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.

Interfaith Marriage in Islam

In response to 2 fatwas:

On Marrying a non-Muslim Male
On Christian Men Marrying Muslim Women

            The fatwas concerning a Muslim woman marrying a non-Muslim man remind me of the reading involving women in Islam. The original interpretations regarding this issue were all given from the male perspective in a male-dominated society at the time they were given. If you take that context into consideration, it is of no surprise that men would be allowed to marry a non-Muslim Christian or Jew, but not the other way around.

            New religions have to compete against the others in the area. Islam was believed to have been sent to correct the corruption of the Jewish and Christian beliefs and replace the polytheistic beliefs of the pagans. In a male dominated society, it would have been crucial for the children to belong to this new religion and not have the chance of losing them to the others. Ideology grows and spreads with the children the easiest, as they can be indoctrinated from their very first day. They grow up learning from the parent and most often follow in the parent’s choice of faith. As such, a man in ancient Arabia and ancient Islam would have been able to guide his children’s choices, as the culture was already such that his wife was subservient to him. But, if the father in the family was not Muslim, then his children would likely become non-Muslims.

            I can see why Khaled Abou El Fadl had trouble answering the letter sent about the Muslim woman who was married to a Christian man that was allowing his wife to raise the children Muslim. That letter dealt with the context of western society in a time when women often have an equal footing in the family. The intent of the previous fatwas, and of the jurisprudence from the four schools of thought was to protect the growth of Islam. Here El Fadl was dealing with a situation where the growth of Islam was not at risk, but he was still somewhat unwilling to break from the contest of old. I agree with his final statement that the woman mentioned in the letter should pray and ask for guidance and follow her conscience and that God is merciful.

           

Written on 3/13/12 for my Modern Muslim Thought class

Gender Identity in the Qur’an

             Too many people hear Islam and think of oppressed women. When I converted to Islam, my mom even yelled at me, “How can you stand next to those wife beaters and pray!” That was before she decided to learn more about Islam. Western civilization and culture is different than that in the Middle East, to be sure, but even many Muslims have a misconception of gender in the Qur’an, based on how they interpret the language, or because they follow scholars that have a bias and thus a biased interpretation of the Qur’an. 

          Every person who reads the Qur’an is likely to have some personal bias in the reading based on their “prior text” (perspectives, circumstances, and background). We all have formed beliefs about life based on our experiences. It is difficult to be completely objective when interpreting something. Amina Wadud-Muhsin, a professor at the Virginia Commonwealth University wrote a paper with an introduction called, “How Perceptions of Women Influence Interpretations on the Qur’an” to tackle the question of gender identity in the Qur’an.

            Traditional tafasir (exegetical works) give interpretations of the Qur’an that objections in mind and were written by males, exclusively, leaving women voiceless in most legal interpretations. Many feminists and anti-Islam scholars react to severe handy-caps of women in these interpretations by forming interpretations with their own objectives in mind. Wadud-Muhsin decided to take a different course. Hers is one that will use “the interpretations which reconsider the whole method of Qur’anic exegesis with regard to various modern social, moral, economic, and political concerns – including the issue of woman”. To meet her goal of making a reading that comes from within a female experience, she used a hermeneutical model, which considers context, grammar, and whole text or Weltanschauung world view.

            Wadud-Muhsin argues against conventional interpretations, especially concerning certain words and their translation from Arabic to English. As such, she explains how the masculine plural in Arabic may include women, as long as there is at least one man present. If a plural is to refer to women only, it is feminine in form. There is no form exclusively for males. As such, all plural masculine forms should be considered for females as well.

            The author also argues that the Qur’an is meant for all people and all nations and therefore is not meant to be static with one cultural situation. Such as, modesty in ancient Arabia meant one thing, and modesty in America means another. They may not be equal, but neither do they need to be. She also argues that “those who argue that the Qur’an cannot be translated believe that there is some necessary correlation between Arabic and the message itself” and that “gender distinction, an inherent flaw, necessary for human communication in the Arabic, is overcome by the text in order to fulfill its intention of universal guidance.”

            She claims that interpretation of the Qur’an can never be final, as the world is always changing and each person brings their own past with them in the interpretations.

Written for my Modern Muslim Thought class on 3/12/12

To Jihad or Not to Jihad…

            After reading Jihad and the Modern World by Sherman Jackson, I am left feeling even more secure in my position that Islam is a religion of peace. Now I can even make my argument better, by using Jackson’s. I was always under the assumption that the radical Islamic groups were less tactful in building their arguments about Jihad and that they instead preyed on individuals searching for something to belong to; individuals with animosity already growing in their hearts from some possible wrongs done to them, their friend, or their family from wars or other “Western” encroachment. As Jackson points out, some of those that might be considered by some as radical, are well respected for their interpretations, and have valid arguments (in many cases), like Sayyid Qutb of the Muslim Brotherhood.

            Qutb suggested that Muslims are to be in a continual state of aggressive Jihad against non-believers, Jews and Christians to be specific, because of historic hostility. He uses the Qur’anic verse 9:29 to substantiate this view, and suggests that the ninth chapter is the final and thus prevailing view of the non-believers and how Muslim should regard them. Jackson points out that not only is another chapter (the fifth) considered by many scholars to be the final one, but that this chapter sets a standard toward the Jews and Christians that is much different than in the ninth, for example, 5:82: “You will find those who are most closely drawn to the Believers in love to be those who say, ‘We are Christians’”. Jackson also refutes Qutb’s idea that peace efforts must be entirely Muslim by showing how the Prophet Mohammed waged peace with pagans in the “Forbidden Months” alliance.

            As a whole, I like how Jackson shows how Shari’a law is meant to be dynamic and set in historical and customary context. I will certainly be placing this article in my repertoire for my future interfaith work. 

Written on 2/6/12 for my Modern Muslim Thought class

In the Best Interest of Humanity

Written on 2/1/12 in response to a couple of readings (sorry, I can't give adequate bibliography) for my Modern Muslim Thought class.

            I found the fatwa, issued by the 1403/1983 Meccan Islamic Law Academy of the World Muslim League, to be hypocritical in it’s function. It was saying that one could receive interest from a bank or financial dealing, but could not  benefit from it, instead donating it to some good cause, like a school. In order to make sure that the person couldn’t benefit from the donation (a good deed), they termed such a donation as not  being sadaqah, but instead a cleansing of the sin of taking the interest. I found it interesting that the Academy felt confident to declare that this donation was null and void in the eyes of God. I didn’t realize that they had such insight. To me, it’s semantics.

            The argument against this fatwa made sense to me, as it is true that in this world it is nearly impossible to not have and benefits that come from bank interest of some kind. They also attacked the hypocrisy of the fatwa. The argument didn’t make it clear, however, which interest is allowed and which  forbidden. The response left me feeling as though they were suggesting the permission of all interest dealings because it’s just to hard to “separate” in our modern world.

            The insurance fatwas were interesting, and I could follow the logic that such insurance policies are liken to gambling, which is forbidden in the Qur'an, but they didn’t address situations where law requires insurance – like with cars in Michigan where drivers are required by law to have auto insurance.

            Life insurance is less of a gamble (as indicated for a reason why it is forbidden) than is auto or property insurance. It is true that one may never reap a benefit from paying for property insurance, but we all die eventually. Where is the gamble?

Legal Acrobats in 10th/16th Century Cairo

This piece was written in response to "Kramer vs. Kramer in a 10th/16th Century Egyptian Court: Post-Formative Jurisprudence Between Exigency & Law" by Sherman A. Jackson

            After having gone through a child custody dispute myself recently, I found it very interesting to read that even in early Islam, there was disagreement regarding bias toward the father or mother. It was also very interesting to read about how the 10^th/16^th century Maliki judge and jurist, Badr al-Din al-Qarafi, had to perform legal and psychological acrobats in an attempt to present a convincing argument in favor of the mothers in regard to premature forfeiture on the fathers’ part.

            Al-Qarafi’s opinion on this matter seems to have, on the surface, gone against the grain in the Maliki school of thought that he was part of. As Maliki law was cumulative and could not abolish any earlier rules, he had to find ways to argue in favor of his opinion by finding logic from earlier rulings or analogies that worked in his favor. This included not only legal maneuvers, but also playing on the emotions of the men he would be up against when presenting his argument, by pointing out what they might have to lose if they disagreed with his line of reasoning. He formed his arguments to lead the audience into agreeing with him by answering questions and opposition arguments before they could come and essentially “tricking” the audience into agreeing with him by way of an analogy that hit too close to home.

            I found that his methods seemed convincing enough to me and that he was quite clever to hide his opposition to the normative train of thought about the subject in a cloak of Maliki mnemonics. It would have made it difficult indeed to call him out as a rebel when his logic came from the school itself. It also seemed very apparent that he knew his audience well enough to know what psychological and social triggers to pull. I have always said one of the first rules of debate (or when constructing a convincing argument) is to know your opponent. If you know how your opponent thinks or feels, you will have a better time knowing what buttons to push and how to word your argument effectively. It seems to me, although he may not have enjoyed much in the way of fruits of his labor, that he was a pretty good legal architect/acrobat.  

Written for my Modern Muslim Thought class on 1/23/2012