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

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

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.

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

Converted to Islam, Remained Progressive - Not an Oxymoron

My Saudi scarf given to me by a dear friend

I'm progressive, and for those that know me, unapologetically so. However, I often find myself chagrined when I meet other Muslims and they look at me queerly when I tell them I accepted Islam several years ago. She's white. She's a convert (revert). She's NOT wearing hijab??? Why is it that I am expected to tow the traditional line because I used to be Christian? Why am I villianized for being a progressive? And why do I feel guilty that I am not meeting up to their expectations? (although I don't try real hard to... My ultimate concern is with Allah, not what other people think of me)

anecdote: In the spring of 2011, I spoke on a panel of converts for our Islam Awareness Week at the university I attend. I was one of three. To my right was a gentleman that converted through the Nation of Islam. To my left was a woman that converted through marriage. He was dressed without any religious attire (normal American casual dress clothes). She was in abaya and hijab. Sitting in the middle was me, regular clothes, hijab free.

The woman on my left explained to the audience that when she teaches she often get stares and she says to herself, "yes, this is what a Muslim woman looks like". I was slightly offended. When she finished, I stood up and said, "I respect what you said, but THIS is also what a Muslim woman looks like".

Still, I always find myself a bit awkward when meeting other Muslims, especially women. I have been told too many times that I wasn't "Muslim" enough. Thank God I found a community with which to belong: Muslims for Progressive Values. Find them on Facebook.

Elhamdulelah.

Interfaith Marrige Part 3, OOPS! I mean Interfaith Dating part 1.5

Upon reading a post written by a progressive Muslim man regarding dating, I replied with the following:

I hope I can answer your question about how you can be in a relationship with someone of differing beliefs without forcing your own on her. It's easy and it's difficult. The first step is very very important. Do you believe the same where it matters most to you? If yes, continue to step two, if no - move on, you will not be right together.

There are fundamental things that a couple must know about each other to determine if they can make it in the long haul: 1. religion, 2. kids and parenting style, 3. household expectations (i.e. roles), and 4. anything else that YOU personally might consider a "deal breaker". Don't compromise on these things, it will only cause resentment in the long run. Also, truly know yourself and be able to be honest with yourself. This may sound trite to some, but I personally believe that most men and women these days do not really know themselves until close to thirty.

Step two: if you don't want religion to be an issue, it won't be, but make SURE that she is on the same page with that. My boyfriend of over a year now is Chaldean. We were each warned by a common friend that (she's a Muslim) and (he's a Christian) because of our religious differences. But, I am a progressive Muslim with a Christian family and Christian children. I'm also an interfaith advocate. He's simply not that religious. Religion is not an issue for us because we don't make it one. His exact words to me one day (after asking if he wanted to go to church with us - the kids wanted to go), "don't take me to no church and don't take me to no mosque". We do our religious things separately and we respect each others faiths.

Personally, for me, I find it is easier for me to find Christians and agnostics that accept me far more than Muslim men. Most of the Muslim men I know are very traditional. I have even been warned away from one who I thought had a true interest in me, as I was told, "he will use you for now and then his family will have him marry someone from his own community - NOT an American.

If my man and I don't make it, it will not be because of religion (I will admit rocky waters), rather it will be personal differences of which I ignored some red flags early on. If we don't make it, I really would like to be with a Muslim man, and I do want to get married again, but I fear the constant rejection from "not being Muslim enough" (yes, I have been told that) or a man that wants to reign me in.

BTW, a lesson I learned from my failed marriage and my parents successful yet turbulent marriage: commitment and hard work are extremely important. 

Also, in agreement with another poster, I said: It is better to be with someone like minded when you run the gamut with little kids. 

Marriage is a series of hills and valleys. You will not always feel in love, but you have to find ways to bring it back. Trust and COMMUNICATION are key - so is an imagination.

One last thought: "courting" sounds like what you should be doing. Ah, what I would do for a man that properly courted me (before and during our marriage). sigh.... wistful sigh....