Eid Mubarak

تقبل الله منا ومنكم

Reflections on CHANGE

No, not the change that both Obama and McCain were promising, but a 10-part Japanese drama called CHANGE. It's about the son of a politician who has to get into politics when his father dies. The irony is that he doesn't trust politicians, and because of this he brings a breath of fresh air to the Japanese parliament.

Due to his charm and popularity, senior party members decide to make him a puppet Prime Minister but do not realise that his sincerity will put their scheme in jeopardy. For most of the series our young Prime Minister tries to battle against bureaucracy, party politics and general insincerity and apathy on the part of professional politicians in order to do what he thought all politicians did: serve the people.

Although very orthodox in its format, with sentimental music as a cue for the episode-defining speech, the romantic side-story, eccentric secondary characters who provide comic relief, and melodramatic pauses to emphasise emotional suffering, the series is extremely watchable.

There are a couple of things that I think are really noteworthy about this drama.
The first is that this may be the first time that I've seen a whole political culture so systematically looked down upon and insulted. When politicians are shown in film and television they are often portrayed negatively, but they nearly always are shown as being just a bad apple. Very rarely is their corruption shown to be institutionally endemic. And I don't think I have ever seen drama where the political class is consistently attacked episode after episode, week after week.
The second thing is that this drama isn't aimed at intellectuals. The opening credits bear a striking resemblance to The West Wing, the main characters are young and attractive and the conventions are classical melodrama. There is nothing revolutionary about this show except for the content, which is more political than 99% of what we get on our televisions.

This causes me to ask myself questions: why can't they make a drama like this over here? I'm sure this would not get commissioned by any major channel in the US or Europe. Yes Minister is the closest we ever got to it, but it poked fun at the stupidity of politicians and manipulative civil servants rather than question the political class per se. I have a vague memory of A Very British Coup, having watched it many years ago as a child, but it would probably be considered too controversial nowadays.

In the Muslim world, of course, there's nothing like this. If politicians in the "free" and "advanced" West are corrupt, how corrupt are politicians in the Muslim world? Supposedly Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Pakistan, Yemen, etc., are democratic countries, yet in reality they are dominated by a handful of families at best. Surely this would be a fertile ground for powerful dramas which stand up to power. Instead we get poorly acted, poorly scripted, and poorly filmed soap operas about families bickering about who did what to who.

Btw, you can download Change via bittorrent here.

Towards a theory of Islamic cinema

I've been thinking about this and some things have come to my head.

Islamic cinema in it's very language should be unique, different from mainstream Western cinema, and with it's own identity. It should reflect our values, rather than Western values, with the Muslim's relationship to Allah at the centre of all cinema. If we look at Western cinema, the most important motivating factors for characters tend to be human love, sexual attraction (romantic films), wealth and status (e.g. Italian Job, Snatch) or defending loved ones (the premise for most actions movies). Now, these may not in themselves be negative motives (we all go to work for money, we all feel sexually attracted to others, we all want to protect our loved ones), what we rarely see is Allah, God, or any type of religious feeling as a motivating factor for a character in a film. The only time we see characters motivated by religion they are demented lunatics like the mass murderer in Se7en.

So how do we build and develop a character who is religiously motivated? Can we name a recent character we've seen on tv or in a film recently who is religiously motivated and who isn't a mass murderer? And what do we need to do in order to make this character feel like a real character?

Storytelling

The Qur'an is a book that is both very direct and subtle. It is poignant, allows one's imagination to come alive when reading it, by it's unique style forcing the reader to reflect on what it says. Think of the following ayat that tell the story of Musa's arrival at Madyan and subsequent marriage in Surat al-Qasas ayat (23-27):
وَلَمَّا وَرَدَ مَاء مَدْيَنَ وَجَدَ عَلَيْهِ أُمَّةً مِّنَ النَّاسِ يَسْقُونَ وَوَجَدَ مِن دُونِهِمُ امْرَأتَيْنِ تَذُودَانِ قَالَ مَا خَطْبُكُمَا قَالَتَا لَا نَسْقِي حَتَّى يُصْدِرَ الرِّعَاء وَأَبُونَا شَيْخٌ كَبِيرٌ
فَسَقَى لَهُمَا ثُمَّ تَوَلَّى إِلَى الظِّلِّ فَقَالَ رَبِّ إِنِّي لِمَا أَنزَلْتَ إِلَيَّ مِنْ خَيْرٍ فَقِيرٌ
فَجَاءتْهُ إِحْدَاهُمَا تَمْشِي عَلَى اسْتِحْيَاء قَالَتْ إِنَّ أَبِي يَدْعُوكَ لِيَجْزِيَكَ أَجْرَ مَا سَقَيْتَ لَنَا فَلَمَّا جَاءهُ وَقَصَّ عَلَيْهِ الْقَصَصَ قَالَ لَا تَخَفْ نَجَوْتَ مِنَ الْقَوْمِ الظَّالِمِينَ
قَالَتْ إِحْدَاهُمَا يَا أَبَتِ اسْتَأْجِرْهُ إِنَّ خَيْرَ مَنِ اسْتَأْجَرْتَ الْقَوِيُّ الْأَمِينُ
قَالَ إِنِّي أُرِيدُ أَنْ أُنكِحَكَ إِحْدَى ابْنَتَيَّ هَاتَيْنِ عَلَى أَن تَأْجُرَنِي ثَمَانِيَ حِجَجٍ فَإِنْ أَتْمَمْتَ عَشْرًا فَمِنْ عِندِكَ وَمَا أُرِيدُ أَنْ أَشُقَّ عَلَيْكَ سَتَجِدُنِي إِن شَاء اللَّهُ مِنَ الصَّالِحِينَ
The translation of which is (Pickthall's translation):
And when he came unto the water of Midian he found there a whole tribe of men, watering. And he found apart from them two women keeping back (their flocks). He said: What aileth you ? The two said: We cannot give (our flocks) to drink till the shepherds return from the water; and our father is a very old man.
So he watered (their flock) for them. Then he turned aside into the shade, and said: My Lord! I am needy of whatever good Thou sendest down for me.
Then there came unto him one of the two women, walking shyly. She said: Lo! my father biddeth thee, that he may reward thee with a payment for that thou didst water (the flock) for us. Then, when he came unto him and told him the (whole) story, he said: Fear not! Thou hast escaped from the wrongdoing folk.
One of the two women said: O my father! Hire him! For the best (man) that thou canst hire is the strong, the trustworthy.
He said: Lo! I fain would marry thee to one of these two daughters of mine on condition that thou hirest thyself to me for (the term of) eight pilgrimages. Then if thou completest ten it will be of thine own accord, for I would not make it hard for thee. Allah willing, thou wilt find me of the righteous.

I was always particularly moved by this story for it's poignant detail. The subtle way in which the plight of the women is presented. Musa's instinctive generosity which is not mentioned as it is so obvious. The shyness with which one of the two women approaches this stranger who has helped without asking for anything in return. And particularly the subtlety by which the daughter indicates to her father that she is interested in marrying Musa: "O my father! Hire him! For the best (man) that thou canst hire is the strong and trustworthy". In Arabic, of course, the style is far richer, and the variable ways of reading -some words have more than one meaning, where you pause may change the way you understand the sentence, etc... - make the experience even more enriching.

So what would I deduce from this? Story telling is about subtlety. Just as Qur'anic storytelling is subtle, so should Islamic cinema be subtle. Unfortunately, as there is no Islamic cinema to talk of, I suggest looking at other cinema. For this subtlety and understatement I would recommend Japanese director Ozu Yasujiro's films, and particularly Late Autumn. Plus it's about arranged marriages.

You should read a review for an Autumn Afternoon and download the film.

Back again

I met a Muslim called Kresna yesterday. It was a bit strange. I've known him for some time, but because of his name I assumed he was a Hindu. So yesterday I asked him and he said he's Muslim, but because his parents liked some of these Hindu stories they decided to name all their children with Hindu names.

What's even more surprising is that the brother was practising Muslim. In his youth he had attended Qur'an lessons and was very strict, but as he grew older he became more disillusioned with Muslim attitudes and he let the dunya get to him.

I feel exactly the same thing as him. Muslims tend to make Islam extremely difficult for themselves and for others. Nowadays in the West, for example, you can either be a Sufi/madhhabi or a Salafi. If you are a Sufi/madhhabi you have to be really strict in following a madhhab otherwise you're considered not a proper madhhabi. If you are a Salafi you have to be extremely strict in following either the Saudi scholars or the Jordanian Salafis otherwise you're not considered a proper Salafi.

For most Salafis or Sufi/madhhabis, if you don't fit neatly into a particular camp, you're considered deviant and you're not a proper Muslim. It might not be stated, but it's definitely there, underlying any interactions.

And I find it odd, mainly because when you look at the early scholars, they were tough about 'Aqida issues, but not about where you held your hands in the prayer, or whether your garments were a certain length or a certain width. But that's part of what makes Muslims so weak. Pettiness. And the worst thing is we're proud of it.

‘Umar’s statement “There is no share in Islam for whoever abandons the prayer.”

‘Umar’s statement “There is no share in Islam for whoever abandons the prayer.”

Al-Batlayushi said:
It is possible that he was dismissing any share [in Islam] and that he considered [the one who doesn’t pray] the same as all other disbelievers. It is also possible that he meant that [the one who doesn’t pray] doesn’t have a large share in Islam but was not dismissing his Islam altogether, like his saying (saw) “There is no prayer for the neighbour of the mosque except in the mosque” or “There is no faith for the one who is not trustworthy” and the like where what is meant is dismissing completeness and perfection, not dismissing the whole thing.

Taken from al-Batlayushi’s (d.521H) Mushkilat Muwatta’ al-Imam Malik, p.63 (Dar Ibn Hazm, 1999).

Al-Batlayushi was an Andalusian scholar from Valencia who was one of the greatest linguists of his time as well as an expert in usul al-fiqh and hadith. His most important works are a commentary of Malik’s Muwatta’ entitled al-Muqtabas and his Insaf on the causes of difference of opinion amongst jurists. Ibn ‘Atiyya, al-Qadi ‘Iyad and Ibn Bashkwal are amongst his most famous students. He was Maliki, but I don’t know anything about his ‘aqida.

Commentary of the Hadith "Whoever raises arms against us is not one of us"

I found this quite interesting and thought some others might want to read it. The translation is not perfect but should still be understandable. The hadith is from Muslim's Sahih and the commentary is by Abu'l-'Abbas al-Qurtubi (d.656h), a scholar of Andalusian origin who, after studying in his home town of Qurtuba (Cordoba) travelled to the East and settled in Alexandria, Egypt. He was Ash'ari in his 'aqida and Maliki in his fiqh. He is primarily famous for al-Mufhim, which is a commentary on his abridgement of Muslim's Sahih. Here is the translation.

From Ibn ‘Umar that the Prophet (saw) said: “Whoever raises arms against us is not one of us.”

Abu ’l-‘Abbas al-Qurtubi said:
His statement “Whoever raises arms against us is not one of us” means the one who raises arms against us to fight. This is explained in another narration: “Whoever draws his sword is not one of us.” [By “us”] the Prophet (saw) meant himself and any other Muslims.

There is no doubt that whoever fights a war against the Prophet (saw) is a disbeliever. In that sense his statement (saw) “he is not one of us” means he is not a Muslim but a disbeliever. The one who fights a war against Muslims intentionally considering it permissible without relying on any interpretation [of the texts] is likewise a disbeliever, as above. The one who is not like that [but has attacked Muslims] has committed a major sin if he is not basing himself on a solid interpretation.

It has already been mentioned that the way of the People of Truth is that no Muslim is judged to be a disbeliever if he commits a major sin except for idolatry. Consequently his (saw) statement “he is not one of us” in a case like this is understood to mean “he is not on our path and our law” because the example and law of the Muslims is to keep in touch and to show mercy to one another. It is not to split up and fight one another.

This is similar to his (saw) saying: “The one who cheats us is not one of us” and the like. The point is to prevent and restrain [Muslims] from falling into things like that, just like the father says to his child if he differs from him “I am not from you and you are not from me.” As the poet said:
If you commit a crime against a lion
I am not from you and you are not from me.

(al-Mufhim li ma ashkala min talkhis Muslim by Abu'l-'Abbas al-Qurtubi, vol. 1, pp. 299-300).