HuffPost Jummah: What's the State of Your Heart? by Imam Khalid Latif

Published in Huffington Post, All Rights Reserved, Copyright

The companions of the Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, approached him on one occasion asking which person is the best. He responds by saying, "Every one that has a heart that is makhmoom and a tongue that is truthful." They said, "We know what a truthful tongue is, but what is a heart that is makhmoom?"

The Arabic language is so rich and deep. To help illustrate what is being conveyed by this word makhmoom, when one would say something like "sweeping the house," they would say khamamt al-bayt. As such, a heart that is makhoom is one that essentially is swept clean of anything harmful. This is easily seen in how the Prophet Muhammad responds to his companions' question with his own definition.

"[A heart that is makhmoom] is one is that conscious of the Divine and is clean, in which there is no oppression or aggression and no bitterness or jealousy." May all of us be granted hearts that are of this nature.

The world around us is so distracting and constantly draws our attention aware from developing and taking care of ourselves. Anxiety plagues our mind on a daily basis. We can't lay our heads down upon our beds in the night-time hours without our eyes staying wide open as worry takes control. The slightest of issues just set us off. We unleash a rage unlike anything seen before at the smallest of affronts. Relationship after relationship loses their strength because we fail to see that the state of the relationships we have with those around us are impacted deeply by the relationship we have with our hearts.

"Indeed, in the body, there is a morsel of flesh that if it is right then the whole of the body is set aright, and if it is corrupt, the whole of the body is corrupt. Indeed, it is the heart." -- The Prophet Muhammad 

It was a regular practice of the Prophet Muhammad to reflect on the state of his heart and he would pray regularly for a heart that was taken care of. How often do we think about the situation of our hearts? The thing that exists within us that beat upon beat is giving us the ability to live. If you were to look into yours today, what would you find?

A moment of honest and critical reflection can give us insight as to what that state of our inside actually is. I can't see inside myself, but in what comes from me I can find what I need to be mindful of. The words that come from my mouth, the deeds and decisions carried out by my being, all can give me indication of how my heart actually is.

The Prophet Muhammad greeted young and old with a smile, never cursed or spoke harshly, gave of his provision without hesitation, and emphasized ideals of mercy, compassion and understanding. He never looks at what he loses, but always what the other will gain. Epitomizing selflessness, speaking only truth and honoring every promise. His external is a reflection of his internal.

Do you ever find yourself in a place where you are anxious and you don't know why? Where you find yourself thinking, how did I end up where I am now, in comparison to where I used to be? Our souls are not made from this world, but they are from another place. And what we feed them should not be of this world because they are not of this world.

Our hearts' function is simply to love and they will love what we put into their presence, whether it is something good or not. Ask yourself what it is that you really love and if it is something that is actually good for you or if it just gives you a semblance of contentment, but really is only giving you complacency.

Each one of us knows we want to have tranquility over chaos, a place where we are centered rather than imbalanced. We want to be in a place where we are at peace with ourselves, rather than having a war being waged within us. We don't enjoy feeling anguish. We don't enjoy feeling hopelessness. We don't enjoy feeling that things will never go right. We don't have to feel that way.

Be in the presence of good people who will uplift your spirits. Be in an atmosphere that does not bog you down and makes you so distracted that all it tells you is the material gains of this world is something that will give you satisfaction when in reality it will never give you that kind of appeasement.

"True richness is not having an abundance of things from the earth, but true richness is having a richness of the soul." -- The Prophet Muhammad

A state of contentment is attainable, but the first step toward reaching that state starts from within.

Follow Imam Khalid Latif on Twitter: www.twitter.com/KLatif

Grand Mosque Shah Jehan, Thatta

Koi Umeed Bar Nahi Ati...Mirza Ghalib - the Mughal Muslim poet (1797-1869)

A TRANSLATION:

No hope comes my way
No visage shows itself to me

That death will come one day is definite
Then why does sleep evade me all night?

I used to laugh at the state of my heart
Now no one thing brings a smile

Though I know the reward of religious devotion
My attention does not settle in that direction

It is for these reasons that I am quiet
If not, would I not converse with you?

Why should I not remember you?
Even if you cannot hear my lament

You don’t see the anguish in my heart
O healer, the scent of my pain eludes you

I am now at that point
That even I don’t know myself

I die in the hope of dying
Death arrives and then never arrives

How will you face Mecca, Ghalib
When shame doesn't come to you

Islam and Forgiveness: Prof. Najeeba Syeed-Miller

Professor Sa'diyya Shaikh, University of Cape Town, South Africa - ASK 2013 - Reflections on the Qur'an and Ibn Arabi for Today

Naked Jihad Post by Kate Blanchard

Published in Religion Dispatches -- All Rights Reserved, Copyright

 

When a young woman in Tunisia named Amina posted a photo of herself with the words “My body belongs to me and is not the source of anyone’s honor,” written on her bare torso in Arabic, she most certainly meant to cause a stir. It is unlikely, however, that at 19 she intended to invite death threats, such that she would soon be feeling the need to leave her home country.

Not surprisingly, a number of Western women felt moved to show their support for Amina. An international movement called Femen staged bare-breasted protests in European cities, in which the writings on their chests echoed Amina’s, along with “Freedom for women” and “Fuck your morals.” (Be warned: photos contain nudity and strong language.) 

But Femen did not have the last word. Almost immediately, there was a backlash from some Muslim women who did not appreciate the “support.” A Facebook group, Muslim Women Against FEMEN, has encouraged Muslim women to post photos of themselves—in whatever they choose to wear—with sentiments such as “Do I look oppressed to you?” or “Nudity DOES NOT liberate me and I DO NOT need saving.”

A number of commenters in the group, in fact, seem to think that Femen members are the ones who are oppressed. 

I myself have experienced these events as something of a roller coaster ride. As someone temperamentally shy about my body, I was both horrified and impressed first by Amina’s courageous statement, and later by the Femen protesters. But I also feared for their bodily safety; misogynists, it seems to me, could easily find in a woman’s public nudity her permission to objectify, touch, rape, or even murder her. 

At the same time, I sympathized with Muslimah Pride’s irritation at Western feminist arrogance, and felt somewhat ashamed. We are always so ready to pounce when non-Western women are threatened. Indeed, as scholar Lila Abu-Lughod points out, even Americans who are not feminists—often on religious grounds—seem ready to fight wars in the Middle East, ostensibly in order to “save” oppressed Muslim women. Moreover, I tend to agree with Muslimah Pride that the freedom to strip is far from the pinnacle of women’s liberation. (I much prefer the freedoms to speak and write, to work, to vote, to parent, to own property and the like.)

In the end, small-f feminism is as diverse as the women (and men) who participate in it. If Tunisians and Ukrainians want to get naked in order to make a statement, more power to them. And if Pakistani or Parisian women want to tell these women off, so be it. Each of them will reap consequences, both predictable and unpredictable. None of us can control the effect our words, actions, and images have on other people, so we do the only thing we can do: we gather in communities of common understanding, around people who affirm us and make us feel normal. But perhaps with increased visibility—with nakedness, so to speak—can come increased tolerance, and eventually, an increase in compassion, without which there is no understanding.

Kate Blanchard is Associate Professor of Religious Studies at Alma College in central Michigan. She is the author of The Protestant Ethic or The Spirit of Capitalism: Christians, Freedom, and Free Markets (Cascade 2010) and co-editor of Lady Parts: Biblical Women and The Vagina Monologues (Wipf & Stock 2012).

Forget the Pope—We Need a New Caliph! But how to make the choice? We have a few ideas. By Wajahat Ali and Haroon Moghul

                           Published at Religion Dispatches, all rights reserved, copyright

 

Apart from his lack of precise familiarity with Qur'anic teaching, Bollywood star Shah Rukh Khan has many Caliph-like qualities.

• Wajahat Ali
  Wajahat Ali is a playwright, attorney, and journalist. His play, “The Domestic Crusaders,” is one of the first plays about American Muslims and was just published by McSweeney’s. He is currently writing an HBO pilot with Dave Eggers. He blogs at Goatmilk.
  Haroon Moghul
  
  RD Senior Correspondent Haroon Moghul is a Fellow both at the Center on National Security at Fordham Law and with the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding. Haroon is completing his doctorate at Columbia University and is the author of The Order of Light (Penguin, 2006). He's been a guest on CNN, BBC, The History Channel, NPR, Russia Today and al-Jazeera. 
  
  
  The selection of the new pope made everyone stop, tweet, and stare at St. Peter’s as a non-European was finally chosen to don the papal garb. It made us realize Muslims could also benefit from genuine suspense and good news about their own religious leadership. Ever since secular Turkish general Mustafa Kemal Ataturk undid the Caliphate and ended the Ottoman Empire in 1924, the Muslim world, or at least the Sunni Muslim world, hasn’t had a Caliph; literally a ‘successor’ (to the Prophet Muhammad). 
• That’s a long time to be alone. In light of America’s re-election of a Muslim President and the successful infiltration of hummus and halal Butterball turkeys into the once-sacred territory of Safeway, we think the time is ripe for a new Caliphate.
• But who could be Caliph? How can the best choice be made? We’re proposing a Caliph-off: a March Madness for Islam’s highest office. With the power vested in us by ourselves, we have chosen ten candidates in the hopes that one of them will win popular acclaim and restore glory to a throne too long left empty.
  
  (I) Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Prime Minister of Turkey
  The Good: The most influential leader of Turkey has done the impossible: he’s outmaneuvered a dictatorial secular minority and changed the Turkish landscape by making religion acceptable again. Recently Erdogan sidelined the military, has overseen a booming economy that has experienced a 300% rise in GDP in the last ten years, repaired relations with Israel, and the latest news suggests he’s even worked out a peace deal with the Kurds. If Erdogan can make Turkey a truly multicultural democracy, he’ll have resurrected the best characteristics of the Ottoman Empire, which last held the Caliphate, conveniently enough in modern Turkey.
  The Bad: Erdogan may actually already be the Caliph, which kind of ruins our brackets. Also, his peace with the Kurds might help Erdogan stick in office yet longer, which is kind of like eating Turkish Delight every day. Plus, since the Ottomans were technically Caliphs for 407 years, maybe another Turkish Caliph is a few too many times around the block.
  
  (II) Shah Rukh Khan, Bollywood Superstar
  The Good: Shah Rukh Khan, “the world’s biggest movie star,” is fluent in the universal language known as Bollywood. The beloved, versatile actor would be an ideal candidate for Caliph considering he is already called “King Khan” and Caliph would keep consonance alive. Also, Caliph SRK is a great, friendly acronym for TMZ news and US Magazine. Considering politics, religion, and entertainment are natural bedfellows (only after marriage), SRK would summon a gamut of emotions and characters on demand: from heartbroken romantic lead (Devdas) to ridiculous action hero with six-pack abs (Ra. One) to endearing, melodramatic protagonist prone to crying (every SRK movie). He has already sought mutual understanding and tolerance with the U.S. because he played a character that did just that in the blockbuster hit My Name is Khan. He has been vocal against profiling after being repeatedly detained by US Customs due to his last name, thus giving him street cred with racial minorities and Muslims worldwide. He is also a philanthropist and name-dropped the Qur’an when explaining why he does not publicize his charity: “Somewhere in the Qur’an it says that if you do charity for a reason, it’s not charity.” He has six-pack abs.
  The Bad: “Somewhere in the Qur’an”—what kind of Caliph can’t provide a footnote on demand? SRK is also prone to melodrama and cries far too much. Instead of dealing with sectarian violence, poverty, and ethnic and religious divides, SRK would instead entertain the ummah by re-creating popular dances and songs from Kuch Kuch Hota Hai and Dil Se. Although spontaneous bhangra dances would make for entertaining viral videos, they do not satiate the religious, economic, and political needs of the masses. (Er, Bollywood and circuses?) Also, he’s too good looking and would incite jealousy and the evil-eye from other world leaders. Also, how could we possibly limit him to four wives? It’s one thing to bring the Caliph back, but another to get stuck with a harem. Did we mention: He starred in the atrocious Ra. One.  
  
  (III) Abdullah ibn Hussein, King of The Kingdom of Jordan
  The Good: He’s a descendant of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him. He speaks English well and is fond of Western culture, which is unsurprising considering he’s one of the few remaining staunch uncritical allies of America in the Middle East. His main talent seems to be preternatural gift at self-preservation. Also maybe some Americans will think he’s the King of Michael Jordan, and that’ll be a step in the right direction.
  The Bad: After a surprisingly candid interview with Jeffrey Goldberg for The Atlantic, King Abdullah has laid all his cards on post-Arab Spring table, and managed to insult pretty much every government around him, which doesn’t make for a good takeoff. He’s an endangered autocrat in a region overwhelmed by democracy, instability, and sectarianism. His ancestors, the Sharifs of Mecca, were supposed to be the replacement Caliphs after siding with the British against the Ottomans during WWI. Of course, the Ottomans collapsed, the Caliphate was abolished, Jerusalem was conquered by the British, the Saudis took Mecca, and the British and French carved up the Middle East as spoils of war for themselves, which is kind of like saying his family already tried once, and we’re not down with double jeopardy. #NotWinning
  
  (IV) Muhammad Morsi, President of the Arab Republic of Egypt
  The Good: As representative of a Muslim Brotherhood government that allegedly wants to rule the Arab or Muslim worlds, making Morsi Caliph would just free him from having to pretend, and there’s always something to be said for efficiency. Morsi is in charge of Egypt, which is the capital of Sunni Islam, scholastically speaking. From 1258 to 1517, the Caliphate was kinda-sorta headquartered in Cairo, though it was a purely symbolic and largely irrelevant office, kinda-sorta like his presidency might be turning out to be. Possible plus: His Caliphate would make Umm Kulthum a mainstream singer, popularize melodramatic Egyptian soap operas, make hookahs go viral, and introduce intrusive Egyptian mother-in-laws to the world.
  The Bad: Morsi lacks a sense of humor, which is seemingly impossible, because if there’s one thing every Egyptian is known for, it’s a sense of humor, except of course for him. His regime just issued an arrest warrant for popular Egyptian satirist Dr. Bassem Yousef, who’s the Jon Stewart of Egypt. He and conservative, anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist look like they’re related, or possibly were cloned at the same facility, and between Morsi’s administrative incompetence and Norquist’s single-minded anti-tax jihad, this is not a promising beginning. Right now, Egypt is imploding; the Caliphate can’t be located in a country that isn’t able to defend itself. Not to mention, with only 20% of the world’s Muslims being Arab, this would be a little too convenient, especially for all the Muslims tired of Arab-centric Islam.
  Also, his Caliphate would mainstream melodramatic Egyptian soap operas, hookahs, and intrusive Egyptian mother-in-laws to the world. Plus Egyptians would be insufferable: ‘Hey, we invented civilization!’ ‘Hey we overthrew a dictator!’ ‘Hey we have the Caliph!’ Ugh.
  
  (V) Muhammad Ali, The Greatest of All Time
  The Good: A three-time world heavyweight champion, a convert first to the Nation of Islam and then Sunni Islam, Muhammad Ali was and remains one of the most famous and beloved athletes and celebrities of all time. On moral grounds, he refused to fight in the Vietnam War and was stripped of his boxing license for three years. He lit the torch at the ’96 Atlanta Olympics and made Bill Clinton cry. He was a gifted pugilist, a brilliant interviewee, sharp-tongued, and a rapper who rapped before rap was even named. The Fresh Prince played him in a movie. He’s from Kentucky, which is a red state, which gives him playing power in the American heartland. He’s so awesome he trademarked G.O.A.T.—The Greatest of All Time.
  The Bad: Actually, we can’t really think of anything, except for his advanced age and debilitating Parkinson’s disease that has unfortunately rendered him physically incapable of assuming the position. The people who dislike Muhammad Ali also hate unicorns, rainbows, freedom, kittens, and babies. The only problem might be how President Obama would take to sharing the American stage. Also, far-right crazies will suffer a public meltdown faced with an actually Muslim black American leader. 
  
  (VI) Amra Babic, Mayor of Visoko, Bosnia
  The Good: There’s a precedent for female Caliphs. In the mid-600s, the Khawarij movement elected female leaders, on the grounds that piety mattered more than anything—more than ethnic origin, race, or gender. Babic is a practicing white European woman in a scarf representing 51% of the world’s gender. How many Muslim leaders are women? Bam! Plus: she’s the elected mayor of a Bosnian town, which means she can handle Eastern European men—an added bonus. Wham! She’s won praise for her administration, commitment, and seriousness, which means she can finally get Muslim events to start on time. Plus, she’d remove stereotypes that Islam is purely an “Arab” phenomenon. Also, a white woman in a headscarf as Caliph would destroy Orientalist narratives and make certain Islamophobes turn into zombies.
  The Bad: She’s a woman, sure, but how would Muslims take listening to another white person tell them what’s best for them? Plus seeing as there’s so very few Bosnians in the world Muslim population, it might seem a little bit unfair to give this resurrected title to a minority in such a precarious situation. But here’s the real problem: she’d be perpetually distracted rejecting the onslaught of rishta (marriage) proposals from every Pakistani aunty for their sons, because of her fair skin. The image of a white woman in headscarf as Caliph would inspire Orientalist narratives all over again.
  
  (VII) Kim Jong-Un, Supreme Leader of North Korea
  The Good: His haircut and sound bites: endlessly amusing. Plus, since he speaks a language very few Muslims understand and governs a country in which there are probably one to three Muslims, he’d be harmless as a Caliph. He’s good at theatrical, extravagant belligerence which makes for entertaining TV. He has advanced weapons he likes to flaunt, so he could defend the nation with mutually assured destruction as a guiding foreign policy. Korean BBQ would finally become halal for the global ummah.
  The Bad: His haircut and sound bites: endlessly terrifying. Plus, since he speaks a language very few Muslims understand and governs a country in which there are probably one to three Muslims, he’d be useless as Caliph. He is friends with Dennis Rodman. He’s good at showing off weapons and making threats, but not at actual governance. Also, did we mention, he is friends with Dennis Rodman? Finally it may be a problem that he is not Muslim and his family is worshipped like gods, which most Muslims would consider idolatry. Doesn’t look too fit, either, which is not a good quality for a world leader.
  
  (VIII) Imran Khan, Pakistani Politician and Former Cricket Star
  The Good: The dashing Pakistani upstart politician rose to fame as captain of the Pakistani cricket team leading the nation to victory in the 1992 Cricket World Cup. After years of suffering from imperialistic humiliations, economic setbacks, and dictatorships, Muslims would benefit from having an acclaimed sports hero as their authority. Also, he still has great hair in his 50s which is a near-miraculous accomplishment for a Pakistani male. (The authors know.)
  Khan has also been committed to social work for nearly two decades having opened and funded a charitable cancer hospital in Pakistan. After a lifetime of partying and womanizing, he had a mid-life religious awakening and is the quintessential reformed bad boy. He married British Jewish heiress Jemima Goldsmith, which proves he isn’t anti-Semitic. Plus, the way things are going, soon half the world’s Muslims will be Pakistani.
  The Bad: Muslims need winners and so far Khan has been a loser as a political candidate. His political party, Pakistan Tehrik-i-Insaf, has yet to win any major political seats (although that could change with the upcoming May elections.) Also, Khan can no longer command the fast ball like he did in the early ’90s. He is prone to political flip-flopping and also outlandish promises such as vowing to end corruption in Pakistan in 90 days. He doesn’t have facial hair, which is a problem even though the rest of his hair is really cool.
  
  (IX) The Saudi Royal Family
  The Good: The House of Saud, currently led by King Abdullah, are the authoritarian Wahhabi rulers of the modern Hejaz area which includes Islam’s two holiest cities, Mecca, the site of the Kaaba and annual Hajj, and Medina, the city of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). As such, the Saudi Royal Family believe they are the rightful custodians and caretakers of the Kaaba, which automatically cedes them religious authority and influence.
  Due to the gift/curse of oil, the House of Saud has immense wealth and resources that it has used for philanthropy, maintenance, and expansion of the mosques, building unnecessary clock towers, oppression of minorities and women, proselytizing an austere, extremist vision of Islam, and a commitment to living a gaudy, materialistic lifestyle that makes Kanye look like an ascetic. Their friendly relations with Western powers, especially the U.S., ensure secure diplomatic and economic relations.
  The Bad: Really?
  
  (X) Barack Hussein Obama, President of the United States of America
   The Good: His name and his life history: a biracial American born to a Kenyan father, raised in the most populous Muslim country, Indonesia, and friend to a Pakistani college roommate who taught him Urdu words and fed him Pakistani food. During his 2008 speech at Cairo University, Obama proved he can pronounce Arabic words, except for hijab, and is comfortable in front of Muslim audiences, unlike his predecessor George W. Bush.
  
  The Bad: Becoming the Caliph of Islam, Obama would basically confirm every insane conspiracy theory manufactured by the unhinged, right-wing Islamophobia industry. He would be forever asked to produce his Kenyan birth certificate and prove he is not an agent of the radical Muslim Brotherhood. Also, his commitment to drone attacks, the War on Afghanistan, and the Patriot Act has soured his popularity with most Muslims worldwide. Furthermore, he drinks alcohol and eats pork openly. Muslims can tolerate almost any sin, but the public consumption of pork? (Then again, maybe his smoking will win him bonus points among middle-aged Muslim men.)
  
  (XI) Wild Card Candidate: Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, Soon-Not-To-Be of the Islamic Republic of Iran
  
  The Good: Considering he’s worn the same jacket for the past eight years, resources would not be wasted on clothes and there would be no need for a stylist. Also, he is unfiltered and blunt, so there’d be no need for speechwriters. Hailing from a working-class background, the former teacher and engineer, who is the sixth President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, could speak to the economic plight and hardships of the common Muslim man. As a Twelver Shia Muslim, Ahmedinejad would be an unusual and bold choice. Shias, who comprise roundabout 15% of the global Muslim population, do not believe in the Caliphate, which is a Sunni phenomenon. Therefore, this unorthodox move could act to significantly improve sectarian divides that continue to harm Sunni-Shia communities in places like Iraq, Pakistan, and Lebanon.
  
  The Bad: In a perfect world, Ahmedinejad would be an unpopular stand-up comedian. Yet, sadly, he was serious when he claimed there are no gays in Iran. He is also less-than-friendly to Israel (to put it mildly), and persists with belligerent rhetoric that has alienated him from a majority of countries, and also the country he rules. His regime has been plagued with electoral fraud and his participation, along with the ‘Rahbar’ or Guide of the Revolution, in the oppression of the 2009 Green Revolution does not endear him to many of his fellow Iranians. Plus there is no precedent for a Caliph wearing a Members Only jacket from the ’80s, which we’re pretty sure nobody wants to resurrect.
  
  [Editor’s Note: We have always wanted to do an April Fool’s edition of RD, switching out all of the magazine’s content with fake religion news—we are deeply grateful to Haroon and Wajahat for saving us from ourselves.]
  

Abdullahi An-Na'im: Human Rights and Sharia

Professor Mona Siddiqui: Love and Law in Islam and Christianity

tu khuda hai na mera ishq farishton jesa... dono insaan hain to kyun itnay hijaabon mein milain... you are not my god...nor is my love angelic...we are both but human...why then... all these veils...

...a lover's touch

Poetry: Pakistani Urdu - Qateel Shifai
Art: A.R Chugtai (Pakistan)
Translation: Dr. Amanullah De Sondy.

...teri har chap say jaltay hain khayaloon mein chiragh
yours...every footstep...sets thoughts alight like burning lamps...expectations..angst...unease

jab bhi tu ayee jagata huwa jadoo ayee 
you arrive...you awaken every magic in your path

tujh ko choo loon to phir e jan-ay-tamanna mujh ko...der tak apnay badan say teri khushbu aye
touching you, O life of my desires, leaves my body lingering with your scent for a long time

tu baharoon ka hai unwan tujhay chahoon gaa
you are certainly the epitome...index...title...of spring...I will continue to adore you...

The Real Reason British Women Are Turning to Islam (And It's Not Because They Aren't Modern)

By Afroze Zaidi-Jivraj 
Postgraduate student in Theology at the University of Birmingham
Posted: 31/01/2013 14:30
Published: Huffington Post, UK - All Rights Reserved, Copyright 

'Make Me a Muslim', a documentary on British women who have converted to Islam which aired on BBC3, addresses an issue that continues to be mulled over following on from the 2011 census results. The documentary looked at women from varied racial, ethnic and social backgrounds, and gave anecdotal accounts of the unique situation and struggles faced by each woman in the wake of her decision to accept Islam, as a faith as well as a way of life. The producer of the programme, Emily Hughes, in a post on BBC's TV Blog, made it a point to mention that she hoped to "to challenge stereotypes about Islam," a lofty but commendable aim. The question remains, was this aim achieved, and what does the documentary tell us about the perception of Muslims in Britain overall?

For a documentary on BBC3, the standard of 'Make Me a Muslim' was about as high as can be expected. Critiques of style and form aside, one of the most obvious shortcomings of the documentary was the choice of presenter, British model and 'born-Muslim' Shanna Bukhari. Whether or not Shanna was chosen purely for added entertainment value, given the contrast between her approach to Islam and that of most Muslim converts as well as the controversy she faced after wanting to represent Britain in the Miss Universe pageant in 2011, is for the viewer to decide. While watching the programme, however, it was hard not to keep asking the question: why choose someone who does not prioritise Islam as a way of life to learn more about Muslim women for whom Islam is everything? Shanna Bukhari's inability to relate to the most basic of Islamic customs was cringe-worthy, but as some commenters on the blog pointed out, even more disappointing was this extended focus on the presenter's own internal conflicts instead of the wider issues faced in Britain by converts and Muslims in general. In that sense, despite the best intentions of its makers, 'Make Me a Muslim' unfortunately did not to do what it said on the tin.

One of the most frustrating aspects of the documentary stemmed from the attitude of its presenter. Shanna lamented the judgment that Scottish traveller Alana placed upon her clothing, yet refused to leave behind her own prejudices and preconceptions in the making of this programme (perhaps unsurprising, considering she is a model by profession and not a journalist). One of the most telling signs of Shanna's West-centric attitude was her description of herself as 'not pretty' when wearing the Muslim headscarf, and no thought was given, nor any comment made afterwards, to explore further what "pretty" actually means, or that it can mean different things to different people, individually as well as within cultures and faiths, or especially that the Western attitude of "hair + make-up + revealing clothing = pretty" is something to be questioned in itself. More than looking pretty for one's own expression of femininity (something which many Muslims, scholars or otherwise, will confirm that Islam is not in conflict with), this disproportionate, nigh on exploitative emphasis on a woman's appearance within Western society does in fact happen to be one of the causes for British women converting to Islam, a point confirmed by Lauren Booth after she adopted Islam in 2010. Not only is this key point largely overlooked by the documentary, it is undermined further by the attitude of the presenter.

Unsurprisingly, some comments on Emily Hughes' blog post were unsympathetic towards the women whose stories were discussed; others were simply nasty. Despite being ideally placed to do so, 'Make Me a Muslim' failed to explore in greater detail the real status of women in Islam, and the fact that this, and not romantic love, brainwashing, or delusion, is what continues to attract non-Muslim British women to the faith. The programme stopped short of discussing how this paradigm shift is a rejection of the superficial, objectifying attitude towards women so prevalent in Western society, of the page-3 culture which permeates into a programme like Countdown (where a maths genius feels the need to force-feed her physical attractiveness to the public through an endless selection of short, tight dresses), in exchange for an attitude which emphasises that one's self-worth is based on the internal and not the superficial, on intellect and character and not on bra-size and make-up. It's the kind of nuance which a 'Modern Muslim' like Shanna Bukhari has great difficulty recognising, in spite of being born into Islam.

And within these labels is hidden another elephant in the room which continues to be overlooked, this polarisation of 'Modern Muslim' versus 'Conservative Muslim' within British discourse, as though a Conservative British Muslim were necessarily something "un-modern", backward, continually in need of (or in opposition to) intellectual and societal progress. Nowhere in the programme is this more obvious than when Shanna meets Ayesha, a revert who is a model and 'Modern Muslim' just like herself. As a Modern Muslim, Ayesha is described as being cool and fun, seemingly all the things that a Conservative Muslim isn't or cannot be. Yet today millions of Muslims in Britain, and millions more around the world, know and practise Islam as a faith which emphasises steadfastness in values but also, far from being opposed to modernity, a faith which adapts and moves with the times. An entire generation of fun, cool, intelligent practising Muslims who have been raised and educated in Britain see no conflict between Islam and modernity. Yet through Muslims such as Shanna Bukhari (ill-informed of their faith, conflicted within themselves, and portraying this confused self-identity as a representation of other British Muslims), these labels and their negative influences will regrettably continue for a long time yet.

'Underwraps': Muslim Models Maintain Modesty With Fashion Agency

Religion News Service  |  By Omar Sacirbey Posted: 01/31/2013 12:17 pm ESTAll Rights Reserved 

(RNS) Ever since she was a little girl, Savannah Uqdah longed to pose for pictures and strut down a runway with flashbulbs bursting. But as an observant Muslim who didn't want to violate Islam's tenets on modesty, the aspiring model assumed that designers wouldn't hire someone who was unwilling to show some skin.

Uqdah shelved her modeling dreams and instead expressed herself through the fashions she wore.

Nailah Lymus started her fashion label, Amirah Creations, in 2004. She has met and heard about lots of Muslim women who were interested in modeling, but didn't pursue it because they assumed they would be asked to model clothing that violated their beliefs.

So during last February's New York Fashion Week, Lymus launched Underwraps Agency, which connects modesty-minded models -- both Muslim and non-Muslim -- with designers.

"I wanted to promote modest attire -- that's really what the agency is about -- and not feeling like you have to show everything to be a model and to make it far," said Lymus, who lives and works in Brooklyn, N.Y.

Since then, her agency has contracted with four Muslim female models, getting them work in photo and video shoots, as well as runway shows during Fashion Week.

One of them is Uqdah, whom Lymus knew from the Brooklyn mosque they both attended, who will be modeling for the plus-size label Ann Nahari during the upcoming Fashion Week (Feb. 7-14) in New York.

"I was like, where do I sign [up]?" Uqdah said. "It was a dream come true."

For now, Lymus is mostly (but not entirely) focusing on Muslim models because she believes Muslims are underrepresented in the industry. But she also believes that the demand for modest clothing cuts across religions and cultures, and ultimately wants Underwraps to be known more for its modesty than its Muslim orientation.

As an example, she points to Kylie Bisutti, a Victoria's Secret model who abruptly retired from lingerie modeling last February, citing her Christian beliefs and desire to be a good wife. She still models less racy clothing.

"I don't want to be known as a sex symbol or lingerie model. I desire to be known as a woman who fears the Lord," Bisutti wrote on her website last year.

Islamic views on modeling vary. Scholars from the venerable Darul Uloom Deoband seminary in India issued a fatwa in 2010 condemning female modeling as un-Islamic because it puts the female body on exhibit. A few fashion magazines in some Muslim countries will not show women's faces.

But Imam Talal Eid, an Islamic law expert in Boston and former member of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, said modeling is acceptable as long as the models maintain their modesty.

"You have to show the clothes. You can't have fashion without models," said Eid, whose daughter is a designer with Calvin Klein in New York.

Rania Iswarani, editor at the Muslim style blog Fashfaith.com, disagreed that modeling draws improper attention to women. "People perhaps do pay attention to them, but NOT to their skin. The body is covered. So these people are attracted to the clothes Muslim women are wearing," Iswarani wrote in an email.

Either way, industry veterans say there's a need for modesty-minded models.

"I'm in constant need of models for my company and a Muslim modeling agency would help me profusely," said Melanie Elturk, CEO and chief designer of HauteHijab.com, an online Muslim fashion retailer in Chicago. "We do display the vast majority of our products on dress forms instead of models to try and avoid any controversy that Muslim models may stir up, but some products just need to be displayed on a human body in order to show what the piece will look like."

Underwraps' Lymus argues that there's greater demand for modesty than perhaps the fashion industry realizes, and that it will need models to respond. Since launching Underwraps, Lymus has received more than 400 queries from aspiring Muslim models from several different countries, including the U.S., Indonesia, Great Britain and Australia.

"There are a lot of individuals, Muslim or not, who wear modest clothing," Lymus said. "You're going to be at your best when you're comfortable in your own skin, not when your uncomfortable with what you're wearing."

Lymus' agency and Muslim designers are banking on what they believe is a huge market for fashion in the Muslim world. Barjis Chohan, a British Muslim designer who studied under the legendary Vivienne Westwood, estimated the market at $96 million, noting that New York-style fashion weeks have started in cities like Istanbul, Cairo, Karachi and Jakarta.

"As a model, you want to be as marketable as possible," Lymus said. "And if you're a Muslim model who might wear a headscarf, you're limited because not many designers want models with headscarves."

But she added, "I haven't launched the agency to conform to what the existing industry is doing."

There are many famous Muslim models who didn't worry about religious restrictions, including:

• Iman Abdulmajid, born in Somalia, considered the first black supermodel.
• Yasmeen Ghauri, born in Montreal to a Pakistani Muslim father and a German mother, modeled for Victoria's Secret, Versace, Chanel and other major brands.
• Fawzia Mohamed of Egypt, who represented her country in the Miss Universe 2006 pageant.
• Wafah Dufour, better known as Osama bin Laden's niece, who posed provocatively for GQ in 2006.
• Hanaa Ben Abdesslem, a Tunisian supermodel whose clients include Lancome and Benetton.
• Fatima Siad, Somali-Ethiopian model from Boston, who placed third on "America's Next Top Model" in 2008

40 years after their expulsion by Idi Amin, Tonight examines how the Ugandan Asians who came to Britain have made a success of their lives, creating wealth and employment.

Yes, this is awesome!

Why I Won't Be Watching 'Zero Dark Thirty'

by Yasmin Hussein
Muslim Activist
Published in Huffington Post: All Rights Reserved, Copyright



With the latest terrorist thriller "Zero Dark Thirty" released today, I have been pondering whether or not I should go and watch it in a theater. My hesitation isn't just based on reviews that the film normalizes torture and portrays it very graphically. A close friend of mine described the torture scenes as so graphic that she needed to step out. All of that aside, my fear of going is because I wear the hijab (headscarf). You may ask yourself, what does hijab have to do with it? To be honest: everything.

As a young American Muslim woman growing up in South Florida, my biggest challenge wearing the hijab was... the heat. Deciding to wear it at the age of nine shocked everyone, including my own parents who felt I should wait until I got older. Being the stubborn person that I am, I wore it anyway and the rest is history.

As someone who is very "visibly Muslim" I feel unsafe and quite honestly, extremely uncomfortable watching a film that makes me feel like I am guilty of something that I am not. I, obviously, recognize that I have nothing to do with the characters on the screen and that the motives behind the acts of real life terrorists who claim Islam to be their religion is not the Islam I grew up loving. The unfortunate reality is not everyone in America can make that distinction.

As the Young Leaders Program Coordinator for the Muslim Public Affairs Council in Washington, DC, I work with young American Muslims aspiring to go into government, media, business and technology and even Hollywood. My work with these youth surrounds the notion that they too are a contributing member of society that has a place in those industries and fields. With many young Muslims around the country wanting to be part of Hollywood but feeling that their faith is often displayed negatively, these types of films only reinforce their feelings of exclusion. It makes it hard to convince them that they do have a place in an industry like Hollywood that portrays Muslims, at times, in such a negative light. But with positive examples of individuals like actor Faran Tahir, screenwriter Sameer Gardezi and Emmy Award winning director Iman Zawahry, a real sense of hope can be found for Muslims wanting to break into the industry.

Films like "Zero Dark Thirty" and shows like "Homeland" capitalize on an already tense environment of suspicion and fear. They make people question whether their neighbors, co-workers or even that man with a beard and kufi walking down the street might be less than upright citizens. These portrayals put people who look like me automatically into the "other" category. Since 9/11, Muslims and individuals of other religions and ethnicities who are perceived to be Muslim have faced incidents of hate both physically and verbally. According to the FBI Hate Crime Reports, hate crimes with an anti-Islamic bias increased by over 50 percent from 2009 to 2010 and has been on the rise since. And with the recent incidents of people taking measures into their own hands such as the recent fatal pushing of a Hindu man onto the NYC subway tracks by a 31-year-old woman who openly stated her hate toward Muslims -- these films can negatively impact national feelings toward certain communities.

It's time for Hollywood to evaluate what they are putting out for mass viewing. It's time to stop feeding into the stereotypes that already exist in our society and creating an environment of fear. 2012 was a very dark year for our nation. We witnessed some of the highest numbers in gun violence sweep our country and affect some of the most vulnerable of our communities: children. Hollywood needs to acknowledge the role they play in the culture of violence we live in today; a young woman of any faith should never be left feeling like she can't watch a movie in a movie theater.

Can We Finally Talk About Muslim Homophobia in Britain?

by Johann Hari

Columnist for the London Independent

Posted: February 24, 2011 11:48 PM 

Published at Huffington Post: All Rights Reserved, Copyright

Last autumn, mysterious posters began to appear all over the East End of London announcing it is now a "Gay-Free Zone." They warned: "And Fear Allah: Verily Allah is Severe in Punishment." One of them was plastered outside the apartment block I lived in for nearly ten years, next to adverts for club nights and classes at the local library, as if it was natural and normal. I'd like to say I'm shocked - but anybody who lives there knows this has been a long time coming.

Here's a few portents from the East End that we have chosen to ignore. In May 2008, a 15 year old Muslim girl tells her teacher she thinks she might be gay, and the Muslim teacher in a state-funded comprehensive tells her "there are no gays round here" and she will "burn in hell" if she ever acts on it. (I know because she emailed me, suicidal and begging for help). In September 2008, a young gay man called Oliver Hemsley, is walking home from the gay pub the George and Dragon when a gang of young Muslims stabs him eight times, in the back, in the lungs, and in his spinal column. In January 2010, when the thug who did it is convicted, a gang of thirty Muslims storms the George and Dragon in revenge and violently attacks everybody there. All through, it was normal to see young men handing out leaflets outside the Whitechapel Ideas Store saying gays are "evil." Most people accept them politely.

These are not isolated incidents. East London has seen the highest increase in homophobic attacks anywhere in Britain, and some of the worst in Europe. Everybody knows why, and nobody wants to say it. It is because East London has the highest Muslim population in Britain, and we have allowed a fanatically intolerant attitude towards gay people to incubate there, in the name of "tolerance". The most detailed opinion survey of British Muslims was carried out by Gallup, who correctly predicted the result of the last general election. In their extensive polling, they found literally no British Muslims who would say homosexuality is "morally acceptable." Every one of the Muslims they polled objected to it. Even more worryingly, younger Muslims had more stridently anti-gay views than older Muslims. These attitudes have consequences - and they are worst of all for gay Muslims, who have to live a sham half-life of lies, or be shunned by their families.

No, Muslims are not the only homophobes among us. But the gap between them and the rest is startling. It's zero percent of British Muslims vs. 58 percent of other Brits who say we are "acceptable."

Why does nobody want to talk about this? No, it's not because Muslims have "taken over" Europe, as ludicrous hysterics like Mark Steyn claim. I debunk that nonsense here: Muslims are 3 percent of the population of Europe.

So why the silence? It is true that British Muslims are themselves frequently the victims of bigotry -- just as in the US and across most of the Western world, especially since 9/11. They are often harassed by the police, denied jobs, and abused in the street, and they are forced to watch as our government senselessly incinerates many Muslims abroad. (I have written many articles detailing and deploring these ugly facts.) So gay people are naturally reluctant to pile in onto minority who are being oppressed. We are rightly sympathetic. We know what it is like to be treated like this. We instinctively respond with solidarity, not suspicion.

But this can easily morph into excuse-making. When there was a wave of vicious gay-bashings in Amsterdam by Morroccan immigrants -- ending the city's easy, hand-holding culture -- the gay spokesman for Human Rights Watch, Scott Long, said: "There's still an extraordinary degree of racism in Dutch society. Gays often becomes victims of this when immigrants retaliate for the inequities they have had to suffer." What? How is it a "retaliation" to beat up a gay couple? What have they done to Muslims? What other human rights abuse would Human Rights Watch make excuses for? Would they say the Burmese junta beats dissidents in order to "retaliate for the inequities they have had to suffer"?

When gay people were cruelly oppressed, we didn't form gangs to beat up other minorities. We organized democratically and appealed to our fellow citizens' sense of decency. It's patronizing -- and authentically racist -- to treat Muslims as if they are children, or animals, who can only react to their oppression by jeering at or attacking people who have done them no harm, and who they object to because of a book written in the sixth century. Muslims are human beings who can choose not to do this. The vast majority, of course, do not attack anyone. But they should go further. They should choose instead to see us as equal human beings, who live and love just like them, and do not deserve scorn and prejudice.

Yes, it is "Muslim culture" today to be bigoted against gay people. It was British culture to be anti-gay thirty years ago. Cultures change. They change all the time. They are not sacred and fixed. They are constantly in motion. But they only change if we admit there is a problem publicly and openly and search for solutions. We should not "respect" the bigotry of Muslims, any more than we would respect the bigotry of Christians or Jews or the Ku Klux Klan. The only consistent and reasonable position is to oppose bigotry against Muslims, and oppose bigotry by Muslims.
 

So how do we do it? There are plenty of practical steps. The most crucial is in the school system. Today, schools in Muslim areas like Tower Hamlets and across Europe are deeply reluctant to explain that homosexuality is a natural and harmless phenomenon that occurs in every human society: they know that many parents will go crazy. Tough. It should be a legal requirement, tightly policed by the school inspectors, and any school that refuses should be shut down. Every one of those schools has gay kids who are terrified and isolated and are at a high risk of self-harm or suicide. We need to get simple facts and practical help to them, over the heads of religiously-inspired bigots. No school should be a "faith school", inspired by medieval holy books that demand death for gay people. Every school should be a safe school for gay children, and every school should educate straight children to live alongside them.
There are other crucial changes. We should be lauding -- and funding -- the few Muslim groups that are brave and humane enough to take a stand and defend the equality of gay people. They do exist: British Muslims for Secular Democracy is a heroic example. The same goes, even more crucially, for the gay Muslims who have come out and formed groups like Imaan. Only they can show their fellow Muslims that when they advocate discrimination against gay people, they are advocating discrimination against their own sisters and sons, brothers and daughters.

And we need to make it plain that accepting the existence of gay people -- and our right to live peacefully and openly -- is a non-negotiable value for living in a democracy. In the Netherlands, they now show all new immigrants images of men kissing, and if they object, they tell them they should go and live somewhere else. We should be doing the same -- starting with imams, who are almost entirely imported into British mosques at the moment from countries where homosexuality is a crime punished with death.

I believe Muslims can change. I believe they can accept and love their gay children, just as surely as my parents -- who also grew up in horribly homophobic places -- accepted and loved me. I think of all the good kind Muslims I met in my years living in Tower Hamlets, and I believe that over time they were capable of understanding that my sexuality is natural and innate and hurts nobody. But it won't happen if we pretend we "respect" their bigotry, and that it is a legitimate expression of difference. It is not, any more than hating black people was the "legitimate" culture of the Deep South, or Apartheid South Africa.

No, we will not tolerate the idea that we are "immoral" for loving each other. No, we will not tolerate posters declaring East London a "gay free zone." We will see them as a reason, at last and at least, to end this taboo -- and demand much better of our fellow citizens.

This article appeared in Attitude, Europe's best-selling gay magazine. To subscribe for just £27 and read these articles a month before they appear on this site, click here.

A charity has been set up to raise funds for Oliver Hemsley's care. For information click here. To donate to the brave gay Muslim group Imaan click here.

For updates on this issue and others you can follow Johann on Twitter at www.twitter.com/johannhari101

 

Follow Johann Hari on Twitter: www.twitter.com/johannhari101

Pakistani greats: Mehdi Hassan and Salma Agha.

Muslims engage in quest to understand evolution ~~~ British Muslims acknowledge a common misunderstanding of evolution but still differ about how to reconcile faith with science

Yasmin Khan 

Published in The Guardian, All Rights Reserved, Copyright

Wednesday 9 January 2013 11.09 EST


More than 850 delegates flocked to a seminal conference in London on Saturday about the compatibility of modern evolutionary theory and Islamic theology – despite scaremongering and the refusal of Islamic student societies to participate. Determined organisers had overcome pressure to cancel by changing the venue from Imperial College to Logan Hall at the University of London. The event was the brainchild of the Deen Institute, which runs courses to promote critical thinking among Muslim students and kindle rational dialogue within Islam. The need for dialogue is urgent, because to date there has been little open discussion within British Muslim communities on this divisive subject. Recent debates in the US suggest that evolution is not as much of a problem theologically to Muslims as it is to Christian creationists, but there is work to be done to clarify the situation.

Evolution … contested territory for Muslims. Photograph: Philipp Kammerer/Alamy

One of the speakers was Professor Ehab Abouheif, an evolutionary biologist at McGill University in Montreal, Canada. "Muslims must revolutionise their perspective on evolution if they are to move forward in the 21st century," said Abouheif, who considers himself to be both a scientist and a sincere believer. He is a veteran of debates like this. "Biological evolution is a fact. The evidence is overwhelming and indisputable," he said.

Beamed into Logan Hall via satellite was Dr Oktar Babuna, a spokesperson for Harun Yahya – founder of the controversial Turkish creationist movement that has often been accused of obscuring clear scientific thinking.

Babuna's impenetrable polemic was relentless. "Evolution is not a scientific theory," he said, "as it has yet to be verified by scientific evidence. In fact, evolution has already been falsified."
He maintains that no evolutionary mechanism has been found. His logic is that if successive minor changes had accumulated into a big change during speciation, transitional forms would outnumber the original and transformed species in the fossil record. But, according to palaeontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould, the record showed otherwise.

Much to the amusement of the audience, Babuna repeatedly offered a £5m cash prize to anyone who can find a transitional fossil.

Abouheif's swift rebuttal fell on deaf ears. He pointed out that the expectation of finding transitional fossils erroneously presumes a gradual and linear model of evolution (Gould and Eldredge proposed the theory of punctuated equilibrium in 1972 to explain the absence of transitional species). He lamented that Babuna was dragging us back to Darwin's 1859 version of evolution before the discovery of DNA.

Fatima Jackson, a biological anthropologist at the University of Maryland, offered a compelling alternative narrative. Nothing in biology would make sense outside the evolution paradigm, which she defined as a "basic organising tool". She reconciled her faith with science by holding to the belief that the singularity of life is a manifestation of the unity of God. In her view, exploring natural phenomena helps to bring us closer to God. "Evolution doesn't replace faith, it complements it."  Each primate, she said, "has its own trajectory from a common ancestor which has diversified". Humans are a part of the natural world and not a unique creation. "You can't just push the fossils away," she cautioned, citing an article by Sheikh al-Turayri, who asserts that the question of evolution is purely a matter for scientific inquiry.
 
Dr Usama Hasan, a senior researcher in Islamic studies at the Quilliam Foundation and a part-time imam, said Yahya's creationist arguments were easily discredited (though he later confessed to previously teaching Yahya's fallacy, before deeper research into the subject). His current stance has provoked outrage and even death threats.

Hasan courageously presented evolution as a theory initially recorded by Muslim thinkers. For instance, he said, William Draper refers to the "Mohammedan theory of the evolution of man from lower forms, or his gradual development to his present condition in the long lapse of time."     Unsung champions of evolution from the Muslim world included Al Jahiz and Ibn Maskawaih, a 10th century scholar. Ibn Khaldun's The Muqaddimah explicitly describes an animal hierarchy, said Hasan.  But these claims were vehemently refuted by Shaykh Yasir Qadhi, Islamic instructor for the Al-Maghrib Institute, who said the descriptions were meant in a different context and that these scholars were not experts in either theology or biology.

Hassan argued that his views on evolution were firmly within the limits of Islamic thought and that difference of opinion was permissible. Qadhi disagreed: "It is sacrilegious to have two different Islamic opinions on this issue."

But Qadhi distanced himself from Yahya's creationist camp. "It is a mistake for Muslims to say we don't believe in evolution." Most of the principles of evolution posed no problems for Islamic theology, he said.

It was fine for Muslims to believe there were dinosaurs, speciation among hominids and even a common ancestor for all animals on Earth – except for one exception – mankind. "We are an honoured species distinctive from animals in terms of meta-cognition, language, morals, creativity and religion."

He addressed the ultimate sticking point for the majority of Muslims: "God created Adam to fit into the grand scheme of things. Adam and Eve did not have parents – they did not evolve. Any other position is scripturally indefensible."

Hasan denied that belief in evolution inevitably leads to atheism. "Science tells us how we were created, revelation tells us why." Just as science could not measure the existence of souls there was no experiment that could validate or deny the existence of God, he said.

Qadhi pointed out that Muslims were not historically anti-science in the way Christianity had been. But he went on: "We need to put science in its proper place". In his view, "science is the study of understanding Allah's creation".

Hassan responded by suggesting that religious scholars who do not understand the sciences should not interfere. "It is not the job of theologians to dictate what scientists can and cannot do. Isn't your attitude holding back the Muslim ummah?"

Qadhi's reply provoked rapturous applause from the audience. "The Qur'an compels us to believe in the super rational; that which is beyond our comprehension."

The debate stimulated intense discussion and I found myself agreeing with different strands from different speakers, but to varying degrees. I am convinced that the scientific rationality of Abouheif and Jackson outweighs the droll scepticism of Babuna. But I was torn between the theological cerebral flexibility of Hasan and the unwavering categorical rhetoric of Qadhi.

As the event closed I was left restless and sensed that others felt similarly conflicted. I tried to envisage how to establish a consensus of Muslim opinion on this topic. Where was the call to action? Who would bring the necessary scholars and scientists together to form a legitimate committee?

The debate has lifted the lid on this Pandora's Box, but the next steps are uncertain. Without more structured engagement with Muslims, the concept of human evolution will continue to be both an intellectual and spiritual minefield.

Yasmin Khan is an independent cultural adviser. Follow her on Twitter @Ya5min_BL

Prof Mona Siddiqui - Religion, rights and the secular space

Mona Siddiqui OBE, Professor of Islamic and Interreligious Studies in the School of Divinity and Assistant Principal for Religion and Society, presents "Religion, rights and the secular space".

Recorded on Tuesday 30 October 2012 at the University of Edinburgh's Appleton Tower lecture theatre.

This lecture is part of the University's "Our Changing World" public lecture series, which examines the global challenges facing society, and the role of academia in meeting these challenges: http://www.ed.ac.uk/events/changing-world