Bickering Brothers

The following is is a response paper originally written for the Modern Muslim Thought class that I took as part of my religious studies program at the university I attend.  I apologize that I am not able to supply the document that I am referring to in the paper, as I cannot find a corresponding link online already and I do not have permission to publicly distribute the pdf I obtained in my class. However, the topic is certainly research ready: it was an account of a fatwa debate about the Arab-Israeli Peace Initiative that took place between Shaikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi and Shaikh Abd al-Aziz ibn Baz. The paper follows.

Oh, al-Quds / Jerusalem, what a quandary you are. I thought of the title to this response paper by linking what I understood to be the main issue at hand. I am also reminded of a song, but think that words should be replaced… “This land is my land, no this land is my land”… The undying war has reared its ugly head. I’m going to be upfront and admit my bias. I think they (the ever fighting siblings, the Palestinians and the Israelis – or if you prefer, the Muslims and the Jews), aka Ishmael and Isaac)) are all being idiots. I do want to highlight my use of the word “fighting” as I am only shunning the ones hell bent on destroying each other. I know that there are many on both sides praying for peace, and I also know that not all Palestinians are Muslim. Another cliché comes to mind: “Can’t we all just get along?”

Ok, so now for my take on these fatwas. 

Shaikh 'Abd al-Aziz ibn Baz

I think the basic fault line between the two Shaikh is their Definition of what a Jew is. I think that Shaikh ‘Abd al-Aziz ibn Baz thinks of a Jew as a person. A person who, because of religious and power differences throughout history, may or may not, be an enemy to Muslims. I think that he would rather see the end of this conflict, even if it means, to some extent, “giving up”. Sometimes we have to realize and cut our losses in life. I think he sees what many of us throughout the world see: continuing bloodshed and senseless death over a conflict that may never be resolved to everyone’s satisfaction, especially when satisfaction for either party means complete annihilation of the other (here I refer to the fundamentalists or further, the extremists, on both sides). I am afraid I have to put Shaikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi in the fundie box.

Shaikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi

Shaikh Yusuf virtually spits hatred at Jews. Not just any particular Jew who has done him wrong, but ALL Jews. To me, he sees a Jew not as a person, but only as the enemy. I think that he might accept a situation that does not call for annihilation of all Jews, only if it meant that they surrendered Israel to Islam. I imagine by his arguments that he would see them leave as well (at least). Yusuf argues that ibn Baz’s fatwa cannot hold its own because it doesn’t apply to the reality at hand. He doesn’t see the analogy of the Quarysh tribe as making sense now. Because, that would only apply to regular enemies, not the JEW! At least that is how it read to me. The problem I find with his rebuttal to Ibn Baz is that reality is a matter that is subjective by nature. I think Yusuf sees surrender as not only weakness, but an affront to God, because how dare the Muslim give up when God is on his side? My answer? Perhaps he doesn’t understand God’s plan. What if God’s plan is to teach these disrespectful, bickering children to get along, once and for all.

What saddens me is what it usually takes to get estranged siblings to come back together…

Revealing the Progressive Revert

Recently, I was invited to participate as part of a "revert" panel at a Muslim Student Association event at the University I attend. I participated once before, a couple of years ago when I was still a baby in Islam. I was terribly nervous this time around. Over the past couple of years, I have gone through a lot while finding my Muslim identity, including my first true taste of discrimination. It took me a while to find my ummah, and now that I have, I am fairly proud to identify myself as a Progressive Muslim. However, I was a bit terrified that I might be too outspoken about my progressiveness at this event. I didn't want to alienate anyone from me, ruffle any feathers, etc, but I also didn't want to compromise who I am to "tone it down".

Although I only recently found my Muslim identity, I haven't really changed. I used to feel bad for not feeling the need to follow the traditional course, for not conforming, but every time I thought about conforming, it was to "fit in", and that to me was the wrong reason. Now that I know I am not alone out here, I am less apologetic for the way I believe, and maybe a little more outspoken about it, but it's not the popular voice that I speak with, if you know what I mean.

So, mere hours before the event I was sitting nervously, thinking about this dilemma I felt I had and I finally realized that I only had to ask for Allah's help and speak from my heart. Maybe, just maybe, there would be even just one other person in the room that felt lost like I did, and I could let them know that s/he is not alone and that if they needed another progressive shoulder to cry on, they might find it in me.

The first time I participated in this event, I did speak up about being a non-hijabi. When one of the reverts made a comment about "this is how a Muslim woman looks" - in full abaya and hijab (which I support and respect!), I raised my hand, told her I respected her but that I needed to say, pointing to myself, that "this is also what a Muslim woman looks like". So, I figured that this MSA crowd may already have a clue about how I am - the thought that occurred there was that maybe I was getting all worked up over nothing.

There ended up being six of us on the panel and I was not the long-winded one, for once. So, we didn't have much time for other than the "usual" questions. The final question of the night is the one that got me. Someone asked how hard it was to change our behaviors, basically to become good practicing Muslims - 5 prayers a day, wear hijab, eat all halal, etc. He was asking about rules and rituals, not about our hearts.

So, being the only non-hijabi on the panel (out of 4 women), and sitting in a dress that showed my calves, forearms, and my chest and neck (above my cleavage), I knew it was time to face it. I took the microphone and said, "well, rules and rituals mean less to me than intention and meaning, as you can see by looking at me." I went on to explain how frustrating it is to have everyone expect you to be the poster-child for Islam when you convert. How, I am not perfect, nor will I be, no matter how hard I strive to be... that I was human and had the same struggles as the rest of them. I explained how I nearly lost a dear friend of mine because I haven't fulfilled his expectations of me either and how my progressive line of thought disappoints and somewhat offends his traditional reason. I also explained that I do what I do with thought and intention behind it and that I am not one to do something I don't believe in just to fit in. That I have my reasons as to why I do what I do and that I have a relationship with God that is my own and if I have failings, and of course I do, I will face them and be responsible for them. I was unapologetic, but honest.

I am sure I ruffled some feathers, but I did notice a couple of people nodding as I was talking, which gave me strength. One was a male convert I am friends with and one was a female I didn't know yet. After we finished I had several women come up to me and thank me for being honest and wanted to have my contact information to be able to talk to me later about "stuff". My male fellow-convert friend also mentioned me and something I said about not putting us converts up on pedestals (he agreed) on his FB wall. It was interesting to see the conversation that followed. It seems that there are two views on converts, one is that we are somehow better because we chose Islam and have dealt with the struggles of that choice and the other is that we are not better because we have to struggle to be Muslim, whereas born Muslims grew up with the rules and rituals and that they are habits that they have now. And that frustrates me. They still are labeling us as inherently different, whereas I think we are more the same than they wish to admit.

Now I am just curious to find out if I will be invited back a third time...

Pluralism and Salvation

In today’s global society, the need for interreligious dialogue is becoming very important amongst efforts for creating peace. It is for this reason that I returned to school to pursue a BA in Religious Studies and a career in interfaith relations. I intend to work closely with Muslim – Christian relations, and as such, knowing the contemporary arguments for religious ecumenism is as important as knowing the history for and against pluralism and salvation of the “other” in Islam.

In Mohammad Hassan Khalil’s “Salvationand the ‘Other’ in Islamic Thought: The Contemporary Pluralism Debate (inEnglish)”, the fact that not all pluralists are created equal is made known. Pluralism in Islam (and likely elsewhere) has divisions which is a main reason for the diversity in arguments for pluralistic salvation. Categorizing the arguments starts by categorizing the types of pluralists. It is of some importance to note that most of these pluralists write in English and reside in predominantly non-Muslim countries.

The esoteric perennialist school of thought began with Rene Guenon. Its core belief is that each of the major religions has truth and lead to God. Later, John Hick argued a congruous form of pluralism akin to the story of the elephant and the blind men – the seeming differences in religion are actually only because of perspective and frame of reference. Building on the perennialist thought and distancing from Hick’s view, Reza Shah-Kazemi uses the term universalism and suggests that in order for a religion to be a valid path to salvation, it need to be divinely inspired, not a human construct.

A critical issue with all of these arguments is that they frequently refer to the Qur’an almost exclusively, whereas the majority of Muslims view hadith to be authoritive. In order for many of these Muslims to be open to the pluralist arguments, there may need to be some reconciliation with their views based on hadith. Simply writing hadith off as fabricated or corrupt does a disservice to the debate, as it is akin to telling someone that what they believe in is lies.

The best way to move forward in the debate, which is one important to interfaith relations locally and globally, is to determine how best to help create a paradigmatic revolution. These paradigm shifts are possible, as history has shown us – in both the USA with the civil rights movement and in recent times, in the Middle East with the Arab Spring.

The House that Christ Built

A comparative look at the Gospels of Mark and Thomas

Originally written on 4/19/12 for my Birth of Christianity class

 

Gospel of Thomas

Gospel of Mark

After reading both the gospels of Mark and Thomas with fresh eyes, I am struck with the idea that one is like timber available for building and the other is like a finished structure, ready for tenants.  The gospel of Thomas (hereafter: Thomas) is simply a list of sayings attributed to the person in history named Jesus. It is referred to as his secret teachings, although the secrets are not given away freely, as many of the sayings can be difficult to understand (ex: Thom 10, 17, 19, and especially 42). The gospel of Mark (hereafter: Mark), on the other hand, is a narrative – a story. It has a beginning, middle and, as most stories do, builds to a crescendo before coming to an end. There are no real secrets here, as what Jesus says is often explained to his disciples (Mk 4:14-20). 

When walking through the lumber yard of Thomas, the reader is not given a map, as no map would make sense. There is no seeming order to Jesus’ sayings and sometimes certain sayings even seem to be repeated, although with small variations (ex: Thom 2 and 94; 55 and 101). Although there is no apparent order to the list, one could sort the sayings into themes, the names by which might depend on the reader and his or her interpretations of the sayings.

It is the roughness of Thomas, the crude way it is written as only a list, that I think would have appealed to the first followers of Jesus. It allowed for variations of opinions, for interpretations by the self. Each person would have the same opportunity to find in it those things which resonated within.

Several themes that I noted within the gospel of Thomas may have found resonance with the early Christians. These include the search for knowledge or wisdom, the oneness of all life, the necessity to be like a child to experience the kingdom of God, what God’s imperial rule is like and simple rules to live within humanity’s communities. These themes may have been easily acceptable to any of the followers of Jesus that were familiar with the likes of Socrates, who also was a proponent seeking wisdom and of the concept of “Know thyself” (Thom 2, 3, 67, 92, 94).

Thomas may have also appealed as seeming more authentic, as if the author was writing the sayings down best as he could remember, without tarnishing anything with embellishments. At the same time, it could have put off those that found the list too confusing and difficult to understand, especially with the implication of these being secret teachings; when the reader didn’t understand, it would be too easy for him to disregard it as make-believe. For these people, Mark would be much easier to understand, thus easier to accept as authentic.

Tract Housing

As mentioned before, Mark is much more than a list of sayings, although when walking through the halls of the structure, pieces of Thomas seem to be peeking out through the paint here and there (ex: Mk  2:20, 2:21-22, 6:4-5, 12:17, 12:31,  and Thom 104, 47, 31, 100, 25 respectively). Although the reader can tell that the authors of Mark and Thomas visited the same lumberyard, it is just as evident that Mark’s author either missed much of the materials available, or only sought certain pieces for his structure. Perhaps Mark’s author had an agenda: to tell a story about Jesus from the perspective that he understood. If that was the case, then he would have selected those pieces that made sense to him and then added to them some structure so that other readers would see what he saw. Another possibility could be that Mark’s author knew more details than the author of Thomas. Finally, it is just as likely that the structure was not unique to Mark’s author, but instead was one of several tract homes. 

Mark’s appeal to the Jesus followers would have been the narrative he gave of the man that they followed, worshiped, and glorified. The author begins with Jesus’ baptism in the Holy Spirit and flows through the geographical travels of his subsequent teachings and healings until the author concludes with Jesus’ death and resurrection. Themes found in Mark are the power of belief, the lack of belief in man, the coming of the kingdom of God, a sense of urgency, and the death and resurrection of Jesus. Jesus is also defined in Mark as Christ, son of God, Holy, son of David, last of the prophets, and Lord (Mk 1:1, 1:24, 10:48, 12:6, and 16:19 respectively).  This stands in contrast to Thomas, where Jesus is defined as an angel, philosopher, and teacher, although Jesus rebukes the last saying, “I am not your teacher” (Thom 13).

The definition of Jesus in Thomas is not the only difference we find from Mark. There is no death and resurrection theme in Thomas; rather, the kingdom of God is already present for those that understand (Thom 113). It is not faith that brings salvation in Thomas (Mk 9:2, 22, 29). Instead, looking within and bringing what is inside out is what saves (Thom 70). Also lacking in Thomas are the references to the old testament that point to the idea of Jesus fulfilling ancient prophecy in Mark (Mk 1:2, 10:48, 12:10, 14:49, 15:27). These differences may have separated audiences that paid heed to one gospel or the other (or both).

As mentioned previously, Thomas may have resounded more with Jews that were familiar with philosophers like Socrates. They may have been drawn to some parallel ideas and may even have been interested in the idea of having secret knowledge. I imagine the more philosophical type may have already been less interested in ancient readings such as those found in the Hebrew Bible (except for where wisdom could be gleaned) and would have already been along a path of introspection when Thomas was written. Thus, these people may have been less likely to be looking for the Messiah foretold in the ancient scriptures. Thomas would have also been easier for the gentiles to relate to as well. The Jews that were more scripturally bound may have been more drawn to the finished housing of Mark’s gospel.

Jews that knew their scripture and who were suffering would have taken much solace in learning the tradition of Jesus’ teachings and healings and salvation offered to them through faith in him and in God’s possibilities (Mk 10:27). The gospel as a historical type story would have also been familiar to them, as many of their ancient scriptures that they held dear were written as historical stories. The followers of Mark’s gospel likely saw overlap in Thomas, but may have turned away from it because of the lack of support of Jesus as the Messiah, come to save mankind.

The choice of which gospel one might follow still would have been individual, but I can see the draw to that which is more complete, explained, and feels like guidance. Thomas is given to the reader as a list of secret teachings (or sayings) of the person named Jesus. The sayings are not explained, but left bare, without embellishment. By contrast, Mark is a complete story with explanations given along the way. The house has been built, the walls painted, furniture moved in and waits for the tenant to move in and make it his or her home.

Islamic Perspective on Abortion

 In response to Chapter Two of Islamic Ethics of Life, The Problem of Abortion in Classic Sunni Fiqh

 PRO-LIFE! PRO-CHOICE! You’ve heard the chants; you’ve seen the signs. There is no doubt that abortion is an emotionally charged topic in North America. Many people, specifically from the Christian faiths, clamor for universal rules regarding the relationship of fetus, life, and child and rights of the mother and/or father. Many believe in life at conception, whereas others believe that there is a point in time where the fetus becomes a child – human – a life to be protected by law. Unfortunately, because of the idea that there can somehow be a universal truth to settle this debate is exactly what has likely made it irreconcilable.

This debate also occurs in Islam, but perhaps to a lesser degree, as the focus is often more law based and less moral. The arguments are very formal and based on the Qur’an and hadith and fiqh. Somewhat like the debate in the West, the argument is typically more about determining at which point the fetus becomes more – someone, rather than something. Along with this argument are the social punishments for accidental or intentional loss of a child – it is not as much a moral argument as it is in Christianity, until we reach the realm of Sufism, the mystical aspect of Islam.

Sufism is more interested in individual growth, which is a subjective matter, than sociological growth within the community of Islam. It is here that we find more of the moral outlook of ending a pregnancy, and as it is individualistic, it is subjective, and naturally, casuistic. The casuistic nature of some issues, like abortion, is not just of Sufism, but also naturally part of Islam, as intention means a great deal. Sometimes in this life, there are not the universal truths we hope for, rather, there always seems to be an “exception to the rule”. I think perhaps if the debate in North America could focus on intentions and allow for the single case evaluations, there would be less yelling across the fences.

Written for my Modern Muslim Thought class in March 2012

RELATED ARTICLES:

Morocco blocks Dutch ‘abortion’ ship 

Pakistan: Law and Islam allow abortion under conditions 

Dancing Sufis for abortion