American Pop Star Rihanna, who owns luxury fashion line Fenty, featured a song with the voice of Mishary Rashid Al Afasi reciting a hadith from the Prophet about the end of times at recent lingerie fashion show.
Many are offended, but what’s the best way to respond to the situation?
Join Zeba Khan as she discusses this with Omar Usman, executive director of MuslimMatters, and Khaled Nurhssein, a community organizer, a local khateeb, and an intermittent student of knowledge.
The post Podcast: Muslims and The Fenty Fitnah | With Omar Usman and Khaled Nurhssein appeared first on MuslimMatters.org.
Source: Muslim Matters
Join Ustadha Zainab Bint Younus as she discusses the impact of social media marketing and hijab fashion with Shaykha Shazia Ahmad, Shaykha Umm Jamaal Ud Deen, and Ustadha Hosai Mojaddadi.
Today’s episode will be the first in a mini-series titled “Hijabi Girls in a Barbie World: Evaluating the Spiritual Ethics and Social Consequences of Hijabi Fashion Trends.”
About the Speakers:
Zainab bint Younus is a Canadian Muslim woman who writes on Muslim women’s issues, gender related injustice in the Muslim community, and Muslim women in Islamic history. She holds a diploma in Islamic Studies from Arees University, a diploma in History of Female Scholarship from Cambridge Islamic College, and has spent the last fifteen years involved in grassroots da’wah. She was also an original founder of MuslimMatters.org.
Shaykhah Umm Jamaal ud-Din is a teacher of both Quran and various Shariah Sciences at the Islamic College of Australia, Sydney. Umm Jamaal ud-Din has an Ijazah in Tajweed from her teacher Shaykha Kareema Czerepinski; a BA Languages degree with a major in Arabic from the University of Western Sydney; and is completing her BA in Fiqh and Usul al Fiqh at Al-Madina International University. She has also completed her memorization of the Qur’an, alHamdulillah.
Shaykha Shazia Ahmad grew up in upstate New York and studied with local scholar and teacher Dr. Mokhtar Maghraoui before beginning her studies overseas. In Syria, she studied briefly at the University of Damascus and then at Abu Nour University where she completed an Arabic Studies program (Ad-Dawraat) and a program in Islamic Studies (Ma’had at-Taheeli). She also studied in a number of private classes and attained her ijaza in Qur’anic recitation from the late Sh. Muhiyudin al-Kurdi (rahimahullah). She then spent the following six years in Cairo, Egypt furthering her education through private lessons and study. She has ijazaat in a number of introductory texts in various Islamic subjects and has written on Islam for Jannah.Org, VirtualMosque.com, and various other blogs and publications. She also holds a BA in psychology and history from the State University of New York.
Shaykha Hosai Mojaddidi has been serving the Muslim community for over 25 years as a teacher, public speaker, author/writer, spiritual counselor and mental health advocate. She began her Islamic studies over 20 years ago at Zaytuna Institute in the Bay Area California where for several years she served as the lead female organizer and studied aqeeda, seerah, Hanafi fiqh, tazkiyah an-nafs, tajweed, hadith, Arabic, and other sacred subjects with several resident and visiting scholars including Shaykh Hamza Yusuf, Shaykh Muhammad al-Yaqoubi, Imam Zaid Shakir, Dr. Umar Faruq abd-Allah, Shaykh Abdullah al-Kadi, Qari Amr Bellaha, and others. She currently teaches self development and spiritual development classes for adults and youth through MCC East Bay & Rahmah Foundation. She is actively involved with her local community and offers talks throughout the year on a range of topics including spirituality, self-development, seerah, women’s issues, family/marriage, youth issues, social media literacy/safety, and mental health advocacy.
The post Podcast: Hijabi Girls in a Barbie World, Episode 1 appeared first on MuslimMatters.org.
Source: Muslim Matters
Mock mockers after that
That would not lift a hand maybe
To help good, wise or great
To bar that foul storm out, for we
Traffic in mockery.
Religion is a common target of mockery, and mockery is one of the quickest ways to destroy reverence. Laughing at the sacred and making seemingly benign comments whose harm is difficult to explicate is subversive to our sense of the sacred. Mockery may be aimed at the institution of religion, sacred texts, or holy figures. While Muslims remain distinctive in upholding the sanctity of the Prophet Muhammadﷺ, it is common to find Muslims caricaturizing practicing Muslims as judgmental, hypocritical, backwards, and stupid. Making fun of instances of hypocrisy and judgmental behavior would not be so bad as that would target vices and inconsistencies. The caricaturizing of all practicing Muslims as backwards, however, occurs when basic tenets and practices become linked to absurdities. We should not be surprised when Muslim entertainers do this given that they exist in a larger culture which detests the sacred and champions mockery of authority. Furthermore, it is myopic to support such figures as religious representatives when they do not care to uphold the sanctity of basic religious beliefs and actions.
A comedian today is a cultural authority holding a role akin to the public intellectual. However, the comedian is not responsible for the views espoused and can always backtrack and say ‘it’s just a joke.’ He is not held to decorous standards or expected to hold any positions, nor is he expected to rationally defend the positions he does hold. He is an outsider as a critic, but an insider when on your side. A comedian enters discussions on his own terms, appropriates and disowns, has no committed position, and can always point the finger. The comedian is a transcendental figure not beholden to any moral standard or class of people. He does everything under the canopy of laughter. Mockery is such a comedian’s favorite tool. Mockery requires no critique, and it’s not an argument; however, it’s an effective way of devaluing and dragging something revered down to a level of flaws and the mundane. It’s a sneaky tactic that asserts superiority without making an argument or inviting rebuttals.
The comedian can justify anything by referencing his ability to incite laughter. Laughter – what we consider funny – is determined by the spirit of the age. What was funny 50 years ago is not funny today. There is a relationship between morality and humor. What is comedic is produced in relation to our moral sensibilities. When sacrilege is normalized it becomes a function of comedy. Jokes about God would not have been funny 100 years ago, but now they are commonplace.
Mockery is comedy’s weapon against morality. Mocking an aspect of Islam is not an attack on the truth of it, rather it attacks the moral weight. Mockery is not a challenge on epistemic grounds: it’s a challenge of reverence. It removes the weight of veneration. Everything you believe religiously has an external correlate to how you interact with the world. If you mock a concept enough you will recreate it as a parody of itself. This is extremely corrosive for our faith. Mockery provides a material way of making religious practices look stupid. A common target is prayer. We can never materially prove that a prayer has been answered. It’s easy to view unanswered duas with cynicism and chalk it up to a spiritual interpretation of nothing happening.
Recently, Muslim comedian Hasan Minhaj made a mockery of dua. Much like voting enthusiasts criticized Colin Kaepernick for ‘only kneeling’ or bureaucrats paint protesters as ‘noisemakers’ who don’t do anything ‘real,’ many Muslims have come to mock the idea of supplication bringing about change in the world. We should not accept any Muslim celebrity partaking in such mockery as it transgresses orthodox Muslim sensibilities and negatively portrays us for taking our rituals and worship seriously. This is especially true when such figures are bound by the protocols of Hollywood “activism,” in which missteps of a different kind result in ‘listening, learning, and privilege checking’ rituals to prevent excommunication.
In his monologue We Cannot Stay Silent About George Floyd, Hasan addresses Keith Ellison, asking, “how many Muslim fundraisers have you and I gone to where we ‘pray for the community…you gotta make dua…'[closing his eyes, raising his hands, as if imitating someone making dua].” Hasan then says “we cannot just make dua.” His portrayal of dua here is that of being an empty ritual and a way of not dealing with problems.
Minhaj juxtaposes two activities: human activity and prayer, and suggests that all Muslims do is the latter and it’s coming at the expense of the former. This juxtaposition suggests that the only way to take the former is to sacrifice the latter, which is untrue. We only act on our volition by the will of God. Seeking permission from The Creator who determined what we can do in the name of practical activity in a perfectly sensible thing to do.
Given that he cited such duas as occurring at specific fundraisers, we could have excused this statement as bad taste and getting carried away if it had been his only negative portrayal of dua. If Minhaj’s point was to poke fun at people using dua as an excuse to not act, the inconsistency of dua not substituting going to work or school for worldly success could have been pointed out.
In Minhaj’s follow up, Hasan And Keith Ellison On Justice For George Floyd, he portrays dua as inherently useless. In the episode, Minhaj shares the criticism he received from his last monologue, with Muslims asking “why did you have to go after making dua?” Minhaj then states that he wants to start the interview with Ellison with a dua, and he begins with a Quranic dua making it seem like he is going to make things right. He then pretends to pray with utter seriousness for what he means the audience to understand as frivolous. He nonchalantly tells his “white friends” backstage that they can “just participate” and before officially ending, asks Ellison if he wants him to make anymore “shout outs.”
Minhaj’s dua scene has several implications. It mocks the importance of dua and portrays religious Muslims as useless, frivolous, and unintelligent. It also suggests that dua has no capacity to change things, and because it won’t change things, we can make dua any way we want. One message is that the ultimate point is to change things with your hands because dua has no real power to transform the world. This is used as way of criticizing Muslims for making dua and allegedly not taking action as if the two actions are at odds. Minhaj is also making the point in his mock dua that it makes no difference what we pray for because the act itself is inconsequential. This portrayal removes the cosmic dimension of prayer and states ‘God won’t intervene in this situation, only you can do it!’ We should not accept tropes which divide prayer and action and presuppose an inherent divide which demands we limit prayer to intensify our commitment to action.
Furthermore, this scene suggests that when Muslims make dua, they are seeking refuge from ‘white women in yoga pants’ and other silly matters, which preoccupies them from doing any important work or having a positive impact on others.
His dua also seemed to be a response to his religious critics by mocking them, as if to say ‘religious people criticized me, so I’ll just show you how silly these religious people are and why they care about prayer, and then I’ll get on to the important matters.’
Dua further becomes an object of mockery when the name of Allah and an address to Allah become a comical address to the audience. In many places in the Quran, Allah glorifies the name of Allah. For example, Allah says
“Exalt the name of your Lord, the Most High” (87:1).
The name of Allah is itself sacred. Belittling the name of Allah or calling upon Allah, invoking His name in jest is a major sin. It is not absurd to ask Allah for trivial matters with seriousness, as the Prophet ﷺ told us “Let one of you ask his Lord for all of his needs, even if his sandal strap breaks.”
Prayer was foundational for both Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr. in their respective civil rights movements. They did not belittle prayer and deem their struggles ‘too serious’ for prayer. For oppressed people all over the world, all they have is prayer. Prayer is the barrier between oppression and despair. When Talut’s (Saul) army was to meet Goliath most of his soldiers despaired, saying “There is no power for us today against Goliath and his soldiers.”
But the believers from among them, “those who were certain that they would meet Allah said, ‘How many a small group has overcome a large group by Allah’s permission. And Allah is with the patient’” (2:249). The Muslims were guaranteed victory for the Battle of Badr, and the Prophet ﷺ was making dua with his hands raised before the battle to the point of his shawl shaking off his shoulders. The Prophet ﷺ also made dua while walking to the masjid and when waking up in the morning. Dua is not just the refuge of the desperate, it is a manifestation of one’s connection to Allah and the realization of one’s utter dependence. It’s a dependence we affirm regardless of circumstance. It is wrong to view dua as something to do only when we are in a bad situation.
We would not tolerate jokes by non-Muslims which paint Muslims as buffoons and idiots. The fear would be that the negative portrayal would affect all Muslims. When ‘religious Muslims’ are mocked by Muslims themselves however, it’s easy to stand outside of it as one of the enlightened ‘good ones.’ This leaves those who are hanging on to beliefs which are already mocked open to further mockery.
And the poets, only those in error follow them. Do you not see how in every valley they wander? And that they say what they do not do? Except those who believe and do righteous deeds and remember Allah much. And they avenge [the Muslims] after they have been oppressed. And the oppressors will soon know to which place they shall be returned (26:224-227).
In this verse, Allah faults the poets as having no grounding in principles or beliefs. They go to and fro without commitment and say whatever they feel like or whatever helps achieve their personal aims. After a general rule, Allah mentions the exception of righteous and believing Muslim poets. The Prophet Muhammad ﷺ told some of his poets to respond to poems of the polytheists which denigrated them by making poems denigrating the polytheists. He told his poets that such poetry is harder on them than being hit by an arrow. The Prophet ﷺ made dua for his poet Hassan ibn Thabit that Allah assist him with Jibrael in his poetry against the polytheists. Poetry was used as a tool to elevate and defend Islam and denigrate the polytheists.
Comedy is potentially a positive tool, but we cannot be naive about its nature and the hurdles one has to overcome to make positive use of it. Excessive joking and exaggerated speech are faults of the tongue, and excessive laughter kills the heart. Joking occasionally or being cheerful is not analogous to making a career out of comedy. It is naive to think we can ‘Islamicize’ a medium by changing the content. Mediums which are intrinsically problematic like entertainment will win out and shape the content. This is especially problematic in the mainstream where industry standards push one to speak in a way that is not grounded in beliefs, conviction, or reverence. When a comedic standard is mockery and religion is often targeted, we cannot expect Islamic sanctity to be respected. Jokes which depend on mockery are only funny if you buy into hidden premises, which are often predicated upon deliberate misunderstandings of their object. If you don’t buy into the premises, the jokes are revealed to be mean, insulting, and condescending
We must move beyond ‘halal and haram’ discussions on comedy and educate ourselves as to how comedy is used. Poetry is halal, but we are warned about it because it can pull us along to places we shouldn’t go emotionally and tug on certain heart strings. Likewise, in comedy, someone might make fun of an ideal in the religion, or a fiqh ruling by making it sound absurd, such as “why do Muslims have an aversion to just one bite of pork but eat plates full of fried food?” The false equivalency of “permit this, but prohibit that” is a common comedic schema for mocking religion. Such jokes are harmful because by coming in the form of a joke, they can get you to implicitly agree without realizing it, and once you laugh along you are entertaining the premise. This is how meaningful acts turn into heartless rituals.
The entertainment industry is very aware of its influence and will use its entertainers to propagate messages in support of its aims and ideals. This is an age-old tactic and we should not be surprised when we see Muslim entertainers used to propagate what we know is explicitly haram as being open to interpretation to begin a major change in the Muslim mind. For example, five years ago, Reza Aslan and Hasan Minhaj wrote us an open letter in which they state their disagreement of homosexuality being haram. This letter is intended for Muslims who seem to view Islam as a cultural identity primarily.
Unfortunately, many Muslims will overlook the anti-Islamic messaging in what they perceive as pro-Muslim messaging. The desire for representation, safety, and acceptance overpower their desire to protect our religion. We should be happier to not have Muslim representation in the field than having Muslims who fall victim to vile industry norms and then want the same for us. However, we can promote comedians who do not engage in the mainstream. We should also expect Muslim organizations to not support or promote those who do mock our faith. Representation, normalization, and acceptance cannot become idols we create to rival God.
When it comes to Muslim celebrities in general, whether activists, politicians, entertainers, or even religious figures, gaining acceptance in the mainstream is often bartered for key Islamic principles. This is seen as negotiable to liberal secular Muslims who do not believe in the inviolability and honor of the sharia as an eternally sacred institution. They may root their path to success in being Muslim and self-tokenize as Muslims, and while they are okay with weaponizing the oppression capital of Islam and using that as a stairway to fame, will mock institutional ideas of Islam to appease liberal secular sensibilities. They will challenge centuries old views of Islam in order to refashion Islam into the image of secularity. ‘Extreme’ and ‘balance’ are then defined by their own golden mean which is their own comfort level. The Prophetﷺ himself, who remains revered, will be reimagined in a way which suits their own sensibilities and parts from his life which do not suit these sensibilities will be ignored. They do not view the Prophet ﷺ as the ideal person whom we need to adjust our frames to understand, rather they center their own sensibilities as the perfect criterion.
In this reshaping, Islam is only good when it fits a secularism where we may mock religion and key ideas- just as American Christians mock Christian prayer. The tradition of Islam (opposed to very key tenets and values) become burdensome, and the fluid terms of ‘extreme’ and ‘balance’ will be alternated at will to justify this new approach to Islam.
Knowing all this, we should not be surprised when Muslims in the mainstream make fun of Islam. When someone else mocks us, it’s easy to view it as a clash and a challenge to what we believe, which evokes a defense. When we mock ourselves, it makes us indifferent and numb to its consequences.
إن أصل الدين الغَيْرة ومن لا غيرة له لا دين له فالغَيْرة تحمي القلب فتحمي له الجوارح فتدفع السوء والفواحش، وعدم الغَيْرة
The root of religion is ghayra. The one without ghayra has no religion. Ghayra protects the heart and protects the limbs and repels evil and lewdness. And a lack of ghayra kills the heart
– Ibn Qayyim
Ghayra, which may be described as a sense of protection, honor, and love for something as sacred and inviolable will often better protect one’s religion than a rational understanding. Someone with ghayra for Islam will not laugh at sacrilege.
We exist in a broader culture, which when coupled with lack of knowledge may lead to a default assumption that Islam agrees with what we know of other religions or from our own cultural values. What is ‘good’ as defined by the broader context whether religious or cultural becomes what is ‘Islamic.’ Furthermore, for many, notions of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ vary between what religious authorities say about Islam and what their internal sense of right and wrong is, which is also negotiated within the broader context and mitigated by their own sense of what is or is not a serious issue.
‘Seeing both sides’ to sacrilege relates to its normalization. In a culture where comedy is meant to scoff at everything, a person sounds like a hardliner for affirming a unique status to religion. A point of mockery is to establish that nothing is exceptional and above mockery. Even as Muslims who understand making fun of religion is wrong, while existing in a broader culture where religion is the target of comedy, we understand that making fun of religion is a ‘different norm.’ One way to combat this, in addition to not watching such comedy, is to say astaghfirullah every time we hear such jokes, so the hate in our heart for sin remains and we don’t grow numb to sacrilege.
The tendency to uphold the honor of something comes with the tendency to feel disturbed when something is mocked. If you want a sense of ghayra for the sacred you also have to feel disturbance for its disrespect. The fact that we feel disturbed is a good sign.
All over the Muslim world- as well as inner-cities in America- the drunkard, the criminal, and the reprobate who has submitted to his own desires will have enough ghayra to draw a line at mocking Allah and His Messenger. He himself would not tolerate that disrespect, let alone engage in it.
A common complaint by liberals is the unacceptability of mocking the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ. They are bothered by the honor and reverence Muslims maintain for their Prophet ﷺ and want us to be able to see such mocking as benign. Although their aims will persist, we have to remain uncompromising regarding the sanctity of our Prophet ﷺ and not let any Muslims be the gateway for this.
The Prophet Muhammad ﷺ joked with his companions. His humor involved word play and making matters light while always speaking the truth. In Arabic, such joking is called mu’da’ba, which has a connotation of lighthearted humor that is not offensive. It was not undignified or an exaggerated joking like ‘mizaah.’ As some say, the Arabic word mizah for exaggerated jokes is named such because it expunges truth (إنَّمَا سُمِّيَ الْمِزَاحُ مِزَاحًا لِأَنَّهُ يُزِيحُ عَنْ الْحَقِّ).
Moderate humor is praised in books of tasawwuf. It is often compared to salt in food, where too much or too little can be harmful. Buffoonery is blameworthy, as Aristotle mentions “The buffoon, on the other hand, is the slave of his sense of humour, and spares neither himself nor others if he can raise a laugh, and says things none of which a man of refinement would say, and to some of which he would not even listen” (104, Nicomachean Ethics).
Popular comedy is often viewed as an expression of truth unbound to convention. It’s a free time to delve into taboo and transgressions. Propriety takes a backseat to unfiltered expression. We do not believe the rules are suspended during comedy hour. Comedic license is not a license to mock, blaspheme, or indulge our caprice. The Prophet ﷺ gave severe warning against using comedy as an avenue to falsehood. Here are two hadith on the topic:
“Verily a man will speak a word to make those in his company laugh and will plunge by it further in the fire than Pleiades”
“Woe unto the one who speaks then lies to make the people laugh. Woe unto him. Woe unto him.”
Comedy does not give one license to commit sacrilege.
Many times in the Quran, Allah tells us the perils of taking His signs in jest, for example “That is because you took the verses of Allah in ridicule, and worldly life deluded you” (45:35).
Comfortable as strangers
“Islam began as a something strange and it will return to being strange, so blessed are the strangers” (Muslim).
We need to get comfortable as non ‘normalized’ religious people. As a religious group, we will have many things which set us apart from larger society, and that is okay. A numbness to blasphemy and sacrilege, mockery of Prophet ﷺ, or disparaging comments about Allah will spiritually kill your heart. We are better off in this world and the next for upholding the sacred. Being labeled boring and prudish is a small price for what awaits us in reward- God willing.
You will surely be tested in your possessions and in yourselves. And you will surely hear from those who were given the Scripture before you and from those who associate others with Allah much abuse. But if you are patient and fear Allah – indeed, that is of the matters [worthy] of determination –Quran 3:181
Allah tells us that we will hear much abuse from disbelievers. Not a casual snide remark, nor a microaggression. Much abuse. In the face of that abuse, we are told that being patient and having taqwa are from the great matters of this religion. The earliest known example of such patience and taqwa in America is that of African slaves who fasted Ramadan while being forced to work on plantations. They performed their salat, even if they had to hide behind trees. As Sylviane A. Diouf explains “The slaves were, as a rule underfed and overworked. Yet these extremely brutal conditions notwithstanding, Muslims fasted.” She goes on to share the description of a slave Salih Bilali by his owner James Hamilton Couper as “a strict Mahometan; [he] abstains from spirituous liquors, and keeps the various fasts, particularly that of Ramadan” (66). This description indicates that Salih fasted non-obligatory fasts despite his horrific conditions.
These Muslims did all they could to uphold their religion and worship their Creator. They were oppressed and even in bondage displayed a nobility many Muslims throw in the garbage for the sake of being ‘normalized.’ As we combat Islamophobia, we must ask ourselves, do we want to be a normalized faith group at the expense of our actual faith? Are we going to dishonor the legacy and struggles of our predecessors who in the most oppressive circumstances imaginable clung on to their religion and venerated their Lord?
The post Mockery: Comedy’s Weapon Against Morality appeared first on MuslimMatters.org.
Source: Muslim Matters
In this article I am going to focus on the wife’s perspective as I have predominately worked with wives, although the reality is that sex and pornography addiction is not a gender-specific issue.
One of the most heart-breaking stages in the therapy room for me is often the first session with the spouse of the porn or sex addict. The session is often dominated with heavy, sad emotions, feelings of distress, hopelessness, anguish, disappointment, fear and a seemingly endless sense of failure. Allowing the wife time to express these emotions is vital as well as acknowledging that she has experienced a huge trauma; these emotions are okay to hold onto for now as they are key for the therapeutic alliance. The reality is that the spouse is often unable to overcome the painful fact that the husband has been involved in either watching pornography or having multiple affairs often for months or sometimes years without her knowing. For the wife, the discovery means betrayal in addition to an immense loss of trust and respect. At this stage, she cannot rationalise his actions as being a brain disorder or compulsive or addictive behaviour, which it most likely is and stems from a lot of underlying emotional or psychological issues.
The initial disclosure is perhaps the most painful and unbearable event for the wife; even if addiction is mentioned initially, it is often rejected, as this behaviour is seen as immoral and a spiritual failure, driven by Nafs e Ammara and lead by shaitaan. The spouse will often voice that she rather the addiction be drugs or alcohol related as the cognitive distortion makes her believe that she would cope with that better. At this stage, emerges the strong sense of failure; she begins to blame herself, wondering had she been more attractive or sassy, she could have prevented the entire thing. This way of thinking starts eroding her self-esteem and confidence; this and many other cognitive distortions mean that she gets in a very volatile mental and emotional state. It is paramount to recognise the impact addiction has on the wife and to support her emotionally, spiritually and mentally. This article aims to help those wives who are married to porn and sex addicts and Insha’Allah will also be a useful guide for other concerned, whether it’s family, friends, counsellors or Imams.
In the first part, I would like to briefly describe what Sex and Porn addiction is, in order for the wife, when she is ready, to be able to understand the true nature of the problem rather than labelling it as a moral or spiritual issue or a straight forward issue of infidelity which may lead to the sudden and complete termination of the relationship. I hope that this clarity might allow the couple to break the barriers and stigmas attached to this particular topic, eventually being able to seek help both for the addiction and for relationship repair, if they chose to do so.
The Wife’s Perspective
Then I would like to explore in detail the wife’s perspective, strategies to regain confidence, self-esteem building and how to move forward. There must be space for the wife to focus on herself, avoiding falling between being passive while thinking she has to suffer in silence due to the stigma or on the other hand being volatile and aggressive, thinking that since her husband has been unfaithful he can’t be trusted, and loses all respect and love which makes the marriage toxic and unbearable, the couple starts suffering in silence without any help or intervention. The last section will focus on the couple’s relationship; if the couple wants to help each other and repair the relationship by working on building trust. They can reclaim their sexuality and learn how to gradually bring back a healthy sex life to the marriage.
Sex addiction is a term that describes any sexual behaviour that feels ‘out of control’. It is not the behaviour itself that defines it as an addiction, but rather the dependency on it, to numb out negative emotions and difficult experiences. As with all addictions, most people with sex and porn addiction will have tried to stop or limit their behaviour on many occasions – but despite continuing harmful consequences to their self as well as others, especially their close relationships, they cannot stop. While they may go on for a short while without acting out, the relapse is never far. Many addicts in my experience are often victims of some form of trauma and childhood abuse. Sometimes early access can also make a person dependent. It is crucial to do the research and find appropriate help both for the addict and for the partner. Unfortunately, no intervention is ever effective if the person with the problem does not take ownership. The best chance for a healthy recovery is when the addict understands their cycle of addiction and takes responsibility for recovery.
The best chance for a healthy recovery is when the addict understands their cycle of addiction and takes responsibility for recovery.
As a wife, you can support them by helping them identify a qualified professional who will provide a safe and non-judgmental environment alongside the help they need. However, it is very important to remember that you, the spouse, have not caused this- you cannot cure it and you certainly cannot control it.
If the addict takes responsibility and acknowledges that there is an issue that is beyond his control and he is ready to seek help as well as take ownership of their own problem, then Insha’Allah that is the first step towards the road to recovery. It is also essential for you to take responsibility of dealing with your own hurt or trauma. Unresolved trauma can lead to a toxic cycle of guilt-tripping and fights, resulting in the relationship turning toxic and unbearable. Reducing shame is essential for recovery for both you and your partner. If he stays in a place which is shame ridden, shaaitan will isolate him by making him feel small, damaged and unredeemable- this state of mind will further push him toward the addiction.
Remember Allah says,
“O my Servants who have transgressed against their souls! Despair not of the Mercy of Allah: for Allah forgives all sins: for He is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
— Quran, Sura 39 (Az-Zumar), ayah 53
Similarly, if you decide to isolate yourself and not seek help due to shame and stigma you too will become emotionally and mentally unwell together with shaatian making you feel weak and vulnerable, costing you both, amongst other things, your relationship. It is paramount that your husband starts the recovery programme and works on resolving the underlying issues. He has to establish relapse prevention strategies while understanding his triggers and explaining them to you. At the same time, you will have to understand your triggers and how you are going to manage your emotional health and wellbeing. You will for a long time keep having flash backs of the initial disclosure. You both will have to work on three areas; he will have to focus on treating his addiction, you on healing your trauma and finally you both will work on building the relationship Insha’Allah.
You might often breakdown in despair and wonder why Allah tested you in this way, questioning your self-worth and dignity, wondering how you could live with someone who leads a double life and has made such morally degrading choices. Although these thoughts are natural, if unchecked they can erode you spiritually and socially. So it is important for you to remember that you have a choice to make and that choice will allow you to reclaim yourself. You had a life before you came into this relationship and you as a person are not defined by your marriage. Remember your role as a servant of Allah, as a mother, a daughter, a sister, a friend, a neighbour, a colleague or as a cousin. Reconnecting with your authentic self, where you see your core strengths like courage, perseverance, love, kindness, gratitude, hope, teamwork, creativity, humour and generosity will help you to ground yourself. Additionally, one of the most powerful and easily accessible tool is establishing your spiritual connection. Try to remember you cannot use religion to spiritually bypass your hurt, sadness and frustration. You must work through these emotions to get to a better place Insha’Allah.
When we are down, due to one aspect of our life not working well, we seem to see everything from a position of deprivation and hopelessness. We have to stand at a position of plenty and look at what has worked for us all our lives and not let this take over our lives completely. Remember that Allah swt tells us, “Allah does not burden a soul beyond that it can bear…” (Qur’an, 2:286). This does not mean that you passively disengage with your situation, it means that you have tawakul in Allah and believe that if you seek help and actively engage Insha’Allah you will find solace and comfort. Like our beloved Prophet saw said, “Tie your camel first, and then put your trust in Allah.” This is a time to look at your strengths as an individual. You can do this in therapy and explore your inner grit and resilience. Allah swt has blessed you with wonderful and amazing attributes.
This is the time to remember that if you want to stay and work alongside your husband, then you will have to work on fixing and healing yourself first and foremost. You may objectively look at your marriage and see that over the years, you have both shared many good things and generally complement one another, in addition to the fact that he has taken good care of you, honouring his responsibilities as a husband. If that is not the case and your relationship has not been a safe space and you have felt generally unhappy than it is time to seek help. A relationship health check is advised, through investing in therapy which can help you decide whether to fix the marriage or finish it. Living in a toxic, unhealthy and unsafe relationship should never be an option.
You will be tempted to cut ties with people around you and self-isolate, and although that may feel like a good coping strategy, it is unfortunately very unhealthy and unsustainable. Pluck up the courage to reach out to a few friends or family members that you trust and know will give you appropriate spiritual, social and emotional support. Be honest and transparent but refrain from constantly regurgitating the entire story to your support network. Constantly reliving the trauma can be like picking the scab- you have to leave that work for the therapy room. We all need recreation, rest and relaxation the most when we are mentally and emotionally drained. Make sure you let your family and friends look after you and create opportunities for you to practice some self-care and nurturing.
The ultimate question for you both will be whether or not the marriage will survive. In my experience over the years, many couples have bravely and beautifully survived through the trauma and turbulence of sex and porn addiction, but not all. The important thing is not to rush into making a decision. If after the disclosure you both feel that there is enough love between you both and you share the same goals; or you feel as though your children need both their parents, as you make a good parenting team and you believe that can help to build back the relationship, then make the decision to work on it. It is key that you take each day as it comes so that you can start rebuilding the relationship. The essential components for repair and rebuilding work are honesty, empathy, accountability and transparency. Your therapist should be able to lay down some rules for you which you both will have to adhere to.
Reclaiming and rekindling your sex life is extremely important but it will take time. Sexuality in marriage is a beautiful gift from Allah and although it isn’t the most important aspect of marriage, it is pretty important. Please remember that intimacy outside the bedroom will, in fact, lead to healthy sexual experience; investing time in each other by giving your relationship the respect it deserves and by gradually putting small but regular routines in place such as date nights. You might have lost all self-esteem and confidence in yourself or you might not feel attracted to your spouse due to the knowledge of his addictive behaviour, but the truth is, once you make the decision to work on the relationship you will Insha’Allah start separating him from his issue. Initially, it will be difficult, as you might constantly wonder if you are enough? Or if he is fantasizing about someone else whilst being intimate with you. Please remember that Shaytan will relentlessly try everything to put waswasas in your heart and head, as the best outcome for him is always separation between the couple. Remember to read the duaa that the Prophet gave us before being intimate, “In the Name of Allah. O Allah, keep the Shaytan away from us and keep the Shaytan away from what You have blessed us with”.
Take your time, be more open about your sexual needs, take responsibility and talk about these issues in your therapy sessions. Your partner might struggle with arousal or erection, but this does not mean that he is not interested in you. Remember that the addict must go through his own long, lonely and painful journey towards healing and recovery.
To conclude, I must say that some of the most amazing and wonderful women that I have had the privilege to work with over the years have been spouses of sex and porn addicts. They have worked with grace and fortitude and many have managed to save their marriages, keeping the children out of it completely. Many have made the bold and brave decision to leave the relationship as they understood & accepted that they could not save it.
Where ever you are, whatever your struggle may be, please seek help and take it from there, may Allah (swt) hold your hearts & hands and guide you to what is best for your deen, Duniya & Aakirah.
The post Sex And Porn Addiction: Advice For The Wife appeared first on MuslimMatters.org.
Source: Muslim Matters
Recently, I have been messaged privately by a number of activists in the US, who are concerned about the ways in which prominent Muslim institutions in America engage with various forms of law enforcement, whether it might be the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the FBI, or even with programmes within the rubric of Countering Violent Extremism (CVE). Although based in the UK, I have had the privilege of being involved in the legal and political defence of those detained in the US as victims of the global War on Terror. This has led to a journey of understanding the role that is played by law enforcement agencies in the construction of these cases, but also within a wider security industrial complex.
I write this letter because I want us to think about the ethics of engagement with law enforcement. When it comes to the policies and practices of the global War on Terror, the extent of cross-fertilisation between the UK and US is profound, making their pathology of securitisation one that requires us to learn lessons in resistance collectively.
In the US, even more than the UK, there exists a violence within policing that is almost unparalleled. This violence does not uniquely impact Muslims, but has a long history that is tied to the ways those outside of the white majority in society are deemed ‘Other’, and is most manifestly apparent in its anti-Black racism. If we start from the premise that the law itself, and the administrators of the law, the police, prosecution services, judges and indeed juries, all play a role within the structure of racism and discrimination, then to what extent can we actually seek to engage with that system?
As Muslims, what is our own positionality in relation to the work that we do? For those of us who claim to be involved in the work of defending Muslims and Islam, we must recognise that we are not doing anyone any favours by doing this work. This is a unique opportunity and blessing that we have been privileged with, one that any number of other people could have been invited to do. Furthermore, we do not own this work or our institutions, the collective body does, and so we are answerable for all that we do, at all times. Expectations of trust without scrutiny are unwarranted, as we cannot claim to represent the interests of our communities, without first holding ourselves open to being held to account. Whether it is money, engagements, positions, or whatever the matter might be, we have an obligation to answer the concerns of the community when they are being raised because we cannot claim to represent them while there are doubts over us. We do not own this work, we are responsible to it.
There are arguments that are often made by those who seek to build relationships with law enforcement, that ultimately without engaging, there won’t be any chance for changing the system. Thus, they claim that meetings with the FBI and DHS serve the purpose of correcting the flaws within the system. I want to think through the efficacy of these interactions, because ultimately, I think this is where many disagreements may exist. I hope to capture the usual arguments that are made, and to provide brief responses that I pray can help us think more acutely about the problem, and the solution.
“The police are necessary; they keep us safe.”
Before we take on any other subject, we need to think about policing, and the claim that it is a necessity, that it keeps us safe from those who might wish us harm. Largely, police do not stop crime from taking place, as much as they are part of a process of criminalisation after crimes have been committed. Keeping society safe requires addressing the root causes of crime, a prospect that goes well beyond the notion of policing – in fact, particularly within the context of the US, it could be argued that the structurally racist system of policing and punishment has only served to increase levels of disenfranchisement. Saying that we need the police to keep us safe, is akin to passing the buck, it means that we are less interested in doing the hard work that needs to be done for the whole of society to become safer. Resorting to the police, only serves to solidify its structure as a necessity. My own organisation CAGE has been attempting to provide some leadership in this regard, and our work has shown that there can be ways of reducing the threats to society as a whole, that exist beyond surveillance policing.
“Some law enforcement institutions are safe to work with, while others are dangerous.”
When thinking of the institutions that are responsible for policing, we need to consider their functions, and the way in which they fundamentally approach communities. The FBI, as just one example, has spent incredible resources in undermining what it deems to be subversive activities since the inception of COINTELPRO. Coming into the War on Terror, that programme found its way into every aspect of policing Muslim communities, but particularly through the use of entrapment. For those who make a favourable distinction between the way the FBI operates as opposed to other institutions like the CIA, then they only need to speak to my colleague Moazzam Begg and many others who have related the ways that the FBI have been entirely complicit in programmes of arbitrary detention and torture.
The above only begins to touch on the functions that other institutions serve, particularly in the post 9/11 period. Perhaps the most galling example of an institution created for the purpose of securitising Muslims is the DHS, which in its conception, inception and practise, has legally discriminated against Muslims whether citizens or not. It is important to remind ourselves, despite our own normalisation of the harm, that nearly every single profiling stop whether coming into or leaving the US or UK, is an act of racism – even if they provide you with a sandwich or prayer rug to ‘soften’ the experience. Yes, the system is the way that it is, but we suffer a daily collective amnesia that results in us normalising the systemic discrimination we are forced to endure.
“A more diverse or culturally aware police force that includes Muslims will improve the system.”
As in the UK, we’re told feel-good stories about the non-Muslim community police officer who is willing to fast a day in Ramadan and even to break fast with the community at Iftar time. The thing about this token police officer, is that he really has no ability to overturn the structure that he is a paid up member of. Three roads away, his colleagues are profiling young black men on the streets, but equally worrying, his colleagues are placing pressure on some of those same black men and other congregants in the mosque to spy on the community in order to extract information. The point is, that attempting to normalise relations with institutions that fundamentally not only mistrust us, but are actively involved in harming us is not engagement, it can only be seen, at its most generous, as pacification. Yes, maybe that individual officer you engage with might think twice before brutalising a member of the community, but think of what we give up in that moment too…we hand them the excuse that they (institutionally) have met with us, and heard our concerns.
“CVE exists to tackle all forms of extremism!”
With increasing calls for the defunding of policing taking root, this opportunity should not fall short of pushing towards abolition of the security, military and prison industrial complexes. These structures reinforce one another in the way that they understand the communities they primarily focus on. In that sense, we have already seen a shift towards the marketing of Countering-Violent Extremism (CVE). This is a programme that is rooted to a DHS narrative of securitisation – in both its conception and practise, it is about Muslims. There is a stark difference, between those who are structurally racialised and marginalised feeling aggrieved, as opposed to those, within the majority of society, whose disenfranchisement is supported as a narrative within all the institutions of power. The source of White supremacy is mainstream.
Claims that CVE is there to tackle all forms of ‘extremism’ are simply a marketing tool, otherwise every single racist statement that was ever uttered by a conservative or liberal would be covered. When it comes to white supremacy, the bar for what is considered to be unacceptable, is effectively at the point of violence. With Muslims, the structure of CVE operates at the point of belief or overt markers of ‘Muslimness’. This is important, because the idea that CVE funding can be flipped so that Muslims can do good with it is nonsense and should never be opened for discussion by any Muslim individual or organisation that claims to represent the rights of Muslims.
“Muslim cooperation with law enforcement is about harm reduction.”
Ultimately, engagement is a calculus of risk that is being made by those who are engaging. The claim that they are working with law enforcement suggests that the specific and limited needs they are hoping to raise or change, are worth the normalising of relations with these violent structures. This is often presented as a benefit over harm calculation, that in the minds of those engaging, there will be a tangible benefit that emerges from the interaction. The question is, however, for who? From my working life and many studies that have been conducted on law enforcement, there has never been any reversal of policy that has been so significant as to justify such a relationship – the system largely remains the same, and in fact it is normalised and built upon further with the next piece of legislation or policy.
“Are you suggesting engagement is always wrong?”
The point of this call is not to claim that there is never any point in engagement, but rather that any engagement should take into account the structural violence that is taking place, and so the calculus of risk should be based on discernible change, rather than limited to brokering understanding and good feeling. Increasing understanding might help to make a single law enforcement officer, or a few others potentially less hostile in their interactions, but they are still part of the system.
Recommendations on transparent engagement:
- What I would propose in terms of interacting with the state, is that any interaction should only ever take place with those who have the ability to actually implement a structural change at a policy level, if it is to ever happen at all.
This should only ever take place with policymakers and legislators, and my suggestion is not with anyone within law enforcement itself while the structures remain as they are. The reason I say this, is because the greatest harm is in the structure of legislation and policymaking, not within the carrying out of the duties that have been imposed. At the very best, working with law enforcement might ameliorate the conditions of a small minority, but it is the structure that turns us all into second class citizens. So ultimately, this is a call for a radical approach of total non-engagement with law enforcement officials, and a call to unite towards more meaningful approaches of change.
- Communications should be made in writing to accompany any meeting, and the response should also be given in writing – this is to ensure that the communities we claim to represent are aware of our interactions, and the interactions that are being made are transparent.
The process of transparency with the community is crucial, because it will inevitably keep us honest in our approach and hold us up to the scrutiny and ethics of our entire communities. It will also provide a necessary barrier with any representative of the state if they should ever try and use divisive colonial tactics of preferential treatment of one group over another, as they attempt to maintain their hold of power over us. Furthermore, for those who are most harmed by the violence of the state, they will understand better why an individual or organisation has chosen to interact with a structure that harmed them, and so will be able to make a better informed judgement on whether any engagement might normalise the harm they previously or continue to suffer.
- While transparency is important, it is crucial that before any engagement takes place, that those with expertise in these areas are consulted. Communities have a wealth intellectual resources and well-informed critical voices – these voices should be consulted by any community leader, imam or organisation prior to any communication with authorities. As mentioned in point B, victims and survivors bring their own lived experience of being impacted by these institutions, and so consulting them too will always be crucial to providing a human insight into how policies and laws are harmful. Without consulting those who have been impacted most heavily, we risk losing the nuance of the ways in which harm can occur.
- A final recommendation for those who claim to represent the interests of Muslims, but have a background that was part of the system of violence against us: they must make their current position in relation to their previous work clear, and do it publicly themselves. This is integral to their claim to transparency, and therefore to their credibility. While forgiveness and growth are important in the work we do, trust and confidence are both far more important. Without being able to trust those who represent us fully, the community will always feel undermined by the system, and those involved in its defence. It is possible for someone to have worked in projects that were harmful and then to change their mind or opinion, but they must also make clear what they were involved in, and publicly state its wrongfulness. Expectations of trust without clarity, are unreasonable.
Ultimately these points can be summarised into: transparency, consultation and accountability.
As discussed throughout this letter, the first premise that we need to challenge, is one that thinks of policing (in particular) as existing in a benevolent or neutral space. We need to appreciate that in its identity and creation, the very function of surveillance policing is not to keep society safe, but rather the function of policing is as a form of disciplining society, through arrest and ultimately prosecution. Considered at its most fundamental level, our relationship to policing should start from a position of questioning the practise and ideology it is built on.
As Muslim individuals and organisations seeking to assist the oppressed, there is a duty that comes from being in this space that means any claims of representation cannot take place in the absence of understanding how our decisions have an impact in the complete structure of oppression. Small wins for one town or local community are meaningless while people continue to be arbitrarily detained, tortured and even killed. The oppression that is taking place is a structure, and without centring our responses to the entire edifice, we will continually risk normalising this system by reaching for small changes that only serve to temporarily make us feel less hostility from the state in the course of its violence.
Finally, I pray that these words are taken in the spirit they have been written, from a brother who has benefited a great deal from the long history of activism and radical thinking that has emerged from the US. Inshallah I hope that we can all advise one another towards what is better based on our knowledge and experience, but chiefly, that we can work with one another in order to protect all those who are oppressed, ameen.
The post Open Letter To Muslim Activists And Organisations In The US On Engagement With The Structures Of Policing appeared first on MuslimMatters.org.
Source: Muslim Matters