the means to bring things back to order. This is what many lawyers believe.



Coren: Islam and Western Society

Note: Article dates from 2009 which I should have caught and his views, like most of us, have likely evolved somewhat.

—-

Surprising to see Coren writing for a more right of centre publication but he raises uncomfortable yet valid questions that his usual outlets might be uncomfortable with:

…Can Islam evolve, as has Christianity and Judaism? In that it is an exclusive monotheistic religion, it can never be as inclusive as Hinduism, but surely, as with Catholic or Protestant Christianity, it can hold to exclusive truth and still be tolerant of others who disagree. The problem is that there is limited evidence that this is happening. The Islamic heartland of the Middle East and Pakistan and even Nigeria and Indonesia evince a severe lack of acceptance for people who leave Islam for another faith, marry outside of the religion or criticize the founder, Mohammad, or the primary text, the Koran. Syria may not be as bad as Iran, Jordan may not be as bad as Saudi Arabia and Malaysia may not be as bad as Egypt, but it is only Turkey – where a militantly secular regime won a Kulturkampf against Islam, where anything resembling Western pluralism exists. It is, however, a pale imitation, and polls repeatedly reveal a personal intolerance of Christians and Jews unparalleled anywhere else in Europe.

In Canada, there have been several cases of so-called honour killings where fathers and brothers murder daughters and sisters who shame the family by becoming too Western. While this does occur outside of Muslim communities, it is overwhelmingly an Islamic phenomenon. Polygamy also occurs in Canada, with multiple and illegal marriages performed by Imams, and the police and judicial authorities are too timid to intervene. There are also cases of violent and hateful sermons delivered in Mosques, death threats made to critics and financial, moral and even physical support for foreign terrorists fighting and killing Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

This makes for depressing reading and paints a bleak picture of the Western, including Canadian, future. Obviously many Europeans already believe this, proved by the increasing support for right wing and sometimes even semi-fascist parties in countries such as Holland and Britain where tolerance is a way of life. We must also be extremely careful not to paint all Muslims with the same brush of suspicion. Most followers of the faith are peaceful people more concerned with paying the rent than preparing a rebellion. What, though, when Islam’s numbers grow and give it something other than cringing minority status? Christians in the Middle East will tell you that there are two radically different Islams: that of the minority and that of the majority.

If this problem is to be solved in a civilized manner, we have to transform the conversation and reform the vocabulary. First, the word “Islamophobia” must be expunged from the debate. It is meaningless, but it is used to silence contrary opinion and to place all critics of Muslim actions on the defensive. Second, there must be a collective show of courage and solidarity from assorted media and a willingness to display pictures and publish articles and books that, while not gratuitously offensive, are as cutting and critical of Islam as are those habitually drawn and written about Christianity. Third, we must hold Muslims to the same standard as anyone else and not indulge in the racism of lowered expectations. It is genuinely patronising to assume that a brown Muslim cannot act according to the same rules of civility and tolerance as a white Christian. Fourth, we must break from self-denial and admit that while we are not at war with Islam or Muslims, our liberal values are in conflict with many of the core concepts and precepts of Islam. We won the Cold War because most of us were prepared to say that capitalism, for all of its faults, was morally superior to communism. Today we are confused about what we believe, frightened to promote what we love and terrified of being seen as intolerant.

If enough people are willing to stand, read, write, act and know, we can carve out a new and successful West that includes the finer points of Islamic culture and history. If we are not – well, the thought is horribly rhetorical.

Source: Islam and Western Society

Top official from China’s Xinjiang says ‘Sinicisation’ of Islam ‘inevitable’

For the record:

Xinjiang’s top Communist Party official said on March 7 that the “Sinicisation” of Islam in the Muslim-majority region in north-western China, where Beijing is accused of human rights abuses, is “inevitable”.

“Everyone knows that Islam in Xinjiang needs to be Sinicised, this is an inevitable trend,” regional party chief Ma Xingrui told reporters at a largely scripted briefing on the sidelines of China’s annual parliamentary sessions in Beijing.

Rights groups accuse Beijing of widespread abuses against Uighurs, a mainly Muslim ethnic minority that numbers around 10 million in Xinjiang, including denying them full religious freedoms. Beijing vigorously denies any abuses.

Chinese President Xi Jinping has repeatedly called for the “Sinicisation” of religions including Islam, Buddhism and Christianity, urging followers to pledge loyalty to the Communist Party above all else. About two-thirds of mosques in Xinjiang have been damaged or destroyed since 2017, according to an Australian think-tank report.

During the news conference, Mr Ma and other regional officials praised Xinjiang’s economic development, refuted the United States’ allegations of forced labour and cultural genocide, and tried to paint the region as open to foreign tourism and investment.

Mr Ma, a high-flying former governor of prosperous Guangdong province who was transferred to Xinjiang in 2021, stressed the need to “coordinate security and development”.

“The three forces are still active now, but we cannot be afraid (to open up) because they exist,” he said, using a political slogan referring to “ethnic separatism, religious extremism and violent terrorist forces” in Xinjiang.

Beijing in 2017 launched a security crackdown in Xinjiang after a spate of violent ethnic protests, which saw more than a million people from several Muslim minorities detained in re-education camps, rights groups allege.

“We have carried out a severe crackdown on terrorist activities, promulgated and implemented anti-terrorism laws to… combat various forms of terrorism,” senior Xinjiang parliamentarian Wang Mingshan said.

But the briefing was largely focused on Xinjiang’s economic development, tourism potential and what the officials described as cultural preservation.

In 2023, Xinjiang received 565.7 billion yuan (S$105 billion) in central government transfers accounting for 72.7 per cent of local government spending, as well as more than 19 billion yuan in fiscal aid from other provinces, the region’s chairman Erkin Tuniyaz said.

Mr Ma was flanked by two Xinjiang officials sanctioned by the US over human rights abuses in Xinjiang – Mr Tuniyaz and former regional chairman Shohrat Zakir.

Officials also said that more than 4,390 foreigners visited Xinjiang in 2023, and that newly installed renewable energy capacity in 2023 totalled 22.61 million kilowatts, bringing the total installed in the region to 64.4 million kilowatts – nearly half of Xinjiang’s electricity capacity.

Xinjiang is a major base for solar cell production, a sector that has been tainted by allegations of forced labour. 

Source: Top official from China’s Xinjiang says ‘Sinicisation’ of Islam ‘inevitable’

Khan: Sinead O’Connor’s road to Islam serves as an inspiration

Of note:

Toward the end of graduate school, I embarked on a deeply personal spiritual journey, immersing myself in the study of the Qur’an. As a result, pop culture passed me by in the 1990s – including that era’s music.

So, it was only last week that I first saw the music video for Nothing Compares 2 U, the classic song by the Irish singer known professionally as Sinead O’Connor, after her death at the age of 56.The footage was mesmerizing and raw, and the glistening tears she shed elicited a well of emotions from me. And that voice! Words cannot do it justice.

I wasn’t paying attention in 1992 when she ripped up a photo of the Pope on Saturday Night Live, decrying sexual abuse in the Catholic Church. The photo had belonged to her mother, and upon her death, Ms. O’Connor took it with the intent to destroy it, in revenge for the ways in which she had suffered terribly at the hands of her mother, the Church and its institutions.

But the backlash was swift and brutal. Madonna, Frank Sinatra and Joe Pesci denigrated her; her albums were crushed by a steamroller at Rockefeller Plaza. Her actions were deemed “a gesture of hate” by Cardinal Bernard Law, the former archbishop of Boston, and “an example of anti-Catholicism” by a spokesperson for Cardinal Roger Mahony, then the archbishop of Los Angeles. (Cardinal Law would resign in 2002, while Cardinal Mahony would be removed from public duties in 2013, both for shielding sexually abusive clergy.)

Her courage was breathtaking. “I’m not sorry I did it. It was brilliant,” she told the New York Times in 2021. Nonetheless, “it was very traumatizing … It was open season on treating me like a crazy bitch.” The evisceration of her musical career was a steep price to pay for being a woman who was unflinchingly ahead of her time.

Throughout her life, Sinead O’Connor stood up for the dispossessed: abused women and children; gay, lesbian and transgender people; AIDS patients, racial minorities and Palestinians (she refused to play in Israel in 2014). She donated her Hollywood mansion to famine-stricken children in Somalia. There has been an outpouring of reflection about her honest struggles with mental health, and about her strength in the face of trials she endured, such as the heartbreaking suicide of her son last year.

But some tributes have underplayed her Muslim faith. In 2018, after years of studying texts from a range of religions and leaving the Qur’an for last (”I had bought into the nonsense that people talked about Islam,” she admitted), she found her home in the Qur’an, and changed her name to Shuhada’ Sadaqat. Umar Al-Qadri, chief imam at the Islamic Centre of Ireland and her spiritual adviser, spoke with NPR last week about what attracted her to Islam: “the fact that you can communicate with God directly,” he said, as well as the confirmation of the original Torah and Bible, along with the prophets.

A friend also gave her a hijab, which she donned in private, tweeting: “Not gonna post a photo because is intensely personal. I’m an ugly old hag. But I’m a very, very, very happy old hag.” Ms. Sadaqat would appear often in public wearing the hijab, believing that a woman had the right to wear it or not. In many photos, her inner radiance – her noor, in Arabic – shines through. And earlier this year, beaming from under her keffiyeh, she dedicated her Classic Irish Album award to Ireland’s refugee community: “You’re very welcome in Ireland. Mashallah. I love you very much and I wish you happiness.”

In a 2021 interview with Good Morning Britain, Ms. Sadaqat said that prior to converting, she would listen to the adhan (the Islamic call to prayer) and find solace in its perfection and optimism. And when she converted, Mr. Al-Qadri allowed her to give the adhan in his mosque; a recording of her prayer shows women, children and men of different races entranced, some weeping upon hearing her call. I wept too, when I watched it.

Upon Ms. Sadaqat’s death, many Muslims invoked another traditional prayer: “to God we belong and to God is our return.” It is a reminder that death will visit us all. She was our sister in faith, and we, her ummah – her world community.

She was a trailblazer, ahead of her time. Though she is gone, her light shines on. And while I may have missed her rise to fame decades ago, I am grateful to have learned – even now, after she has returned to God – about her compassion, her uncompromising commitment to justice, and her humanity. Let us all do the same.

Sheema Khan is the author of Of Hockey and Hijab: Reflections of a Canadian Muslim Woman.

Source: Sinead O’Connor’s road to Islam serves as an inspiration

Egypt’s Debate on Music in Islam: Between Religious Austerity and Spiritual Ecstasy

Interesting discussion. During my time in the Mid-East (Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Iran) gained an appreciation for the richness of Arabic and Persian classical music:

In Youssef Chahine’s 1997 historical film Al Maseer(‘Destiny’), twelfth century Caliph Yaqub Al-Mansur’s youngest son, Abdallah (Hani Salama) is recruited by Islamist extremists, who launch war on Andalusian philosopher Ibn Rushd (Nour Al-Sherif) and the band of bohemian artists who rally behind him in support.

Amidst the ideological battle, Abdallah finds himself torn between the Islamists’ austere views and his lifelong passion for music and dance — an internal conflict which culminates in the film’s most powerful musical sequence.

The character’s journey points to a larger debate in the Muslim world surrounding the status of music in Islam.

I lived happily indifferent to this debate until last April, when I shared a list of Ramadan concert recommendations, under which several people expressed the view that music was contrary to the spiritual ethos of fasting from drink, food, and activities which are deemed sinful.

A few days later, just before Eid, a widely shared threadon the topic stirred controversy on Twitter. The author voiced her shock at the number of Muslims who attend concerts despite what she perceived as an obvious religious prohibition.

Reading through the replies, I wondered: where did the notion of an inherent opposition between music and Islam come from? Moreover, how have these views made their way to Egypt — a country with a long and rich tradition of spiritual music?

An Age-old Relationship

The relationship between Islam and music is as old as it is contentious. When the Prophet first instituted the call to prayer, adhan, in the early seventh century, he selected the Abyssinian Bilal as the first muezzin, chosen for his beautiful singing voice.

In pre-Islamic times, poet-musicians were revered in tribal society and held a special place in the courts of Arabian kings. Following the advent of the Muslim faith, religious music swiftly grew from the Bedouin tradition of lyrical poetry, which was primarily vocal but occasionally accompanied by instruments.

As such, the first four Caliphs (~632 – 661 AD) were marked by a vibrant cultural life in the holy cities of Mecca and Medina, where wealthy families hosted salons and contests among both locals and foreign converts to crown the most talented musical performers.

As a result of the Islamic conquests, religious music was also influenced by the musical traditions of the conquered territories, leading to the introduction of new instruments, like the oud, a descendant of the Persian lute. Vocal methods inspired by Coptic chanting were also adopted.

In 750 AD, the establishment of the Abbasid dynasty, which ruled for five-centuries, propelled what is now known as the golden age of Islamic music, chronicled in tenth century scholar Abu Al Faraj Al-Isbahani’s Kitab Al Aghani (‘Book of Songs’).

Scholars like Al-Kindi wrote extensively on the theory of ethos (ta’thir) and the cosmological aspects of music. Ibn Sina, meanwhile, studied sound, rhythm, composition, and instruments, laying the foundations of a rich body of Islamic musical theory.

Among the era’s most prominent musicians were Ibrahim Al-Mawsili and his son Ishaq, credited with developing the practices of Ibtihalat and Inshad Dini — two forms of devotional poems recited with musical accompaniment and expressing the believer’s reverence to and love of God and the Prophet Mohamed.

Nowhere was the relationship between music and spirituality more overt than in Sufism, which is said to be as old as Islam itself, but developed into different orders formed around spiritual founders in the twelfth century.

Mass chanting, dance, long instrumental solos, and devotional love poems formed an integral part of Sufi Dhikr (remembrance of God) ceremonies, with music seen to bring its listener into a trance-like state, facilitating internal self-knowledge and unity with God.

In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, Egypt led the revival of these musical traditions with regional icons like Umm Kulthum, Abdel-Halim, and Shadya all performing Ibtihalat throughout their careers. The artforms were further mainstreamed through radio and later television broadcasts in the 1960s, with voices of legendary munshideen like Sheikh Sayed Al Naqshabandi’s coming to form pillars of Egyptian spiritual life.

A Contentious Status 

The Quran makes no explicit mention of music, and yet, throughout history, many scholars have held the viewthat it is prohibited or regarded negatively in Islam. Opponents of the artform base their arguments on hadiths (sayings of the Prophet), and one in particular, reported by ninth century scholar Imam Al-Bukhari.

This hadith reads, “There will be people from my Ummah [nation] who will seek to make lawful the following matters: fornication, the wearing of silk, the drinking of alcohol, and the use of musical instruments.”

People on both sides of the debate have interpreted the saying differently. Followers of more orthodox schools of thought, like Salafism or Wahhabism, understand it as a plain prohibition on music and the use of instruments.

Others, including eleventh century Persian scholar Imam Al Ghazali, have put forward the mitigated view that music in itself is not sinful, but songs which entice their listener to immorality should be avoided — a view echoed by former Grand Mufti of Egypt, Sheikh Ali Gomaa.

In 2017, an article published by Egypt’s Dar Al-Ifta contributed to the now-widespread debate. It argued that reference to music in the hadith was included to paint a clear picture of ‘the licentious night,’ but unlike alcohol and adultery, it is not sinful in and of itself.

Whatever the argument’s merits, it did not gain particular prominence in Egypt nor interfere with the country’s rich musical life until the 1970s, a period which marked an important turning point for Egyptians Muslims’ relationship to their faith.

Egypt’s defeat in the 1967 war against Israel, the contentious signing of the Camp David Accords in 1978, and the spread of Wahhabism among Egyptian migrants returning from Saudi Arabia, were all factors that laid the groundwork for a growing Islamist movement to rise in popularity.

Over the next decades, debates about Islamic morality took center stage in public discourse and cultural life. A study published by the American University in Cairo finds that this surge in piety had a two-fold effect on the relationship between Islam and music in the country.

On the one hand, the 1980s witnessed growing religious animosity towards the arts, and particularly women’s involvement in the musical profession. Figures like Mohamed Metwally Al Shaarawy, Islamic scholar and former Minister of Endowments, advised women artists to renounce their profession and turn to a life of religious devotion.

On the other hand, spiritual and religious music grew in popularity and gained new audiences as proponents of moderate Islam turned to the artform as a means to explore, express, and deepen their faith — or to cope with mounting socio-economic pressures.

The latter trend was reinforced in the 1990s by the emergence of a centrist Islamist movement led by journalists, scholars, and a younger generation of preachers, in response to the parallel rise of extremism. Proponents of centrism encouraged the production of ‘clean art,’ a standard defined by adherence to Islamic morality and the spread of positive socio-political messages.

Those teachings, popular among Egypt’s educated youth, compelled pop artists like Amr Diab, Hisham Abbas, or Aida Al Ayoubi to put out one or more devotional songs; while international artists like the British Sami Yusuf grew to local stardom for their spiritual music.

Conversely, the move to bring music in line with a perceived adherence to religious values also fuelled calls for the censorship or outright banning of works which supposedly did not meet that standard — as seen to this day with purists’ ongoing war on mahraganatmusic, a politically charged and archetypally working class genre, denounced for overstepping moral boundaries in its tackling of socially contentious topics.

Fear of God or a Desperate Bid for Control?

In Chahine’s Al Maseer, the extremists’ bid for power rests on a darkly threatening view of Islam. Citizens of the Caliphate can either abide by their stringen norms, or risk not only the wrath of the extremists, but of God.

Through their practice of music, Ibn Rushd and his companions seek to counter this grim narrative with love, hope, and an unwavering call for freedom. In this way, the film’s central conflict rings true across borders and centuries, shedding a possible light on the source of religious extremists’ opposition to music and the arts.

Contention about the religious status of music is not unique to Egypt. Religiously austere movements in Sudan and Afghanistan have also pushed for or implemented stringent regulations on music as part of broader conservative social policies.

The debate is also not unique to the Muslim world. In the United States, one hallmark of the so-called ‘satanic panic’ of the 1980s — a period of nationwide hysteriaprompted by false allegations of mass satanic ritual abuse — was conservative Christians’ crusade against rock music.

I have neither the authority nor the theological expertise needed to make definitive statements about the status of music in Islam or any other religion. I do, however, believe that austere religious movements have historically opposed music for the same reason that Sufi mystics revel in its practice: because it nurtures a spirit of love, passion, communion, and hope — all things which stand as a direct counter to fear.

Source: Egypt’s Debate on Music in Islam: Between Religious Austerity and Spiritual Ecstasy

Khan: A quiet revolution: the female imams taking over an LA mosque

Of interest:

When Tasneem Noor got on the stage at the Women’s Mosque of America in Los Angeles, she felt butterflies in her stomach. Facing about fifty women on praying rugs, ready to deliver a sermon – khutba in Arabic – she took a deep breath.

During the prayers, the women would follow Noor’s lead, but several would pray four more times after it ended, to make up for any potentially invalid prayers. That is the result of a 14-century-old disputed hadith, that leads some to believe women are forbidden to lead prayers and deliver sermons.

“I don’t mind,” Noor told me later. “Some people function better with rules.”

Noor, 37, is part of a quiet revolution in America: at the all women’s mosque, she was celebrating its five year anniversary of practicing the female imamat, a rare and often controversial practice in Islam.

Women aren’t even allowed to pray in many mosques across the world. In some mosques in the US, women may enter, but are often forced pray in separate rooms – leading some to call it the “penalty box”. Spiritual leaders that have pushed boundaries – by running mixed congregation mosques or running an LGBTQ mosque – have received death threats.

But at the Women’s Mosque of America, women are using their sermons to cover previously untouched topics like sexual violence, pregnancy loss and domestic violence.

One of Noor’s most memorable sermons happened in 2017 – a surprise, considering it was largely an improvisation. After a scheduling hitch left Noor with less than half of the 45-minutes she should have had, she shortened her talk and changed tack: leading the congregation into a meditation.

Source: A quiet revolution: the female imams taking over an LA mosque

Macron’s Islamic charter is an unprecedented attack on French secularism

The best analysis I have seen to date:

Adopted last month by the French Council of the Muslim Faith at the behest of President Emmanuel Macron, a new 10-point “Charter of Principles” of French Islam will please all those who have been calling for a “progressive,” “reformed” or “enlightened”Islam – one consistent with democratic, egalitarian and liberal western values.

It also represents a significant personal victory for Macron, who for months had pressured the council to craft a document committing to a “French Republican Islam”. Non-Muslim authorities, governments, media and public intellectuals have been demanding this for years as a way to combat “Islamism” and “extremism”.

It very clearly aims to turn Islam into a quietist, ‘pacified’ religion whose practitioners remain docile and obedient to the political powers-that-be

The unprecedented charter can thus be seen as a clear assertion that Islam is indeed compatible with secular democracies in general, and with the French republic in particular. In a nutshell, the charter aligns Islam with France’s republican principles, including gender equality; non-discrimination, including sexual orientation; and freedom of conscience, including the freedom to leave Islam.

It condemns “excessive proselytism” and attests to the superiority of and obligation for all Muslims to recognise France’s laws, constitution, republican principles and “public order”.

Article two proclaims an obligation for Muslims to “conform to the common rules” of France, which “must prevail over any other rules and convictions, including those of our own faith”. Article eight recognises the French principle of laicite, or secularism.

But article six, the longest, is also the most loaded. It proclaims that no mosques or other Islamic places can have “political agendas” or engage in political and ideological discourse or activity; these are described as “an instrumentalisation” and “perversion of Islam”, whose sole and “true purpose is prayers and the transmission of values”.

It condemns “the propagation of nationalist discourses defending foreign regimes and supporting foreign policies that are hostile to France, our country”. It dissociates Islam from “political Islam” and prohibits signatories from engaging in the latter, including “Salafism (Wahhabism), the Tabligh and the Muslim Brotherhood”. This amounts to an excommunication of those Islamic trends and movements from legitimate or “true” Islam.

Crafted by the executive

There is no doubt that this charter was essentially crafted by the French executive itself – especially Macron and Interior Minister Gerald Darmanin, who for years had been calling for the assimilation of Islam strictly within the limits, laws, principles and frameworks of France’s Fifth Republic. Darmanin even wrote a book about it.

The charter is not coming from Muslims. It is the brainchild of Macron’s campaign to force the French Muslim council to craft such a text, deploying against one religion a type of pressure, intimidation, threats, ultimatums and blackmail never before seen in French post-war history.

At the end of the signing ceremony, a close adviser to Macron explicitly threatened anyone who refuses to sign and live by the charter, saying: “Those who disagree will hear from us very quickly and see their operations inspected very, very closely by our services.” This, in a context where the interior ministry is banning Islamic NGOs, closing schools and shutting down mosques by the dozen.

This operation is an integral part of Macron’s crusade against “Islamist separatism”, for which he is using the French Council of the Muslim Faith as a facade, an alibi, a cover to circumvent a constitution that forbids state interference in religious doctrines. The charter is a word-for-word synthesis of all the injunctions and demands that Macron has addressed to Muslims over the past year.

Amazingly, article nine not only declares that state racism does not exist, but also that such an expression would constitute “defamation, and as such, a crime”. Its timing coincides with the introduction of Macron’s anti-separatism bill, and the Elysee Palace has stated that the charter was drafted within the framework of “technical workshops” presided over by the interior minister.

What are we to make of this operation? Firstly, it is an attempt, which some may find timely and even necessary, to align Islamic theology with the values, laws and principles of liberal, secular western states.

Secondly, it very clearly aims to turn Islam into a quietist, “pacified” religion whose practitioners remain docile and obedient to the political powers-that-be. Macron is trying to strip Muslims of their right to engage in oppositional and critical discourse and activism.

Thirdly, this hostile takeover is an attempt by the executive to assume control over the totality of Islam in France in order to “securitise” it from A to Z: its mosques, imams, institutions, NGOs, associations – even its theology. One should also expect that the repression and persecution of any Muslim deemed “Islamist” or “Salafist” will only get worse.

Fourthly, besides the extreme violations of freedom of religion and the brutalisation of Islam, the charter is also a glaring violation of French laicite – a principle the Macron government nonetheless claims to uphold. Based on the 1905 law on the separation of church and state, French laicite includes three sacred principles that are not open to interpretation: freedom of conscience and religion, the separation of church and state, and equal treatment by the state of all religions. Macron is trampling on all three pillars.

Uncertain fate

Only Muslims, and no other religions, are being summoned to craft a “charter” and implement principles such as gender equality, acceptance of homosexuality, and the prohibition of political discourse and activity. How about requiring the same from Catholics and Jews, some of whom oppose French laws on same-sex marriage or medically assisted procreation?

The attempt to delegitimise as “political Islam” and exclude from the religion several important Islamic trends under false pretexts, along with the persecution to which these Muslim groups are increasingly subjected, represents extreme violations of freedom of religion and human rights in general.

France has finally found its grand mufti: its (non-Muslim) president himself

The direct attempt by the executive to shape from above the organisation of Islam and its theology is by far the worst violation of the separation of church and state in the entire history of the Fifth Republic. It marks the end of French laicite and a regression to a crude form of quasi-medieval Gallicanism, when the state controlled, organised and narrowly defined religion.

The fate of the charter is more than a little uncertain. It will surely be weaponised, including as a divide-and-conquer tool. In the meantime, France has finally found its grand mufti: its (non-Muslim) president himself.

Source: Macron’s Islamic charter is an unprecedented attack on French secularism