How would you feel if I said “I’m a Muslim Hindu?”

On Muslim Feminists Reading Postmodern Anachronisms into Seerah & Hadith Literature

Written by Abu Milk Sheikh

Published on 20th October 2015

Last updated on 3rd February 2016

Disclaimer: Any and all references to Hindus or Hinduism are made to prove a logical point. They are NOT intended as insult to, or mockery of, Hinduism or Hindus.

Introduction

How would you react if I told you that I am a Muslim Hindu?

I strongly believe in Animal Welfare.

Since Hinduism encourages reverence of animals, I’ve decided that I can best draw awareness to Muslims’ over-consumption of meat and our mistreatment of animals, by identifying as a Hindu.

I don’t condone their polytheism.

I only agree with those Hindu teachings that are compatible with Islam.

If you felt visceral distaste while reading the preceding paragraphs, don’t ignore it.

That is your Fitrah talking and it is 100% correct.

You likely also feel this way when you see the words “Islamic Feminist” or “Muslim Feminist.”

If you don’t, it’s due to your being brainwashed by secular liberal propaganda.

You need Ruqyah.

I can refer you to trustworthy specialists.

I write this piece in response to a disturbing trend among Modernist Muslims (of all strands) to read anachronistic concepts into Seerah and Hadith literature.

They do so in order to justify all manner of strange opinions and behavior.

Often, these are in contravention to mainstream Islamic laws and beliefs.

Invariably, scholars are not consulted.

Their work is an exercise in Ijtihad by unqualified laymen.

To understand how badly such efforts end up, look to Daesh and ‘Progressive Muslims.’

This piece is based on personal reasoning.

I make no justifications based on “daleel” i.e. citations from the Qur’an and Sunnah.

I have deliberately put myself at a disadvantage here, no longer having the use of (valid) appeals to authority.

Why have I done this?

To show that common sense, on its own, tells us that Islam and Feminism don’t mix, even without referring to primary (Qur’an, Sunnah) and secondary (Scholars) sources.

The arguments herein should, in shaa Allah, be just as applicable to other Modernist trends (any and all 'Islamic' -isms) in Islam.

A Warning to Laymen

Just because someone can read and understand Arabic, doesn’t mean they know what they are talking about with regard to the Shari’ah.

It is a testament to the virtue of the Arabic language that someone can so easily be mistaken for being a "Person of (Islamic) Knowledge" by the laity, simply because they have access to primary and secondary sources on Islam.

I know this from personal experience.

People assume things about me just because I can look up citations in Arabic Islamic works or do a bit of translating.

This is a psychological phenomenon known as the Halo Effect.

Expertise in one area creates the perception of expertise in other areas.

Unscrupulous individuals can and will take advantage of this.

You, the unsuspecting reader, don’t know any better.

It is essential for these “educated laymen” to take Al-A’raaf 7:33 and the mutawaatir hadith (paraphrased) “whosever lies about me…” deathly seriously.

Background

In his Al-Bidaya wa ‘n-Nihaya, Imam Ibn Kathir (rahimahullah) narrates the origin of a treaty among the Quraysh called “Hilf al-Fudul.”

It was collectively agreed that they would fight against oppression and injustice.

Party to this treaty was Bani Hashim, Bani Abdul Muttalib, Bani Asad bin Abdul Uzza, Bani Zuhra bin Kilab and Bani Taym bin Murra.

In his Sunan Al-Kubra, Imam Al-Bayhaqi (rahimahullah) reports that Rasulullah ﷺ said "I witnessed a treaty at the home of Abdullah bin Jad’aan. If I am asked to attend such meeting now, I would answer."

Axioms

1. Actions of the Prophet ﷺ prior to Prophethood are not a source of Shari’ah according to scholars of Law (Fiqh) and Jurisprudence (Usul Al-Fiqh.)
2. Narrations in books of Seerah are often not rigorously authenticated.
3. Narrations in hadith compilations other than the Sahihayn (Al-Bukhari and Muslim) require greater scrutiny before they can be used as evidence for a particular opinion.
4. Laymen, by definition, don’t have the wherewithal to interpret the Qur’an and Sunnah for themselves.
5. If one is a layman, Taqleed of scholars, in matters pertaining to the religion, is obligatory.

Assumptions

1. The event happened as described.
2. Rasulullah ﷺ praised the treaty as described.

Here, again, I’m deliberately putting myself at a disadvantage, not having the option of scrutinizing the historical reports.

Why am I doing this?

Because it’s a cop out for me to just say “the narrations are weak.”

Besides, for the purposes of this article, it’s not necessary.

Muslim Feminism is just. That. Ludicrous.

The Muslim Feminist’s Smokescreen

Of late, Muslim Feminists have taken to using Hilf Al-Fudul as a shield against criticism and to justify their morally dubious choice of identity and opinions.

Let’s leave aside the fact that these laymen are doing ijtihad.

Let’s also leave aside the fact that this event took place prior to Rasulullah’s ﷺ Prophethood.

He ﷺ did praise it, so let's assume it happened and that it is "good."

Is the analogy valid?

Meaning, is a Muslim identifying as a Feminist because they believe in Women’s Rights, the equivalent of Rasulullah ﷺ taking part in Hilf Al-Fudul were he invited?

It is a red herring; a bait-and-switch.

A Reduction to Absurdity

To line the analogy up with Feminism, the clans would have appended “Al-Fudooliy” to their names and adopted a common identity based on “fudooliyyah” - ideas, language, culture etc.

They’d have died their hair red, blue or purple.

They'd have gotten tattoos and piercings.

They'd have worn studded leather clothing.

They have run around saying “check your Qurayshi privilege!”

Is that what cooperation with Hilf Al-Fudul entailed?

Of course not.

What’s a more appropriate analogy?

Muslim Hindu.

Stay with me; it’ll all be explained shortly.

Firstly, is the concept of animal rights external to Islam? No.

So why bother with Hinduism?

Call for the kind treatment of animals because Islam calls for it.

That’s the end of that.

Secondly, would any Muslim be so inept to identify themselves in such a way?

Don’t answer that. ;)

Thirdly, would a Muslim ever preface a statement with “as a Hindu, I…” while intending the meaning “insofar as my advocacy of animal rights, in accordance with the teachings of Islam”?

Fourthly, how would others perceive this identification?

I can only speak for Muslims - the vast majority views it in a negative light.

We’ll find out why in a bit.

Fifthly, there is a growing trend among non-Muslim women to reject Feminism (e.g #womenagainstfeminism.)

Feminists are now in damage control, releasing propaganda to prevent the mass “apostasy” of “womyn” from “the sisterhood.”

As usual, Muslims are

1. Merely imitating the non-Muslims rather than thinking for themselves and
2. A few decades late to the party.

You’re wondering why I equated Feminism to Hinduism, aren’t you?

Feminism is a religion

A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence.

In Arabic: “Deen.”

Hinduism is one such Deen.

It has core beliefs, a worldview, laws, behaviors, culture etc.

It's adherents have certain beliefs, behave a certain way, have a certain culture; all a result of Hinduism.

Is it permissible for a Muslim to identify as a Hindu, in any way?

According to mainstream Islamic beliefs, hells no.

So what’s the difference between Feminism and Hinduism?

Just because it’s not socially viewed as a “religion,” doesn’t change its reality.

It has all the characteristics of a religion.

People who call themselves Feminists behave the same way adherents of a religion would.

They even use religious rhetoric in defending the ideology.

Let me give you a clearer example.

Feminism, along with other post-modern ideologies, is based on Individualism.

In short, it is a creed (‘Aqeedah) developed by Thomas Hobbes and further, by John Locke.

It states that the individual is the absolute sovereign (Malik) and owner (Maalik) of her being and thus, has absolute freedom to do whatever she wills.

In Feminist parlance “we own our bodies, so we can do whatever we want with them.”

Is this even remotely compatible with Islam?

So what’s the difference between Feminism and Hinduism?

One may say “Feminists are not worshiping a Feminist god.”

I say, look up the definitions of Ilaah and ma’bood (Arabic words for god) in any dictionary.

In Feminism, the ideology is the god.

Feminism is as much a Deen as Hinduism, Islam or any other religion traditionally acknowledged as such.

Now, you tell me: can a Muslim identify as a Feminist?

“Is u rly a Feminist, blud?”

One of the perplexing things about Muslim Feminists’ obstinacy in maintaining their absurd positions is that Feminists reject them.

To the overwhelming majority of True Feminists, Muslim Feminists aren’t really Feminists!

Muslim Feminists are mubtadi’aat (deviants/innovators) from the perspective of both Feminism AND Islam.

This perception intensifies the closer she is to mainstream Muslim beliefs.

The more Muslim she is, the less Feminist she is, and vice versa.

Ask a mainstream Feminist if the religious obligation of hijab is compatible with Feminism.

Ask them if it’s compatible with Feminism that a wife is religiously obliged to fulfill her husband’s sexual desires whenever he approaches her (save those few situations where she is religiously excused.)

Ask them if it’s compatible with Feminism that a woman is not permitted to travel on long journeys (as defined by Shari’ah and Urf) without a male guardian.

Ask them if it’s compatible with Feminism that in a country ruled by Shari’ah it is obligatory on the ruler, and within his authority, to command women to wear the niqab while in public, due to common weal.

The mainstream Feminist is going to tell them what we mainstream Muslims are telling them - “You are all dumbasses.”

The reality is that a synoptic reading of “Islamic Feminist Theory” shows that Muslim Feminists are full of it.

Refer to Aysha Hidayatulah’s work “Feminist Edges of the Quran.”

I mention her because she identifies as an Muslim Feminist.

It’s been shown that the Primary Sources of Islam cannot be reconciled with a Feminist paradigm, and that Islamic Feminists have not been able to provide “solutions” to this “problem.”

Mainstream Muslims, however, do have the solution – simmer down with this Feminism nonsense and just be a Muslim.

Now, I’ll admit that there are Feminists, who claim to be Muslim, who have gone full retard and believed in Feminist ideology I’tiqaadan (i.e. they drank the Kool Aid.)

This piece is not directed at them.

Such women are closer to being non-Muslims than Muslims.

Their situation varies from case to case.

Scholars would have to do tahqeeq al-manaat and iqaamat al-hujjah (i.e. build a case against them) and if necessary, do takfeer (anathemize them.) 

“Sure, I can perform your double-bypass surgery. I’m a Self-Defined Cardio-Thoracic Surgeon”

In order to get around the fact that they don't have any intellectual capital (no daleel) among Muslims or Feminists, they will often claim to be "Self-defined Feminists."

Epic fail.

If someone is a “self-defined X,” that means they aren’t really X.

If they were, they’d say “I’m an X.”

Is a self-defined physicist a real physicist?

Would you allow yourself to be operated on by a self-defined surgeon?

“You’re ignoring third wave, intersec-“

Do Qadianis get an opinion on the beliefs of Islam?

Similarly, fringe minorities don’t get to define Feminism.

"Muslim Feminism is Feminism" is the equivalent of saying "Daesh is Islamic."

You can't have your cake and eat it.

We’ll stick to the mainstream definition, thank you.

The one accepted by the overwhelming majority of Feminists since its existence.

“It’s just a name! Focus on the real issues!”

It’s a real issue that Muslims have such a poor understanding of Islamic beliefs that they think saying the equivalent of “I’m a Muwahhid Mushrik” (“I’m a monotheistic idolator”) is perfectly acceptable.

It’s a real issue that Muslims are so clueless and devoid of originality that they want to adopt a failed ideology as a platform to address issues in the Muslim community.

Yes, Feminism is a failed ideology.

Just look at its results in the West.

Side point: it is a mighty argument in favor of Patriarchy (the norm for almost all of human existence) that the most significant achievement of female power, as a collective, is a movement of entitled, narcissistic, infantile brats.

Feminists of today don’t care about equality of opportunity, just equality of outcomes.

They aren't willing to earn their place at the table; they want in through quotas and affirmative action.

“Waa Patriarchaa!”

One of the hilarious things about Feminists is that when they can’t defend their untenable positions, on their own, using rational arguments, they cry for help from the patriarchy.

Ever the damsels in distress when convenient, the most recent manifestation of this is their appeal to authority using a certain sympathetic scholar who is known for being a champion of women’s rights.

No, it’s not that bloke from Anwar Al-Awlaki’s (rahimahullah) lecture series on the biography of ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khattab (radiallahu anhu.)

Side point: their last call for help was the campaign, #muslimmaleallies, or as I like to call it, #coconutknights.

Get it? White Knights…Coconut Knights?

Finally! They now have access to a mainstream, classically trained scholar, who's not born or brought up in the West (more street cred,) who they can pretend to follow in a marriage-of-convenience.

Forget that this scholar has never, ever said that it’s OK to be a Feminist.

He never justifies it; he merely explains why foolish Muslim women might be willing to “seek ‘izzah (honor) in other than Islam.”

Forget that his opinions on women’s obligations and responsibilities are as mainstream as they get.

Ask him to do tafseer of An-Nisaa 4:34.

Ask him about the obligation of hijab.

Ask him about the rights of a husband over his wife.

Ask him about women not travelling outside the house unnecessarily.

I’ve read, watched and listened to enough of his work that I’m 98% certain that he holds mainstream opinions on all of the allegedly controversial issues that Muslim Feminists are fighting tooth-and-nail to redefine.

Such people are not interested in sincerely deferring to mainstream scholars.

The minute he’s not useful to their agenda they will drop him without hesitation.

Allah, spare us and him their scheming.

Conclusion – The solution to our problems is not Feminism. It’s Islam.

I hate sloganeering, but in this case it fits.

Extremism is not solved by more extremism in reaction.

The only solution for humanity’s problems is wholesale implementation of Islam.

I end with an excerpt from an article by Abdullah Al-Andalusi.

“Believing in Women’s rights and being a Feminist are two different things.

I believe in Jesus as the Christ (Greek for Messiah), does that make me a Christian?

I believe that poverty is wrong and should be eliminated; does that make me a Communist?

I believe in the abolition of Zionism, does that make me anti-semitic?

To look at it another way, do Feminists who believe men should have equal rights?

If yes, then can they also be legitimately called ‘masculinists’?

The answer is no to all these questions.

A person can be an advocate and campaigner for justice for the poor, the Palestinians and women, without need for labels.

Labels are only given if their activities spring from an ideological basis.

So if I campaign against poverty because I believe that all people should have the same amounts of wealth (and that private property is wrong), that would make me a communist.

Likewise if I believed that Zionism was wrong because I hated Jews, then that would make me an anti-semite.

Similarly, if someone believes that men and women should be given exactly identical legal entitlements and duties, believing that the differences between the genders are merely ‘social constructs’ – then that makes someone a Feminist.

Although due to the vast disagreement between Feminists over what Feminism is, the only thing they can agree on is, that whatever privileges they can get women, is a good thing – even at the expense of the rights of males.

[The ‘ism’ at the end of Feminism should obviously give it away – it is an ideology, not an activity].

I reject those doctrines (i.e. legal identicality, social contructivism, women [& men] being permitted to wear revealing clothing in public), yet I strongly advocate justice for women, and liberating them from oppression (i.e. living under non-Islamic environments).

What does that make me? A Feminist too?

I don’t blame muslim women for trying to find a way out of their unfair situation.

The Muslim world is currently backward, and the Sharia goes unheeded – even by the clerics.

However, with regards to women who want to use Feminism to attain their rights, to borrow a modified line from the character ‘Alfred’ (played by Michael Cain) in the film ‘The Dark Knight’, ‘They were pushed too far, and in their desperation, they turned to an idea they didn’t fully understand.’”

Allah, exalt the mention of our Beloved Prophet Mohammed, and grant him Blessings and Peace, as many times as the mindful remember and as many times as the heedless forget.