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

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

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...

Pluralism and Salvation

In today’s global society, the need for interreligious dialogue is becoming very important amongst 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 “Salvationand the ‘Other’ in Islamic Thought: The Contemporary Pluralism Debate (inEnglish)”, the fact that not all pluralists are created equal is made known. Pluralism in Islam (and likely elsewhere) has divisions which is 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 authoritive. 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, which is one important to interfaith relations locally and globally, 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.

Islamic Perspective on Abortion

 In response to Chapter Two of Islamic Ethics of Life, The Problem of Abortion in Classic Sunni Fiqh

 PRO-LIFE! PRO-CHOICE! You’ve heard the chants; you’ve seen the signs. There is no doubt that abortion is an emotionally charged topic in North America. Many people, specifically from the Christian faiths, clamor for universal rules regarding the relationship of fetus, life, and child and rights of the mother and/or father. Many believe in life at conception, whereas others believe that there is a point in time where the fetus becomes a child – human – a life to be protected by law. Unfortunately, because of the idea that there can somehow be a universal truth to settle this debate is exactly what has likely made it irreconcilable.

This debate also occurs in Islam, but perhaps to a lesser degree, as the focus is often more law based and less moral. The arguments are very formal and based on the Qur’an and hadith and fiqh. Somewhat like the debate in the West, the argument is typically more about determining at which point the fetus becomes more – someone, rather than something. Along with this argument are the social punishments for accidental or intentional loss of a child – it is not as much a moral argument as it is in Christianity, until we reach the realm of Sufism, the mystical aspect of Islam.

Sufism is more interested in individual growth, which is a subjective matter, than sociological growth within the community of Islam. It is here that we find more of the moral outlook of ending a pregnancy, and as it is individualistic, it is subjective, and naturally, casuistic. The casuistic nature of some issues, like abortion, is not just of Sufism, but also naturally part of Islam, as intention means a great deal. Sometimes in this life, there are not the universal truths we hope for, rather, there always seems to be an “exception to the rule”. I think perhaps if the debate in North America could focus on intentions and allow for the single case evaluations, there would be less yelling across the fences.

Written for my Modern Muslim Thought class in March 2012

RELATED ARTICLES:

Morocco blocks Dutch ‘abortion’ ship 

Pakistan: Law and Islam allow abortion under conditions 

Dancing Sufis for abortion

Gender Equality and Islam

“Allah (thus) directs you as regards your Children's (Inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females” (Qur’an 4:11). The question is: what does this quote form the Qur’an mean when it comes to women and their standing in society as compared to men? Too many mullas (religious scholars), it means that women are worth only half of what man is worth. It seems to make sense, right? Why else would men get twice as much as women? It seems logical until you consider the context. What is the context? The way in which society operated at the time this surah was received by Mohammed, PBUH.

 As Benazir Bhutto shares, in sixth century Arabia, men were the providers, women were the provided. Women did not have to work, and what their husband’s earned was theirs. The husbands were in charge of taking care of their wives and children. Thus, when considering inheritance, men needed twice as much, so that he could provide for his wife, and women needed less, since her husband (and his inheritance) was going to provide for her. When considering the quote mentioned above in this context, you can see how it has nothing to do at all with equality, except to makes sure that men and women were equally provided for, considering their social obligations.  

 Today’s gender inequality found in some Islamic areas are not just from the interpretation of mullas, but also from hadith that have been considered “authentic” but may not be, even by the standards that were originally set by the leaders of three of the prominent schools of thought: Malik, Shafi’i, and Hanifa. Several examples that are less than favorable toward women come from hadith reported by Abu Bakra, recorded by Al-Bukhari, whose work “has been the most highly respected references for twelve centuries” (Fatima Mernissi).

Unfortunately, some of these hadith are written without the context, and as mentioned earlier, context is important. Also, Abu Bakra’s hadith are suspect, as he was not honest, having been flogged for slander, and Aisha, the Prophet’s wife counters many of his hadith and even chastised him for collecting hadith he never heard.

Gender inequality in Islam does not come from scripture; rather it comes from a string of male oriented, patriarchal mulla interpretation and the coupling of suspect hadith being considered authentic. I feel one must always consult the Qur’an, pray for guidance, and find harmony between heart, Qur’an, and interpretation – for oneself.

Written for my Modern Muslim Thought class in March 2012