For Shame

Religion News Service | Blogs | Omid Safi - What Would Muhammad Do? | Saudis say No to the Prophet Muhammad, Yes to Paris Hilton


What's really not funny about this is that it seems Mecca is becoming what it was before Mohammed. Why did the Quraysh tribe try to kill him? Because he was interrupting the tribe's economic gains from the pilgrimages to worship the idols. Tsk. We are supposed to learn from our past, so as NOT to repeat it. Is today's' Mecca any better than in pagan times? May Allah guide them...

How Tidy is Your Home?

No, this is not the home in my tale. 

Recently, I visited someone's home and I was struck by how empty it was. You could barely tell anyone lived there. There was furniture - study and practical. Not shabby, but definitely used. Not fancy, but not strictly utilitarian either. The couches were comfy. The only real evidence I saw that people lived in this home was the fully stocked fridge and part of an apple that didn't quite make it into the garbage disposal. Everything was very clean and tidy. No personal affects, not photos, and no knickknacks, accept for the icons of Christ and Mary on the wall in one corner. A huge, brand new, flat screen took residence in another corner.

I was given a tour of the rest of the home, and the sparseness continued to shock my senses. Even the children's  rooms were mostly bare. The beds were neatly made, and a few stuffed bears decorated the walls. Where was the mess? Where were the family pictures? I know the temperature was set low, but I felt chilled more from the emptiness I continued to see. Why did it shock me so? Because I had seen the downstairs first. That was an entirely different and opposite scene.

I was being given an extra microwave that the family had, as mine had died a week before. (Don't run a microwave for 10 minutes with nothing in it - my son accidentally found this out when he attempted to use the microwave for a timer). The downstairs of this house looked almost like a scene out of "Hoarders". Things were piled (fairly organized) to the ceiling in most corners and along most walls. I knew that the family had rental properties, and since many of the items appeared to be spare parts and housewares, I assumed that the downstairs is where they stored their supplies for their rentals. So, compared to the downstairs, yes, the bare upstairs was jolting.

My brain rarely rests. I got to thinking of my own home. My "mess", as I call it. It is really difficult for me to keep my place tidy as a single, working mom of two young children. I think it was even worse when I was a full time student. I believe in letting kids play and not barking at them to pick up their toys every five minutes. That was something my ex-husband was always fond of doing and always drove me crazy. I remember what it is like to be a kid. You want to get your toys out and play, play, play! If you put one thing away before getting out another, then how can you suddenly invent new games and imaginary worlds because you suddenly realize that you can place with these mismatched toys together? Granted, I do wish they would pick up better at the end of the night.

Nope, not my home either, although it is a fairly accurate representation much of the time. 

Still, even if my kids picked up their things better every night and I didn't have toys strewn from the front door to their bedroom (and for some reason, in the bathroom), my place would still feel and look VERY lived in. I have knickknacks... everywhere. Pictures of family and friends line the window sills, breakfast bar, and entertainment system. Paintings and beautiful framed art/photos are hung on every wall. The bulkheads of my kitchen are each filled with pots, pans, antiques, and the like. My cupboard tops are coated with fake plants or more antiques or knickknacks - most of which are family heirlooms. I have too much furniture - I blame my mom for breeding that trait into me. My books overflow from my giant bookshelves. They are found in every corner, in stacks, on end tables, and ever free shelf I can find. Some even line the floor in front of the book cases. Those are typically the kids books (why do they never find their place back on the shelf?).

I wouldn't mind having this...

My eclectic tastes are displayed for all to see, a bit like my personality. My life is an open book. Ask, and I answer. I rarely try to hide what I think or feel. It suddenly occurred to me that my friend's home that I visited reflected his personality as well. It reminded me of a glacier. You don't see the whole thing until you go below the surface. He's like that. He is extremely private and doesn't have a lot of "stuff". But once you get past the empty facade on the surface, there is a lot of "stuff" inside. That's where his "mess" hides - out of sight. It then reminded me of all those perfect homes that I sometimes envy. They have character, are decorated, and have family affects - but everything is nice and tidy. They don't have to worry about someone stopping over unexpectedly. They don't have to rush to clean up the mess, or shrug when there is no time. But, those home often have secrets tucked nicely away too, just like the people that live in them.

This whole thought process gives me pause. You can read someone's writing or view someone's art and know their deepest thoughts and fears. Why wouldn't our homes reflect our souls in the same way? It seems to me that it makes perfect sense that our homes would reflect something about who we are. I haven't done any research yet to see if I am on to something (therapists and psychologists are probably rolling their eyes, saying, "duh" at me right now, if reading this). I intend to do the research. Why? I like to understand people. I need to be able to understand people better to be effective in interfaith relations.

Until I get that research done, I am curious to ask you, my reader, to lend your voice to this theory of mine. Do you see what I see? Does your home truly reflect you? What about family or friends (its usually to see these things in others, rather than ourselves)? How tidy is your home?

Some links to share (I haven't actually read these yet, but I intend to!):

• What Our Stuff Says about Us
• Your home is your castle - so, what if it's a dump?
• WHAT OUR HOUSES SAY ABOUT US

I look forward to all of your comments!!

Proto-Orthodoxy Canon Logic

After reading the “Muratorian Canon” fragment and Irenaeus’ Against the Heretics, it seems to me that the proto-orthodox Christians already had a creed in mind, and if the writings of the Jesus followers didn't fit with their idea of who Jesus was, it wasn't included. Specifically, the writings needed to indicate Jesus’ miraculous birth, crucifixion, and resurrection. These were the requirements, as well as an indication that Jesus was the Savior who was divine.

Writings that were from the gnostic groups were immediately considered heresy by Iranaeus, especially anything that referred to mysteries. Iranaeus held a definition of truth for Christianity to be that which speaks of Jesus being born of a virgin, the passion, and his resurrection and bodily ascension to heaven; Jesus was Son of God, Lord, Savior, King, and God (him)self. God was one and only, and the creator of all, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Anything that deviated from this or the teachings found in the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were considered heresy by him, especially the gnostic materials, as he said “their statements are quite varied and numerous”.  He also equates Gnosticism with idolatry and as practitioners of magic.

Iranaeus also objected to the gnostic tendency to do anything they desired because they believed there was no such thing as a good or bad deed – that the classification is a human creation, opinion, and to be ignored, as they (the Gnostics) felt that it was the souls desire to experience everything to grow and transcend the need for the human body. All of this to Iranaeus was out of his realm of thinking for what he thought Christianity was or should be, thus he despised it and pushed forward his definition as if it was the norm.

This is a response paper that was originally written in reference to the “Muratorian Canon” fragment and Irenaeus’ Against the Heretics (pp. 196-211 of After the New Testament
A Reader in Early Christianity) for REL 420: Birth of Christianity at Michigan State University on 3/27/12.

Religious vs. Political Islam

Having read Tariq Ramadan’s article, Good Muslim, Bad Muslim from the New Statesman website published on February 12, 2010, I find myself agreeing with his premises. He is correct when he points out that the term “terrorist” is subjective, and it is the “winners” or the majority that get to decide the labels; in this case, the West. I would argue, however, that “terrorist” is not a completely subjective term. The threat of and/or killing of innocents to promote fear in hopes of obtaining power will always be “terrorism” in my book, regardless of who is committing the acts. If we (America) are committing terrorism in the Middle East with our actions, I would hope that those of us with sound minds would condemn the acts just as if they were committed against our own people. The double standard that seems to play out these days leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

I also agree with Ramadan’s stance that religious and political extremism or moderation do not necessarily go hand in hand. Where I disagree is the idea that you can completely disentangle socio-economic politics from religion. Our beliefs, often our religion, typically dictate our desires and actions. Our personal alignment in politics is based on those fundamental beliefs about life and how it should be lived. Tell me then, how you can have one (politics) apart from the other (religion).

I find myself frustrated because I agree with so much of what Ramadan wrote in this article, but instead of helping find a solution on how to move forward, I think he muddies the water by suggesting we only deal with political Islam. Perhaps I am simply not convinced that we will find a moderate religious Muslim as an extremist, although I do think it may be possible to find an extremist religious Muslim who does not act in an extreme political way. Maybe it is a rectangle-square relationship. Not all rectangles are squares, but all squares are rectangles. Maybe all political extremists are also religious extremists, but not all religious extremists are political extremists. It would be interesting to find out via some study.

Until I can find the studies I am looking for, I personally intend to help the voice of moderate Islam rise. We are not invisible and we do condemn the actions of the fringe elements that inflict pain and injury upon the innocent.

This is a response paper that was originally written in reference to Tariq Ramadan’s article, Good Muslim, Bad Muslim from the New Statesman website published on February 12, 2010 for REL 432: Modern Muslim Thought at Michigan State University in September 2012

The Science of Religion

In The Evolution and Devolution of Religious Knowledge by Abdul-Karim Soroush, an idea that I can identify with is given about what people call religious knowledge. First, is that it is not knowledge, per se. I agree with Soroush that divine scripture is indeed divine, but the meaning we humans derive from the words given to us is completely human, which means that it too (like humans) can be full of error.

Because I have a Bachelors of Science in Biology, I am quite familiar with scientific inquiry, methodology, and theories. I am aware that in science, nothing can be proved; only disproved. Everything else is a theory until it is generally accepted and holds up against criticism and experiments to disprove. If a theory holds up, it is considered a law (as in a law of nature), but even laws can be disproved. It is no different with the study of religion. Proof may exist, but we will have to die to find it (perhaps repeatedly if reincarnation is true).

Soroush also explains how every interpretation of religion begins with preconceived notions and assumptions. From personal experiences to the societal whole, our perceptions are biased. As he explains, just asking the question biases the answer. Again, it is the same for science and, I would add, statistics. Asking the question is great, but often not all the variables are considered. So what gets missed? Perhaps we will never know. Perhaps someone else will consider those variables and come up with their own interpretation.

When I consider what I have learned in my religious studies, about the vast array of ideas and beliefs, I can’t help but see Soroush’s points about religious “knowledge”. That to me does not create a problem with faith, as his critics may see it. I think that acknowledging our human shortcomings can only help move us forward, because how else can we grow without knowing where we fail? You can’t fix what you don’t believe is broken. If anyone thinks we humans are perfect, then why would we need God? Perfection is the goal, but we haven’t met it yet. If we had, our world would be a much better place: a garden with lush rivers flowing underneath.

This is a response paper that was originally written in reference to The Evolution and Devolution of Religious Knowledge by Abdul-Karim Soroush for REL 432: Modern Muslim Thought at Michigan State University in September 2012 

Gobble Gobble

Ah, Thanksgiving. A truly American holiday. Apple pie, pumpkin pie, stuffing, cranberry sauce, the relish tray, and let's not forget, the turkey. Taking turns around the table to give thanks. Food coma. Football. Ah, yes, Thanksgiving. Have you ever heard of someone boycotting Thanksgiving? (aside from vegans and PETA) and Or, uttering the words, "I don't celebrate Thanksgiving"? I'm talking about Americans... or even permanent status American residents. I hadn't until recently. I was shocked when my boyfriend said it. I figured he was being sarcastic, so I was just irritated at first. Thanksgiving is a big deal to me. Time with family. All that cooking (that I would be doing/helping with). And, the turkey. How I love turkey...

While I was stewing - and I don't mean tomatoes - or sulking, whichever you prefer, it suddenly occurred to me that perhaps he was serious. As my analytic mind was sure to go, I started trying to figure out "why?". Could it remind him that he is not yet American, and that bothers him? I doubt it. Could the idea of celebrating it go against his values? Perhaps. This made me dig deeper within the recesses of my own brain. (At this point he refused to talk, so inward was the only direction the conversation could go). Why might he take issue with this family holiday? What is this family holiday? I've been celebrating it for so long, it's just part of my "normal". 

Sadly, I was never great in history when I was younger. Names and dates still elude me, even if concepts stick now. Thanksgiving... a glimmer of a picture filled my brain... pilgrims and indians Native Americans. Eating together. Sharing food. Giving thanks for the harvest ... and the pilgrims giving thanks to the natives for helping them learn how to survive in this new land. Wow! Intercultural/Interfaith Relations! Ok, so that thought didn't really help solve the mystery. My best bet was to google Thanksgiving...

Then, I started to wonder how the Native Americans today view Thanksgiving. I honestly have no idea. Considering how the pilgrims and other newcomers paid their "thanks" in the end... I would guess it's not a warm and fuzzy holiday for them. But, what does that have to do with a man from Iraq?

So, I thought deeper. Now, I am sure I am completely off base with his particular reason for uttering "I don't celebrate it", as he likes to be sarcastic a lot, but it did put some things into a perspective I had not thought of before. During Saddam's reign, my boyfriend was a child growing into an adult. A Chaldean child in a Sunni Muslim country. I know I have had a friend tell me about his experience fleeing for his life for being an Iraqi Kurd. I know my mom was told horror stories by her Christian Iraqi nurse. And, I know that Shi'a Muslims were also terrorized by this man and his army. How does this relate? Let me explain...

Imagine living peacefully (or as peaceful as normal) in your own land. Now, imagine a new power coming in and deciding that those that are "different" need to go. *image of Hitler/Nazis comes to mind* I think perhaps, it's not so different than how the Native Americans saw the "white" people when the British and Europeans came to America and started taking over the land and resources for themselves, pushing out or killing the "different". Yes, I am sure they are so thankful. *cough, cough*

Nice holiday, right? Well... wait. What about intention? Does celebrating a holiday that may not have the most honorable history mean that we honor that history? I don't think so. It doesn't have to be that way. To me, it depends on intention. I'm Muslim and I still celebrate Christmas. Why? To me, it is not a celebration of Jesus' birth, because I know he wasn't born on December 25th. I understand the history of December 25th. I understand the pagan roots. Does celebrating Christmas make me pagan? No; no more than it makes me Christian. I celebrate because it is a beloved family time for me. It's part of my family tradition. My intention is still pure. I see Halloween much the same... it's a fun holiday, enjoy it! So, why not Thanksgiving too?

So, even after this long thought filled evening I had, I know I will be looking forward to sitting around the table come thanksgiving dinner, and I will bow my head and give thanks for my family and the good times and good food that we share, and to God, for making it possible. I will also think of those that were displaced and wish goodness and luck on their descendants. It doesn't do much, I know. How can you apologize for something that you didn't yourself do (or, in my case, neither did my ancestors)? Grant them peace and love from your own heart and understanding from your mind. Don't be too quick to judge, as you may not fully grasp the background. It's the least that we can do. 

Gobble, Gobble everyone!

Reincarnation & Islam

It’s amazing how much one word can drive debate. Reincarnation seems to be one of those concepts that either a person believes or they don’t. There is no middle ground. So, the fact that it has been a debate in Islam is of no surprise to me. I've been debating the possibility of reincarnation since I was young. In fact, it was this very word, heard out of my mouth, which caused the first religious debate in my life – with my conservative Christian grandmother. I will never forget that day nor the first question she asked and my first reply.

I find it extremely interesting that this debate takes place in Islam as well, because up until I read this article, I had no idea it did, although I still held my belief in the possibility. However, because I do love to debate, I also like to play “devil’s advocate”. In doing so, I would point out that “dead” and “die” in the verse, "And you were dead, and He brought you back to life. And He shall cause you to die, and shall bring you back to life, and in the end shall gather you unto Himself" (2:28) could be figurative as well as literal. Death could be death to ignorance and rebirth into truth. In Christian theology, baptism is a type of death and rebirth, where the death is to the sinner and rebirth to the saved. The same could be said of Islam.

As for the critics against the concept of reincarnation, I can see how they also are reading the verses of the Qur’an. This, like so many debates in Islam and in religion in general, is a matter of interpretation. Beginning and leading out from there, you have perception. Until each and every human has exactly the same experiences in life, perception will remain, which means so will differing interpretations.

This is a response paper that was originally written in reference to Reincarnation in Islam by Sultan Shahin, Asia Times Online, Dec 25, 2003, for REL 432: Modern Muslim Thought at Michigan State University in September 2012 

Pluralism and Salvation

In today’s global society, the need for inter-religious dialogue is becoming very important in the 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 “Salvation and the ‘Other’ in Islamic Thought: The Contemporary Pluralism Debate (in English)”, the fact that not all pluralists are created equal is made known. Pluralism in Islam (and likely elsewhere) has divisions - 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 authoritative. 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 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.

This is a response paper that was originally written in reference to Salvation and the ‘Other’ in Islamic Thought: The Contemporary Pluralism Debate (in English) by Mohammad Hassan Khalil for REL 432: Modern Muslim Thought at Michigan State University in September 2012

Paradise for the Perfect

While reading Sayyid Qutb's Qur'anic Commentary on sura 98, I found myself frequently commenting off to the side, “oh, really”. He makes several statements throughout his analysis about which he gives no support. As I stated in my last response paper, entitled “Sharing Jannah”, one of the first steps in analysis of the Qur’an is to pick your translation. Qut’b clearly picked one for surah 98. He then decided to interpret it to mean that only the believers will find Paradise and exist there forever and the rest will burn in the Hell fire.

One problem I have with his analysis is that he makes several statements about Jesus having been the last messenger of Israel and Mohammed as the last prophet period. I found myself asking as I stated above, “oh really?”. Where is his proof? Qut’b offers none. He makes the statement and fails to back it up. Is that because he believes that this is a universally accepted norm? Obviously it is his stance on the subject, but we don’t know why. For me, the rest of his argument based on these assumptions is worthless.

A second problem I had with his analysis is that he offers 109:1-6, “Say: ‘Disbelievers! I do not worship what you worship. Nor do you worship what I worship. I shall never worship what you worship; neither will you worship what I worship. You have your own religion and I have mine’” as part of his proof against the polytheists. However, this same verse can be and has been interpreted to allow for pluralism and religious freedom. Perhaps what he means is that religious freedom and pluralism will exist and is allowed, but they (the others – the non-Muslims) will perish in the Hell-fire for eternity.

Finally, the third problem I have with his analysis is that it only allows for the perfect to find salivation and it does not give any credence to God’s mercy, compassion, and to be the final judge in the decision of Paradise or Hell. Once again, we find a human limiting God’s power.

This is a response paper that was originally written in reference to Commentary for Quran - In the Shade of the Qur'an - by Syed Qutb for REL 432: Modern Muslim Thought at Michigan State University in September 2012

Sharing Jannah

As a mother would say to her child, “if you want dessert, you have to finish your dinner” or, “if you keep fighting with your sister, you will go to bed early”, scripture, or God’s word tells us how to behave to receive reward or how not to behave to avoid punishment. Every family and every religion has rules. But what do these rules, in Islam, say about the “other”? It seems that it depends on who you ask. Since the scholarly opinions range from inclusion to exclusion, this is question does not seem to have a definite answer.

To demonstrate the pluralistic answer to the question of salvation of Muslims and non-Muslims, Mohammad Hassan Khalil shared opinions of five well-known Muslim scholars: Abu Abū Hāmid al-Ghazālī, Muhyī al-Dīn Ibn al-‘Arabī, Taqiyaddīn Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah, and Muhammad Rashīd Ridā. The arguments these scholars make include an analysis of even more questions. Before an answer of who is saved can be determined, one has to decide first how to translate the verses, as many words have multiple meanings, from general to exact. Then, once a translation is made, one has to decide how to interpret them (ijtihad). Interpretation includes even more questions.  Should it matter if the verses are Medinan or Meccan? Does the historical context matter or is it a general statement… or rather, a specific statement for a specific time and place only? Have the verses been abrogated and thus null in meaning to today? So many questions! Oh, but we must back up even further.

What is Islam? Is it possible that non-Mohammed following others, such as the Christians, Jews, and Sabians (people of the book) are in their own way submitting to God in the way that God called them to? Are they “Muslims” of a sort? What about God’s compassion and Mercy? Can’t God decide to save anyone if so desired? So do the rules even matter? The mother might choose to punish the child for his or her naughty behavior, but then will still enfold him or her into her arms, giving forth her love to the child. Will God not be as forgiving, if not more?

As for me, I believe in inclusive love and that only humans limit God’s power and mercy, at a fault.

This is a response paper that was originally written in reference to MUSLIM SCHOLARLY DISCUSSIONS ON SALVATION AND THE FATE OF ‘OTHERS’ by Mohammad Hassan Khalil for REL 432: Modern Muslim Thought at Michigan State University in September 2012

The Golden Rule & Islam

If you asked the average, non-Muslim American if human rights were a consideration in shari’a law, they’d likely tell you “no”. If you asked Abdullahi Ahmed Al-Na’im, he might agree, but that would depend on if you meant God’s actual shari’a, or shari’a as it exists in the Middle East today. Some of the main problems he cites are the failure of the UN to define the terms “human rights” and “fundamental freedoms” in Article 1.3 and the differing frames of reference across cultural and religious boundaries. His solution is to take a new enlightened look at religion and the major traditions in order to find their common normative principal – essentially, the “Golden Rule” – to treat others as you would yourself want to be treated.

UN Golden Rule Poster

Why hasn't this concept brought peace? It is because people tend to apply the concept to members of their own groups, excluding the “others”. Islam has been no exception, although some believe it wasn't intended to be that way. The main issue is that too much emphasis is given to the Medinan verse without consideration given to the historical context. The Meccan verses are much more agreeable to human rights and freedoms and abrogate the earlier verses where Islam was under threat of being wiped out. It’s easy to take verses out of context scripturally and historically to twist words for any reason, but when you look from the perspective of context, a much different story emerges.

Self-determination is one of the rights and fundamental freedoms that every human should be able to enjoy. Part of self-determination is the ability to believe and follow the religion the heart, mind, and soul chooses. Some think that shari’a doesn't allow for religious freedom. They cannot be more wrong.

It is true that there is a tradition that calls for death for apostasy; however, Mohamed Talbi argues that this involves a misreading of the Qur’an. He cites 2:256 as proof that compulsion “is clearly incompatible religion” and 10:99 as proof that God willed that there be diversity and freedom in religious beliefs.

The Golden Rule requires that everyone treat each other as if they were our twin, which means that as humans, we are equal and deserving of the same rights and freedoms as each other. Respecting religious freedom is not mere tolerance; it’s a basic human right.

This is a response paper that was originally written in reference to Chapters 18, 19, and 24 of Liberal Islam: A Source Book for REL 432: Modern Muslim Thought at Michigan State University in September 2012

Democracy, not Theocracy

Many Muslims believe that both their personal and public lives should be governed by Islam. That is, that they believe that a theocratic system, by which laws are governed by shari’a, is the only government that is allowed or worthy. However, even secular democratic government may not only be allowed, but in line with shari’a.

The Prophet Muhammad’s message was for spiritual purposes and because of whom he was, he was a leader of the people, much as Moses was in his time. He may have seemed like a king, but there was no kingdom established. He left neither a successor nor instructions for future governance.  This not only allowed for the people to create their own form of government, but necessitated it. Thus, the door was left open to the possibility of even a secular and/or democratic government. What was required is that the system be just, as that concept was certainly Islamic.

In addition to justice, other concepts that were of great importance to include in whatever government was to be set up were: social cooperation and mutual assistance; establishing a non-autocratic, consultative method of governance; and institutionalizing mercy and compassion in social interactions. Democracy offers a great opportunity for promoting these ideals, as they naturally are co-aligned. A constitutional democracy further promotes and protects these ideals by setting to law some basic moral standards that hold both the rulers and the citizens equally accountable.

It is necessary for Muslims to be aware that although shari’a (as it literally means) is infallible, as Allah is infallible, humans are not. As such, the human interpretation of the Qur’an is subject to human experience and error. Any law written with Islamic intentions would still not reach the level of shari’a; rather, it would be fiqh, having the potential the potential to be in error. It is for this reason that consensus, or shura is such an important aspect to Islamic law, as what is best for the people is usually best determined by the people.

If we lived in a perfect world and if we were able to understand God’s word perfectly, then we would not need laws. In such an imperfect existence, laws provide some level of protections to human rights – some justice. Laws given in a constitutional democracy might be perhaps, a best-case scenario for upholding Islamic ideals.

This is a response paper that was originally written in reference to pages 3-46 of Islam and the Challenge of Democracy by Khaled Abou El Fadl for REL 432: Modern Muslim Thought at Michigan State University in September 2012.

Shura and Democracy are One

This is a response paper that was originally written in reference to Chapters 1-4 and 9-10 of Liberal Islam: A Source Book for REL 432: Modern Muslim Thought at Michigan State University in September 2012.

Ali Abd al-Raziq contended that the Prophet’s duty was to spread a message, not to form a state. He believed that the leadership of the message was so different from that of kings that they could be opposites. He also points out that the Prophet’s leadership was wider than that of a king. He offers many verses from the Qur’an where the Prophet’s mission was contrasted with that as a warden, guardian, or king. He was a reminder, not an oppressor or dominator, “sent to warn alone” (11:12). Thus, he believed that Islam was religious, not political, thus democracy as a possibility.

Muhammad Khalaf-Allah furthered the idea of Islamic democracy, believing it was not only compatible, but required his argument to support this belief rests on surah 3:159, “And seek their counsel in all affairs. And when you have come to a decision, place your trust in God alone.” It is this verse that he believes makes shura obligatory. He compares what the Europeans say about representation, majority ruling, and removal of a corrupt ruler is the same as follows in Islamic law.

Ayatolla Mahmud Taleqani speaks about the freedoms and mercies that should be the basis of Islamic order and the atrocities that have been foolishly committed in the name of God. This line of thinking is in line, again with the idea of democracy and perhaps suggests the idea of the separation of “church” and state.

Muhammed Sa’id al-Ashmawi explains how the politicization of shari’a and casting ancient jurisprudence as if of equal importance to the Qur’an and sunnah and covering it in concrete (made definitive and stagnant) corrupted the original intentions in the Prophet’s message, thus corrupted our idea of shari’a. He maintains the importance of itjihad and the importance given to the changes of time and customs.

Rachid Ghannouchi promoted the idea that it is better to have a secular democracy than no democracy at all, although an Islamic democracy is preferred. He explains that it is in Muslims’ best interest to be involved in secular democracy when an Islamic one is not possible to make sure the government is just and protects civil liberties.

Sadek Jawad Sulaiman explained how shura is no different, in fact, one in the same as democracy and that the more democratic, and more civil rights are protected, the more Islamic the system.

Originally written for REL 432: Modern Muslim Thought at Michigan State University - Sept. 2012

Your Politeness is Insulting Me

Most of us are taught manners starting at an early age. "Please", "Thank You", "I'm Sorry", etc. are the tools we are told to use to make it in community. First, we are taught that it is about respect. We are taught at the dinner table to use these words in the nicest way to ask for what we want and to show our appreciation for then being given what we asked for. It starts with respecting our elders, and in time, with respecting our family (mostly the siblings we quibble with and feel the least desire to be polite with). Later we find that these manners are taught to us to help us maneuver in the world at large. WHY?

A few things come to mind as I think about this. Recently, at a Campus Interfaith Council meeting that I was at, we talked about Peace and War. A couple of individuals thought that peace comes first from within before it can be extended to the outer world. As part of this, they felt that building character is very important to the process of finding peace within. I chimed in that I was pleased that my children's schools take an active role in helping kids build character by teaching them manners... by teaching them, through a national program called "Character Counts", the "proper" way to behave... just as we are supposed to be taught by our parents at the dinner table. But I think the way that the schools approach it must be different than the way most parents do. Maybe that is because schools have a larger "experience" and education behind them than most parents. Parents typically teach what they were taught. Schools have a vast array of individuals and fields of study to collaborate on their approach. But, I digress...

The next thing that comes to mind is a conversation I had recently with my boyfriend. We had been arguing and had decided to break up. I was exhausted emotionally, and was very hungry because it was late and I had not eaten yet, so I told him I wanted to get off of the phone to go find something to eat. And what did this man do? He invited me to go to his place for dinner. WHAT?! First he told me that he didn't want to be with me anymore, and then he invites me to dinner? Who does that? He does, apparently. WHY? To be polite. When I questioned him about it and told him he was crazy and confusing me, he got upset, saying that I "should have just said, 'no, thank you'" instead of getting upset. He thought I was bad mannered because I was honest in my reaction to his invitation - and I thought he was bad mannered for inviting me, when I knew he didn't actually mean it, when he was just being polite. (Unless it was a ploy... which, considering we are back together already, probably was...)

Finally, I went to dinner with a friend recently, and my friend took the bill. I thanked him for dinner, and he was insulted that I said "Thank you". He said, "There is no need for 'thank you' between friends". I admit, that friends are supposed to help each other and will often "fight" over a bill to try to be the nice one to buy. It's a game of politeness and true friendship. However, I admit, if a friend tried to pay me for watching their children or something else of that nature - a favor - I would indeed be insulted. Friends grant friends favors, at least in my world. BUT, I was raised to say "thank you" to show genuine appreciation. I do not say it to be polite. If I say it, I mean it. I am not always polite, but I do feel I have pretty good manners. I try not to lie to make someone feel better, or to mitigate power controls and fears (look up "Politeness Theory"). I say the truth as I see it, and generally I try to do it with tact. Tact. Sigh. Maybe it's all semantics. Regardless, I'd rather someone be honest with me than be "polite".


What do you think?