Actually this year was more confusing because Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) decided that it would go by calculations instead of actual moon sighting. However, they were sensible enough to put a disclaimer along with their announcement. It read as follows:

“The Fiqh Council of North America (FCNA) is encouraging all Muslims throughout North America to consider using the methodology of calculations for the sake of unity and to avoid the confusion and disputes that have occurred in the past. However, the Fiqh Council does not, and does not intend to, force its decision on anyone or on any Muslim community. You should follow the decision of your Imam and your Masjid. Moreover, you should do so with great respect and avoiding unnecessary disputes and arguments.”

I quote this statement to point out the inherent dilemma. There seems to be a conflict between unity and uniformity here. Unfortunately, moon sighting has involved political maneuvering and factional rivalries in the past. Given the political sensitivities and schism between rival “factions” involved it is not surprising that my local Masjid, like so many in the U.S. always takes the easy way out. It simply follows Saudi Arabia. However, if you think about it, it becomes obvious that this is not the correct approach. Eid is supposed to be local. If we look at classic Islamic methodology the whole matter is pretty simple and rests only on the Shahada of adults Muslims. There is also some room for error according to a narration by Ibn Abbas. Without going into the full details, that is the domain of Islamic Jurisprudence, suffice it to say that the whole matter of moon sighting is relatively simple or at least not as obtrusive as it seems.

So we decided to swim against the current and follow Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) – they still seemed to follow the old fashioned and time-honored methodology of local moon sighting. Ramadan started well – although we were a little out of synch with our local friends. However, on the night of moon sighting their website stopped working! So we learned the hard way that this approach although ideal is not for the faint-hearted as it raises eyebrows in the local community. Moreover, you also run the risk of missing a chance to socialize and network during Eid – a ritual only a few are willing to forgo.

The problem does not end here though. Seems like I was in for another dilemma – this time at an individual level. I was talking to one of my friends the other day and the conversation drifted to moon sighting in Ramadan. I told him that we were not following our local Masjid as it follows Saudi Arabia. As my reasoning went because the Eid and Ramadan are local therefore it is not correct to do that (i.e., to follow Saudi Arabia in the U.S.). He however, pointed out that it was important to follow local Masjid for the sake of unity. He made a reference to a Hadith in which Muslims are advised to obey their leader even if he is a Fasiq (with the proviso that you do not have any means to remove him from office). That obviously got us both thinking – what is more important local unity or purity of religion (assuming that local moon sighting is the correct way to go). The discussion turned out to be a little more sophisticated (or convoluted depending how you look at it). I felt that we needed more evidence from the Quran and Hadith to solve this riddle. I also realize that there may not be any direct evidence but only derived conclusions.

So there we have it. Like so many conflicts in Islamic theology, moon sighting has a simple practical solution – yet its implementation seems as elusive as reaching the stars.

To start with, it is interesting to note a TIME magazine article [1] that paralleled the publication of a book by the same name a few years ago.[2] The author supposedly did some research and came up with his own conclusions as to how the Muslims determined the patriarchal order in Islam. Here is what he wrote:

“No faith is as self-consciously monotheistic as Islam, and its embrace of Abraham is correspondingly joyful. If many Jews know him best as a dynastic grandfather whose grandson Jacob actually founds the nation of Israel, Muslims regard him as one of the four most important prophets. So pure is his submission to the One God that Muhammad later says his own message is but a restoration of Abrahamic faith. The Koran includes scenes from Abraham’s childhood in which he chides his father for believing in idols and survives, Daniel-like, in a fiery furnace to which he is condemned for his fealty to Allah. And in the Koranic version of Abraham’s ultimate test, Abraham tells his son of God’s command, and the boy replies, “O my father! Do that which thou art commanded. Allah willing, thou shalt find me of the steadfast.” Notes the Koran approvingly: “They had both surrendered,” using the verb whose noun form is the word Islam. For passing such trials, Allah tells Abraham, “Lo, I have appointed thee a leader for mankind!”
But not as a Jew. Somewhat like Paul, Islam concluded that God chooses his people on grounds of commitment rather than lineage, meaning that Abraham’s only true followers are true believers–i.e., Muslims. Moreover, if Allah ever had a pact with the Jews as a race, they backslid out of it in episodes such as the worship of the golden calf in the Torah’s book of Exodus. Indeed, the Koran advises Muslims proselytized by either Jews or Christians to answer, “Nay… (we follow) the religion of Abraham.”

Then there is the matter of Isaac and Ishmael. Unlike the Torah, the Koran does not specify which son God tells Abraham to sacrifice. Muslim interpreters a generation after Muhammad concluded that the prophet was descended from the slave woman Hagar’s boy, Ishmael. Later scholarly opinion determined that Ishmael was also the son who went under the knife. The decision effectively completed the Jewish disenfranchisement. Not only was their genealogical claim void, but their forefather lost his role in the great drama of surrender.”

However, if one goes to the source considered most authentic by Muslims theologians i.e. the Koran we find out that Chapter 37 has this to say. (We join the scene when Abraham is commanded by his Lord to sacrifice his son. The Koran does not name which son it was):

“37.101″: So We gave him the good news of a boy, possessing forbearance.
“37.102″: And when he attained to working with him, he said: O my son! surely I have seen in a dream that I should sacrifice you; consider then what you see. He said: O my father! do what you are commanded; if Allah please, you will find me of the patient ones.
“37.103″: So when they both submitted and he threw him down upon his forehead,
“37.104″: And We called out to him saying: O Ibrahim!
“37.105″: You have indeed shown the truth of the vision; surely thus do We reward the doers of good:
“37.106″: Most surely this is a manifest trial.
“37.107″: And We ransomed him with a Feat sacrifice.
“37.108″: And We perpetuated (praise) to him among the later generations.
“37.109″: Peace be on Ibrahim.
“37.110″: Thus do We reward the doers of good.
“37.111″: Surely he was one of Our believing servants.

Thus after having passed the test the Lord gives him tidings of another son (not born yet) as follows:
“37.112″: And We gave him the good news of Ishaq, a prophet among the good ones.
“37.113″: And We showered Our blessings on him and on Ishaq; and of their offspring are the doers of good, and (also) those who are clearly unjust to their own souls.

After applying some basic logic it is not hard to decipher that Ishmael was the son who was offered for sacrifice by his father Abraham and not Isaac. This is what the Muslims believe.
An important point to note here is that as a non-Muslim or as an atheist you could easily question the veracity of the Koranic claim. However, that is not the point being argued here. What is at stake here is the claim the Muslims somehow altered their beliefs later on to proclaim Ishmael as the son who was offered for sacrifice as is implied in the TIME article.
One of my friends quoted Ibn Kathir in his article as follows:[3]

“The famous 13th century Muslim scholar Ibn Kathir in his famous book “Stories of the Prophets” is of the opinion that biblical account of naming Isaac was tempered with at the hands of some Jewish scribes. He further elaborates his point by saying, “The only thing which could have incited them to tamper with this is their jealousy with Arabs. Ishmael is the father of Arabs who lived in the area of Hijaz, from which our Prophet (Mohammad) (PBUH) came. Isaac is the father of Jacob, who was called Israel, to whom they relate to. They wanted to take away this honor from Arabs, and so they tempered with the Book of God with omissions and additions? (p153).”

This is a statement well known in Muslim theological circles. Again, what sources Ibn Kathir and others base their comments on is not clear. In the end there are two things to note. First, and foremost Muslim theologians did not declare Ishmael as their patriarch as an after thought out of spite for Isaac. It was part of their belief system the moment Koran was revealed. Secondly, what story you ultimately believe in depends on you original faith as is the case with most of religious arguments.

References
———————————————————————-
[1]David Van Biema, “The Legacy of Abraham,” 09/30/2002, Time.com, http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,1003355,00.html (accessed January 22, 2006).
[2]Bruce Feiler, Abraham: A Journey to the Heart of Three Faiths, 1st ed. (n.p.: Harper Perennial, 2/1/2004).
[3]Mohiuddin Waseem, “Eid-ul-Adha: The Moral Lesson,” The Article Club, http://liveink.org/articleclub/articles/29/1/Eid-ul-Adha%3A-The-Moral-Lesson (accessed January 22, 2006).

In the era of communist Soviet Union, atheism became a pre-requisite of socialism, which itself became synonymous with Soviet style communism. This, I believe, was brought about by a concerted effort by the United States and its allies to equate socialism to godlessness2 and to the communist regime in Russia. Though how in the World anybody can associate Stalinism, with all its horrors, to be a regime of, for and by the working people is beyond me. This is precisely the reason that I do not hold in high esteem those socialists who defend Stalin and his policies. In my opinion, they are extremists; for extremists can be religious, secular or socialists. If Faiz belonged to that group of people then one cannot possibly support his political tendencies. But that of course does not detract from his status as, arguably, the best poet Urdu has seen to date. Clearly, the passion he felt for the “people” was genuine and the legacy he left will make sure that the pain he felt will be shared by the future generations.

Now on to how socialism (also known as workers’ rights or simply people’s rights) has been understood since well before the time that the Bolsheviks hijacked the workers’ revolution in Russia3 and turned it into one of the ugliest episodes in human history. Socialism is about drawing the boundary below which no human being should be allowed to slip. Socialism is not necessarily anti-rich, or against private ownership. It argues that every human being has some fundamental rights and it is the duty of society to provide these basic rights.4 So, why is implementing a principle, which seems so innocuous, so self-evident, is so difficult to achieve in the real World? Why do abject poverty and hunger exist right next to all the opulence? Why doesn’t society5 step in and to save the hungry, the ill and the dispossessed, when it clearly possesses the means to do so?

The answer lies in the power structure.6 The US constitution was setup by landowning White males to safeguard their interests. Did the founding fathers intend to give equal rights to the American Indian, the Black slave or even to the working White? No, no and no – the American system is designed to make sure that the interests of the upper class are defended by legislation (only rich people can get elected in Congress) and by the judicial process.7 In Pakistan, a far more blatant and insidious process is still at work. The large landowners keep their subjects in virtual bondage. These workers can never possibly get elected to even the kangaroo assemblies and courts of Pakistan. In the grips of this relentless system, should the “people” demand their rights? If the system is biased to the extent that justice is impossible, should the people take matters into their own hands? Do national interests and patriotic pride mean anything if one’s child is starving?

I’ll end by quoting a verse from the poet Shelley:
Rise like Lions after slumber
In unvanquishable number -
Shake your chains to earth like dew
Which in sleep had fallen on you -
Ye are many – they are few.
________________________________

References and notes:

1 Friedrich Nietzsche, A Genealogy of Morals.
2 The phrase “One nation, under God” was added to the pledge of allegiance in that era.
3 Noam Chomsky, The Indispensable Chomsky.
4 It is irrelevant to this argument as to what these rights should be.
5 The word government would be a natural extrapolation of “society” but I prefer to use the more general term.
6 I will use the United States and Pakistan as examples – as these are the countries with which I am most familiar.
7 Among others see Howard Zinn’s “Peoples’ History of the United States”.