To Honor God

To Honor God
By Timothy Bowes
The Othello Press, Ltd.

“Between my soul and God stand my heart and my deeds.”

So begins brother Tim’s book, and he frequently goes back to this, like a refrain, as ultimately it is the truth that we each must center. To Honor God is one of the most lovely books I’ve ever read (and yes, it is true that I read, perhaps uncommon, A LOT of books) and I am grateful to have had the opportunity to do so. I am even more grateful to count Timothy as a friend.

Batool Al-Toma, who wrote the forward, describes the book as

“…a moving account of a young man’s search for God set in the English and Scottish countryside, so full of manifestations of His Glory and Majesty, as well as on the well-trodden streets of London, making the account resonate with the concept of a British Islam.”

Do not, however, think that it will not resonate deeply with you no matter where you are from, nor that Tim is espousing a specifically “British Islam”.

Another sister elsewhere mentioned that the only “shortcoming” of the book is its focus on “intellectual matters” and not including sufficient “tender moments”. This, I disagree with.

The author’s stated purpose with the book was to present something to his Anglican Christian and deeply religious family to assist them in understanding his decision and happiness with choosing Islam rather than continuing their spiritual lineage. The book was not intended during its writing (of which I had the pleasure of witnessing to some degree) for a mass audience, nor was it intended to be a “conversion story”. Drawing parallels between his family’s beliefs and his own, and honestly discussing where beliefs diverge is the greatest strength, in my opinion, of the book. Tim has created an actual dialogue, sharing not only how he came to Islam, but also how the morals his parents instilled in him led him to this Way and how much we truly share in basic values. Unlike many conversion stories, Tim does not fall into “this is why my way is right and yours is all wrong” judgment, nor does he give a scandalous history so that we can congratulate ourselves on “saving” the biggest sinner. He was a well-grounded, respectful, and honorable man whose very personality and values coincided with the ideals of Islam. His family, upon reading the book, I am sure can still see the same son, brother, cousin, grandson, nephew, that they always knew, only now they can hopefully understand his growth pattern and have a clearer picture of what he actually believes and holds dear. I suspect they are realizing in their hearts that they continue to have much more in common with him than they suspected.

For as long as I’ve known Timothy, he has always been thoughtful and perhaps understated. Saying that he is shy explains why it is perhaps easier for him to write out what he most wants to say to his family rather than trying to have a face-to-face conversation. It is inspiring actually, because many of us struggle to answer questions posed in anger, wonder why our response is so emotional, and are embarrassed when we don’t even know what our answer should be at times. Reading this book helped me to process some of my failings in that regard and see a better way to present what I want and need to say to my loved ones.

This book arrived at a good time for me. I’ve been reading a lot of “not Islamic” (and even some un-Islamic) books lately and this book was a pleasure to sink into. The beauty of his prose, and the depth of his sincere advice, helped me to reconnect with what I love about Islam and what my duty is to Allah.

Critique & Review: The Jewel of Medina

The Jewel of Medina
By Sherry Jones
Beaufort Books

 

To start with, I direct you to my review of this book that is posted at Feminist Review. The audience at Feminist Review is obviously not the same audience at this blog, and I adhere to editorial guidelines regarding word count and the purpose of the review. Please do read that review first, as I don’t wish to be repetitive here but merely give more detail to my concerns, recognizing that Muslims in particular want to know what the truth is about the novel.

An Ode to Book Cover Designers

Via Abe Books

Beth Carswell writes briefly about the beauty of novel covers, essentially claiming that sometimes we can judge a book by the cover. She showcases 30 novels that are worth buying for the covers alone, including some classics like A Clockwork Orange, Beowulf, and The Poisonwood Bible. I’m sold.

Zine Review: The Revolution Starts At Home

The Revolution Starts At Home: Confronting Partner Abuse in Activist Communities

My review now up at Feminist Review

Whatever It Takes

Whatever It Takes: Geoffrey Canada’s Quest to Change Harlem and America by Paul Tough

My review at Feminist Review of a book about Geoffrey Canada and Harlem Children’s Zone.

The Penderwicks

The Penderwicks
By Jeanne Birdsall
Yearling (Random House) – 2005

I ran across this book in the youth section while trying to find interesting books for my twelve-year-old son whose preference runs to dragons. There are no dragons in The Penderwicks, but I plan to read this one with him anyway, and I think he’ll enjoy it.

The blurb from Booklist says this book is successful at “… updating the family story yet keeping all the old-fashioned charm”, and I agree. As Muslims and others seek to strike a balance between our values and what is available and enticing to our children, Birdsall has done an excellent job of providing an option. The Penderwicks is a charming romp that reminds me of classic stories I read as a child, but has been carefully updated to still speak to current generations.

The Penderwicks tells the story of four sisters who, travel to Cape Cod with their widowed father for their summer vacation. They stay in the cottage on a large estate known as Arundel. The owner of the estate is Mrs. Tifton and she has a son, Jeffrey, whose life has been carefully mapped out for him until he meets up with the lively individualism espoused by the Penderwick girls.

One of the most charming things about the story is the variety of personalities in the four Penderwick sisters, reminiscent of other beloved classics like Little Women. The oldest daughter at twelve, Rosalind is the surrogate mother of the group, responsible and kindly. She falls in love with the seventeen-year-old gardener of the estate and finds out that a first crush is not real love. The next in age is Skye, who is eleven, and quite a tomboy. She is outspoken, impetuous, adventurous and fun, but under it all is a deep loyalty to the people she loves. Then comes Jane, a ten-year-old writer who has regaled the family with adventure stories with a female heroine and is working on her newest book that is completed by the end of the story. Last is four-year-old Batty who wears butterfly wings all the time and considers the family dog, Hound, her best friend and confidant.

Among the adventures of the book are Jeffrey saving Batty from a charging bull, Skye’s confrontation with Mrs. Tifton who speaks disrespectfully of the whole Penderwick family (including the deceased Mrs. Penderwick), Rosalind’s accidental fall into a fountain while trying to get the attention of a boy, Batty’s attempt to run away, and Hound’s chase after an escaped rabbit. As the girls’ unorthodox spirit infiltrates Jeffrey’s life, he realizes that he must seize some power over his future and creates a more authentic bond with his mother by the end.

The only downside to the book is that it is not ethnically diverse at all and refers to a certain economic class that would be able to spend a summer vacation at a cottage. Certainly it will not speak directly to the lives and realities of many children, but it is a sweet story nonetheless. Naturally, the cure to this fault is for more authors from different backgrounds to write stories that speak to a wider variety of children.

The book is very pro-girl but has enough adventure and laughs to also appeal to boys if they give it a chance. It is also clean fun that does not require compromise of values and morals, as so much modern youth literature does.

 If you enjoy The Penderwicks, you may also enjoy the sequel that has just recently been released, The Penderwicks on Gardam Street.

The Jane Austen Book Club

I am now also writing reviews for Feminist Review, and my first for them is now up. It is for The Jane Austen Book Club by Karen Joy Fowler. For Muslims it may be a little much, but it was a very interesting read and excellent writing. Please check out the review.

Next month Feminist Review will be posting my review of Whatever It Takes: Geoffrey Canada’s Quest to Change Harlm and America by Paul Tough. I will be posting reviews monthly or so on Feminist Review, and linking them here. I will continue to post other reviews here too.

Re-Writing the Words of Allah

Originally posted on the Writeous Sister Speaks blog on April 17, 2007. This is not actually a review, as to this day I have not actually read Bakhtiar’s interpretation and probably won’t ever get around to it. This post was written in response to Bakhtiar’s own words about why she felt a new interpretation of the Qur’an was necessary and her method of translation. 

Because it came up in further conversation, I want to be especially clear about my disagreement with Bakhtiar’s interpretation of the verse 4:34. Ms. Bakhtiar stated elsewhere on that blog,

I strongly believe that the interpretation of 4:34 has to revert to the way the blessed Prophet understood it. When the verse was revealed, the Prophet understood it to mean: to go away (which is one of the many meanings of the form I of the verb daraba) and that is what the Prophet did. This is the Sunnah, not to beat but to go away, an interpretation that we all should try to follow.

My response was

Also… I have never as a woman had a problem with how that particular verse was interpreted by classical scholars, because it does not sanction beating in the way that you have implied. The other reason that I find your argument illogical is because there is a three-prong reaction in that verse and your definition of the third option is unnecessary since it is accomplished by the second option.

That said, I am no scholar and know nothing of Arabic myself so I am not setting myself up as a better translator/interpreter, simply following the very logical and normal interpretations that have existed for centuries and work for me. I had read your explanations for how you came up with your interpretations prior to writing my critique. I am not a scholar, and I recognize my limitations of knowledge; I just wish others would do the same. Your methodologies are not sound or based in your own study. Your translation skills in Arabic would not be considered up to the job for something of less sacred value; I say this with knowledge because I work for an agency that does translations and to be sure I asked if they would ever hire a translator that admits what you have about your method and they said no way. Any of us can think we know enough to interpret things, but when it comes to interpreting the Qur’an, this requires a very great level of study and immersion that you simply don’t seem to have. You may have more than I do, but that doesn’t mean you have what it takes.

There was much further discussion from there, and I am sorry to say that Ms. Bakhtiar never responded to my specific reference (also referenced in great detail by another commentor) that the verse gives a three-part series of how to deal with the wife, and to change the third and final reaction to be “go away” is wrong because “going away” is the second option anyway.

Also please note that the original post on the SunniSister blog that I refer to is no longer available.

Hijab tip to SunniSister for making me aware of the articles on this subject.

The prerequisite reading for my following article can be found here and here. Some secondary reference can be made here.

***************

In the most simplistic terms, it would seem that one can never have too many interpretations of the Qur’an to choose from, and that certainly one that is interpreted “from a woman’s point of view”, as Laleh Bakhtiar’s purports to be, can be a good thing.

Afterall, isn’t Islam constantly under fire for its mistreatment of women, its stiffling of their roles, its unfair advantages and rights given to men? Perhaps one would think that a woman’s interpretation of the Qur’an would set all these things to rest and prove the “true” spirit of the Qur’an. On the surface, one might be inclined to think that such an interpretation should be celebrated for speaking up for women and redefining Islam’s position on us.

Yet this is not what is actually accomplished through sister Bakhtiar’s translation of the Holy Book. Instead what is conveyed is that centuries of Islamic scholars were all ignoramouses who were unable or unwilling to interpret the Qur’an correctly, and that it is necessary for a modern woman to improve upon this sacred text to bring it up to date.

And yet this woman created her translation and interpretation without a solid knowledge of the Arabic language, utilizing various dictionaries, and with the active intention to alter all previous interpretations with which she disagreed.

Point 1: Lack of complete fluency in the variations of Arabic, both classical and modern, disqualifies a translator. Whether it be novels, poetry, or marketing materials, it is a normal international standard of expectation that anyone taking on the translation should be fully fluent (spoken and written) in both the language they are translating from and the language they are translating to. Anything less is not a credible translation.

”There is nothing to stop a woman from translating the Holy Koran. The translator should have good command of the Arabic language in order to convey it and translate it into other languages. I don’t know if Dr Laleh Bakhtiar has good command of Arabic,” Imam Abu-Namous said. (Omar Abu-Namous, imam at the New York Islamic Cultural Center Mosque)

Point 2: In her statements following criticism of her work, sister Bakhtiar does not answer directly to any of the legitimate questions posed by that criticism. Instead, she reverts to the age old complaint that the only reason her translation is being targetted is because she is a woman. This seems to pander to exactly what non-Muslims and Westerners want to hear: poor, maligned woman that Islam is trying to repress stands up for all her downtrodden sisters! In fact, many of the people who have had reservations about her translation were women. And not just ignorant home-bound women, as one might assume, but active well-known Muslim women who are known for their own outspoken habits. Apparently, modern Muslim women did not feel that the Qur’an needed to be reinterpreted just for them and do not feel that a more “feminist” version is called for. Sister Bakhtiar is also either genuinely ignorant, or intellectually dishonest, in her implication that she is the first and only woman to have translated the Qur’an and that is why it is such an anomaly that it is difficult for other Muslims to accept it. In fact, several far-more-scholarly women have also produced translations in the past and they are common reading amongst Muslims.

Point 3: The desire to change everything in the Qur’an in order to bring it within a modern understanding is not only arrogant and unnecessary, but also an insult to the intelligence of those who read. There is no necessity to change “Allah” to “God” because western readers find it easier to understand. The word “Allah” is just not that complicated. Nor is “God” a sufficient translation of the full meaning of the word “Allah”, which would more correctly be rendered as something akin to “The One God”. In many ways, this translation seems to be pandering to the lowest possible intellectual level, striving to be easily understood, more than to be correctly understood.

Point 4: Although sister Bakhtiar’s translation has been referred to as a “feminist” version, she herself does not call it such, and it may therefore be an unnecessary label that is too easily affixed to attempt to make an easy classification. However, it is true that in her own statements she has repeatedly been quoted as saying that she felt the need to “give the woman’s point of view” or to make it more in keeping with the times’ expectations of the treatment of women. For those who are seeking to find the feminine within Islam, they should know that interpreting the texts in a self-serving way is not necessary. The Qur’an already has much within it that is very pro-woman and scholars have almost unanimously agreed upon the high status of women and expectation of their care. Although scholars in the past may have differed on certain specific rights or limitations in regards to women, it is non-scholars only who have perpetuated actual mistreatment of women. Therefore, it is not the text, or even its legitimate interpretation that needs to be refined for the age, but only the minds and hearts of men and women who do not live by the text.

I would also question such a reinterpretation of the text on the grounds of who is really benefitted by it. One of the most controversial issues has been the author’s reinterpretation of the husband’s right to “lightly beat” his wife to instead mean “go away from”. She, and other women who object to the verse, cite that men have misused this verse to justify physical mistreatment of their wives. But is this genuine textual justification (which is nowhere the example of the Prophet salalahi alahi wa salaam), or just some men’s self-serving fantasy? The type of man who would utilize this verse to justify such unIslamic behavior is certainly not the type of man who will be stopped or encouraged to rethink his position when he reads the “new” wording of the verse as presented by sister Bakhtiar. In fact, this is the one area where by virtue of being a woman she is lowering her reliability, because the type of man described above would certainly not be interested in how any woman has reinterpreted the verse!

Lastly, while I do not mean to malign the sister or call her deen into question, she has been quoted in several places as complaining about how difficult it is to be a Muslim or how hard it is to be a Muslim in America, and especially how hard to be a Muslim woman. I hope that this is either a misquote or a quote taken out of context because otherwise it leads me to wonder if her reinterpretation of the Qur’an was perhaps a self-serving attempt to water down Islam and make it more palatable to herself and others, as well-intentioned as she may think she is. For example, she has stated that she does not wear hijab since 9-11 due to fear of what would happen to her. Yet many  American women continue to wear hijab despite the potential problems because they recognize it as one of Allah’s commands upon us. While it is true that hijab is difficult in many ways for many women, it does beg the question: does a woman who defies direct Qur’anic injunctions have a sincere reason for translating the Qur’an in a “new” way. I would be interested, for instance, to see how she translated the verses that describe a believing woman’s dress.

There may be other areas where her personal views, fears, and modern expectations would have necessitated that she “re-write” the way the Qur’an has been interpreted for centuries, in order to justify her own failings or desires. This would seriously call into question the scholarly potential of such a translation.

A clarification on women scholars:

(Myself, responding to a commentor who included a link to their own short commentary)

In response to your post and comments on your blog,I do however want to clarify that the problem is not with female scholars, as women have been part of Islamic scholarly tradition from the beginning (Aisha, RA) to the present (Aisha Bewley, Camille Helminksi). There is nothing wrong with women being scholars in Islam and they shouldn’t be in any way judged differently than male scholars. The questions I have about sister Bakhtiar derive from the fact that she is not a scholar and therefore following her as such is not wise. She is indeed a very accomplished and intelligent woman, alhamdulAllah, but her field of study was history without a focus on Islam, and certainly not Islamic jurisprudence, hafiz Qur’an, ahadith studies and the other aspects that would qualify her as a scholar within Islam. I would humbly suggest that we should be careful of “who you follow and what they have to say” regardless of whether they are male or female, and at the same time be cautious that we are not disregarding someone who has genuine scholarship just because they are a woman.

Indeed, I feel that is important to make it clear that the questions that most of those who are critiquing this sister’s translation have are based in genuine concern, and not because she is a woman. That is an easy excuse for her to fall back on, and perhaps she really even believes that is the problem, and certainly there will be detractors who see it just that way and yet they are wrong.

Poetic License Has a Limit

Originally posted at the Writeous Sister Speaks blog on June 24, 2008.

 

I love Stephen King. Well, I haven’t read his newer stuff, but am very familiar with the old stuff. And I love it. Why? Because even when he is writing about something totally wack, it is absolutely believable. Vampires rising from the dead? It could totally happen! That cat next door seems a little off… I wonder… The devil coming to town in the form of an antique dealer and wreaking havoc? Totally plausible. Killer clowns that devour children? I never did trust those things!

Do I actually believe those things are reality? No. I realize in the light of day that there are no vampires and zombies just waiting for an opportunity to munch on me. I know that animals and people don’t come back after death. I recognize that clowns are… well, not necessarily harmless, but not killers that live in the drains. Gypsy curses are more the power of suggestion than anything else.

But what makes it all so believable for a moment, makes you stop and wonder for a minute, is that King writes in such a way that puts the totally insane nightmare into a form that it makes sense in.

Many writers have spun tales that are based in fantasy. That is what fiction is: fantasy. Very good writers have brought us into the world of hobbits, elves, wardrobes that lead to a different world, talking animals, space, and various other fantastic situations. This is known as “poetic license” – twisting reality into something fanciful. Good writers know how to utilize poetic license while still being completely believable.

Fiction writers, good fiction writers, know that even though what they are writing is “fake” and made-up, it has to have the “ring of truth” to it. This means carefully selected dialogue that doesn’t sound forced or strained or ludicrous. It means keeping characters in character. It also means a great deal of research.

Just as when writing about a submarine, a good fiction writer is going to research the names of the various knobs and levers on the control board and incorporate them, when writing about history a good fiction writer is going to be familiar with the time they are writing about.

This means that they research the way people of that time spoke, dressed, ate, socialized, travelled, etc. They are going to be familiar with what the “current events” of that time were, what the social strata consisted of, etc.

Think of Gone With the Wind * as an example of historical writing. Its story occurs just prior to, during, and immediately following the Civil War, in Georgia. If Margaret Mitchell had dressed the women in low-cut gowns, we would have questionned that choice. If she had included automobiles in the story, we would have scoffed at her lack of historical accuracy. If she had described the prairie grasses of the countryside, we would have spluttered our coffee and wondered what kind of lousy research she had done to think that Georgia is similar to, say, Oklahoma.

Clearly, even in fiction, poetic license has a limit. We still expect a good story to “ring true”. We don’t like reading something where we can pick out inaccuracies easily, or where stereotypes abound. Not only do we expect characters to be fully fleshed out and seem like real people, but we expect the story to stay within “realistic” bounds of what it is portraying. Perhaps historical fiction is where this most applies, where we are most offended by attempts to rewrite history or to portray only one version of the story when other versions are known as well. The well known quote “history is written by the victors” has come to signify that the truth has often been lost. Our society now seeks out the stories of the underdogs or conquered to add breadth and context to our stories. This is as important and elemental to fictional stories based in specific time periods and historical settings as it is to non-fiction. It is what makes a story believable and allows us to lose ourselves within it.

* I am choosing this book as an example despite its offense to many simply because it is one of the most well-known historical novels and thus proves the point of cultural detail well.

Relating to Characters vs. Real People in Books

A brief departure from actual reviews, this is a post I wrote about the difference between fiction and non-fiction, specifically in how we relate to characters and the real people portrayed in non-fiction. I particularly reference the non-fiction work Three Cups of Tea, and may indeed post a review of the book later also. In case it’s a while before I write and post that review, and you are pondering picking it up, my recommendation is “YES! It is a must-read, and hopefully inspires you to also do something.”

 

Originally posted on the Writeous Sister Speaks blog as “Fantasy vs. Reality” on October 4, 2008.

 

I’ve been thinking lately… because I’ve gotten a lot of searchers that get here by searching “Three Cups of Tea Characters” and it really bothers me. Please bear with me on a bit of semantics:

          – The term “character” refers to fictional people in a book, television show, or film. This means the “person” or “character” is not real.
          – Non-fiction works do not have “characters”. They have people. Real people.
Three Cups of Tea is a non-fiction book.

That means it tells a true story. It is a beautiful, inspiring, meaningful story. It is made all the more beautiful, inspiring, and meaningful by it’s reality.

And I wonder… is it too much to view the people in Three Cups of Tea as the real people they are? To give them the respect due them as human beings?

It is not infrequent that we read fiction and then say how “true to life” it was. Sometimes authors are even accused of having fictionalized something real; they are asked if what they wrote was “really autobiographical”. Because if we related to it, to the characters, on some deep level, we want to believe there was truth in the story. Even when we know it was just the imaginings of a talented writer.

Especially when it is “dark” fiction. People go gaga over books like The Kite Runner and A Thousand Splendid Suns because those books confirm what they already “know” about “those people over there”. Even as we know these books are works of fiction, they are spoken of as if they were biographies… as if every word in them, every scene, is based in a reality. Under these conditions, it is safe to sympathize with the characters because at heart we know they aren’t real and we won’t have to do anything more than sympathize with their plight. At the same time, we can walk away thinking we “know” all about Afghanistan after having read these books. We can go back to our cozy lives, secure in the knowledge that we really are better than “those people”.

But, when we are confronted with a reality such as in Three Cups of Tea, well, we don’t know what to do with that. For one, it is so uplifting, and we don’t want to believe that “those people” in Pakistan and Afghanistan are humans just like us. That they really want the same things we do; education for their children, a better life for coming generations. We don’t want to see them as “good people” because then we might have to question our own goodness, not to mention our countries’ policies over there that affect these very real people. Furthermore, once we accept that they are real people with real needs, and accomplishing real and amazing things, we might also be forced to do something for them. If we accept the reality of the Balti and Waziri peoples (and others presented in the book), we might actually feel compelled to shell out some cash towards helping to build their schools.

We want to read these “stories” because they make us feel good. We just don’t want to be expected to do anything about them. So it’s easier to consign them all to the status of mere “characters”. Heaven forbid that we feel any connection to real people “over there”.