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…

Interfaith Marriage in Islam

In response to 2 fatwas:

On Marrying a non-Muslim Male
On Christian Men Marrying Muslim Women

            The fatwas concerning a Muslim woman marrying a non-Muslim man remind me of the reading involving women in Islam. The original interpretations regarding this issue were all given from the male perspective in a male-dominated society at the time they were given. If you take that context into consideration, it is of no surprise that men would be allowed to marry a non-Muslim Christian or Jew, but not the other way around.

            New religions have to compete against the others in the area. Islam was believed to have been sent to correct the corruption of the Jewish and Christian beliefs and replace the polytheistic beliefs of the pagans. In a male dominated society, it would have been crucial for the children to belong to this new religion and not have the chance of losing them to the others. Ideology grows and spreads with the children the easiest, as they can be indoctrinated from their very first day. They grow up learning from the parent and most often follow in the parent’s choice of faith. As such, a man in ancient Arabia and ancient Islam would have been able to guide his children’s choices, as the culture was already such that his wife was subservient to him. But, if the father in the family was not Muslim, then his children would likely become non-Muslims.

            I can see why Khaled Abou El Fadl had trouble answering the letter sent about the Muslim woman who was married to a Christian man that was allowing his wife to raise the children Muslim. That letter dealt with the context of western society in a time when women often have an equal footing in the family. The intent of the previous fatwas, and of the jurisprudence from the four schools of thought was to protect the growth of Islam. Here El Fadl was dealing with a situation where the growth of Islam was not at risk, but he was still somewhat unwilling to break from the contest of old. I agree with his final statement that the woman mentioned in the letter should pray and ask for guidance and follow her conscience and that God is merciful.

           

Written on 3/13/12 for my Modern Muslim Thought class

In the Best Interest of Humanity

Written on 2/1/12 in response to a couple of readings (sorry, I can't give adequate bibliography) for my Modern Muslim Thought class.

            I found the fatwa, issued by the 1403/1983 Meccan Islamic Law Academy of the World Muslim League, to be hypocritical in it’s function. It was saying that one could receive interest from a bank or financial dealing, but could not  benefit from it, instead donating it to some good cause, like a school. In order to make sure that the person couldn’t benefit from the donation (a good deed), they termed such a donation as not  being sadaqah, but instead a cleansing of the sin of taking the interest. I found it interesting that the Academy felt confident to declare that this donation was null and void in the eyes of God. I didn’t realize that they had such insight. To me, it’s semantics.

            The argument against this fatwa made sense to me, as it is true that in this world it is nearly impossible to not have and benefits that come from bank interest of some kind. They also attacked the hypocrisy of the fatwa. The argument didn’t make it clear, however, which interest is allowed and which  forbidden. The response left me feeling as though they were suggesting the permission of all interest dealings because it’s just to hard to “separate” in our modern world.

            The insurance fatwas were interesting, and I could follow the logic that such insurance policies are liken to gambling, which is forbidden in the Qur'an, but they didn’t address situations where law requires insurance – like with cars in Michigan where drivers are required by law to have auto insurance.

            Life insurance is less of a gamble (as indicated for a reason why it is forbidden) than is auto or property insurance. It is true that one may never reap a benefit from paying for property insurance, but we all die eventually. Where is the gamble?