On Living with Others: Islamic Values of Diversity by Muis Academy

ON LIVING WITH OTHERS: ISLAMIC VALUES OF DIVERSITY Jonathan Brown

The Muis Occasional Papers Series

THE MUIS ACADEMY OCCASIONAL PAPERS SERIES Represents individual lectures delivered by scholars who were invited under the Muis Visiting Scholars Programme. The aim of this series is to shape the local discourses on Islam and the Singapore Muslim Identity.

ON LIVING WITH OTHERS: ISLAMIC VALUES OF DIVERSITY Jonathan Brown

Muis Academy The Occasional Paper Series Paper No. 15

Other Titles in the Series: 1. Muslims in Secular States: Between Isolationists and Participants in the West by Abdullah Saeed 2. Contemporary Islamic Intellectual History: A Theoretical Perspective by Ibrahim M. Abu-Rabi’ 3. Islamic Law and Muslim Minorities by Khaled Abou El Fadl 4. Religious Values in Plural Societies by Chandra Muzaffar 5. Islam in Southeast Asia: Between Tolerance and Radicalism by Azyumardi Azra 6. A Framework for Nonviolence and Peacebuilding in Islam by Mohammed Abu-Nimer 7. Civic Responsibility in Political Society: An Islamic Paradigm by Abdulaziz Sachedina 8. The Construction of Gender in Islamic Legal Thought and Strategies for Reform by Ziba Mir-Hosseini 9. Basis for Interfaith Dialogue: Prospects and Challenges by Mahmoud M. Ayoub 10. Sharīʿah, Ethical Goals and the Modern Society by Jasser Auda 11. Religious Extremism, Islamophobia and Reactive Co-Radicalization by Douglas Pratt 12. Morality in the Public Sphere: Islamic Ethics and the Common Good by Ebrahim Moosa 13. Islam and Humanistic Relations in Multi-Religious Societies by Maszlee Malik 14. Reviving Beauty, Criticality and Creativity in Islamic Thought by Hamza Yusuf

Copyright © 2017 Muis Academy, Singapore Published by Muis Academy, Singapore Designed and Printed by HoBee Print The following is an edited transcript of a Public Lecture on ‘Islam and Diversity: Lessons from Muhammad’s Compassionate Life’ delivered at Muis Auditorium on 27 July 2017. The views represented here do not necessarily reflect the views of Muis Academy, the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (MUIS), or its partners. ISBN: 978-981-11-5650-2

ON LIVING WITH OTHERS: ISLAMIC VALUES OF DIVERSITY Jonathan Brown

INTRODUCTION There is a fascinating little book called The Xenophobe’s Guide to Americans. One line in the book said, aptly, “Americans are convinced that the world cannot possibly function without their presence.” Which I took to mean that Americans are always assuming that people want them to offer advice. And although I am American, I have travelled enough and have been humbled enough by others to realise that my advice is not always wanted and it is often not very good. However, the fact before us is that I have been invited to share on the Islamic values of Diversity, from the lens of Muhammad’s compassionate life. You might wonder why I have started out talking about advice when the topic is a historical one. Before I studied Arabic, I studied Russian. During the Soviet times, there was a saying, “Russia has an unpredictable past.” 1 And this is true for the past in general, everywhere. The past is unpredictable not because it is not set or cannot be known; it is unpredictable because it is a vast, boundless sea of diversity from which any image can be conjured, any picture painted. To quote one of my favorite movies, Big Trouble in Little China, it is like “your American salad bar.” When we speak about the past, we are making choices and we make those choices with something specific in mind. When we speak about the past, we are invoking it. We are using it as an argument for the present and for how the future should be shaped. So it is best to be honest about what we are doing and best to be honest about what I too am doing. I am an American Muslim so I will speak as an American Muslim about the past with an eye to my own country. You may then select what is relevant and useful for yourself.

THE PROPHET MUHAMMAD’S COMPASSIONATE LIFE Based on personal reflection, compassion is in short supply in the United States today. And in no place more so than in politics. Almost every one of us - probably within the last month, has said to himself, “Oh, so-and-so wants my help. No way, I’m not going to help them after what they did to me.” We are frequently tempted to indulge such self-righteousness and vindictiveness because it seems like we are justified. In fact, we often are actually justified. If someone has insulted you or wronged you, really, then why should you talk to them, treat them politely or offer them aid if they ask for it? But we do not expect that from our leaders, because they are supposed to transcend personal grievances and be responsible for something bigger and greater than themselves.

У России непредсказуемое прошлое. 2

And this is what we see in the example of our beloved Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). We find that instead of anger at insults, he reacted with forbearance or care. Instead of outrage at egregious misconduct towards him personally, we see that he reacted by educating. As a leader, he always calculated not just the principled reality of his actions but also how they would be perceived and he realised that this perception could matter much more than his own pride or personal standing. He also understood that personal compassion cannot block a leader from guaranteeing justice and protecting those rights of those he or she leads. Having taught many hours of classes and spoke to and heard from many Singaporean students and scholars about matters of law, this is so often what Muslims speak of, because we believe that God gave us a law to help guide us, and also because in a world in which communal morals and traditions are fragmenting all around us, for Muslims and non-Muslims alike, law is often only the austere and rigid language of law that survives to order our relationships. I am fascinated by the Muis Academy’s theme for this year, which discusses religion in a de-globalising world – this is insightful. But as Aristotle observed long ago, logic, law and arguments rarely convince anyone. It is more often ‘who a person is’ - ethos - or ‘how they make you feel’ - pathos - that convinces you. So the Qurʾān taught Muslims that as they argued against the pagans, the pagan ways of the Arabs around them, “Do not curse those who call upon, [who invoke, who worship] other than God because they might curse God, [they might curse Allah (glorified and exalted be He] out of enmity and without knowledge.” (Qurʾān 6:108) In a ḥadīth in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, we hear the words of Ṣafwān ibn Umayyah - one of the staunchest enemies of Islam from the Meccan elites who fought the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) until the bitter end. Instead of punishing the defeated leaders of the Meccan enemy, the Prophet gave them back their standing and won them over as loyal Muslims. Ṣafwān recalls that whereas once the Prophet had been the most hated person to him, he soon became “the most beloved person to me” (aḥab al-nās ilyyah). 2 In a world in which we see so much wrong around us and so much ignorance, our justified and completely understandable outrage can lead us to forget that in our interactions with others, it is almost always better to educate than to punish. I think one of my favourite incidents in the life of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) is the story of the Bedouin who ‘misused’ the mosque of the Prophet. This ḥadīth is very well attested, it appears in many ḥadīth collections. 2

Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim: kitāb al-faḍā’il. 3

A Bedouin comes into the Prophet’s mosque in Madinah, where the Prophet and some of his companions are sitting. He offers a two-prostrations prayer - so he is already a Muslim. Maybe not very well educated. And he says aloud “Oh God, have mercy on me, have mercy on Muhammad and nobody else.” The Prophet laughs and he says “You have made narrow what is wide,” namely the mercy of God. Then, the Bedouin gets up and starts urinating at the side of the mosque. The Companions are outraged, screaming at the man. But the Prophet calms them, “We have been sent to bring ease, not hardship,” he says. Then the Prophet tells them, “Let him finish.”3 Then he calls the Bedouin over and says, “This mosque is not for urinating. Rather, it was built for the remembrance of God and for prayer.” Then, the Prophet calls for water to be poured on the spot to clean the urine. After the Bedouin understood all this, he tells Abu Hurayra who narrated the ḥadīth, “By my father and mother, he did not scold or curse [me].” 4 So instead of anger, the Prophet chose to educate an ignorant person and he won his immense respect and loyalty.

Self-Restraint It was not always easy for the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) to transcend the personal reactions that all human beings have. Another ḥadīth in Bukhari, describes that after the Prophet had proportioned out the spoils of a battle, one man complained to his friends privately, “This apportioning was not done seeking the pleasure of God.” When someone narrated the man’s words to the Prophet, the narrator of the ḥadīth says “He grew angry such that I could see anger in his face, then he said “May God bestow mercy on Moses for he was afflicted by worse than this and he was patient in adversity.” 5 So the Prophet is so angry that another man privately said that the Prophet had not divided things justly. But what he did is he immediately remembers the example of Moses (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and how he had been afflicted and tried by even worse from his community and he had forbearance (ṣabr).

Justice But we must not forget that compassion can be harmful and destructive if it undermines justice. Compassion that is unevenly and arbitrarily handed out becomes injustice and breeds resentment. So the Prophet famously said that even if his own daughter, Fatima were caught stealing, he would punish her for theft. And when people in positions of authority react, they often do so in their official capacity, not out of personal grievance. So when the Prophet was adjudicating a dispute over water distribution between Zubayr al-ʿAwwām, an early Muslim convert and another Muslim, and he 3

Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim: kitāb al-ṭahāra. Sunan of Ibn Mājah: kitāb al-ṭahāra. 5 Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī: kitāb al-daʿāwāt. 4

ruled in favour of Zubayr al-ʿAwwām, who was also a distant relative of his, the other man accused the Prophet of nepotism. The Prophet responded by increasing the amount of water he had awarded to Zubayr. 6 He did this, I think, not out of anger but because the man had called into question the Prophet’s basic commitment to justice in judgment, in his capacity as a judge and he had done so publicly.

Thoughtful Leadership And sometimes, it is not compassion but a subtle understanding of the larger pieces in motion that led the Prophet to be merciful or punitive. It was the committed efforts of Kaʿab ibn Ashraf to recruit people to go and fight the Muslims during the war with the Meccans that led the Prophet to order a mission to have Kaʿab ibn Ashraf killed. 7 And when the Prophet decided not to punish an errant sorcerer who had tried to cast a spell on him, and when he decided not to punish a group of hypocrites in Madinah who were trying to undermine his leadership in the city, it was because the Prophet did not want to stir up further inter-tribal animosity or for people to say that Muhammad killed his companions. 8 So he was aware of what the image would be, and what that would mean for the capacity to maintain the tribal alliance he was leading both inside and outside Madinah that he did not punish people who were attacking him and insulting him and undermining him. There is sadly, as far as I can see, little on the horizon that suggests that we Muslims will not be confronted by even more ignorance about our religion, by even more misguided and unjust hatred towards our community and will be confronted with plenty of chances to act on our quite understandable rage. But we should remember the example of our Prophet (peace and blessing of Allah be upon him). Like him, this transcends the personal. To draw on American relationship jargon, “It’s not about you, it’s not about me.” We have a mission to educate and enlighten others and we cannot do so with books and facts and arguments alone. We need to take the higher path. We need to inspire people and draw them in with compassion and the desire to educate. Inclusive Leadership I want to leave you with one final example from the life of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). The realisation that one is serving a cause greater than his/her own pride or a cause greater than getting his/her own rights, or getting justice, entails something else very important. It entails working with others who share the same objective, however you or I or we Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī: kitāb al-musāqā. Ibn Ḥajar, Fatḥ al-Bārī sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, ed. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz Bin Bāz and Muḥammad Fu’ād ʿAbd alBāqī, 16 vols. (Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya, 1997), 7:429. 8 Ibn Ḥajar, Fatḥ al-Bārī, 10:290; Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim: kitāb al-birr wa’l-ṣila, bāb naṣr al-akh ẓāliman aw maẓlūman. 6 7

disagree with them, and however valid the causes for that disagreement is. When negotiating the Treaty of Ḥudaybīah, the companions of the Prophet asked him what concessions he would make with the enemies of Islam. Now, during the lengthy war between the Muslims of Madinah and the Meccan enemies of Islam, in Mecca, at a certain point, they signed a treaty for a period of 10 years, which would allow Muslims to go and perform the pilgrimage in Mecca and there would be other concessions on both sides in order to keep the peace. This is called the Treaty of Ḥudaybīah. The Prophet replied, “They will not ask me for anything that they would use to magnify those sacred things of God, those things revered by God except that I would give them that.” 9 This is the Prophetic style of speech. Translating into English stylistically, “Anything they ask me for, if that thing glorifies God, I will give it to them.” And in discussing this ḥadīth, I like to draw on one scholar who people do not quote a lot or at least not in some parts of the world, Muhammad Ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb (1703 – 1792), the central Arabian scholar founder of what is sometimes known as the Wahabbi movement. The reasons why I like to use him in discussing this ḥadīth is because if you like him, you will accept what I am saying. And if you do not like him, you cannot accuse him of being a liberal Sufi who is trying to promote a soft, modern Islam. So this is Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahab speaking now, I’m going to quote him. “Polytheists and people of open sin, if they seek a matter by which they will magnify those things revered by God, they should be acceded to on that, even if they refuse other things. So they are to be assisted in magnifying that which includes things revered by God, but not in their unbelief or rebellion… For whoever seeks aid in something beloved of God most high should be granted that whoever they may be, as long as there is not built upon that beloved thing something hated by God that is greater than it. And this is among the most delicate of subjects and the most difficult and burdensome for souls.10 What does that mean? He says, “This ḥadīth is evidence that the polytheists, the pagans and those sinful people, if they ask for something in which they are actually glorifying something revered by God, that they should be given that thing. Even if you deny every other thing and even if they deny you other things, give them that thing with which they glorify God.” Do not help them do things that you do not agree with, do not help them do things that are hateful to you, but help them do the things that glorify God. And if someone seeks aid in something that is loved by God, give it to them, help them with that. No matter who they are, sinful or not sinful as long as it is not being used by something that is more hated by God than that thing. So if someone is a sinful person or you totally disagree with them on religious issues, if they say, 9

Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī: kitāb al-shurūṭ, bāb al-shurūṭ fī al-jihād wa’l-muṣālaḥa. Muḥammad Ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb, Mukhtaṣar zād al-miʿād (Cairo: Dār al-Rayyān, 1987), 157. 6

“Help me go and feed the poor person,” you should help them. If someone says, “Help me go and make the city a safer place,” you should help them. If someone says, “Help me go and fight for the right of the oppressed,” you should help them. These are all things that magnify God, things that God reveres, that God loves. Compromise is always tricky and at least in the United States, the questions that face Muslims today and have faced Muslims in the recent past are always questions of compromise. How much are you willing to compromise what you think is right, either in your religion or what you think is politically right or morally right, in order to please some another group? Or in order to join an alliance or in order to have good relationships? And one of the problems that I have found consistently with Muslims in the United States – and it is not that they are not principled, because being principled is relatively easy - you say, “I have a rule and I am going to follow this rule no matter what,” you do not really have to think anymore. You just say “This is what I am going to do, I am not going to do anything else,” This leads to the lack of subtlety. Muslims tend to be pretty good - at least in the United States - on the principle. However, they do not tend to be very good at being smart. Although Muslims in America are very educated. And intelligent, they fail to think intelligently about questions of politics, in terms of people’s interactions with each other, community’s negotiations about distribution of resources, pursuing an objective, building alliances, and evaluating proposals from others and their long term consequences

Critical and Wise Leadership There is a need to think deeply, not just two-dimensionally but three-dimensionally. Thinking not just about ‘right now’ but what this step could lead to in the future, what it is likely to lead to and what it is unlikely to lead to? What I find fascinating about the life of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) is his incredible sophistication about political thinking. And political thinking is not usually principled because it is not necessarily about rigidity in following principles. We can say we want justice, health, reduction in crime, promotion of peace, and promotion of religious liberty - we can all agree on those things. How do you actually get to those things? How do you actually implement policies? How do you make choices between something you really want and something you sort of want? How do you prioritise? These are political choices. How do you fashion relationships? How do you build trust? These are political questions. They are hard. They are not based on principles, they are based on intelligent reflection on human nature and on the nature of your community.

Here are some examples of compromise from the life of the Prophet which fascinate me. With each I will try to offer insights about their application to the American context. Recently, American Muslims were faced with difficult challenges. An Imam was asked to participate by offering supplication (duʿāʾ) in the National Prayer Breakfast which was held after the inauguration of our President Donald Trump. While at the same time, a Muslim woman was one of the leaders of the largest public march in American history, the Women’s March, protesting Donald Trump and what he stood for. Now, how do we reconcile these two positions? It may have been the right thing for the imam to go to that prayer breakfast and do it. I actually do not think it is that big a deal. I mean, we can sit and disagree. Reasonable people can disagree about whether it is the right thing to do or not. What however, I find very problematic was the simplistic explanation offered for the Imam’s participation - and it is always the same thing with American Muslims “Even the Prophet talked to his enemies,” as he did in the Treaty of Ḥudaibiyya. For American Muslims, this example seems to be the answer for everything. The Prophet talked to his enemies, so you can go and do something horrible and sell out something horribly, we just justify that by saying that the Prophet talked to his enemies? Or you can have a very sensible, effective principled discussion with a group and you also use the same excuse? This is unsubtle thinking or the uncritical application of lessons from Muhammad’s compassionate life. Let us critically look at how the Prophet talked to his enemies. Let us look at when he went to Treaty of Ḥudaibiyya, his companions asked him what would you give, what concessions would you make to the enemy and he says, “Anything they want that magnifies those things revered by God, I will give them.” That’s one thing. Another thing from the Treaty of Ḥudaibiyya, is how, when they sat there writing the treaty, Ali ibn Abi Talib, the Prophet’s secretary, wrote “This is between Muhammad, the messenger of God and the leaders of Quraysh” and the leader from Quraysh responded, “No, no no, not messenger of God. We don’t accept that.” One can imagine easily that this would be the biggest possible compromise that could be asked of a Muslim, of the Prophet of God: to drop the assertion that Muhammad is a messenger of God, when this is part of our proclamation of the faith (shahāda). Of course, you would think, we would never compromise on this. But no, the Prophet immediately compromised. Why? Let us think intelligently. His opponents do not think he is a messenger of God. He is not compromising on his claim with those people who do think he is the Messenger, he is compromising with those people who already reject that idea. Why insist on it? It gains nothing in the document, it means nothing to them.

But then let us look at another instance in which the Prophet is offered an alliance towards the end of his career. Musaylimah from the Hanif, Bani Hanifa tribe, comes to Madinah and requests to meet the Prophet. The Prophet said, “I will meet him outside the city.” As he listen to Musaylimah’s offer, happens to be holding a long reed in his hand. Musaylima offers to bring his sizable army to the Muslims’ aid. He only request: that the Prophet acknowledge Musaylima as his successor in prophecy after he dies.11 Let us say politically, you could say, “Well, when the time comes, we will ignore this. We will say we are going to do this and when it comes time to, we will just renegade on our agreement. In the meantime, let us take advantage of his manpower, we will use this to help our cause.” However, the Prophet said, “I would not even give you this reed for that demand.” Because now, he is being asked to publicly state that there is going to be a Prophet after him. He would be announcing this to his companions and, more than that, he would be announcing this to the whole world to contradict one of the fundamental principles, something that is axiomatically known as part of our religion, that the last Prophet to come to mankind is the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). Can Muslims compromise on important things? Yes, sometimes. Should Muslims compromise on important things? Yes, sometimes. Should Muslims think in sophisticated way about these issues? Yes, definitely. And we have a great model in the person of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). May Allah bless you with abundant goodness.

Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī: kitāb al-maghāzī

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS Moderator: Thank you very much, Professor Jonathan Brown for giving a succinct talk filled with appropriate examples. And I thought the concluding remark is very apt, very important. The challenge is really - and I can really relate to that statement – it is not about being principled but really about the skills and the wisdom to compromise. And compromise is such a big word. And it takes really a great deal of wisdom and insight. Obviously, Prophet Muhammad is the wisest person on earth, we believe, and he was able to do that. Q: Salām ʿalaykum. Thank you very much Professor Brown for your very insightful sharing session. My name is Huda, I am from the Middle East Institute of Singapore. My question is about what we face as Muslims in Singapore. We have been advised time and again to not be concerned about things that happen overseas because fortunately, we, Muslims here, are safe, we can practice our religion freely. So there is a dilemma in the sense that we are supposed to be compassionate human beings like the Prophet was [towards all people], so is there any sort of ḥadīth or examples that we can follow [to help us reconcile this dilemma] ? Or what advice you can give us, for the Muslims here?

A: There is an Arabic saying that goes “Guests should be quiet.” And what I mean by that is I do not know enough about Singapore, I do not know about life in Singapore to sit and tell you how you should react to these kinds of questions. What I would say is that [there is a need to think deliberately and critically] about these incredibly complicated, intricate, localised issues that are so far below the level of principle. We can sit and agree that you should care about other people. You should try and stop [the] suffering [of other people]. You should try and do justice. But how are you actually going to carry it out if you were a small country like Singapore? How do you help people overseas? What is the best way to do that? What kind of support could you offer? Sometimes, for example in the United States, as a public intellectual I will talk about issues that the American Government and the American citizens have real capacity to influence. Otherwise, I do not really talk about other things too much because it is not useful. But sometimes, you can be helpful by just letting someone out there know that you care. Sometimes, even if you cannot do anything, just writing a statement on Facebook, that we are thinking about these people who are suffering. I mean, yes, it does not help them directly but sometimes this is what people really care about.

But it is hard to know how you can help abroad. This is something that we do in the United States. Our country does a lot of harm than good, we do help to an extent, but then a lot of harm is also done. And so for Americans, it is relatively easy. Our job is to try and do our best to convince people not to support a certain policy that may result in sending bombs here or there. Other countries have a much different role in the world and I do not know exactly what the best way for a Singaporean to aid other people is. Q: [Moderator asks] Is there any particular ḥadīth pertaining to that? A: No, not that I know of, but then again, I’m a Professor, I’m not a specialized scholar at al-Azhar, I mean some people memorise hundreds and thousands of ḥadīth. I just want to say, sometimes I think we look to the wrong place. So if there is a question of how do I deal with, let us say, this neighbourhood council meeting about whether or not we are going to get a certain kind of storm drain or something. There is not going to be a ḥadīth that has that information. This is the example in the United States, so this is a great example, it happened just today. For the past several years, the group that has consistently supported Muslims and the rights of Muslims to be included, to not be discriminated against, to not suffer under law enforcement has been gay rights groups. Consistently. A lot of Muslims are really uncomfortable with that. They are not comfortable with working with these groups, for obvious reasons. Now, the Trump administration seems like it is going to start reintroducing discrimination laws against gays and transsexuals and LGBT groups, right? What are Muslims going to do? You can uncritically give the model answer enjoin good and forbid evil. So you will say clearly, “That is my principle and this is easy and this is evil (munkar) so I am never going to help these people.” Alternatively, we could think deeper about the matter - what is it that they really want? Do they want me to affirm what their lifestyle or do they want me to support them not to be discriminated against? I also do not want to be discriminated against. And the people who think that they are monsters also think I am a monster. So we have a common cause, we have common objectives. They do not ask me to agree with what they do, I do not ask them to believe in my religion. We are like people in a lifeboat who need to row and I’m not going to say, “I’m not going to row because you’re gay,” They’re not going to say “I’m not going to row because you’re Muslim.” So this is a perfect example, this just happened today. Muslims are now going to be in a position in the United States to ask themselves this question. We are going to be asked: Who are you going to support? Us (LGBT groups) against the administration? And this is going to be a big debate, no doubt, amongst

American Muslims.

Q: Salām ʿalaykum. Norman Salam from the School of International Studies. Regarding your quote on Aristotle that says that people are more convinced not by logic and by emotion. My question is that, for example, you write for the Yaqeen Institute, I’m very proud of that, because it (your article) is really long and it is a really good read. And a lot of people should ideally read these sort of articles to get the truth out. But the problem is no one is going to read, because a lot of people do not take the time out to read such long articles, right? And how do we even try to inform the public - for example, in the age where Islamophobes generally put out a lot of misinformation against Islam and it is all over the Internet and stuff like that considering the Prophet’s life, because he said that he was blessed with comprehensive speech, how do we balance between bringing out logical things but at the same time not making it so long and boring that people don’t like what you’re saying? A: Obviously I think argumentation still works and I think it remains important. It works for some people and it is important to have because, let us say there are 200 people in this room, okay? Now, say 15 of them can understand an argument and are convinced by it. Those 15 people might have a lot of friends and of those people, some of them might be a lot better at personal communication than I am, some of them might be really influential imams or teachers or something and they can go and talk to people. The ideas, and the arguments do not get passed on in their exact same form. They get distilled and then they trickle down to a larger group of people. Another thing that we do at Yaqeen is we do these green screen videos. I do not know if they have put them out yet, I have done a bunch of them. It is really hard, you stand in front of this green screen and you have to look really charming and speak clearly and not make any mistakes and they have all sorts of cartoons and stuff happening behind you to take an 8,000 word article and make it into a 30 second video. And then you have these tweet sections and stuff gets tweeted out. So you are completely right, which is that you cannot just create these long form articles and then think it is going to change the world. But that is why when Shaykh Omar Suleiman came and talked to me about joining Yaqeen, he said, “Look, you write really good stuff and no one reads it because you’re an academic. Look, we know how to do search engine optimisation.” After taking up his advice, now my article on honour killing in Islam and my article on ḥudūd in Islam are like number 1, 2 or 3 in Google search if you type “ḥudūd” or “honour killing in Islam”. It takes effort to turn academic arguments into effective viral videos, you are entirely right, that is what is going to actually influence a lot of people. God willingly. Q: Prof, just two short questions. Number one is: In this social media age, people are interpreting ḥadīth and Quranic verses to their own ends. Especially like, even for just now when you quoted two things, for example, the Bedouin who was urinating in the

mosque, some people might just see it as etiquette in the mosque while you go further to talk about etiquette with those who are not informed. Number two is for example, the last example that you gave, like the Prophet said to the non-Muslim, “We do not accept help from non-Muslims.” People may take that as Muslims should not have collaborations with non-Muslims at all. So what is to prevent people from making all sorts of interpretations? That’s the question. My second question is, from your experience, ultimately and putting aside all the prohibitions and politics, how, in your view, can we achieve a compassionate ummah? Is there a mechanism for that? Thank you. A: So you’re entirely right about people using ḥadīth or verses for their own ends or because their own biases. Even in this speech I should have made clear that the Prophet did take aid from non-Muslims and without such negotiation. And so he accepted Ṣafwān ibn Umayyah, whom I mentioned, the Prophet, before Ṣafwān ibn Ummayah became Muslim, the Prophet went before the battle of Ḥunayn and borrowed a lot of armour from him. In fact, that is where we get the ruling on liability for payments, for loans is that he says, “Are you taking this from me?” It is in the Sunan of Abi Dawud. “No, this is a loan, it’s a guarantee, if something happens to these, and I am going to pay you back.” So the Prophet did take help from non-Muslims and there was no such thing as “We do not take help from non-Muslims.” The point is that in the example I gave you, he could have said we do take aid from non-Muslims, in fact I just took some from Ṣafwān ibn Umayyah. But something led him to believe that if he pushed this guy, that he was going to give more. In fact, he was going to give his allegiance to the Muslims. That is what negotiating skills is. But, you are entirely right in saying that these things can be easily misunderstood and that is why when people ask me, “What book of ḥadīth should I read?” I say “None, don’t ever read books of ḥadīth because they will be too confusing for you.” Because you will be taking little particulars, little atoms from a big system and you have to have someone who knows how to explain that system to you. So one of the things that I spend a lot of my time doing is this; there is a project that I am the head of, that is to translate the six books (of ḥadīth) into English. Now, that is not even the hard part. But to write it with commentary to explain controversial things to help fit ḥadīth into a bigger system. And it will be online, God willingly, and people will be able to find it wherever for free. Thank you.

Q: Salām ʿalaykum. I have a question relating to the example that you gave just now about how the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) gave a concession to the enemies and he said that anything that they want that magnifies God, he will concede to. So based on the summary of the lecture, it is like not to be too principled but to know when to compromise at the correct time. But what I am looking for, what I am confused about probably is: What is the compass that we can, in such situations, rely on to guide us to the right direction? Thank you. A: That’s a big question, and I am about to turn 40, God willingly, so I am still young or rather, not a sufficiently wise person yet. But from my understanding of the world and of our religion and these kind of issues is that that’s exactly the type of questions where there is no answer to. There is no compass, there is no rule. There is only reflection, discussion, consultation (shūra), investigation and really kind of instinctively feeling out these issues. And each situation will be different. I mean I see this with American Muslim leaders, some people have really simplistic thinking. It is just a binary, either this or that, to justify anything by saying “Prophet talked to his enemies” or “the Prophet compromised.” They justify anything. Other people are much more refined in their thinking. It is useful for me to give a case for example, in America, the Israel-Palestine issue is very controversial. And so a lot of times, there are efforts to get Muslims to compromise on making statements about Israel-Palestine issue. And I am really firm on this issue, it is not the business of American Muslims to compromise the rights of other people. If Palestinians says they want justice, it is not the business of American Muslims to compromise that. But for example, there was a debate over this major Jewish organisation in the US after the Trump election, which wanted to form a partnership with Muslim organisations to fight anti-Semitism and to fight Islamophobia in America. Now this group is very Zionist, very anti-Palestinian rights, and you could have said, “No, no, working with them is compromising, and it’s unacceptable and they have awful views and look at the things they have said.” And in fact, “Look at the way they have spread Islamophobia in the past,” which is true. But my thinking was, “Wait a second, they said they want to fight against Islamophobia and anti-Semitism, right?” So that is a good cause and if the first thing you could ask from them, through a partnership, is maybe suggest that they should not do anything Islamophobic anymore? And as long as they do not ask you to do something that compromises your principles, then what is wrong with working with this group towards a cause that both of you agree with? The best way to talk about this compass that you are speaking about is not to try and confer the rule or some major rules but it is to really look at a number of situations where you think people have made the right decision and try to understand how

they have looked at it, how they have justified things. How they look at the different aspects and to learn that kind of intelligent way about thinking about complex issues. Q: I am trying to give a case study in Singapore in terms of how this compromise that you’re talking about. Now, this is about hijab for the Muslim woman. For the past two decades, I would say, close to two decades, I think Muslims have been hoping that Muslim women can adorn the hijab in public service as part of the dress code policy. But I think until now, the answer is still “No” from the government as part of a public policy. Now, it comes to a point that there will be a group of Muslims who feel that, “No, this is our right, we have to keep on fighting or requesting the government to actually allow us or allow the Muslim woman to adorn the hijab.” But we also have another group who feel that we do not know when this thing will finally happen, there’s no timeline in terms of how the Muslim will be able to get this opportunity. And so you have those who say that “Let’s not put our resources in terms of really going ahead and keep on insisting but let’s put our resources on something that is more of higher importance for us.” But having made that position, then we will have this group of Muslims who say that “No, that’s not the right position, you are compromising your principles because this is supposed to be something non-negotiable.” Because in a situation where Muslims believe that hijab is compulsory, it is an obligation for the Muslim woman, so how do we compromise here? Q: [Moderator responds] Thank you. And I see that as a tough question for Prof Jonathan Brown because this is a policy issue and Prof may not be apprised of some of the constituent elements for him to make an informed advice. Notwithstanding, when Prof Jonathan gives a response to that, please bear in mind that he does not live here in Singapore, which as he said, he may not have the full picture of the issue to provide an informed advice. But we can still consider that. Inshaʾ Allah. I agree exactly with what Hannan said, not because I’m not trying not to offend anybody but really, these kind of things can really differ based on specific laws. The United States is very different from other countries. So I’ll just talk about this from an American perspective. And of course, let me say from the beginning, I’m a man and I don’t bear any of these consequences. My wife wears hijab and I don’t think I would have the courage to wear hijab if I was a Muslim woman in the United States. Let me just say that. So I’ll offer my thinking from an American perspective. We have the exact same issue. The employer has to accommodate religious observance provided it is not unduly burdensome to the employer. It is a fact in the American legal world, in legal reasoning and in precedent and the current state of the law on this issue. So recently, about a year and a half ago, there was a big victory in a Supreme Court case where a Muslim woman sued Abercrombie & Fitch because they did not hire her

because she wears hijab. And the person basically said, “We’re not hiring you because you wear hijab.” And it is not unduly burdensome for Abercrombie & Fitch to have someone in their store wearing hijab. And now in fact, we’ve got more stores like that, where they have started wearing hijab because now Muslims are cool and because Donald Trump hates them. But I think the core of the question can be applied to a lot of issues which is: Is this a little thing and therefore let us compromise on this little thing and focus on the big things or is this little thing really important so let us not compromise on it? I think it really depends on what that little thing is. And so for example, shaking hands with the opposite sex, this is just my opinion as an American Muslim. There is disagreement especially in the Ḥanbali school of thought, you have opinions on women who are working in the market, and they are able to touch the hands of men. And these were rulings for what were seen as lower-class labour women, not the elite women that was talked about. And now we, basically all, are engaged in commercial life, we all have school and work, we are all like these people now. So on this type of issue, if you have the capacity in your tradition, you have the thinking to make these compromises and you realise how, say in the United States, if you do not shake hands with someone it really confuses them. And in theory, you could say, “Well, this gives me an opportunity to tell them about Islam and explain that I am a Muslim and that we don’t believe in gender-mixing and I can do daʿwah to this person.” But you have to think about this realistically, how often is that going to happen? More likely than not, this person will get offended and would not be interested in giving you time or having you around. So there are other things, for example, “I do not drink alcohol.” “Oh really, you do not drink, why is that?” “Well, I’m Muslim.” If you don’t drink alcohol, it’s not going to disrupt the beginning of a meeting unless you’re at a drunk college meeting. But so then, we go to something like hijab, hijab is required, right? And in addition, you are actually not disturbing anything, you are not disturbing a social interaction. This is a piece of cloth and you have a piece of cloth on your head or you do not have a piece of cloth on your head - I can be really interested in 1960s fashion and wear a kind of Audrey Hepburn turban or something and no one is going to get upset about that. So in this case, really, it is about people asking people to be able to accept the presence of Muslims in the public square, in the US. Then you have to ask yourself the question, what kind of leverage do Muslims have in the US? We are a tiny minority. Let’s say we refuse, “I refuse to work for you if you do not let me wear the hijab.” “Okay, fine,

do not work for me. There is only like 10 of you anyway.” Such protest would not be effective, there is no critical mass to allow us to boycott. So in the United States, it is not an economic force, it is really relying on the freedom of religion and the body of law and the constitutional guarantees for the exercise of religion. Other countries might not have that kind of law but maybe the Muslim population is larger and they can have other influence. “We want to be accommodated because we are an important part of the population.” So I think it (the solution) really depends on where the situation is. Q: Salām ʿalaykum. My name is Abu Bakr as-Sididiq and to put my question in context, I am a young person and would like to know how can Muslim youths exemplify compassion in their daily lives? A: How is a young person able to be compassionate? That’s interesting, the only reason I find where my mind goes to on that issue is that in the US, a lot of young Muslims are kind of gravitating towards the social justice culture. But the idiom is one of outrage. And so you see some young people - instead of being compassionate, instead of being kind of calm about stuff - is that they go from zero to 60 immediately, it’s like 0 to complete outrage on any particular issue. And that really turns many people off, I think. So I think the risk is that young people today they have a lot of noble aims but they get so caught up in this idea, this idiom of outrage, that they forget its limited impact and while it might convince some people it would probably put a lot of other people off. And so that is what I would say, control the temptation to go from 0 to 60 on the outrage meter, and try and cultivate the skills of communication and relationship development. That will be useful not only in the short term but the long term, I think. Q: Salām ʿalaykum. My name is Iman. I just came back from America and was staying in Chicago for a few years. So I can relate to whatever you said about supporting Muslim groups, about Donald Trump being the way he is. And I just want to say, that I could relate to whatever you said because I experienced it myself. I feel for the Muslims there, I agree with you that they need to be more intelligent because, from my own opinion, I do not think they should be out there protesting to Donald Trump. That’s just my opinion. In any case, my question is, Professor, you studied the ḥadīth, could you share who was your main influence and why? A: Well, for me I think it is kind of ironic. So the teacher whom I studied with the most, is an Egyptian scholar named Shaykh Usama Syed Mahmoud al-Azhari, He is only a few years older than me and he is now, I believe, the personal advisor to President

Sisi in Egypt which is difficult for me, because I have critical disagreements with his administration. In fact, almost all my teachers in Egypt are now close to the current government in Egypt. So I learnt a lot about ḥadīth and I learnt a lot about Islamic thought in general, and people can disagree on other worldly matters. Also, I learnt a lot from the books of the Khumari family; Syed al-Khumari, Ahmad al-Khumari in 1960, Abdullah al-Khumari in 1993 and from the books of al-Afghani. These were very helpful for me.

Q: Salām ʿalaykum. My name is Jihan, I am currently a student. You mentioned just now about the story of how the non-Muslim who wanted to join the war but he was rejected several times because he was non-Muslim, but in the end he converted to Islam. My question is: Was the reaction of the Prophet and his companions ever recorded when he actually wanted to join, when he actually wanted to convert to Islam just because he wanted to join the war. So what is the right way to act when you hear these kind of situations when people convert to Islam for the wrong (reason), rather they don’t feel for Islam yet, but they want to do it for other reasons. So yes, that’s my question. Thank you. A: Okay. The question about the reaction of the Prophet and the Companions, I do not think in any version of that ḥadīth that I mentioned, there is any reaction noted. But I would say that your question is a very dangerous question. Because when Usama ibn Zayd was about to kill an unbeliever in battle and he uttered the proclamation of faith and then Usama ibn Zayd killed him anyway. And then he told the Prophet about this, what did the Prophet say to him? Usama ibn Zayd said, “He just said it to save his life.” And the Prophet asked him, “Did you cut open his heart to see?” So the bottom line is that, especially for the destitute who sat the bench (ahl al-ṣuffah), for example, a lot of Muslim converts were basically, for all evident purposes, doing it for the food. I mean, that is what we might say today. We might say this guy did it for the money, this guy did it for that. But as far as I understand our tradition, we do not look into people’s intentions. That’s the principle, as you know we’ve been commanded to deal with the outward, God deals with what is in people’s hearts. If someone says they are Muslim, then we believe them until they are not Muslim, right? And so certainly, we can try to cultivate proper intention in our hearts. We can try and encourage other people to have the proper intention in their hearts, but things get really dicey when you start saying, “This guy became Muslim for the wrong reasons.” Let us say he did become Muslim to make money, but then five minutes later, God put inspiration in his heart to serve God for higher purposes. Maybe he learned it a day later, or two weeks later, or a month later. Do we want to foreclose that possibility because we have decided the initial decision was not done for the proper reason, in our opinion? 18

Q: Salām ʿalaykum Prof. Thank you so much for your talk and for all of your writings. You have been an immense blessing, I think. My question is actually a comment, I’ll try to phrase it as a question. You talked a lot about compromise, the idea of compromising, but you did not really touch on the matter of who does the compromising or the negotiations. I will give you a simple example, since there was an uproar with regards to Shaykh Hamza Yusuf with his comments about the Muslim Brotherhood. I think most Muslims are willing to sort of let that go because it was Shaykh Hamza who has a proven track record. If it was some other American Shaykh, maybe some Muslims would not have been as forgiving. And so two religious figures may say the same thing, at a particular point in time, and they may believe the same thing, but they may generate different reactions because of their track record. And when it comes to negotiations, and if the Muslim public sees that all what we have seen in public is compromise after compromise after compromise and excuse after excuse after excuse, even if it appeals to the logic and the emotions, it is not unreasonable to think that the Muslim community will not accept the compromise. So my question is: Do you think that the figures who do the negotiations with regards to compromise matter as well? A: Very good question and I see kind of two aspects or two facets of it. One is really the sort of there is a whole ‘only-Nixon-can-go-to-China’ example used in the US. If you have a career in anti-communism and then you go and talk to Communists, nobody is going to say you have become a ‘softie’. We have to be aware of that perception. If somebody can build up credibility on a question, and then that credibility can protect them against the accusation that they are compromising or that they are not sincere. I remember one time I gave a lecture at a mosque and I talked actually about ‘urf and custom and I gave all sorts of examples and then the Imam, an Egyptian-American, said, “I could never have said any of that. I am so happy you said that.” And I said, “What are you talking about?” He says, “You are a white guy so you can criticise American culture, you can criticise liberalism; but I cannot do that, I will be called a terrorist.” On the other hand, I do not give talks on the hijab. Do you know what is going to happen to me? I am going to be swinging on some flagpole or something. Women need to talk about that issue. So people can talk about certain things and people should talk about certain things. Other people cannot and should not. But the other thing you brought up which is extremely important is the issue of trust. A lot of the issues that relate to the relationship between a community and the government hinges on how much trust that community has in its leaders. If you have people who have a long history in that community, 19

of serving that community, of being part of that community, of understanding its

concerns, understanding its differences, its disagreements internally and people trust that leader. That leader can then go and negotiate on their behalf and people are going to give that person a lot of charity and a lot of credit. If somebody is a Muslim who has just become a professional Muslim in order to get paid, because the US government is now giving all these grants to counter violent extremism, and this person has no history in the Muslim community. He is just doing that to make a buck, that person is not going to have any credit in the Muslim community and is going to be justifiably criticised for that. And I think you can have two people doing exactly the same thing, making exactly the same compromise and one person, people will say, “Look, we trust this person, we know they are not doing it for their own benefit, we know they are doing it with best intentions. We might disagree with it, some of us, but we will, at least, have that discussion and we will take their opinion seriously.” Other people that do not have that trust and that social capital are not going to have that trust. Q: Salām ʿalaykum, my name is Muhammad Jeeshan, I am an Associate Professor at Singapore University of Social Science. I have a question which has to do with history. You mentioned earlier about what I, at least, understood as a Nietzschean idea of history, the critical version of history. Selective things that can be of benefit to us and advantageous to the ummah. I was curious about how we can use, say, the Ottoman Empire, history of the Seljuks and the great history of Islamic civilisations and how we can use that through the ḥadīth and the Qurʾān, and to help us understand the situation that we are in right now? That is the first part. And the second part, quickly, is the issue of ʿurf or culture that is specific to regions, how would that actually influence the idea of compromise? Thank you. A: I think what we can learn from history and what I find interesting, particularly in history of law, is to see where those ‘red lines’ were in the past? In the past, where did the religious scholars (ʿUlamaʾ) or the judges say to a ruler or a government or to a popular movement, “No, this is something that we are not going to compromise on this;” or “No, this is where we are going to draw the line.” Where were they flexible? How much discretion did they give to a government? And that, I find very interesting because a lot of time, it is very different from what you would expect. And I think that is extremely useful. I recently wrote an article on apostasy that deals with this; there was never a hard and fast law on matters like a hudud. Looking at the life of the Prophet and in the lives of the Companions and the Successors in Muslim states throughout history, you will see that dealing with apostasy was essentially a policy decision. What is going to be in our best interests given our objectives? Then, ‘urf (norms and customs) and compromise. That’s one of the major five legal law maxims

(al-qawaʿid al-kubráh al-khāmsah). One is “Custom is empowered.” And in fact, in vast areas of Islamic law - whether it’s marriage, divorce, contracts, conditions, and expectations of reasonable action, expectations of liability or responsibility - all of these things just directly come from custom, from ‘urf. How do people act from place to another, what do they expect? And so when you see it as, not only tremendous variety within a school of law, which is based on adjusting to ‘urf in areas where custom is definitive, but also that, if ‘urf is really pressing, that, not only might people take from a non-main opinion in their school of law (mazhab), they might actually go outside the mazhab. For example, North African Muslim governments based their dealing with the Berber tribes on what is called alwah (plural of Lawḥ), which means tablets. Based on negotiation and comprise, different governments, in what’s now Morroco and Algeria, came to an agreement with Berber tribes by saying, for example, “We accept that you are going to punish someone for drinking by burning their house down”. And they would acknowledge that this is not opinion of Maliki School but they were willing to admit that there is some other opinion in another school of law that would accommodate that custom. Since it is not violating Shari’ah, they accept the custom of the tribe. So you see tremendous willingness by Muslim scholars and judges to accept ‘urf if it is really strong. But of course, the problem is that you cannot accept something that is totally contradictory or unacceptable in Islam. I mean, in America, people like to drink alcohol, especially in colleges. I cannot say, “The ‘urf here is that alcohol is okay so you know, let’s go get a drink.” You know, if somebody says, “Hey Professor, I want to become Muslim. But I really like drinking, can I do drinking?” I will say, “No, you cannot.” But I am not going to tell him that he is not Muslim if he does drink. And instead of getting really mad at somebody, I will try to convince him over time. “Look at how much money you are spending on this. How many more bars are you going to go to? Is this really the meaning of your life?” Things like that and maybe in a year, he stops drinking. So I am not going to compromise on something I cannot compromise on. But I am also not going to push him away, I am going to try to educate him in a way that is helpful to him. Q: Thank you, Professor. Could you share, from your study of ḥadīth, how best to deal with intra-faith issues and overcoming petty differences or disputes? For example, between Salafis and Sufis or even ethnic differences? Particularly, for the greater good which is exceptionally critical in this day and age.

A: Intra-Muslim disputes like Salafis and Sufis are never going to be won by any one party. I mean, it is not like I am going to sit here and debate someone on tawassul neither am I going to come up with some argument that no one has ever come up with before. Both sides have mountains of evidence and I would say with earnest sincerity is that this is where I think compassion is most crucially important. There are endless articles, every week about the polarisation of politics in America, in Britain, in Europe. Once you load an issue with all meaning, once you make an issue into a moral issue, once you make an issue into “It is either you are a loyal person or a traitor,” it becomes impossible to sit with the person anymore. So, let us say, a lot of Democrats and Republicans in America cannot even stand to be around each other because they view the other person’s position as so bad, that they could not possibly be a good person if they had this position. And once you reach that conclusion, it, it makes it impossible to just cooperate on anything or to have any kind of relationship. And I think one of the really inspirational elements of the Islamic tradition, in the Qurʾān and Sunnah and the Prophet, for me, is it makes very clear what is good for human beings. What human beings were created to do is to worship God, right? And here is a Message and the Teacher who is going to tell you how to do that. But - and this is where it’s astounding - if you want to reject that, that is fine. You can be a Christian and reject Islam and continue to live in the Muslim world and Muslims ought to allow you to continue practicing your religion, they will facilitate it, they will allow you to build churches and repair churches. They will even allow you to raise pigs and drink wine, do things that Muslims are not allowed to. What I find really inspirational about this is that, what it means is that Muslims are basically saying that while we completely disagree with your vision of the world and right and wrong and the meaning of life, yet we are still going to have a relationship with you, we are still going to protect you. And that if people realise that they have an obligation towards every person regardless of their difference, then even if a Muslim scholar totally disagrees with you, even if a Sufi, who’s always asking some saint to help them come to a Salafi who thinks that is an innovation into the faith (bidʿah), then they would be civil to one another. Their treatment of the other person is not based on their liking or not liking of their beliefs, but on the fact that they have an obligation of hospitality, respect and civility towards them. Upon encountering someone who is different from me, I have to bring them into my house, I have to sit and talk to them, I have to be kind to them, and I have to offer them food. It is no longer about how I feel, it is about the fact that I have obligation towards them.

When we realise that we have obligations towards each other in a decent way, that are not a function of whether or not we think someone is right or wrong then they would find the capacity to maintain relationships and dialogue. If you just say that someoneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s entire existence and their total worth in this world is based on whether or not I agree with them or not, and there is no other structure that underlies that, then you are not going to have a possibility of dialogue and potential agreement. Moderator: Thank you very much, Dr Brown. I think knowledge does play a big role here in appreciating the Others. Often it is our ignorance of the Others, our ignorance of the huge possibilities and options provided before us, so much so that we are focusing only on the small area. So knowledge does play a role but I also think - I cannot emphasise enough - the notion of compassion and mercy (raá¸Ľmah). We need to talk about it more, especially in light of the increasingly diverse Singapore Muslim community and the world. Even the response from the sister who asked about a compass, I think it is typical of Singaporeans to ask for frameworks, a standard operating procedure (SOP), and a compass. While it is very tough to develop such things, our Islamic traditions encourage us always to reflect, to develop our heartâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s vision, intuition and our conscience, so that we are able to make decision, and even if we err and lose our way, we will eventually find our bearings again.

Scholar’s Profile

Jonathan Brown Jonathan Brown is the Alwaleed bin Talal Chair of Islamic Civilization in the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, and he is the Director of the Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim Christian Understanding. He received his BA in History from Georgetown University in 2000 and his doctorate in Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations from the University of Chicago in 2006. Dr. Brown has studied and conducted research in countries such as Egypt, Syria, Turkey, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, South Africa, India, Indonesia and Iran. His publications include The Canonization of al-Bukhari and Muslim: The Formation and Function of the Sunni Hadith Canon (Brill, 2007), Hadith: Muhammad’s Legacy in the Medieval and Modern World (Oneworld, 2009) and Muhammad: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford University Press, 2011), which was selected for the National Endowment for the Humanities’ Bridging Cultures Muslim Journeys Bookshelf. His most recent book, Misquoting Muhammad: The Challenges and Choices of Interpreting the Prophet’s Legacy (Oneworld, 2014), was named one of the top books on religion in 2014 by the Independent. He has published articles in the fields of Hadith, Islamic law, Salafism, Sufism, Arabic lexical theory and Pre-Islamic poetry and is the editor-in-chief of the Oxford Encyclopedia of Islam and Law. Dr. Brown’s current research interests include Islamic legal reform and a translation of Sahih al-Bukhari.

OUR VISION

A Muslim Community of Excellence that is religiously profound and socially progressive, which thrives in a multi-religious society, secular state and globalised world.

OUR MISSION

To broaden and deepen the Singapore Muslim Communityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s understanding and practice of Islam, while enhancing the well-being of the nation.

OUR PRIORITY To set the Islamic Agenda, shape Religious Life and forge the Singapore Muslim Identity.