Once Were Radicals (24 page)

This camp was a little closer to home. Jindabyne was an alpine village near Canberra which filled up with ski visitors in winter. That summer, it would become inundated with an out-and-out United Nations of young Muslim kids, two imams, a bunch of middle-aged male organisers and their wives (who also doubled as chefs).

Our imams this year were Sheikh Fehmi and Dad's old friend Imam Chami. Both spoke relatively good English. Imam Chami had plenty of experience living in Australia, spoke fluent Arabic and used to often refer to the Arabic commentary of the Koran written by Syed Qutb. Imam Chami was a big fan of the Egyptian Muslim movement called al-Ikhwan al-Muslimeen (‘Muslim Brotherhood')
which had close relations with Pakistan's Jamaat-i-Islami. Sheikh Fehmi preferred to read from a book called
al-Halal wal-Haraam fil Islam
(which means ‘The Lawful and the Prohibited in Islam') written by a modern Egyptian scholar named Dr Yusuf al-Qaradawi.

I had brought a copy of Qaradawi's book with me to the camp. I found this to be very helpful in understanding why certain things were allowed and not allowed by Islam's religious law (known as the
sharia
). Qaradawi had specifically written the book for Western audiences, and provided not only evidence for his views from religious texts but also rational explanations.

Qaradawi made Islam sound like a rational religion whose rules were consistent with human nature. He explained how rules were derived from general principles: that things were
haraam
if they were impure or harmful, that halal things were sufficient while
haraam
were usually superfluous, that doubtful things are best avoided and that necessity does create exceptions to prohibitions.

God didn't just prohibit things for the sake of them.

 

It cannot be that Allah, may He be glorified, would create all these things, give man control over them, count them as His favours upon him, and subsequently inform him that their use is prohibited; how could this be when He created all this for man's use and benefit? Indeed, He has prohibited only a few things for specific reasons … In Islam the sphere of prohibited things is very small, while that of permissible things is extremely vast. There is only a small number of sound and explicit texts concerning prohibitions …

 

However, Qaradawi's book was regarded as too liberal by many Indo-Pakistani uncles and
molvis
. They preferred Indian books such as
Behistht-i-Zewar
(‘Heavenly Ornaments'), an Urdu book written in the early twentieth century by an Indo-Pakistani scholar from the Deoband school named Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanwi. Mum would sometimes read to my sisters and I from the Urdu text of this book. We also had an English translation, but it was of very poor quality and contained some very strict rules such as an absolute prohibition on music. The translation of
Behisht-i-Zewar
also did not cover as many topics as Qaradawi's book, and did not provide any reasons or texts supporting its rulings. We were expected to take Maulana's word about what was halal and
haraam
.

Qaradawi's book, on the other hand, covered a wide range of issues. He provided rules of personal hygiene, family relations, sport, business, relations with non-Muslims and even relations with animals. Qaradawi even wrote about contraception, abortion and sexual relations. Even my stricter uncles didn't object to Qaradawi's views on abortion:

 

Muslim jurists agree unanimously that after the foetus is completely formed and has been given a soul, aborting it is
haraam …
However, there is one exceptional situation. If, say the jurists, after the baby is completely formed, it is reliably [established] that the continuation of the pregnancy would necessarily result in the death of the mother, then, in accordance with the general principle of the
sharia
, that of choosing the lesser of two evils, abortion must be performed.

For the mother is the origin of the foetus; moreover, she is established in life, with duties and responsibilities, and she is also a pillar of the family. It would not be possible to sacrifice her life for the life of a foetus which has not yet acquired a personality and which has no responsibilities or obligations to fulfil.

 

Qaradawi's book illustrated that the Prophet was interested in making sure his companions understood not just what things were
haraam
but also why they fell into this category. The book even covered sexual intercourse between husband and wife. Kids like me may have been too prudish to ask our fathers about the birds and the bees, but the companions of the Prophet (including women) had no such scruples. Qaradawi even cites a report in the
hadith
literature about a woman who asks the Prophet whether she and her husband could engage in ‘vaginal intercourse from the back'.

Like Qaradawi, Sheikh Fehmi was open to answering any question we threw at him. I approached Sheikh Fehmi once and asked him about the issue of masturbation. At school, my teacher in Personal Development (a polite way of saying sex education) told us that masturbation was perfectly natural and caused no harm. However, some of my Indo-Pakistani uncles told me it was completely forbidden. One uncle, an Indian doctor, had two sons who were complete rascals and would run riot at any house their family was invited to. One of them poured Coca Cola into our swimming pool filter. This uncle was giving a religious talk once, and warned us about the evils of masturbation.

‘This thing some of you young boys do with your hand is very bad. You shouldn't touch down there at all. I forbid my own sons from this.' One of the more irreverent older boys responded with this pertinent question: ‘Uncle, if that's the case, why do your sons behave like such wankers?'

Anyway, I asked Sheikh Fehmi about masturbation. I told him about what my uncles taught. ‘You should follow Qaradawi,' Sheikh Fehmi said. ‘I will only teach you what Qaradawi teaches. No more and no less.'

I brought along a few volumes of an English translation of an Urdu commentary of the Koran written by Maududi and titled
Tafhim al-Qur'an
(or
Tafhim
for short). I had started reading this commentary in Year 11. Maududi provided lots of historical information in
Tafhim
. He began each
surah
(chapter) with information about the circumstances in which it was revealed.

I already knew that the Koran had been sent down to earth by God via the angel Gabriel to the Prophet Muhammad in instalments of varying lengths over a period of twenty-three years. I also believed the Prophet could not have written it himself as he was illiterate, and its eloquence and the accuracy of its information make it a miracle.

For me, the ultimate proof of this was some scientific information that verses from the Koran contained. In a book titled
The Bible, The Qur'an and Science
, French scientist Maurice Bucaille says the Koran contains modern scientific information that the Prophet Muhammad could not have known at his time. This scientific stuff was a basic threshold used by many of us to accept the divine origins of the
Koran. But for me, the Koran had also become a book which would help us resolve larger issues. Maududi's
Tafhim
commentary showed how the Koran was revealed at various times to suit certain religious purposes but also to further certain political, economic and social goals.

One strange incident happened early on in the camp. Imam Chami wanted to shorten and join two sets of prayer times in the same manner as Imam Fehmi had done at my first camp at Harrietville. However, after we had finished the early afternoon
salaat
and immediately stood up to commence the late afternoon
salaat
, a small group of Turkish Muslims, including Mahmud (the world champion Koran reciter from the first camp) refused to stand up.

One of the organisers became rather upset and pleaded with the Turks to join us. Another friend from my first camp, Shaf, asked the Turks why they had split from the rest of us. Mahmud said that they were Hanafi, after which Shaf and some of his Yugoslav friends also joined them.

Apart from this rebel Hanafi group, the rest of us performed our
salaat
in congregation behind Imam Chami, following him in the various postures of prayer. Afterwards, I could see the two imams discussing and debating the issue along with a few camp organisers and group supervisors. I wasn't quite sure what all the fuss was about. Why make such a huge issue over such a minor incident? And what on earth was this thing called Hanafi?

For me, part of the strength of Islam was that Muslims were relatively united on religious matters even if entire Muslim countries fought over land or politics. Sunni Iraq (or so we thought back then) and Shia Iran may have been
killing each other in war, but Sunni and Shia Muslims had few religious differences.

In my early teens, I'd seen Muslim groups dispute over which day to start the fasting lunar month of Ramadan. Some uncles started one day after everyone else, claiming the Prophet Muhammad insisted on sighting the new moon with his naked eye. Other uncles said we could rely on a lunar calendar which was based on astronomical calculations. In this debate, Mum (who made all family decisions related to religion) would always go with the majority view. Mum said that God would never allow a majority of Muslims to get things wrong. Yet here at my second camp, I saw my elders arguing over a minor religious issue. To make matters worse, Shaf told me that I was also part of this rebel group called Hanafi.

Eventually the imams reached an agreement. We would perform five shortened prayers each day. The Hanafi rebels had won. Imam Chami stood up in front of us and explained the reason for the decision. He said that Imam Abu Hanifa, who was born some sixty years after the Prophet passed away, had taught that we couldn't join four of the five daily prayers when travelling and could only shorten them. Other imams contemporary to Abu Hanifa taught that we could both join and shorten. Readers unfamiliar with all this needn't worry if they can't understand—I certainly couldn't understand at the time. I'd never heard we had to blindly or rigidly obey eighth-century religious scholars like Abu Hanifa. Qaradawi said that the views of these Imams were very influential but not binding.

Mahmud sat a group of us down and taught us that each act of worship and each religious act would fit
somewhere in a spectrum from
fardh
(compulsory) at one end to
nafl
(barely recommended and not compulsory) at the other. This in our five daily prayers, some cycles of prayer were
fardh
while others were described as
waajib
(slightly less than compulsory) while others were
sunnah
(important but not quite compulsory) and others were
nafl
(extra and not compulsory but would still earn
savaab
or spiritual currency).

That's acts of worship. What about other deeds? Mahmud then told us of Qaradawi's spectrum—from halal (permitted) at one end to
haraam
(absolutely forbidden) at the other. Between these two poles were varying levels of permissibility, including acts termed
mubah
(neutral).

Mahmud taught us that it was necessary (
fardh
) for Muslims to know which act of worship fitted in what part of the first (
fardh
to
nafl
) spectrum. We also needed to know which acts were
haraam
and to know that all other deeds were basically allowed (less forbidden than
haraam
and more often than not halal).

Confused? I certainly was at the time. I was satisfied with Qaradawi's explanations, and couldn't understand why Mahmud seemed so obsessed with smaller intricacies of Islamic law as it applied to the life of an individual. I knew Islam's sacred law had some impact on your relationships with your parents, family and friends, regardless of their religion. But what about the society at large?

It seemed to me that too much emphasis was being placed on micro issues. We were too focused on transforming ourselves and our families. But I remembered Maududi's message that Muslims also had a responsibility to change their society. Islam was more than just a religion. Islam was
a complete code of life. We needed to broaden our vision. We needed to transplant the agenda of overseas Islamic movements to Australia.

I put these concerns to Imam Chami. I had heard him frequently referring to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and expected to find a sympathetic ear. ‘Brother Irfan, these issues are not our primary concern at this time. Right now, we need to change ourselves. How can we expect to change our Muslim communities if ordinary Muslims have no understanding of our religion? We are not living in Pakistan or Egypt. We can learn some lessons from Islamic movements over there, but we cannot copy their methodology. We don't wish to establish an Islamic state here. What we have in Australia allows us to practise our religion more freely than even in Muslim countries.'