Labels

Abortion Allah America ancient anti-feminism Apostle Arab Arabia Aristotle Augustine autobiography bank banking beliefs Bhudda Bible biblical bigot bigotry biography Buddha Day Buddhism canon catholic Catholicism character charisma children christian christianity Christmas church Cinema civilization clutter commentary compromise conflict controversy conversion convert courtship creed crisis Crito culture custody dating debate deed democracy dhamma dharma dialogue differences diversity divorce dukkha Eastern Orthodoxy economics elections elephant esoteric essay ethics ethnicity Evangelical Evangelism extremism extremist fable faith family fatwa feminism fiction Folk four noble truths friends fringe Fun Gandha Baba gender generosity Giri Bala; Babaji global studies gnostic God golden rule good goodness Gorgias Gospel greed hadith hate Hebrew Bible heretic Hinduism hoarding Holiday home I AM ibn Baz idiom idols individuality initiative insurance interest interfaith interpretation interracial Iranaeus Iraq islam Israel Israeli jannah Jesus Jesus freak Jesus movement Jew jihad Judaism jurisprudence kids Kindness knowledge Kriya Yoga language law liberal liberals life Life of Pi love manners Mark marriage meaning Mecca meditation mess Middle East miracle Mission moderation Mohammed monastery money monk movie Muratorian muslim myth mythology Native American New Years opinion opportunity Padre Pio pagan Palestine pastor path Paul Paula Fredriksen pay it forward peace perception perennialist personality philosophy Pink Floyd Plato polite politeness politics pro-choice pro-life progressive proof Protestant proto-orthodox proverbs psychology Qaradawi Qur'an reincarnation relationship religion repentance respect responsibility retrospection revert review Rick Santorum rights rules Saint sala salvation science scripture secrets semantics sermon shari'a sharia shrine shura sin Socrates Soroush spirituality St. Theresa of Avila Strangers stuff Subculture Symposium tact Tanakh Tariq Ramadan temple terrorism terrorist Thanksgiving theology Theravada Therese Neumann tradition translation turkey understanding universalism USA values Vesak Visakha Puja wisdom women Xenophon Yogananda Yogi zealot

Monday, October 15, 2012

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…

2 comments:

  1. I wouldn't be so quick to put either of them in the fundie box. One or two things they may have said doesn't discount their body of work and scholarship.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for your insight. I acknowledge that my labeling as a "fundie" was based on only the reading that was given to me for this assignment. I did not and have not since looked at the man as a whole, and for that, I should not have labeled him outright. Perhaps it would have been better for me to say that in reference to THIS particular issue and the fatwas that he gave at THIS particular time he comes across as a fundie - to me.

      The whole paper is a very subjective account of my thoughts on the reading assignment, and didn't include outside sources. It was simply a short response paper to the fatwa "debate" that occurred. That being said, I take your comments to heart and it should be a reminder to myself that a person should not be labeled so quickly and from such narrow an approach.

      Delete

I would love to hear your comments and critiques. The only thing I ask is that you be respectful to me and others. Thank you!