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

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…

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.

Interfaith Marriage - Take 2

When I wrote my first post about interfaith marriage, I was speaking from opinion, not experience. Now, I can speak at least somewhat from experience. As some may realize, from reading my self-expose, I was born and raised Christian - Episcopalian, to be exact. When I converted to Islam, I was still married and living with my husband, who was Christian, raised Dutch reformed. He wasn’t thrilled that I converted, but since he knew how I felt about religion – that I wasn’t going to push anything on him and that we had both already decided that our children would choose their own paths in life (with our guidance to love God and others), it wasn’t a very big issue for him. As for my new Muslim friends, I was told that I should divorce, as a Muslim woman cannot be married to a Christian man (for more info, read my post regarding these opinions). Others told me that because I converted after I married, that I had no reason to end the marriage. I had no intention of divorcing over religion. 

I will admit that although my husband didn't care that I converted, he did have an issue with what I was going to tell our children or what I might do in front of them (pray or maybe wear hijab) or where I might take them (the mosque). I didn't feel it would be appropriate to have such a drastic change for my kids, so I agreed at first to "keep it on the down-low". I mentioned things here and there, and the kids saw me pray on occasion, but I would never take them to the mosque, unless they wanted to go (they didn't). Thus, things were fine in our household, regarding religion. 

Sometimes my husband and I would debate Islam and Christianity, as I love to debate (and finally we disagreed on something to debate about). It was apparent that it was going to be a subject we were going to have to agree to disagree on. Part of his animosity towards hearing anything about Islam came from his parents, who consider Islam to be evil. They questioned how I could convert to such an evil ideology. I tried to explain to them that Islam was not evil and the terrorists like Osama Bin Laden did not represent the whole of Islam, rather only a fringe element, like any other religion (see my post on extremism for more info), but my explanations fell on deaf ears. I even told my mother-in-law, at one point, "you know me and how important peace is to me, I want to go into peace work even - I am not going to convert to something that is evil and hateful." Nothing I said mattered. 

One day, while on a drive, I asked my husband if I could read a Sura to him. I wanted him to hear how similar to the bible it was. He allowed me to, so I read Sura 19, Maryam, to him. He was surprised at what he heard. Of course, we discussed the differences in the Jesus birth stories, but he admitted it sounded much like what is in the Bible. He allowed me to read a few other small Suras to him and admitted there was nothing bad there. He seemed to relax about my conversion a bit more and even told me I could take the kids to the mosque with me if I wanted to (I still didn't as I didn't think they were ready). 

Before I continue with this story... I should apprise you of some vital information. My marriage was on the rocks before I converted. There was some hope of reconciliation, but at his abandonment of marriage therapy, all hope I had vanished. This is a bit of a he-said/she-said issue, but the point is, my marriage was not in a happy place and hadn't been for a long time.  I don't believe that my conversion had anything to do with our resulting divorce. On with the story...

So, my husband filed for divorce about four months after I converted. The reason I was told that reconciliation was not possible was to do with my decision to return to school to study religion and Arabic. He was not supportive of this decision, but as it was vital to my health and sanity, I took doctors' recommendations to do so (another long story for another day). Again, religion was not the cause of my failed marriage, but it certainly played in the resulting divorce legalities and custody dispute. Perhaps I should have titled this post "Interfaith Divorce".

I was never so shocked in my life to read the divorce papers and see that he was seeking full legal and physical custody of our children, listing among other things, my conversion and the "need" to keep our children Christian. Until that point, I didn't know that religion could play a part in a custody suit. I didn't know I could lose my children for converting. I was furious, of course. He knew I had no intention of stuffing my beliefs down our children's' throats, just as I didn't as a Christian. As far as I am concerned, this choice was being driven by his parents and their fears and his anger toward me for choosing school. What was supposed to be a simple easy divorce turned out to be nothing but. 
 

The custody battle waged on for almost a year. I almost lost them to him physically (but not legally, as he dropped that) as the referee in Montcalm County couldn't say enough about Islam and my immature conversion. I was even accused by this man of potentially leaving the country. He ridiculed me for converting and it was obvious that Islam was playing a big role in his decision to award custody to my ex-husband. I had never felt truly discriminated before in my life, as I did that day. My heart felt like it dropped through the floor. Here I was, fighting to keep joint custody of our children, as I felt it was important that they have both mom and dad as much as possible and I was going to lose them over religion. Was this the USA? I was in shock. I didn't believe that this sort of thing could happen in our country. The really terrible part about it was that I had already agreed to continue raising our children as Christians. Since I believe in the interfaith movement, I had no issue with this. Still, small-town thinking in rural USA was going to take away my babies.

I fought. I praise Allah, my lawyer, and justice that the judge ruled in my favor when we protested the referee's recommendation. I had discussed the matter with CAIR and was ready to pursue the outright discrimination with them, if need be, but since I won in the long run, I decided to drop it - I had my kids, and that is what mattered most to me. I may still pursue something, to make sure that no one else in Montcalm County or the State of Michigan goes through what I went through, but I don't know if I have already waited too long. The battle was hard fought and it was a relief to my kids when they learned they were going to stay with mommy (we live two hours from each other now, so during the week they had to live either with him or me). I drive them back and forth to their father every weekend (that little caveat the judge through in still makes no sense to me - I  thought "joint" meant that we would continue to meet half-way).
 

Things now have mostly settled down. My kids have their bibles (I had to laugh that his parents thought they had to supply them with bibles for use at my house, as if I don't have 4 different versions on my shelf, already available to them, as well as almost two full shelves of Christian readings. (And many books about other religions and mythologies.) My kids know that Mommy and Daddy don't believe exactly the same. They know some Arabic and a little about Islam. They like saying Bismillah before eating. I still don't take them to the mosque, as I don't go often myself now that I am almost two hours from my home mosque. I do however drag them to Muslim Student Association and MSU Interfaith Council meetings from time to time. They've seen me in hijab without freaking out. (My daughter has her own collection of scarves because she finds them pretty) I don't wear hijab normally, but still they have seen me in one. They love their Muslim babysitter and miss her now that school is in session. My son is voiceful about being Christian and I support him. My daughter is just happy to love God at this point. We pray together in our own ways. We discuss religion without taboos. We're happy. To me, that is the best part. 

Now, there is more... and for this, I already know all the lectures that may come. I am dating a new man. Yes, I know dating is considered haram, and I know why. This man is Iraqi, but he is not Muslim. He is Chaldean Catholic (Honestly, I didn't even know this existed before). My psychologist thought this was a hoot. Isn't it ironic that in this relationship, I, the American white girl is the Muslim, and he is the Iraqi brown boy Christian. Yup, that's my life alright, I like to do things backwards. Seriously though, even as a Christian, I never thought I would ever, ever date a Catholic. Catholics were what Episcopalians were not! (but, oh, so similar)

When I saw him, I had already committed to myself that I was not going to chase any man. That if a new man was going to come into my life, he would have to find his way to me. Well, all that went out the window when I looked up from my book and saw him. I knew instantly that I had to meet him. I saw him talk to an Egyptian, Muslim friend of mine, and I hoped I would be introduced. When that didn't happen, I took matters into my own hands. (I am ever willful) I introduced myself and after some chit chat, the new guy left my friend and I alone for a few moments. My friend said to me, "You should know, he's Christian." I responded with a simple, non-committal "OK." I later found out that my friend had also told this new guy, "You should know, she's Muslim." I guess he could tell there was something in the air between us. 

That was almost 9 months ago. Sometimes we talk about religion, and he is a good sport. He's honest and has no problems agreeing to disagree with me. I know that his sentiments about Islam come from persecution he and his family suffered in Iraq, as he is here as a refuge, but he doesn't seem to hold that against me and respects my right to believe as I wish, as I respect his. I have to admit that I think it helps that we are both "liberal" and perhaps more spiritual than religious. We have talked about marriage and children, and this might be one sticking point with me, but I haven't decided yet. He knows that another baby could hurt my health a lot, and he loves my kids already. He's said we don't need to have another child or we could adopt. I asked him the "what if?" and he replied that he would want his child raised Catholic. I asked about Islam. He agreed that Islam would not be hidden and that we would allow the child to choose for him/herself with gentle guidance to love God and others from us, as I already guide my children. We both love Jesus, so that is not an issue at all, of course. On one hand, that's good enough for me, but I know that is the me now speaking. Me later might become more "religious" and might want my child raised as a Muslim instead. At the same time, I still have two children I am raising Christian... what's one more? I pray and I know that God will give me the guidance I need when the time comes.

So here I am, a esoteric-ish, post-Episcopal Christian, Muslim, divorced from a Protestant Christian, raising two non-denominational Christians, dating a Chaldean Catholic Christian. Is it easy? Most of the time. The custody battle was the only part that wasn't, and I will admit it was probably the hardest time in my life thus far. Overall though, I think interfaith relationships/marriages/families can work, with the proper attitudes, communication, cooperation, and respect. 

I think I need to call my Buddhist cousin now...