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

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…

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

On Goodness

In response to the following readings,

Ethics, Books I-V by Aristotle

Meno by Plato

Gorgias by Plato

Crito by Plato

Symposium by Xenophon

                The readings from Aristotle, Plato, and Xenophon all deal with aspects of ethics (sometimes called politics), i.e. the pursuit of happiness by means of being a good person.  Book I of Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics helps to define what “good” is and how one defines it for himself or for society and the methods to seek it. Aristotle suggests that In order for a person to be able to realize what his or her higher good is and the methods for achieving it, thus achieving happiness, he or she needs to be mature and knowledgeable; i.e. they need to be able to use reason. Once able to use reason, man can keep desire under control (within the “golden mean”) and become a moral person. Book II goes on to expand on what moral virtues are.

                Aristotle sees each person as a particular nature and particular tendencies to desire an excess (above or below) what brings them to their highest good. He explains that self-realization is the way to understand one’s inclination and to learn to control the vices in life. He goes on to explain how we must use reason to look at the long-term outcomes when making choices for our highest good. He expands this idea to society at large and suggests that the good of the majority supersedes that of the minority (perhaps relating the minority to the likes of special interest groups that would operate like desire out of control).  He suggests that disorganization of human nature is what amounts to moral evil; that we are born neither good nor bad but have the possibility to become either and that our nature grows by the choices we make and the habits we acquire.

                The formation of our habits may be difficult, but with the use of reason, we can overturn bad habits and take on good ones. Aristotle supposes that only with a good set of habits can one be a good person and to form these good habits, one must follow the “golden mean doctrine”, or as Plato refers to in his writings, temperance: i.e. avoiding excesses. There is no set standard to follow and each person must use reason to find out where the golden mean is in each situation that he encounters – to use intellect rather than emotion. The golden mean however, never allows for the toleration of injustice or cruelty.  Aristotle goes on to explain moral responsibility regarding the choices we make in Book III.

                Moral responsibility, to Aristotle, meant that we are responsible for any voluntary course of action we follow and the resulting consequences. He does admit that sometimes coercion or ignorance causes us to makes choices that we might otherwise not choose, and in those cases, he removes responsibility. To him, good moral choices are not based on the intent or the outcome, but comes from a good intention, uses good methods, and ends in good results, as  much as can be determined ahead of time.  A wise decision is usually based on the deliberation prior to making the decision, involves thinking for the long term and using reason over emotion. Finally, in the end of Book III, Aristotle differentiates between vice and virtue as vice being something we over-indulge in. A virtue he mentions is courage, which is between cowardice and foolhardiness and thus follows the golden mean. Again he is referring to the need for temperance. He gives further examples of virtues in Book IV of Nicomachean Ethics.

                Aristotle continues to give examples about how virtues demonstrate the golden mean, avoiding any excess. He also points out that the moral quality of an action or decision is situation specific, and thus must be measured on its own merits and should be based on reason versus emotion (as previously mentioned).  

All of the arguments in Aristotle’s first three books of Nicomachean Ethics lead to a description of how to be a good person in Book IV.  To begin with, a good man will be generous, but without exceeding the long-term needs of those s/he helps; it is by wisdom that s/he will know how and when not to exceed. S/he will not be generous for sake of attention and public honor, but because it is right and good and will be generous quietly, occasionally publically, will be modest, and accept what is due, even if it be public honor. Such a person would be considered magnificent by Aristotle. Further, s/he will be kind and considerate, gentle in disposition, but know when appropriate anger is necessary, without letting it get out-of-hand. S/he will be honest and modest, and ambitious but not greedy.

Book V turns away from the description of a good man to the topic of justice. Again he uses the doctrine of the golden mean as his tool by which to measure; however, this time he discusses not only individual justice, but more so, societal justice (the golden mean doctrine is for individuals).  Society has rules, or laws, and laws are given to provide for freedom more so than anarchy does and supplies a system of rewards and punishments (much like a parent/child relationship, as Socrates later suggests in Plato’s Crito).  The rewards and punishments must conform to the golden mean in order to be just – they must not be too light or too severe. The just state will provide a just system and distribution of wealth that provide for the best way for its people to realize their highest good. This does not mean equal distribution, as the distribution in Aristotle’s mind is to be based on merit as well as need. Aristotle sees justice as being “good”, whereas Aristotle and Socrates call it a virtue.

In Plato’s Crito, Socrates says ruling (government) can only be virtuous if it is just. If we put his words with Aristotle’s, it would seem that virtue is equal to “good”; however, Socrates seems to be unable to define what virtue is, but can only come to the conclusion that it is something neither innate or learned, but is, as he puts it, “a gift from the gods”.  Plato continues to describe how Socrates considers virtue in the dialogue, Gorgias.

In Gorgia’s, opposite natures are expressed: true/false, flattery/routine, good/evil, etc. Another distinction is made regarding “good” – it is different from pleasant. Socrates especially differentiates between rhetoric and wisdom. He sees rhetoric as false, as it is persuasion to convince others that something is true when it may not in fact be. Wisdom regards acknowledgement of actual truth. Virtue is something that Socrates says arises from the balance of the arts (i.e. temperance ), which is similar to Aristotle’s idea that following the golden mean doctrine provides for what is good. Further, Socrates suggests that virtue manifests in righteous living and suggests its importance beyond life.

Socrates further discusses justice in regard to the State and laws and ethical behavior in Plato’s Crito. Here, Socrates is portrayed in prison when a friend comes to persuade him to escape. Socrates refuses, saying that to do so, he would have to cause others to do wrong and he himself would be doing wrong and go unpunished, which he believes is the worst evil. Crito is concerned about what others think of him if he is unsuccessful in helping Socrates escape, to which Socrates answers that a person should not care about public opinion, but rather wise advice, and to just behave well and justly. (This is much like what I tell my son: that when others say things about him that are not nice and not true, I remind him to ignore their lies and be confident in his truth).

Socrates continues to show the parent/child relationship mentioned earlier that the citizen has with the State. If one is a citizen of the State, s/he must follow the laws that are set forth with the assumption that the State (or parent figure) is looking out for the citizen’s (child’s) best interest. If you continue to live in the State and not leave, it is an unspoken contract to follow the Law. As Socrates had lived in Athens for over seventy years, he shows Crito that he would be very wrong to escape now, as he had contracted for all this time to follow the laws and never left when he had the opportunity to.

At this point in the readings, it seems to me that a “good” person is one that:

·         practices the golden mean in their actions

·         uses wisdom in deliberations

·         seeks the  long-term highest good

·         follows the Laws of the State in which s/he chooses to reside

·         uses good intention, good methods, and has good results

The final reading, Xenophon’s Symposium appears to me to expand the idea of good and how each of us have different highest goods, or rather, that each of us have his or her own purposes in life to fulfill, and what we pride ourselves in seems to help us to define our purpose.

                In the beginning of Symposium, Socrates suggests that love of the soul is much more important than love of the body. In this, I think he refers not only to human desires, but also the material versus the immaterial. The man focused on material things or human desire rather than the quality of his soul is like the short term renter and not a mortgage holder. The renter does not care to look at the long term, whereas the mortgage holder wants a return on his investment and is willing to put the work into increasing the quality of the home. He continues to discuss how our relationships also have effect on the moral quality of our souls, as if we keep good company, they will help us to also become good, and if our company is corrupt, we will be likely to pick up their habits. And since habit has much to do with our moral quality, we should only seek to keep company with the righteous. This also works in reverse, for how can we provide real help to our loved ones to become good if we ourselves are not good? He finalizes this message by explaining that a virtuous life will be self-evident, which is reminiscent of Socrates’s chastisement of Crito about being worried about what others think of him. Live righteously and do not let others deflect your path to immortality. 

I would love to hear your critiques, comments, and more, so write something below! :)      

Written for my Intro to Political Philosophy class on 3/5/12

               

        

Pastor Dennis Terry Introduces Rick Santorum, Tells Liberals and Non-Christians to 'Get Out' of America

Pastor Dennis Terry Introduces Rick Santorum, Tells Liberals and Non-Christians to 'Get Out' of America | rightwingwatch.org

as fellow activist, Jahnabi Barooah said, "Us interfaith activists have a lot of work on"... indeed, we need to combat the bigotry that is growing in the USA today... what are you willing to do to help counter it?