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?

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...