Good Muslims pray 5 times a day every day
Earlier this month, The Star carried, as the lead story on its front page, an article headed ‘Good imam lured women’. The article concerned a man associated with ‘a mosque in Mayfair’, Johannesburg, who was recruiting women with promises of finding jobs for them. The women were invited to his office by his accomplices, where he fingerprinted them, took ID pictures of them, paid them R200 for their transport expenses and gave them each a cellphone by which he could get in touch with them. None of them were ever called but they would later discover that, unbeknownst to them, they had been married to some – most likely Pakistani – man, allegedly courtesy of the ‘imam’. (He was named in the article, but I don’t think it necessary for him to be named here.)
Although the man’s lawyer told the magistrate that the man was an imam at the mosque, I was later told by someone that he was, in fact, not the imam but the head of the mosque security. Either my informant did not know what he was talking about or the lawyer was lying. Or, perhaps, the truth lay somewhere in between.
I am pretty sure that many Muslims, upon seeing the headline, were upset and wanted to complain to the paper’s editor about an islamophobic headline. There are many reasons why Muslims might feel this way. One is that many Muslims feel that as soon as something negative is said about Islam or Muslims, we have all been shamed and should feel embarrassed about it. A kind of collective guilt. Some of us then become defensive and create a negative impression for Muslims where there might not have been one; others of us become aggressive against our fellow Muslims and verge on disowning Islam in order to say to the rest of society that we Muslims are really ok.
We should be past feeling ashamed for everything Muslims do. If some Muslim somewhere commits some kind of atrocity (and there is a lot of that going on, what with all those Muslim kings and dictators and Usama bin Laden’s boys all over the place), I don’t have to take responsibility for or feel ashamed about it. If some Muslim commits fraud (which cases we often come across in South Africa), then, again, there is no reason for me to feel embarrassed – unless I too am guilty or such acts.
Another reason some of us get upset by such articles is because we feel a need to defend ‘our own’. Because this person is from our community, many of us feel, we are bound to defend her/him. Such a sectionalist attitude has nothing to do with Islam. Islam requires that we defend those who have been wronged and that we defend the values of justice, fairness, and so forth. It does not require us blindly to defend Muslims whether they are right or wrong.
A third reason why some Muslims would be upset by such a headline is the attitude – sometimes subconscious – that our leaders (whether ‘ulamā or political leadership) can do no wrong and ‘my imam’ must be defended at all costs. The fact of the matter is that our leaders can and do do wrong. Often. Simply and uncritically defending them is, again, not really Islamic.
We should, in fact, be grateful that the media do uncover the bad elements of our society, so that we might know who they are and be able to decide what appropriate action to take against them. For we certainly should be taking action against them. Criminals that lurk in our community do us no favours. Indeed, criminals lurking in our communities, like rotten fruit in a basket, slowly make the rest of the community bad as well.
How else do we explain the attitude in certain sections of our community where crime is actually glorified. Many of us have heard of certain Muslim communities where, as the saying goes, the bigger the job you pull, the more respect you get. Or, as someone told me recently, the bigger the job, the better are your chances of getting a rich wife. How has it come to be that crime is viewed as an indicator of success and status?
How do we explain ‘ulamā showing up in court to give support to a convicted criminal simply because he is Muslim?
With such a record, I can very well understand the statement of the lawyer of the (alleged) imam in court. In response to the prosecution’s request for the ‘imam’s’ virtual house arrest, the lawyer appealed to the magistrate that he be allowed less stringent bail conditions. In particular, that he be allowed to go to the mosque because his client was ‘a good Muslim’. He qualified for this status because he prayed five times a day, every day. In response, the magistrate, very appropriately, asked ‘Is he a good Muslim?’ Perhaps the magistrate knew a little more about Islam than the lawyer (or, for that matter, the accused).
Of course, the principle of innocent until proven guilty must not be compromised. If we do not allow for due process so that a person may defend her or himself, we easily descend into the law of the jungle. However, that principle must be considered in conjunction with the level of responsibility that a person has and her or his relationship to society at large. A president of a country and an imam of a masjid have greater societal responsibility than a person with no public profile or responsibilities. As such, the manner with which criminal charges against such people with leadership roles are handled must, of necessity, be different.
A president (or presidential candidate) of a country that has been charged and faces a court case for fraud, for example, should not be allowed to continue in her or his role as president (or presidential candidate). Nor should an imam accused of forgery, fraud or any other serious offence simply continue discharging her or his duties as if life were normal. If such persons do not remove themselves from their positions of authority, they should be removed by right-thinking people within our society. Such removal does not imply that person’s guilt. It does, however, indicate an intolerance of the kinds of actions that the person has been accused of.
And, it indicates that we hold our leadership to a higher standard, that we expect our leadership to be exemplars for society and when a hint of the compromise of this exemplar status is received, action must swiftly be taken.
A few years ago, there were accusations made about a certain imam that he had sexually molested some children in his care. The story had made its rounds not only in the community where the imam was based but nationally. The right thing for the community to have done would have been to remove the imam from his position and for him to face charges in court and clear his name if he were not guilty. Instead, the community shielded him. He then left the town where he had been based and moved to another town, taking on another job as imam and madrassa teacher. Why should anyone of us trust our children to someone who has been accused in this manner. That he did not face his accusers in court does not make him innocent; it makes him a suspicious character. And, if he was guilty, it makes us all complicit in his crimes.
Although the man’s lawyer told the magistrate that the man was an imam at the mosque, I was later told by someone that he was, in fact, not the imam but the head of the mosque security. Either my informant did not know what he was talking about or the lawyer was lying. Or, perhaps, the truth lay somewhere in between.
I am pretty sure that many Muslims, upon seeing the headline, were upset and wanted to complain to the paper’s editor about an islamophobic headline. There are many reasons why Muslims might feel this way. One is that many Muslims feel that as soon as something negative is said about Islam or Muslims, we have all been shamed and should feel embarrassed about it. A kind of collective guilt. Some of us then become defensive and create a negative impression for Muslims where there might not have been one; others of us become aggressive against our fellow Muslims and verge on disowning Islam in order to say to the rest of society that we Muslims are really ok.
We should be past feeling ashamed for everything Muslims do. If some Muslim somewhere commits some kind of atrocity (and there is a lot of that going on, what with all those Muslim kings and dictators and Usama bin Laden’s boys all over the place), I don’t have to take responsibility for or feel ashamed about it. If some Muslim commits fraud (which cases we often come across in South Africa), then, again, there is no reason for me to feel embarrassed – unless I too am guilty or such acts.
Another reason some of us get upset by such articles is because we feel a need to defend ‘our own’. Because this person is from our community, many of us feel, we are bound to defend her/him. Such a sectionalist attitude has nothing to do with Islam. Islam requires that we defend those who have been wronged and that we defend the values of justice, fairness, and so forth. It does not require us blindly to defend Muslims whether they are right or wrong.
A third reason why some Muslims would be upset by such a headline is the attitude – sometimes subconscious – that our leaders (whether ‘ulamā or political leadership) can do no wrong and ‘my imam’ must be defended at all costs. The fact of the matter is that our leaders can and do do wrong. Often. Simply and uncritically defending them is, again, not really Islamic.
We should, in fact, be grateful that the media do uncover the bad elements of our society, so that we might know who they are and be able to decide what appropriate action to take against them. For we certainly should be taking action against them. Criminals that lurk in our community do us no favours. Indeed, criminals lurking in our communities, like rotten fruit in a basket, slowly make the rest of the community bad as well.
How else do we explain the attitude in certain sections of our community where crime is actually glorified. Many of us have heard of certain Muslim communities where, as the saying goes, the bigger the job you pull, the more respect you get. Or, as someone told me recently, the bigger the job, the better are your chances of getting a rich wife. How has it come to be that crime is viewed as an indicator of success and status?
How do we explain ‘ulamā showing up in court to give support to a convicted criminal simply because he is Muslim?
With such a record, I can very well understand the statement of the lawyer of the (alleged) imam in court. In response to the prosecution’s request for the ‘imam’s’ virtual house arrest, the lawyer appealed to the magistrate that he be allowed less stringent bail conditions. In particular, that he be allowed to go to the mosque because his client was ‘a good Muslim’. He qualified for this status because he prayed five times a day, every day. In response, the magistrate, very appropriately, asked ‘Is he a good Muslim?’ Perhaps the magistrate knew a little more about Islam than the lawyer (or, for that matter, the accused).
Of course, the principle of innocent until proven guilty must not be compromised. If we do not allow for due process so that a person may defend her or himself, we easily descend into the law of the jungle. However, that principle must be considered in conjunction with the level of responsibility that a person has and her or his relationship to society at large. A president of a country and an imam of a masjid have greater societal responsibility than a person with no public profile or responsibilities. As such, the manner with which criminal charges against such people with leadership roles are handled must, of necessity, be different.
A president (or presidential candidate) of a country that has been charged and faces a court case for fraud, for example, should not be allowed to continue in her or his role as president (or presidential candidate). Nor should an imam accused of forgery, fraud or any other serious offence simply continue discharging her or his duties as if life were normal. If such persons do not remove themselves from their positions of authority, they should be removed by right-thinking people within our society. Such removal does not imply that person’s guilt. It does, however, indicate an intolerance of the kinds of actions that the person has been accused of.
And, it indicates that we hold our leadership to a higher standard, that we expect our leadership to be exemplars for society and when a hint of the compromise of this exemplar status is received, action must swiftly be taken.
A few years ago, there were accusations made about a certain imam that he had sexually molested some children in his care. The story had made its rounds not only in the community where the imam was based but nationally. The right thing for the community to have done would have been to remove the imam from his position and for him to face charges in court and clear his name if he were not guilty. Instead, the community shielded him. He then left the town where he had been based and moved to another town, taking on another job as imam and madrassa teacher. Why should anyone of us trust our children to someone who has been accused in this manner. That he did not face his accusers in court does not make him innocent; it makes him a suspicious character. And, if he was guilty, it makes us all complicit in his crimes.
posted by na'eem jeenah at 13:01
0 comments
links to this post
