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 

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 Problem with Interpretation

Today in my Birth of Christianity class, we were discussing who had "ownership" of the scripture in the ancient Hebrew Bible - the Jews or the Christians? Touchy subject, to be sure. Debate grew in the classroom. Some admitted that they were the Jewish people's writings first, and so must be theirs. Others suggested that they became the Christians' as the Christians used and reinterpreted them. I, now known as the class heretic, offered something outside of the box.

The way I see it, they were both the Jewish people's scriptures and the Christians, and at the same time, neither of theirs. Each group laid claim to them (and later, Muslims), and so they each have ownership to their own interpretations, but the only one who knows the actual meaning of the scriptures would be the author - or authors. My professor assumed that I was making a religious argument, that I was looking at this from a theological perspective. I would suggest that he was, not I.

image found on Thumb Press

What I meant is that only the one who writes something, the author, actually knows what meaning s/he intended. My professor assumed I was referring to "God" as the author; rather I was trying to be completely objective, so I was including God (possibly) and the actual human instruments (if indeed they were instruments
). I was trying to look at this problem academically, including all possibilities. For example, whoever wrote the Book of Job had a reason for writing it down. Because we do not have an explicit explanation from the author as to why s/he wrote it down and what it meant, we are left to conjecture and interpretation, which is done with our own personal understandings (bias). The same goes for every other piece of Scripture.

I'll give an example as to how the interpretation that we find may have nothing to do with the meaning of the writing that the author intended. I submit a poem of my own:

The Vanishing

It creeps in

at night

during your sleeping rest.

It strolls

through the corridors

in and out

of rooms.

The paths it takes

are none

to be seen.

It caresses your

thoughts

as shadows disappear.

It steals your

valuable

possessions of time.

It has no

regret

of all damage it causes,

and no

punishment

can it be given,

since its

silence

is that of no virtue,

no seizure,

no hope.

I know what I wrote about. I know the meaning I intended. My challenge to you is to come up with what you believe it is about - your interpretation - and write it below in the comments. I have a link that I will post in response to your comment that will reveal my intended meaning. The challenge is to see if your interpretation is right or wrong when compared to my intended meaning.The goal I seek is whether or not I am right or wrong in my thinking about this. 


I look forward to your comments and interpretations!

Gender Identity in the Qur’an

             Too many people hear Islam and think of oppressed women. When I converted to Islam, my mom even yelled at me, “How can you stand next to those wife beaters and pray!” That was before she decided to learn more about Islam. Western civilization and culture is different than that in the Middle East, to be sure, but even many Muslims have a misconception of gender in the Qur’an, based on how they interpret the language, or because they follow scholars that have a bias and thus a biased interpretation of the Qur’an. 

          Every person who reads the Qur’an is likely to have some personal bias in the reading based on their “prior text” (perspectives, circumstances, and background). We all have formed beliefs about life based on our experiences. It is difficult to be completely objective when interpreting something. Amina Wadud-Muhsin, a professor at the Virginia Commonwealth University wrote a paper with an introduction called, “How Perceptions of Women Influence Interpretations on the Qur’an” to tackle the question of gender identity in the Qur’an.

            Traditional tafasir (exegetical works) give interpretations of the Qur’an that objections in mind and were written by males, exclusively, leaving women voiceless in most legal interpretations. Many feminists and anti-Islam scholars react to severe handy-caps of women in these interpretations by forming interpretations with their own objectives in mind. Wadud-Muhsin decided to take a different course. Hers is one that will use “the interpretations which reconsider the whole method of Qur’anic exegesis with regard to various modern social, moral, economic, and political concerns – including the issue of woman”. To meet her goal of making a reading that comes from within a female experience, she used a hermeneutical model, which considers context, grammar, and whole text or Weltanschauung world view.

            Wadud-Muhsin argues against conventional interpretations, especially concerning certain words and their translation from Arabic to English. As such, she explains how the masculine plural in Arabic may include women, as long as there is at least one man present. If a plural is to refer to women only, it is feminine in form. There is no form exclusively for males. As such, all plural masculine forms should be considered for females as well.

            The author also argues that the Qur’an is meant for all people and all nations and therefore is not meant to be static with one cultural situation. Such as, modesty in ancient Arabia meant one thing, and modesty in America means another. They may not be equal, but neither do they need to be. She also argues that “those who argue that the Qur’an cannot be translated believe that there is some necessary correlation between Arabic and the message itself” and that “gender distinction, an inherent flaw, necessary for human communication in the Arabic, is overcome by the text in order to fulfill its intention of universal guidance.”

            She claims that interpretation of the Qur’an can never be final, as the world is always changing and each person brings their own past with them in the interpretations.

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

Paul and Augustine: Conversion Narratives and the Retrospective Self

In response to Paula Fredriksen’s Paul and Augustine:  Conversion Narratives, Orthodox Traditions and the Retrospective Self

Conversion stories bring with them an establishment problem, that of retrospection. Conversions come in an instant; it’s that eureka moment where the light bulb goes off. One is not usually writing about the experience as it happens, instead he/she writes about it after it happens, in retrospect. Retrospection is always 20/20 because we read into our past the information we need to explain our present: to ourselves, to others, to the ones angered by our change of opinion. Paul and Augustine are no different. Augustine takes this a step further though, as he attempts to redefine Paul’s conversion to match his own. He looks for credibility by incorporating Paul into his own conversion and circularly, recreating Paul’s own conversion to match.

Augustine

            Paul has to explain himself to those that disagree or do not understand his new philosophy. His conversion story becomes rhetoric. We cannot know the moment of his conversion, nor do we have a vast autobiographical retrospective account like Augustine, but we can pull what Paul feels convicted about via his rhetorical writings to the churches. But even there, the past gets in the way. We cannot see clearly the present and present theology or philosophy without reviewing the past, where our minds automatically make assumptions to make the past match the present and vice versa. But it’s a past and present that we want to see. We cannot review the past without introducing our own bias, which is the problem of conversion narratives, Paul’s included. 

Paul

Written for my Birth of Christianity class on 2/14/12