Saints: Common to Hinduism and Christianity

Click to purchase at Amazon.com

Autobiography of a Yogi describes the extraordinary lives and powers of many modern Hindu saints and yogis. Here, I identified three described in the book along with an explanation of why I found each of them fascinating. I also identified a Christian saint who is interests me and described how Hindus might characterize him/her as a yogi. 

Three modern Hindu saints/yogis that I found fascinating in Autobiography of a Yogi were Gandha Baba, Giri Bala, and Babaji.

Ghandha Baba, The Perfume Saint

Gandha Baba[1], the “perfume saint”, one of the first Hindu saints mentioned in the book intrigued me because of the connection of floral scents/perfumes and saints/relics in Christian belief. Often relics are considered authentic[2] if they exhibit a sweet or floral scent. Saints, such as St. Theresa of Avila and Padre Pio, have been said to have had an “odor of sanctity”, which is defined as a sweet fragrance emanating from a saint’s body around and after death[3]. Exhibiting an unexplainable odor of sanctity would be one of many ways in which a Christian saint could be canonized as authentic[4].

Although the floral perfume miracles that Gandha Baba performed had nothing to do with his own body or his death, it reminded me of the saintly floral scents mentioned in my Christianity courses. I was also intrigued at how skeptical the young Yogananda was about this particular saint. He seemed to expect that it was a simple parlor trick, yet could not fathom how he had done it, thus decided it was a true miracle.

Yogananda (left) with Giri Baba (right)

Giri Bala’s miracle of taking no food or water[5] for fifty years is something I simply don’t understand (but wish I could replicate at times!). As the holder of a Bachelors of Science in Biology, the science behind the necessity of food for the body is preventing my mind from simply appreciating the miracle. I keep trying to figure out HOW? Obviously, if I were a believer in KriyaYoga, I would not question the miracle at all. From Yogananda’s descriptions of “how”, it does make sense to me on some level, as I do believe everything is reducible to a form of energy that science doesn't completely understand yet, and if you could manipulate those energies, you could bring something out of the “apparent” nothing, including nourishment and water that the body requires to stay alive. Perhaps it is because the method, Kriya Yoga, of which to get there is hidden as a secret teaching (must be initiated to learn the technique) to us readers at this point. It has intrigued me enough that I am curious about learning more about Kriya Yoga.

Therese Neumann

I also found it interesting that Yogananda first found the stigmata-plagued Christian saint, Therese Neumann[6] -- who also did not eat -- before he met Giri Bala. From those encounters, it is easy to draw parallels between Hindu and Christian saints.

Babaji

Finally, the Hindu saint/yogi that most intrigued me in Yogananda’s autobiography was the infamous Babaji. Although it has nothing to do with his miraculous nature that is described by Yogananda from his interviews with those that have claimed to have interacted with Babaji. The characteristic that sticks out the most to me is his description of having copper-colored hair[7].  The reason it sticks out to me is that Indians are not known for having red hair and it seems very odd to me. It makes me want to figure out where he might have originated. As a biologist, I am also reminded of genetic anomalies, which I also know[8] are often seen as gifts from God in Hinduism. I can’t help but wonder and question the validity of reports that he has lived ever so long and without change; but, that is the skeptic in me. Babaji to me is the man of myth – one in which is likely based in fact (as many myths are) -- but has been exaggerated and bronzed in fantastical legends over time. Perhaps I need a visit from Babaji to end my skepticism (and wouldn't I be sheepish!). In some ways he reminds me not of Jesus, but of the miraculous visions of Mother Mary that many people have claimed over the years. I can definitely see how the Hindus venerate Babaji though, as he is the epitome of what every yogi would hope to become.

St. Theresa of Avila

As I mentioned above, it is easy to pull similarities between Christian and Hindu saints. Both reflect their devotion to God. St. Theresa of Avila, a Christian saint, would likely have been considered saintly by Hindu standards as well, and I think Yogananda would have made a pilgrimage to her if she had been alive still. Like the yogis/saints that Yogananda spoke of in his book, St. Theresa also raised her consciousness to reflect a union with God, which she called “devotions of ecstasy”[9]. In fact, Yoganada mentions her several times[10] when talking about saints and their abilities and activities.

---

[1] (Yogananda 2006, 52-55)

[2] (Brazinski and Fryxell 2013)

[3] (Odor of Sanctity n.d.)

[4] (Canonization of Saints n.d.)

[5] (Yogananda 2006, 505; 510-517)

[6] (Yogananda 2006, 402-409)

[7] (Yogananda 2006, 335)

[8] I have seen documentaries about Hinduism wherein children born with multiple limbs are often worshipped locally.

[9] (Wikipedia contributors n.d.)

[10] (Yogananda 2006, 73; 245; 538)

Works Cited

Brazinski, P.A., and A.R.P. Fryxell. "The Smell of Relics: Authenticating Saintly Bones and the Role of Scent in the Sensory Experience of Medieval Christian Veneration." Papers from the Institute of Archaeology, 2013: 23(1):11.

"Canonization of Saints." Religion Facts. n.d. http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/practices/honoring_saints/canonization.htm (accessed November 20, 2013).

"Odor of Sanctity." Merriam-Webster.com. n.d. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/odor%20of%20sanctity (accessed November 20, 2013).

Wikipedia contributors. "Teresa of Ávila." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. n.d. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Cite&page=Teresa_of_%C3%81vila&id=582615830 (accessed November 21, 2013).

Yogananda. Autobiography of a Yogi. Los Angeles, CA: Self-Realization Fellowship, 2006.

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

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

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…