Eid Mubarak to everyone. May Allah accept your fasting and reward you for it.

Eid prayers inshAllah will take place tomorrow (30th of August 2011) at:

Al-Medinah Mosque - 08:30am & 09:30am

Shah Jallal Mosque - 09:15am & 10:00am

Islam emphasises love, kindness and mercy between spouses. Hopefully this contract will make that more of a reality for women

It is no surprise that household chores are the bane of many marriages, and the competing demands of modern life have compounded this situation for women in particular. Who, then, wouldn’t jump at the chance to sign a marriage contract that potentially exempts women from wiping up vomit and scraping hair out of the plughole? Yet most people gasp with shock when I explain to them that Muslim women are able to stipulate such conditions in their marriage contracts – and that Islamic law sanctions this choice. Far greater coverage is afforded to the issue of forced marriages (which are strongly opposed by Islam and also take place in other minority communities) as well as the oppressive treatment – both real and perceived – of Muslim women who are in consensual marriages. Such stories fly in the face of Islamic teachings, which emphasise love, kindness and mercy between spouses.

Last Friday, I attended the relaunch of an initiative that aims to bridge the lacuna between the rights Muslim women have in theory, and the deprivation of these rights that some of them experience in practice. The new Muslim marriage contract, which was originally launched in 2008 after four years of extensive research and consultation, revives Islamic opinions that are more consonant with the spirit of egalitarianism. It was drafted by Muslim Institute trustees Dr Ghayasuddin Siddiqui and Mufti Barkatullah, as well as Muslim Women’s Network chair Cassandra Balchin, and has also acquired a new website.

The main reforms include removing the requirement for a wali (marriage guardian) for the bride, who, as an adult, can make up her own mind about whom to marry; enabling the wife to initiate divorce and retain all her financial rights agreed in the marriage contract; and encouraging mosques to register to perform marriages (so that they are automatically recognised in British law without a separate civil ceremony). As Siddiqui explained at Friday’s event, he was aware of only a handful of mosques who have registered their premises so far.

Of course, no amount of paperwork will provide a miracle cure for any arrangement that is entered into with less than noble intentions. However, the Muslim marriage contract ensures a higher standard of redress for women caught up in these situations. It also provides an excellent negotiating tool for thorny issues that can throw even the most idealistic couples, such as financial management, where to live, and contact with extended family on both sides (as Heidi Withers discovered when her prospective stepmother-in-law unfairly chastised her for being “uncouth” in an email that recently went viral).

More on this article at Guardian.co.uk. Article by: Tehmina Kazi

To a radical few, Osama bin Laden was a hero – but mainstream Muslims will remember him as a rebel who lost his way

British Muslims seduced by extremist forms of Islam have celebrated Osama bin Laden as a spiritual and military warrior.

In his suicide video address, Mohammad Siddique Khan, the leader of the bombers who attacked London on 7 July 2005, said he prayed God would raise him up to join “today’s heroes, like our beloved Sheikh Osama bin Laden”.

In public, Abu Hamza, the hook-handed preacher who once held sway over dozens of committed jihadists, including the shoe bomber Richard Reed, praised Bin Laden and his actions.

Like other Islamist leaders in the UK, Hamza used Bin Laden’s life story – the millionaire who gave up everything to fight jihad – as a recruiting tool to inspire young British men who may have seen themselves as living in a privileged society without spiritual purpose.

But in private, the picture wasn’t always so positive. According to one former London radical, Hamza had private doubts about the Saudi jihadist’s actions.

The debate among Islamist radicals in the years after 9/11 centred on whether Bin Laden was right to use Afghanistan as a launchpad to attack the west, or whether it would have been better to leave the country to grow into a fully fledged Islamic state under the Taliban.

A few years after 9/11, Hamza believed Bin Laden was tactically wrong to have attacked America, and that he should have given himself up to the international community to stop the Taliban from being overthrown.

In the days after September 11, Omar Bakri, the former leader of the now banned al-Muhajiroun group, based in Britain, is said to have prevaricated “like a feather in the wind” on whether the 9/11 attacks were halal or haram – permitted or prohibited – under Islamic law.

But Anjem Choudary, the former number two in al-Muhajrioun, said Bin Laden was “a modern-day hero”. “I believe he is loved by all Muslims,” he said. “He stood for the struggle, a symbol of resistance.”

Choudary said al-Muhajiroun often used Bin Laden “as an advertising ploy” to attract those who had heard about 9/11 and might want to know more.

“Sheikh Osama was the emir [leader] for people who want to franchise themselves to al-Qaida,” he said.

Among mainstream Muslims, says Inayat Bunglawala, chair of Muslims4UK, the picture is also complicated. Bunglawala used to be a supporter of Bin Laden’s but says that, after Afghanistan won its freedom from the USSR, Bin Laden turned to the “dark side”.

“Bin Laden used to be admired because he was from the wealthy family [but] turned his back on luxury to fight the Soviets,” said Bunglawala. “But after 1991, he developed the idea of a war with the US. He went over to the dark side, from someone who was opposing Soviet aggression to someone who thought killing innocent civilians was an appropriate response to US misdeeds.”

“Today, in those circles where al-Qaida are viewed as heroes, he will be viewed as a martyr,” added Bunglawala. “But to mainstream Muslims, he’ll be seen as someone who started off with good intentions but dramatically lost his way.”

More on this article at Guardian.co.uk. Article by: Shiv Malik

Al-Medinah Mosque, Brighton would like to announce that Eid prayer inshAllah will be on Friday 10th of September. There will be 2 Eid prayers:

• First at 8AM by Imaam Muhammad
• Second at 9:30AM by Shaykh Gulam

Be on time as prayer will start promptly. Please let the other know too. Thanks.

Eid Mubarak to you all from the BHMF Management team.

In their reporting of the political arguments over the proposed Park 51 centre (the master building that will house the “Ground Zero mosque”), most US and international media coverage has characterised the ongoing debate as a Democrat v Republican party-line dispute. But this simplification obscures the reality of a disagreement that is significantly more complex, but also unambiguous in its rightful answer.

At face value, it is easy to see why the mosque debate is being portrayed by most reporting as a partisan battle. Sarah Palin’s 18 July Twitter assertion that the mosque represents an “UNNECESSARY provocation” that “stabs hearts”, ignited a storm of similar, but increasingly ridiculous (and attention-grabbing) exhortations from other high-profile Republicans. This summit of absurdity reached new heights with Newt Gingrich’s declarations that “Nazis don’t have the right to put up a sign next to the holocaust museum in Washington” and that the US “would never accept the Japanese putting up a site next to Pearl Harbor”.

Aside from the obvious logical fallacy in these statements (9/11 was conducted by extremists acting outside mainstream Islamic thought/authority and not, as with the Holocaust or Pearl Harbor, by state actors), these comments have been undeniably attractive to media organisations looking for saleable headlines. Against the backdrop of an election year, and motivated by polling that suggests most Americans oppose the Park 51 centre, the formal Republican leadership has not troubled itself to distance the party from Gingrich, Palin and their allies. President Barack Obama’s relative statement of support for Park 51 has also provided media outlets with the adversary to Republican positions needed to complete the partisan battle picture.

However, below the surface of the debate, deep doubts and disagreements exist within both parties about what line to take on the issue and the electoral implications associated with these choices. While Obama is standing with the mayor, Michael Bloomberg, to support the right of the Park 51 centre to proceed, many key Democrats are less than sure in their support for the president’s approach. Senator Chuck Schumer of New York (usually known for voicing strong opinions) has, significantly, not yet commented on the issue.

Under pressure from his Republican opponent in Nevada, the office of Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, has stated that the senator believes “the mosque should be built someplace else”. Nancy Pelosi has offered less than unequivocal support for the plan, declaring it to be a “local decision”. For Democrats, their traditional electoral fear of appearing weak on national security greatly complicates their ability to support Park 51 with confidence. Many already believe that their performance in this year’s election will be disastrous and so fear taking a seemingly unpopular line on an issue of great controversy.

More on this article at Guardian.co.uk. Article by: Tom Rogan

We hope Allah graces your life with showers of Happiness, Love, His blessings and Emaan on this Ramadan and always.

Download (PDF, 210.56KB)

The question: Can you do counter-terrorism without theology?

This question is quite obviously about al-Qaida inspired terrorism. Far-right or left terrorists have their own holy scriptures, like the Turner Diaries, but this could in no way be describe as theology.

In a practical sense, the answer is a no-brainer. For counterterrorism agencies to not understand the theological motivation behind terrorist acts – as stated by terrorists themselves – would be tantamount to criminal negligence.

There is much debate about the the role that theology plays in terrorism. Many commentators believe the theology is the problem; that terrorism inspired by religious fanaticism is a new phenomenon, and that Islam needs to undergo a root and branch reform. Yet other research shows that Islamic religiosity can lead individuals to reject and actively discourage violence, often through moral and social sanctions. Our own research at Demos suggests that theology plays a relatively minor role for many al-Qaida terrorists – at least of the home-grown variety.

However, there is one undeniable fact: that some engagement in religious extremist ideology – however fleeting or superficial – is an essential element of al-Qaida terrorism, and that all terrorists seek out religious sanction for their actions. At the very least theology shapes symbolic content and meaning, bringing the individual to believe a movement is just – and in their eyes offering legitimacy or an obligation to commit violence.

The difficult fact for counterterrorism agencies is that al-Qaida emerged along with a broader resurgence of religious extremism, some proponents of which share elements of al-Qaida’s ideology or language but reject violence. This makes their work altogether more complicated. The irony is that targeting the wrong people can breed resentment and alienate potential allies. Theology can help better target resources. Clearly having theologians as advisers, or Muslim officers, to sift through the maze of theological concepts can help, because certain theological concepts like takfir are more useful than other radical but harmless ones like supporting sharia law.

More on this at Guardian.co.uk (Article by: Jamie Bartlett)