Perversions and Fairplay Of Justice

 

 

SOME DISGRACEFUL PERVERSIONS OF JUSTICE AND FAIRPLAY IN SOME BOOKS

 

From the book ‘Radd al Mukhtar’ as reported by H. H Isik in his Turkish ‘Saadet-i Ebediye’ (Istanbul, 1967):

“Murder means killing somebody deliberately. To kill means hitting somebody on some part of his body with something lethal like a knife, a gun. All metals are like iron… one who deliberately kills a mu’min (Muslim believer) does not become a kafir. He becomes a kafir only if he kills a mu’min for being a mu’min or believing that killing the person is halal (legitimate, despite being a believer).  Now look what Allah says:

“Whoever kills a mu’min deliberately his punishment is then Hell to remain therein forever! Allah became angry with him, cursed him and prepared for him a harsh punishment” (4: 93). Who is speaking the truth, Allah or the jurist?

The book continues: “As for his worldly (juridical) punishment he is to be executed except when the family of the deceased waives that right and either accepts blood money or waives even that. In this case the government punishes him otherwise, usually a long prison term”.

 

These provisions are made clear in other verses and their interpretation from the practice of our good Muslim ancestors from companions’ times. We meet the same constructive ambiguities again here: As far as our Creator is concerned a murderer is simply unforgivable and is bound to rot in Hell. Less than this in the name of mercy could only wrong and offend the victim and his loved ones. Therefore that is proper. As for the worldly side of the matter, more realism and practicality are needed. The victim’s family need to be compensated while the compensators should at least get the life of the murderer- their next of kin- spared. Then the government can move in to make sure that the culprit is punished convincingly for the enormity he committed. A long and harsh prison term may then go a long way to make justice seem to be done to some not insignificant extent. In modern terms I think we may perhaps compute that death penalty for murder may be lifted, life imprisonment substituted for it and adequate compensation to the family of the victim imposed in which case both the sensibilities of the modern world are assuaged and the culprit is punished with something slightly less painful than death which may be too quick to mean much. Allah knows best.  Now please stand fast: the book is dropping a new pearl:

 

“Forbidden slaughter has a second variety called shabaha (look-alike): This kind of killing is like in killing with small stone or small stick and according to Imam al A’zam killing with big stone or big stick. Throwing into a well (to drown), throwing down a mountain or roof, in which cases retaliation (execution) is not necessary!!!

 

Which means if you want to murder somebody and avoid retaliation you may kill him by drowning or beating or throwing him down a precipice! Is this justice or a mockery of Allah’s prohibitions (muharamat).  Ascribing to the verb ‘qatala’ only the sense of killing with a metal instrument and exempting other and even more painful deaths like drowning (remember, deliberately so) will not simply wash. Some other forms of murder include also murder by poisoning as non-punishable by execution and only blood money being necessary. What are these if not proud, arrogant and misguided sophistries? Even attempting to kill a believer is a mortal sin; in case of success it can only be hell for the killer as Allah says. That the verb ‘qatala’/kill does not only mean killing  by the use of a solid metal instrument or the like is conclusively proven by Allah Himself Who should know best Arabic as He knows everything. Let us read the following verses from Surat al Qasas where Moses is depicted helping a fellow Israeli against an Egyptian combatant of this Israeli:

 

“The one who was of his (Moses’s party) called for help against his enemy. Moses punched him and despatched him…” (28: 14)

 

The same thing happend the next day and Moses fled for fear of capture and retaliation. Eventually Allah raised him as a Prophet. In response to Allah’s orders for him to go back to Egypt as a messenger of Allah he pleaded with Allah saying “My Lord I KILLED (QATALTU) one of them and I am afraid they will kill me (in retaliation)” (28: 33). Here we are! He had not used iron or big or small stick etc to kill the Egyptian but had just punched him in a street bully fashion if the term will kindly be forgiven. After all, Moses later admitted to the Pharaoh who was accuising him of murdering an innocent subject of his “I did it when I was an ignorant” (#)

 

So much for pontificating on Arabic idiom on the part of some slick operators of commentary (and jurisprudence)! I absolve all great and pious imams from all above.

Allah also says though ‘killing a believer by mistake’, that is to say either killing accidentally or by sincere misjudgement is another matter and involves only compensation (blood-money) to the deceased’s kin and repentance on the part of the killer.

A third example of legal cleverness to circumvent the Divine justice is the judgment that for an excess repayment of a debt to be regarded usury (riba) the two items exchanged must be of the same kind. If, for example, I loan you £100 worth of grain and make you agree to pay me back in a month’s time with nuts worth £150 this is not usury! Similarly, if I loan you £10,000 today on the condition that you transfer to me your house which is worth £100,000 this again is not usury! If such a rule is made to stand then the rich robbing the poor becomes rampantly possible by just arranging the robbery in the form of exchange of different commodities in a debt contract. The fact that when the house transferred to the lending party it will yield £100,000 in a year to him against the £10,000 investment he made in the form of a loan counts as nothing. 

 

Similar tricks have been played in the matter of ‘khulla’ marriages. Allah says that if a man divorces his wife three consecutive times he cannot remarry her unless she married another man and that man divorces her. The Prophet explains that this last marriage cannot be a sham: the new couple must consummate the marriage, i.e., have real sexual union. To circumvent this Divine rulin g many tricks were played by silly ex-husbands with the help of small-time muftis for a consideration: The thrice divorced woman was married to a sexually incapable person like a boy child, a very old, totally impotent man or an eunuch.

 

Add to this the scandalous survival among many Muslim communities of pre- and extra-Islamic traditions of executing women guilty of sometimes even slight sexual misconduct (or alleged misconduct) while men’s sexual exploits are worn like badges of honour and envied and you may imagine how well Islamised many Muslims have been to this day! It appears that iman is only occasionally genuine and authentic among many Muslim communities, pre-Islamic attitudes and traditions still reign supreme when it comes to big benefits and greatly enjoyed prejudices: many jurists, at least the mall fry among them did not or could not help going along with the public wishes and prejudices lest they themselves end up at the receiving end of popular wrath.

It looks that a lot has to be done to re-examine and re-vamp Islamic Law not so much in its letter but in the attitudes and trickeries some of its exponents and appliers developed over centuries.

 

The central idea behind this effort should be this: Reading the mind or purpose of the law-giver (in this case Allah the Most Wise) should be the first condition in deriving the detailed rules of the Sharia. For example, if murder is banned it should be because deliberately taking the life of another Muslim who did nothing to deserve such a drastic punishment is wrong in the Sight of Allah. Since this is the central idea, it should not matter what method the murderer used in inflicting the death on his victim. Throwing off from a precipice or drowning in a well or pool, poisoning etc. all should be regarded as equally culpable as stabbing. The alleged dictionary meaning of the word ‘qatala’ (kill) should not be the only criterion in defining what amounts to unjust killing of somebody else. Similarly, the ban on usury intends to prevent unjust transfer of wealth from a poorer to a richer person. Creating loopholes and roundabout ways for the rich to make the poor overpay what the borrowed from the rich is nothing more and nothing less than defeating Allah’s ban on usury. So on and so forth. Even secular law recognises the need for both reading the mind of the law-giver (e.g. the parliament or king) and seeing that no judgment reached through the due process of law using the letter of the existing laws creates an unfair judgment. To remedy such unfair outcomes this country of ours, namely England, has a court of equity, namely the Chancery. Muslims as True Good God’s true servants should be more entitled to a tricks-free justice tradition than others.

 

Lastly that we as Muslims lost our way rather badly at many junctures in history may be seen by laws enacted by some of our kings: the Ottoman law legitimising the execution of all princes young or old by the prince who happens to ascend or usurp the throne is one of the saddest examples. This law was never applied with an easy conscience by the ascending princes themselves: they ordered the execution of not only their less fortunate brothers including new-born babies but also all the male offspring of their brothers. Then mourning their demises and lavishing on them great funeral ceremonies and ornate graves they returned to state affairs sure in the belief that, thanks to the law made by an earlier sultan not only allowing but even encouraging such fratricide, they were absolved both in the sight of God and fellow men. Some had their own numerous sons executed while sometimes the sons were not above plotting against their father for the throne! All the while great muftis and jurists looked on approvingly in the belief that killing a few however innocent to save a kingdom was good enough a reason and excuse.

 

All such observations point towards a dual failure among Muslims as an umma or spiritual nation. The first and already explained is a tendency to neglect the diligent search for the Mind of the Law-giving Allah (which translates to the commonsensical sense of fairness in mentally and psychologically well-developed men) and instead, to make law serve our prejudices, ambitions and often also plain dirty intentions, resort to every literary, lexicographic, etymological, pagan cultural etc. data bases. By this we do not mean that when the Book (Qur’an) and the Sunna (traditions of the Prophet) look silent on a matter we are not free or should not do our conscientious best to exercise our judgment in reaching a reasonable, salutary and workable judgment on an issue. We certainly have to do it but we should never lose the sight of the fact that the judgments we arrive at are not against the spirit of Islam as a whole which is about love, compassion, humanity, charity and safe practicability. For example, the execution of all princes outside a new sultan could be avoided by making a law that either a prince nominated by a sultan or failing that the eldest of the existing princes should succeed to the throne unless he gifted his right to another of his own free will, like in case he is in poor health or not willing to rule. Then all the other princes should be demoted to lesser nobilities unfit to rule and given safe commissions like ministerial or gubernatorial or advisory portfolios.

Or something better, I do not mean I know everything best. Perhaps even better could be a permanent council of state made of retired statesmen of the land with most distinguished service and character references behind them, especially and preferably with some royal or royal in-law blood in their veins who, having no personal ambitions but a long and distinguished tract record behind them could elect a prince to succeed and to direct the rest to various positions of the state or the provinces. Or continue with the practice of the earliest election of Abu Bakr al Siddiq and the said council elect a ruling caliph-sultan who would combine political competence with good character and piety. The ottoman slaughters were a pity, the sultans mourned their brothers as badly as the rest of their subjects but could not simply imagine a better way out. May Allah forgive all concerned!

 

CONCLUSION

 

May Allah reward all our believing ancestors for all the good and right things they did and forgive all their errors and reconcile any oppressors among them and their victims so that all may enter the Paradise!

 

Those who do not learn from past mistakes lying at the bottom of their present misfortunes cannot make headway in their progress towards Allah’s Pleasure. Although we are less accomplished and more culpable than our any ancestors we at least need not remain so. By studying and analysing their record we may be able to see through some mistakes and take care not to repeat them and instead improve ourselves thanks to our such conscientious if humble studies.

 

At this point in time I am not advocating an over-haul of fiqh: I am hardly qualified for such an authority. What I am aiming at is arousing some interest in a revaluation of and re-thinking about our fiqh issues and trying to remedy some of its unsatisfactory-looking rulings at the point of retrospection at this point in time.

 

I humbly believe and speaking in most general terms, we must simplify and merge a bit the fatwas on rituals like allowing believers to feel freer in the performance of their rituals to benefit from the leniencies of various fatwas on a ritual issue.

 

For example from our master Abu Hanifa we have two opinions transmitted about the time for beginning the fast.  One, at the first sign of the daybreak, that is to say, when a crack of white appears on the eastern horizon fasting should start. Two, one should wait for the light in the east spread up and wide a bit. Now all calendars I came across not only use the first fatwa but take it to its astronomical excess- the theoretical time of the down which assumes the earth to be a perfect sphere with no local elevations or different atmospheric densities and refraction indexes. Who gave them this arrogant authority.  All ‘times’ named by the Sharia are ‘urfi (popularly accepted) times and dawn according to the simple rural man is when he at last feels that the new day has arrived as proven by the convincing and visible enough lighting up of the eastern sky so much so that even without any moonlight the improved visibility is convincingly due to the daybreak.

 

Religion is for all people simple or sophisticated: Allah would not require people to toss about obstacles or fall into pits or eat dangerous things because visibility is not good enough for them. Abu Hanifa adds that for the morning prayer the better earliest time is the moderate spread and rise of the dawn whiteness so that people can see where they are going and what dangers lie on their path to the mosque for example. After all not all countries have the dazzling star and moonlights of Arabia or the like and for such places dawn must mean some safe if minimum visibility. Astronomers have no right to impose their concepts on the public who like all other animals need convenience to act as they need. Artificial light may not always be available and overcast skies are not rare which delay the visibility. A similar double judgment occurs in the definition of the eisha (night prayer) time. In one fatwa Abu Hanifa is reported to rule ‘eisha is when both the redness and then the whiteness ends in the western sky and all becomes black.

 

In another he says: ‘Eisha is allowed once the redness is gone and only whiteness remains’. This fatwa is especially interesting and helpful: The higher we go to the north the longer days become and the whiteness of the night sky lasts. A point comes when even the sun will not set for days and even weeks and months. This makes astronomical calculation of prayer times about sunrise and sunset very unhelpful and stupidly so. It becomes so bad at even the mid-altidudes (say at 45 degrees north in the summer) that whiteness of the night sky remains all through to the next sunrise. This supposedly entitles some too literally and astronomically-minded people to declare eisha prayers redundant until later in the summer and as soon as full darkness of the western sky returns, say in mid- august they then allow themselves to pray eisha and soon afterwards the morning prayers about midnight!

 

But let us go for a moment to our principle of reading the lawmaker’s mind: what is prayers about? It is about regularly returning our minds from the secular diversions of our lives to the remembrance (zikr) of Allah. This is most feasible as signposted over what we may regard as our natural waking hours which at the middling altitudes of places like Mecca and Medina vary from 11 to 13 hours or thereabout. People there and those about fifteen parallels to the north (up to southern Europe level about with Istanbul) will find night darkness eventually arriving during summer nights and therefore can perform their morning and eisha prayers at defined times if with increasing strain as the latitude increases. On the average a man needs about eight hours of, if possible, unbroken sleep and in Arabia this is possible at all seasons. It remains possible in possible in Istanbul if Abu Hanifa’s two more lenient fatwas about later morning and earlier eisha times are adopted and why not? To further north conditions become even more desperate: in London (which is not too northern) from may 5 to august 5 no astronomical eisha or morning dawn times arrive and if we follow the logic of the astronomical school of salat and sawm fiqh not neither taking enough sleep nor fasting will be possible. You may break your fast at sunset but you may not eat anything because it is already dawn, eisha will be impossible and morning immediately possible!

 

Such nonsensical arguments cannot be allowed to stand.  So what they solution could be? I humbly believe that it should again depend on reading the Mind of the Lawgiver: What is the purpose of salat? To give you a regular shot of solemn and formal remembering of Allah. This has to be spread over our normal and tolerable waking hours which can only be up to sixteen hours since we need about eight hours of sleep. Then at higher altitudes and as soon as our need for sleepful rest becomes impossible the prayer times will need be readjusted. To a certain altitude it will be possible to combine evening and eisha prayers and just leave enough time to catch the morning prayer at its latest, just before sunrise. Later on that also shall become unduly difficult; then morning prayer time will be extended to after sunrise without blame. At still higher altitudes only the noon prayer may remain fixed: just after the sun moves west from the top of the sky and all other prayers by calculating reasonable times despite the never setting sun.

 

Not that our imams even from early times did not say what or something like what I said. They were aware of almost all the climactic conditions over the globe and had considered them. The trouble has not been with them but us. Unreasonable prayer and fasting times still are tabled today and adherence to them urged to say the least. Likewise some love to make wiping over the socks as an alternative to washing them at each wudhu, defining socks or footwear as almost rock hard stuff one would not almost wear even for walking in the street for they would be too oppressive.

This tendency and habit to think too grimly about the Sharia and make things tormentful rather than easy and cheerful despite the proper solemnity is the mark of rather perverted and slightly sadistic minds which seek for an outlet for their grim instincts in the holy and therefore imposing institution or religion. Catholicism is the carrier of this tradition in Christianity and they are somewhat paralleled among Muslims by too strictly and grimly thinking Muslims who thankfully have not been able to organise themselves like an imposing and persecuting church (don’t worry, ‘church’ means a jama’ah, especially an organised one) into a sect except in a few places you may guess and name. Fanaticism is the inevitable footprint of the Satan in all religions; no fanatic can be a good man despite all his pretence and vehemence.

 

I do not expect to make much impression on those thinking differently from me and not even the general Muslim public at large. Habits and prejudices die hard if at all. The first and if it comes to that the only thing I pray for is that Allah forgives me for all errors I may have made in what I said and guide me and all my brothers and sisters in Islam to better understanding of more correct and fuller knowledge of Islam. Amen.

 

A NECESSARY EPILOGUE

 

The relation between Law (Sharia) and Spirit (Ruh) of religion have always been compared, contrasted and a formulation of it discussed.

 

Before we go deeper into this let us remind ourselves what these two concepts mean and involve and in what way their relationship is important to understand and observe.

(Religious) Law means the commands and prohibitions a religion as stated in its sacred writings as expanded upon and complemented by the jurists following the religion concerned. As far as the three so-called ‘Semitic religions’ (Judaism, Christianity and Islam- in historical order) are concerned this relation boils down to the relation between the ‘letter’ (wording) of the Law and its spirit, i.e., what the Law-giver, namely the revealing Creator revealing through His prophets actually is aiming at in His guidance and improvement of His believers.

 

If we are to follow this subject in its historical order, we must begin with Judaism.

Although some serious law appear in the earlier books of the Old Testament, i.e. before the Torah (Pentateuch as identified by Judeo-Christian scholars) the Torah is universally regarded the first systematic and thorough attempt in the Bible at some explicit and codified legislation. Its crux is the ‘Ten Commandments’ and its extensions and expansions arrived as the legislative statements of later prophets and far more importantly the rulings by the Jewish religious scholars. Over time its volume attained great numbers of massive tomes whose subjects included a lot of Jewish religious folklore and ethical philosophy. The main result has been the Talmud which came down in two alternative versions, the Babylonian and the Palestinian and minus the folklore and the myth they look rather like our greater fiqh books but in a looser format. Many realistic as well as hypothetical situations are posited and analysed and judgments on them are made. It is not impossible that the Jewish legalistic ethos and methodology influenced the Islamic parallel to the influence of the Roman Law on Islamic fiqh. This is no shame of blame: the Prophet encouraged us to adopt anything we find good and wise in the lores and practices of others anytime anywhere (He said “Wisdom is the lost property of a Muslim; wherever he finds it he may pick it up) and he himself is said to have followed the Jewish Law on matters about which Allah had not until then revealed something.  Apparently the most glaring example of this is the injunction of ‘rajm’, i.e., stoning to death of a married adulterer. This did not came in the Qur’an and under popular pressure (apparently his Arab believers had found the Qur’anic anti- adultery sanction of a hundred lashes in public too lenient for their taste) and after some hesitation the Prophet had to go along with the demand albeit with a heavy heart. He never really enjoyed it and several reports describe him as trying his best to avoid it by means like dissuading a confessor to adultery from confessing it in public or suggest to him to play down the seriousness of the event and instead go away and offer a very private repentance to Allah and hope that Allah would not expose him or her in the Hereafter because He had not exposed him o her down here. In fact in all cases of private sin the Prophet advised keeping it secret and repent in private. That was not all: Although the chopping of a hand for theft came down in the Qur’an both the Prophet and his rightly-guided caliphs tended to avoid its implementation thereby insinuation that the letter and the spirit of such drastic penal laws were not harmony and synergy. The letter we designed to strongly deter, the spirit though was to save by compassionately structured threats.

 

Thankfully, as Islam grew into a world civilisation sultans and caliphs implemented such terrible punishments less and less until for all practical intents and purposes they became almost suspended. It is said that during both the Abbasid and Ottoman rules the number of stonings to death for adultery and chopping of a hand for theft did not add up to a few hundred while the number of actual offences calling for them were as high as at any age. What do we want, the great Umar the second rightly guided caliph felt the need to curb the practice of hand choppings not only by introducing stricter criteria (like a substantial minimum value of the item stolen) explaining that Islam was spreading too fast and newcomers could not be expected to learn and practice it as born or old Muslims and also that the last thing a militarily fast conquering nation could afford was crippling large numbers of their men who could otherwise serve in the armies.

 

What was the Prophet doing? What was the rightly-guided caliphs doing? Why, they were laying aside the LETTER of the Law and employing the SPIRIT of the LAW.

 

There was nothing new in this: Our master Jesus Christ the Messenger of Allah to the children of Israel was doing similarly. An adulterous woman sought refuge in him from the mob trying to catch and stone her to death. Cowed by the majesty of a Messenger of Allah they asked for the Judgment of Jesus who issued an ingenuous fatwa: Yes, the punishment for adultery is stoning to death- let then the one who never sinned in his life throw the first stone! The mob was confounded and did not dare; they melted away. In the end Jesus said to the woman “Go away and sin no more”.

 

Having revealed and made plain all above I still know that among us perhaps a great majority of practicing Muslims think like the legalistic Jews and no matter what the actual intentions of Allah and His Messenger are behind the laws of Islam crave for the implementation of all drastic forms of punishments to the full effect of the letter of the laws concerned. This is exactly the schism behind the spit of legalistic, literalist Islam from spiritualistic understanding of it which is Tasawwuf.

 

All above do no mean that drastic punishment should never be implemented. It just means that they should be very sparingly and judiciously implemented in the worst cases where waiving will be more deleterious to public interest than their implementation no matter what. As such both the Prophet and the rightly-guided caliphs occasionally though with great sadness allowed them to go ahead.

 

But there may be more to it than that. To discover what that may be we must again refer to the spirit of the law consideration. For one thing we know that Allah did not include the ‘rajm’ sentence into His Book which is His Eternal Gift of Guidance to us. There can be doubt even in the most reputed hadith but not in the Qur’an. Not that the doubt about rajm hadiths is strong. But strong also are the report that the Prophet tried to avoid its implementation almost desperately in each case which gives a definite and definitive indication that the SPIRIT of the Sharia (Law) is not so much for implementation but deterrence and also that encouraging the confessors to retract, conceal and repent in private is almost a COMMAND of the Prophet and therefore must certainly enjoy the tacit approval of Allah because the Prophet’s sacred heart is inspired by the Lord of Loving Mercy (Rahmat) of Allah and it is for that reason that Allah names him ‘Rahmatan lil-alameen’ (meant as loving mercy to all mankind and to all creation). Of course we are aware that some people cannot have enough of their grim feelings, attitudes and an appetite for gory spectacles- they get an almost exhilarating sick pleasure and satisfaction to see people caught, condemned and painfully destroyed for any sexual sins. We are not like that. Of course such characters may quote the verse about lashing with a hundred lashes where the phrase “If you are believing in Allah and the Last Day do not let tenderness possess you in the matter of (the application) Allah’s Law” (24: 3). But a bit more insight again reveals the spirit of Allah’s Law in contradistinction to its letter: The punishment in verse about is not stone-lynching but a hundred lashes in public which other old laws regard very light and reserve for light offences like shoplifting or affray. Despite this lightness Allah observes that we may be moved by mercy and try to avoid even such far too less punishments. This can only be compliment to true believing Muslim compassion. If Allah’s beloved Muslims are subject to such feelings of leniency about even lighter bodily punishments how more glorious of them to loathe a public lynching of a member of their brotherhood. That must be exact reason (i.e. being overwhelmed by mercy) why the Prophet tried his desperate best to dissuade several confessors to adultery to keep theit mouths shut, move away and repent in private in the hope that Allah could well forgive it entirely.

 

Lastly, there is a judgment that “amir al mu’mineen”, i.e, the ruler (and therefore government) of Muslims can suspend or limit ‘hadd’ (bodily) punishments for various reasons as in the case of Umar tightening up criteria for hand chopping for theft.

In the modern world where all eyes are on Muslims and critically so, I humbly believe that our governments may suspend hadd punishments and replace them with less degrading and bloodless alternatives. They may base this suspension on at least two textual proofs.

One is the right of the victim or the family of the victim to forgive his oppressor with or without compensation as a lighter restitution of the victim’s rights. Because we basically moved or have been moving towards for a long time now from a clan and tribe society to national societies each sovereign Muslim nation may opt for lenient alternatives to hadd punishments. Don’t we see how Allah encourages such forgiveness and promises great rewards to the forgivers when He says “Life for life, eye for eye, nose for nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth and wounds retaliation. Whoever forgives (or vaiwes his right against his offender) then this provides an expiation of (own) sins.  Whoever does not judge by what Allah sent down are the wrongdoers” (5: 45). Surely the judging by what Allah sent down fully includes the alternative of forgiving the offender with financial compensation accepted in lieu if so wished. The government can always add a prison term or other harsh sentence to enhance the deterrence element in the treatment of the offenders.

 

Again, I may be wrong as all jurists and judges may be: only Allah is never wrong.

In the light of all above I humbly believe that Islam in modern times may both be better promoted abroad and graced at home by shifting emphasis towards the educational and the spiritual in Islam and reasonably away from penal and especially the bloody, gory and too hot too passionate kind. This needs a far more maturation and refinement in Muslims which traditional madrassa ethos and culture often singularly and appreciably lack. Often our madrassa ethos is one of too strict conservatism of late Medieval (and never like Prophetic era) kind, more like Christian monastic and seminary models than the Prophet’s Mosque or Ali’s or Abu Hanifa’s or Malik’s circle models.  Only some (some) Sufi influenced learning circles retain that early easy-going, informal and essentially cheerful ethos in which moral ennoblement and spiritual advancement and refinement go hand in hand with scholarly learning.