I've recently joined a Lutheran Church so am now learning something about Lutheranism. Today was Reformation Sunday, the anniversary of Martin Luther's nailing his convictions to a church door that sparked the Protestant Reformation.
The pastor caught my attention when he pointed out that the famous verse in Habakkuk 2:4, "the just shall live by faith", later taken by Paul as the linchpin of his understanding of the Gospel and still later picked up by Luther as the foundation for the Reformation, does not quite mean what the English translation indicates. The verse more accurately reads, "the just shall live by faithfulness". Even more significantly, the same Hebrew word used throughout the Torah or the Old Testament always refers to God's faithfulness, not ours.
Why did that catch my attention? Assuming there is an afterlife, millions of Christians as well as Muslims are hoping to reach Paradise by believing the right thing (faith) or doing the right thing (faithfulness). But just like the spiritual struggle of Martin Luther, how can you ever be sure that you have the right faith, or enough faith, or that you have been faithful enough? The realization that one's eternal destiny is determined not necessarily by my faithfulness but by that of God really could make this a Revolutionary Sunday!
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Dr. Yusuf Qaradawi and the Slippery Path of Jihad
Dr. Yusuf Qaradawi has just published a 1400 page, two volume Arabic text entitled Fiqh Al Jihad, The Correct Understanding of Jihad. He has been working on the book for the past eight years, and discussed its contents on two recent Al Jazeera programs of Shariah and Life. I would like to summarize what Dr. Qaradawi said during those programs, and then add my comments.
Jihad Al Qital, which is Jihad carried out by military means, is a Sunnat-Allah, one of God's principles. It falls under the rubric of Sunnat Al Defaa, the principle of self-defense or the defense of the weak.
Jihad was revealed to Muhammad in three stages. When Muslims were first persecuted in Mecca, Allah's instructions were to be patient, pray, and not retaliate (Quran 4: 77). After the first Muslims migrated to Medina, Muhammad was authorized to "fight against those who are fought against" (Quran 22:39). Jihad was allowed to defend not only Muslims but "the churches and synagogues that would otherwise be destroyed" (Quran 22:40). In the final stage, Muhammad was ordered to fight the unbelievers until there was no more Fitnah (Quran 2:193), defined by Qaradawi as persecution or oppression of the believers, and until Allah alone was worshipped (Quran 8:39).
The purpose of Jihad is not political, economic, or military gain, but to protect the weak who call out, "Oh Lord, protect us from the oppressors" (Quran 4:75). Although the enemies of Islam claim that Islam was spread by the sword, that is not true. "The sword may open a new territory, but it will never open a heart," said Dr. Qaradawi, and Islam spread peacefully throughout much of Africa and Asia by Arab traders and Sufi preachers who persuaded multitudes of its truth.
Muslims today adopt three attitudes towards Jihad. These are Tafrit (neglecting its true meaning), Ifrat (taking it to the extreme), and Wasat (the moderate and true meaning). Those guilty of Tafrit water down the true meaning of Jihad. They love to repeat a weak Hadith (meaning it is inauthentic) in which the Prophet allegedly informed his soldiers on their way home from a battle that they had completed Al Jihad Al Asrar, the lesser Jihad, and were now to perform Al Jihad Al Akbar, the struggle for holiness and spiritual purity.
Many of the Jihadist or Salafist groups go to the other extreme and are guilty of Ifrat. They want to fight everyone who is not Muslim throughout the entire world, but do not understand that Allah wants Muslims to live in peace with those willing to live in peace with them. Great Muslim theologians such as Ibn Taymiyya and Shaykh Qayyim argued that Muslims should live in Musalamah, peaceful coexistence, with peaceful non-Muslims.
The correct approach to Jihad, the Wasat, is between these two extremes. It recognizes that Jihad Al Qital is necessary to defend against aggression, but does not advocating attacking non-Muslims everywhere.
Muslim scholars have traditionally divided Jihad into two categories, Jihad Al Talab (offensive Jihad) and Jihad Al Defaa (defensive Jihad). In Jihad Al Talab, the Muslim is the invader. He attacks the enemy in his territory and fights him there. This is considered Fard Kifayah, meaning not everyone is obligated to go off to war as long as there are enough warriors willing to go.
Jihad Al Defaa is different. Here the Muslim is engaged in a war of resistance, fighting the enemy who has attacked, invaded, and occupied his country. This is Fard Ayn, meaning every single Muslim must be involved. Even the servant who cannot leave his field without permission of his master, and the woman who cannot leave her house without permission of her husband, are excused from seeking that permission when they are exercising Fard Ayn, involved in defensive Jihad to attack the enemy who has invaded them.
"Muslims," said Dr. Qaradawi, "Are never allowed to initiate hostilities." The Prophet never began a battle, but always sought peace with those willing to live in peace with him. Muhammad's Ghazawat, or raids, were never started by him. His first attacks against the Qafilat, the Quraysh caravans carrying foodstuffs back and forth between Mecca and Syria, were to recover the goods confiscated from the Muslims who had migrated with Muhammad from Mecca to Medina. The later raids, including the famous battles of Badr, Uhud, and Al Khandaqah (The Battle of the Trench), were all struggles of self-defense. Even the first battles against the Byzantine Empire were defensive. When the Prophet sent letters to Byzantine rulers inviting to them to "Islem wa Tuslem", accept Islam and live in peace, they responded by tearing up the letters and planning traps against him. His invasions of their country were only to defend the Muslims from their plots.
The Prophet was so peace-loving that he hated even the word Harb (war). When his son-in-law Ali announced he had named his first-born son Harb, Muhammad persuaded him to change the name to Hasan (good). When Ali announced he had given the same name, Harb, to his second son, the Prophet told him to change it to Hussayn (goodness). When the persistent Ali stated he would give another son who did not survive the same name, Muhammad told him to change it to Muhsin (better)!
My comments:
1. We've all heard Muslims living in the West expound upon the "greater Jihad", the struggle for moral purity and spiritual self-improvement. It is significant that this so-called greater Jihad is given no significance by true Islamic scholars living in the Arab world.
2. Any military historian looking at a historical military figure, such as Napoleon Bonaparte or Rommel "The Desert Fox", has the freedom to examine both his successes and his failures. He can determine which moves were brilliant and led to victory, and which were misguided and resulted in failure. Only the Muslim historian is not allowed that freedom. He or she is obligated, literally under penalty of death, to do nothing that could be construed as museeat al-nabi, insulting or criticizing the Prophet.
For this reason, Dr. Qaradawi has to construe all of the Prophet's raids as defensive. He must find not only justification but also victory in some of Muhammad's failed battles, such as the raid of Mutah, in which Muslim armies were both out-manned and defeated by their non-Muslim enemies. I find it impossible to objectively read the earliest accounts of these battles and see them as defensive, much less always victorious, but Muslims scholars are not allowed that objectivity. They must defend their Prophet at all costs.
3. But that is only a small gripe with Yusuf Qaradawi's position; my second concern is much greater. Dr. Qaradawi arbitrarily draws the line, not based upon the Quran or the Hadith but simply upon his own Ijtihad, or personal conclusion, between which manifestations of Jihad are legitimate and which are not at the present time. He says that Jihad Al Defaa, or defensive Jihad, is permissible in Iraq and Afghanistan where the Mujahideen are fighting the American aggressors. At the same time, he argues that Jihad Al Talab, offensive Jihad, is not allowed at the present time meaning Muslim Jihadists are not allowed to attack Americans within the United States. But where is the basis of his argument? How is his position more defensible than that of Usama bin Ladin, Dr. Ayman Zawahiri, Anwar Al Awlaki, or Anjem Chaudary who argue that Jihad Al Talab is not only permissible but required at the present time and who encourage Muslims in America to engage in terrorist acts to kill Americans here? If Jihad Al Defaa is permissible against Americans in Afghanistan, why is not Jihad Al Talab allowed against Americans at home?
4. Dr. Qaradawi draws another arbitrary distinction between Israel and other non-Muslim countries. Although Muslim men are allowed to marry Christian and Jewish women, Qaradawi says no Muslim is permitted to marry an Israeli woman. Although he condemns suicide bombings in Europe, he encourages them in Israel. And although he tells Muslims they are not allowed to engage in Jihad Al Talab in America, he encourages them to do so in Israel. Again, why is the voice of the aging Qaradawi any more authoritative than those voices of younger, more radical Muslims who do call for offensive Jihad within the borders of not only the United States but also all other countries that do not follow Islam as they want it to be followed?
Is there an answer? I think there is. It is for individual Muslims, one by one, to give themselves the freedom to look at their Prophet critically and determine whether the actions he took, the beliefs he held, and the decisions he made were conducive with freedom for all in the 21st century. Some Muslims are taking that step, but many more need to come on board.
Jihad Al Qital, which is Jihad carried out by military means, is a Sunnat-Allah, one of God's principles. It falls under the rubric of Sunnat Al Defaa, the principle of self-defense or the defense of the weak.
Jihad was revealed to Muhammad in three stages. When Muslims were first persecuted in Mecca, Allah's instructions were to be patient, pray, and not retaliate (Quran 4: 77). After the first Muslims migrated to Medina, Muhammad was authorized to "fight against those who are fought against" (Quran 22:39). Jihad was allowed to defend not only Muslims but "the churches and synagogues that would otherwise be destroyed" (Quran 22:40). In the final stage, Muhammad was ordered to fight the unbelievers until there was no more Fitnah (Quran 2:193), defined by Qaradawi as persecution or oppression of the believers, and until Allah alone was worshipped (Quran 8:39).
The purpose of Jihad is not political, economic, or military gain, but to protect the weak who call out, "Oh Lord, protect us from the oppressors" (Quran 4:75). Although the enemies of Islam claim that Islam was spread by the sword, that is not true. "The sword may open a new territory, but it will never open a heart," said Dr. Qaradawi, and Islam spread peacefully throughout much of Africa and Asia by Arab traders and Sufi preachers who persuaded multitudes of its truth.
Muslims today adopt three attitudes towards Jihad. These are Tafrit (neglecting its true meaning), Ifrat (taking it to the extreme), and Wasat (the moderate and true meaning). Those guilty of Tafrit water down the true meaning of Jihad. They love to repeat a weak Hadith (meaning it is inauthentic) in which the Prophet allegedly informed his soldiers on their way home from a battle that they had completed Al Jihad Al Asrar, the lesser Jihad, and were now to perform Al Jihad Al Akbar, the struggle for holiness and spiritual purity.
Many of the Jihadist or Salafist groups go to the other extreme and are guilty of Ifrat. They want to fight everyone who is not Muslim throughout the entire world, but do not understand that Allah wants Muslims to live in peace with those willing to live in peace with them. Great Muslim theologians such as Ibn Taymiyya and Shaykh Qayyim argued that Muslims should live in Musalamah, peaceful coexistence, with peaceful non-Muslims.
The correct approach to Jihad, the Wasat, is between these two extremes. It recognizes that Jihad Al Qital is necessary to defend against aggression, but does not advocating attacking non-Muslims everywhere.
Muslim scholars have traditionally divided Jihad into two categories, Jihad Al Talab (offensive Jihad) and Jihad Al Defaa (defensive Jihad). In Jihad Al Talab, the Muslim is the invader. He attacks the enemy in his territory and fights him there. This is considered Fard Kifayah, meaning not everyone is obligated to go off to war as long as there are enough warriors willing to go.
Jihad Al Defaa is different. Here the Muslim is engaged in a war of resistance, fighting the enemy who has attacked, invaded, and occupied his country. This is Fard Ayn, meaning every single Muslim must be involved. Even the servant who cannot leave his field without permission of his master, and the woman who cannot leave her house without permission of her husband, are excused from seeking that permission when they are exercising Fard Ayn, involved in defensive Jihad to attack the enemy who has invaded them.
"Muslims," said Dr. Qaradawi, "Are never allowed to initiate hostilities." The Prophet never began a battle, but always sought peace with those willing to live in peace with him. Muhammad's Ghazawat, or raids, were never started by him. His first attacks against the Qafilat, the Quraysh caravans carrying foodstuffs back and forth between Mecca and Syria, were to recover the goods confiscated from the Muslims who had migrated with Muhammad from Mecca to Medina. The later raids, including the famous battles of Badr, Uhud, and Al Khandaqah (The Battle of the Trench), were all struggles of self-defense. Even the first battles against the Byzantine Empire were defensive. When the Prophet sent letters to Byzantine rulers inviting to them to "Islem wa Tuslem", accept Islam and live in peace, they responded by tearing up the letters and planning traps against him. His invasions of their country were only to defend the Muslims from their plots.
The Prophet was so peace-loving that he hated even the word Harb (war). When his son-in-law Ali announced he had named his first-born son Harb, Muhammad persuaded him to change the name to Hasan (good). When Ali announced he had given the same name, Harb, to his second son, the Prophet told him to change it to Hussayn (goodness). When the persistent Ali stated he would give another son who did not survive the same name, Muhammad told him to change it to Muhsin (better)!
My comments:
1. We've all heard Muslims living in the West expound upon the "greater Jihad", the struggle for moral purity and spiritual self-improvement. It is significant that this so-called greater Jihad is given no significance by true Islamic scholars living in the Arab world.
2. Any military historian looking at a historical military figure, such as Napoleon Bonaparte or Rommel "The Desert Fox", has the freedom to examine both his successes and his failures. He can determine which moves were brilliant and led to victory, and which were misguided and resulted in failure. Only the Muslim historian is not allowed that freedom. He or she is obligated, literally under penalty of death, to do nothing that could be construed as museeat al-nabi, insulting or criticizing the Prophet.
For this reason, Dr. Qaradawi has to construe all of the Prophet's raids as defensive. He must find not only justification but also victory in some of Muhammad's failed battles, such as the raid of Mutah, in which Muslim armies were both out-manned and defeated by their non-Muslim enemies. I find it impossible to objectively read the earliest accounts of these battles and see them as defensive, much less always victorious, but Muslims scholars are not allowed that objectivity. They must defend their Prophet at all costs.
3. But that is only a small gripe with Yusuf Qaradawi's position; my second concern is much greater. Dr. Qaradawi arbitrarily draws the line, not based upon the Quran or the Hadith but simply upon his own Ijtihad, or personal conclusion, between which manifestations of Jihad are legitimate and which are not at the present time. He says that Jihad Al Defaa, or defensive Jihad, is permissible in Iraq and Afghanistan where the Mujahideen are fighting the American aggressors. At the same time, he argues that Jihad Al Talab, offensive Jihad, is not allowed at the present time meaning Muslim Jihadists are not allowed to attack Americans within the United States. But where is the basis of his argument? How is his position more defensible than that of Usama bin Ladin, Dr. Ayman Zawahiri, Anwar Al Awlaki, or Anjem Chaudary who argue that Jihad Al Talab is not only permissible but required at the present time and who encourage Muslims in America to engage in terrorist acts to kill Americans here? If Jihad Al Defaa is permissible against Americans in Afghanistan, why is not Jihad Al Talab allowed against Americans at home?
4. Dr. Qaradawi draws another arbitrary distinction between Israel and other non-Muslim countries. Although Muslim men are allowed to marry Christian and Jewish women, Qaradawi says no Muslim is permitted to marry an Israeli woman. Although he condemns suicide bombings in Europe, he encourages them in Israel. And although he tells Muslims they are not allowed to engage in Jihad Al Talab in America, he encourages them to do so in Israel. Again, why is the voice of the aging Qaradawi any more authoritative than those voices of younger, more radical Muslims who do call for offensive Jihad within the borders of not only the United States but also all other countries that do not follow Islam as they want it to be followed?
Is there an answer? I think there is. It is for individual Muslims, one by one, to give themselves the freedom to look at their Prophet critically and determine whether the actions he took, the beliefs he held, and the decisions he made were conducive with freedom for all in the 21st century. Some Muslims are taking that step, but many more need to come on board.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Ayaan Hirsi Ali on NPR: Is Islam a Religion of Peace?
I noted here that non-Muslims often do not fare well in debates with Muslims. Fortunately, liberated Muslims do much better. At this link is a recent debate on the subject "Is Islam a Religion of Peace?" with participants Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Douglas Murray, Zeba Khan, and Maajid Nawaz. I invite you to watch the entire debate, and then to my comments as follows:
1. One of the problems with debating Muslims about Muhammad and Islam is that they insist on talking about anything except Muhammad and Islam. Ask a Muslimah about the high rate of female illiteracy in the Muslim world (a subject that I discussed here and here). She will quote a Hadith about "seeking knowledge even if you have to go to China" and tell you how her parents came to America (to escape the craziness of living in the Muslim world) and sacrificed so she could go to Harvard. She won't tell you that the Middle East pays little attention to the education of women for the simple reason that Muhammad paid no attention to the education of women.
Ask her about Islam's relationship to the Jews. She will tell you a story about Muhammad's concern for the Jewish neighbor who threw garbage in his yard and inform you, as Zeba does, that her parents sent her to Hebrew school for nine years. She won't tell you (if she even knows) that Medina was a Jewish city when Muhammad first went there with Jewish tribes who had lived there in peace and prosperity for hundreds of years. Ten years later, they were all exiled or beheaded simply for refusing to accept him as a Prophet of God. Nine hunded males, including boys as young as 10 years old, were beheaded in one day. She won't tell you about the vicious murder of Asma bint Marwan, the Jewish mother of five, at the Prophet's command for writing poetry he found threatening. She certainly won't tell you about the rape of the Jewess Sofiyah bint Huyayy the night after Muhammad tortured and beheaded her husband for refusing to reveal the location of his treasure. Sofiyah was 17 and Muhammad was 62.
She will tell you that the Quran states "there is no compulsion in religion". She probably doesn't know that according to the Quran's greatest expositor, Ibn Kathir, that verse was a response to the Muslim women of Medina who gave their sons to Jewish women to raise (since the Jews followed the dietary and hygenic laws of the Torah, their infant mortality rate was much lower). When Muhammad expelled the Jews from Medina, some of the Muslim mothers wanted their sons back. The Prophet's response? "They cannot come back, because there is no compulsion in religion."
Ask her about Jihad, and she will quote a Hadith about the greatest Jihad being spiritual self-improvement. She won't inform you that Jihad is mentioned well over 100 times in the Quran and that 97% of those references are to its primary meaning, the spread and domination of Islam.
Ask her about terrorism. She will inform you, as Zeba did, that only a small minority of Muslims espouse violence. She probably won't tell you about the first victim of Muhammad's terror, a caravaneer named Amr bin al-Hadrami who was carrying foodstuffs back to Mecca when Muhammad's warriors attacked. I'm not sure if the terror he felt when they descended upon him shouting Allahu Akbar is any different than that experienced by those who leapt to their deaths from the Twin Towers on 9/11.
2. Muslim debaters love to erect straw figures they can demolish, rather than discuss the main subject of the debate. Maajid Nawaz was quick to respond when his opponents referred to Usama bin Ladin as an Islamic scholar. "He's an engineer," scoffed Maajid, "He's only an engineer. How can you describe him as an Islamic scholar?"
I doubt if Maajid has carefully read The Al Qaeda Reader, or Al Qaeda In Its Own Words. Both books document the hundreds of references to the Quran, Hadith, Sira, and Tafsir in bin Ladin's speeches. A full fifty percent of Ayman Zawahiri's voluminous writings are expositions of the same texts. Maajid chose not to go there, preferring to simply mock Ayaan Hirsi Ali for not stating that by training UBL was originally an engineer.
As I noted at the beginning of this post, non-Muslims often perform poorly in debates with Muslims. Ex-Muslims who are well familiar with the modus operendi of their former co-religionists do much better. At the beginning of this debate in front of a New York City audience, only 25 percent of the audience believed that Islam was not a religion of peace. By the end of the debate, that number had risen to 55 percent. In the end, truth trumps fantasy every time.
1. One of the problems with debating Muslims about Muhammad and Islam is that they insist on talking about anything except Muhammad and Islam. Ask a Muslimah about the high rate of female illiteracy in the Muslim world (a subject that I discussed here and here). She will quote a Hadith about "seeking knowledge even if you have to go to China" and tell you how her parents came to America (to escape the craziness of living in the Muslim world) and sacrificed so she could go to Harvard. She won't tell you that the Middle East pays little attention to the education of women for the simple reason that Muhammad paid no attention to the education of women.
Ask her about Islam's relationship to the Jews. She will tell you a story about Muhammad's concern for the Jewish neighbor who threw garbage in his yard and inform you, as Zeba does, that her parents sent her to Hebrew school for nine years. She won't tell you (if she even knows) that Medina was a Jewish city when Muhammad first went there with Jewish tribes who had lived there in peace and prosperity for hundreds of years. Ten years later, they were all exiled or beheaded simply for refusing to accept him as a Prophet of God. Nine hunded males, including boys as young as 10 years old, were beheaded in one day. She won't tell you about the vicious murder of Asma bint Marwan, the Jewish mother of five, at the Prophet's command for writing poetry he found threatening. She certainly won't tell you about the rape of the Jewess Sofiyah bint Huyayy the night after Muhammad tortured and beheaded her husband for refusing to reveal the location of his treasure. Sofiyah was 17 and Muhammad was 62.
She will tell you that the Quran states "there is no compulsion in religion". She probably doesn't know that according to the Quran's greatest expositor, Ibn Kathir, that verse was a response to the Muslim women of Medina who gave their sons to Jewish women to raise (since the Jews followed the dietary and hygenic laws of the Torah, their infant mortality rate was much lower). When Muhammad expelled the Jews from Medina, some of the Muslim mothers wanted their sons back. The Prophet's response? "They cannot come back, because there is no compulsion in religion."
Ask her about Jihad, and she will quote a Hadith about the greatest Jihad being spiritual self-improvement. She won't inform you that Jihad is mentioned well over 100 times in the Quran and that 97% of those references are to its primary meaning, the spread and domination of Islam.
Ask her about terrorism. She will inform you, as Zeba did, that only a small minority of Muslims espouse violence. She probably won't tell you about the first victim of Muhammad's terror, a caravaneer named Amr bin al-Hadrami who was carrying foodstuffs back to Mecca when Muhammad's warriors attacked. I'm not sure if the terror he felt when they descended upon him shouting Allahu Akbar is any different than that experienced by those who leapt to their deaths from the Twin Towers on 9/11.
2. Muslim debaters love to erect straw figures they can demolish, rather than discuss the main subject of the debate. Maajid Nawaz was quick to respond when his opponents referred to Usama bin Ladin as an Islamic scholar. "He's an engineer," scoffed Maajid, "He's only an engineer. How can you describe him as an Islamic scholar?"
I doubt if Maajid has carefully read The Al Qaeda Reader, or Al Qaeda In Its Own Words. Both books document the hundreds of references to the Quran, Hadith, Sira, and Tafsir in bin Ladin's speeches. A full fifty percent of Ayman Zawahiri's voluminous writings are expositions of the same texts. Maajid chose not to go there, preferring to simply mock Ayaan Hirsi Ali for not stating that by training UBL was originally an engineer.
As I noted at the beginning of this post, non-Muslims often perform poorly in debates with Muslims. Ex-Muslims who are well familiar with the modus operendi of their former co-religionists do much better. At the beginning of this debate in front of a New York City audience, only 25 percent of the audience believed that Islam was not a religion of peace. By the end of the debate, that number had risen to 55 percent. In the end, truth trumps fantasy every time.
Feeding the Homeless
I live in a county that takes pride in its wealth, high standard of education and low unemployment, and enviable standard of living. It was a lesson last evening to take part in providing dinner for 35 of its homeless women.
(For readers outside America, that's "county", not "country". America is divided into 50 states, and each state has dozens of counties).
My impression of the homeless has always been someone sleeping over a grate to keep warm, an alcoholic with mental problems trying to hit you up for some change to buy the next beer. This was not the case with these women. Some of them were professionals, college educated. I talked to a few who had migrated to America from English-speaking countries for purposes of employment. But along the way something happened. It could have been a layoff, a company closure, or a divorce. Sometimes it was a personal problem - alcohol or drug use - that began as a hobby and ended as an addiction.
One of the staff members informed me there were 30 women living there last year, and this year there are five more. If you are a single adult in America, even professional and well-educated, a layoff with not enough money to pay the mortgage can easily and quickly be followed by foreclosure and no place to live.
What I felt most keenly was the sense of shame in the women as I handed them their dessert. Some tried to cover it with bluster, "What do you mean I need to wait until everyone has eaten until I have a second serving of ice cream?" Others were unable to hold their head high or look me in the eye. Life had dealt them a hard, unexpected blow, and now they were reduced to accepting dinner from a stranger.
I know the phrase "There but for the grace of God go I" can sound like an empty cliche, but as I got in my car after dinner to drive home I realized anew that there was not that much difference between those women and me. I also understood why it's important for me to be part of a faith community. The shelter is in partnership with 52 churches in the area. Each church takes one week per year to provide meals to the women residing there, and this week it was our turn. It was an honor to participate.
(For readers outside America, that's "county", not "country". America is divided into 50 states, and each state has dozens of counties).
My impression of the homeless has always been someone sleeping over a grate to keep warm, an alcoholic with mental problems trying to hit you up for some change to buy the next beer. This was not the case with these women. Some of them were professionals, college educated. I talked to a few who had migrated to America from English-speaking countries for purposes of employment. But along the way something happened. It could have been a layoff, a company closure, or a divorce. Sometimes it was a personal problem - alcohol or drug use - that began as a hobby and ended as an addiction.
One of the staff members informed me there were 30 women living there last year, and this year there are five more. If you are a single adult in America, even professional and well-educated, a layoff with not enough money to pay the mortgage can easily and quickly be followed by foreclosure and no place to live.
What I felt most keenly was the sense of shame in the women as I handed them their dessert. Some tried to cover it with bluster, "What do you mean I need to wait until everyone has eaten until I have a second serving of ice cream?" Others were unable to hold their head high or look me in the eye. Life had dealt them a hard, unexpected blow, and now they were reduced to accepting dinner from a stranger.
I know the phrase "There but for the grace of God go I" can sound like an empty cliche, but as I got in my car after dinner to drive home I realized anew that there was not that much difference between those women and me. I also understood why it's important for me to be part of a faith community. The shelter is in partnership with 52 churches in the area. Each church takes one week per year to provide meals to the women residing there, and this week it was our turn. It was an honor to participate.
Friday, October 22, 2010
The Ebionites, Muhammad, and the Quran
In an article well worth reading about the religious practices of the Ebionites found here, author Stephen Tomkins notes, "... it sounds not unlike Islam in all those respects."
There is a reason for that. The Ebionites followed a text known as the Gospel of Matthew to the Hebrews. Although most scholars would say it was lost to history, it is possible that its precepts can be found today in the early suras of a text far more famous known as the Quran.
If true, this could be a fascinating study. Two of the major controversies in the early Christian church were the nature of the divinity of Jesus (how could he be both a man and God?), and the extent to which Christians were to follow Jewish practices and traditions. Although the Apostle Paul's conviction that Jesus was both fully God and fully man and that being Christian meant leaving everything Jewish behind eventually won the day, many groups disagreed. As they and their gospels were declared heretical by early Church councils, they were forced away from the Christian geographical centers of power and some of them ended up in Arabia and Yemen. Two of these were the Nestorians and the Ebionites. Although they are sometimes lumped together, they are distinct in that the Nestorians believed in the divinity of Jesus whereas the Ebionites saw him merely as a Prophet.
One difference between those declared heretics and the orthodox church was that the former often followed only one text, or gospel, rather than all the books that became the New Testament. The Ebionites followed The Gospel of Matthew to the Hebrews (called by some scholars simply the Gospel of the Ebionites). It is probably a second-century compilation including passages from Matthew, Mark, and Luke that emphasizes the compassion and humanity of Jesus while denying his divinity. The Ebionites believed that Jesus was a man, not God, and that a presence called the Holy Spirit descended upon him at his baptism and remained with him until just before his crucifixion. They followed the dietary and health practices of the Jews and placed much emphasis on rituals such as ablution, fasting, and circumcision.
Available online studies of the Ebionites found here and here seem unaware of their continued history after persecution possibly forced them from the Levant into Arabia in the early centuries of the Christian era. There are several reasons for this historical lack of knowledge. One is the fact that the Ebionites were less significant and less known than the Nestorians, the larger Christian sect in Arabia at the time that did accept the divinity of Jesus. Another is that Christian historians typically had little access to ancient Islamic history, until recently only available in Arabic, that made scattered references to the Nusraniyah (taken from the town of Nazareth, this is the Quranic word used to describe the non-orthodox Christians in Mecca at the time of Muhammad).
There is another and more significant reason. After Muhammad, Muslims paid little or no attention to the beliefs of Christians and Jews in the Arabian Peninsula other than to compare them critically to Islam. Muslims believe the Quran was revealed directly to Muhammad from Allah via the angel Gabriel. They historically had little interest in the beliefs of others, and even less interest in the possibility that their religious texts and practices influenced Muhammad and the formation of the Quran.
Muslims have placed much emphasis in creating an imaginary genealogy for Muhammad that passes through Abraham all the way back to Adam. Of more historical relevance is that Muslim scholars emphasize his lineage from his ancestor Qusay to Muhammad's grandfather Abdel Mutallib, but ignore that same lineage from Qusay to grandson Assad who was the grandfather of Khadijah, Muhammad's first wife, and Waraqa bin Naufal, the Prophet's distant uncle. The reason Muslims have deliberately ignored that side of the family is that it included relatives including Waraqa and possibly Khadijah herself who were members of the Nusraniyah.
Ancient historian Abu Faraj Al Isfahani noted in his Kitab Al Aghani that Waraqa bin Naufal converted to Nusraniyah, and biographer Ibn Ishaq describes him as a Hanif, one who believed in only one God.
Hadith compilers Bukhari and Sahih Muslim both state that Waraqa bin Naufal translated the Book of the Hebrews and the Gospel into Arabic. It is possible the book they meant was the Gospel of Matthew to the Hebrews.
Among the characteristics of the Ebionites was compassion for the poor and the orphaned. Waraqa bin Naufal, who was both a scholar and the leader of the Ebionites in Mecca, took a special interest in his young relative the orphaned Muhammad. He saw in him qualities of leadership, spent much time with him, and over the years taught Muhammad the Gospel of the Ebionites as well as the contents of the Torah. Waraqa bin Naufal performed Muhammad's marriage to Khadijah, and groomed Muhammad to replace him as the Ebionite spiritual leader in Mecca.
(When presented with criticism of Muhammad's later multiple marriages, Muslims often point out that the Prophet remained in a monogamous relationship with Khadija for 25 years. The reality is that Muhammad's marriage with Khadijah was essentially a Christian marriage, with both divorce and having more than one wife not allowed to the Ebionites).
When Muhammad first announced that he was receiving revelations from God, the revelations were in large part the stories he had learned from Waraqa bin Naufal. Waraqa encouraged Muhammad to consider himself a Prophet, with the understanding that just as Abraham had been the Prophet to call the Jews back to Allah, and Jesus the Prophet who called his generation back to Allah, so Muhammad would be the Prophet who could call the Arabs back to Allah. It is interesting to note that at this time Muhammad did not see himself as founding a new religion, but only in calling people back to the Islam of Abraham, Moses, and Jesus.
The influence of Waraqi bin Naufal upon Muhammad and his revelations continued until Waraqa died. It is not accidental that the Hadith writers note that "revelations ceased for some time" following the death of Waraqa. The reason, of course, is that Muhammad was no longer learning from his Ebionite uncle.
The presence of the Gospel of the Ebionites in the short, poetic Meccan suras with their vivid descriptions of hell and Muhammad's repeated claim that he is a Prophet just like Abraham, Moses, and Jesus is something most Muslims are not allowed to even think about, at least publicly. It's much easier, and safer, to just toe the party line. I would encourage Muslims to be a little more open in their thinking and scholarship.
(Acknowledgements to Joseph Azzi, author of The Priest and the Prophet, for much of the above material).
There is a reason for that. The Ebionites followed a text known as the Gospel of Matthew to the Hebrews. Although most scholars would say it was lost to history, it is possible that its precepts can be found today in the early suras of a text far more famous known as the Quran.
If true, this could be a fascinating study. Two of the major controversies in the early Christian church were the nature of the divinity of Jesus (how could he be both a man and God?), and the extent to which Christians were to follow Jewish practices and traditions. Although the Apostle Paul's conviction that Jesus was both fully God and fully man and that being Christian meant leaving everything Jewish behind eventually won the day, many groups disagreed. As they and their gospels were declared heretical by early Church councils, they were forced away from the Christian geographical centers of power and some of them ended up in Arabia and Yemen. Two of these were the Nestorians and the Ebionites. Although they are sometimes lumped together, they are distinct in that the Nestorians believed in the divinity of Jesus whereas the Ebionites saw him merely as a Prophet.
One difference between those declared heretics and the orthodox church was that the former often followed only one text, or gospel, rather than all the books that became the New Testament. The Ebionites followed The Gospel of Matthew to the Hebrews (called by some scholars simply the Gospel of the Ebionites). It is probably a second-century compilation including passages from Matthew, Mark, and Luke that emphasizes the compassion and humanity of Jesus while denying his divinity. The Ebionites believed that Jesus was a man, not God, and that a presence called the Holy Spirit descended upon him at his baptism and remained with him until just before his crucifixion. They followed the dietary and health practices of the Jews and placed much emphasis on rituals such as ablution, fasting, and circumcision.
Available online studies of the Ebionites found here and here seem unaware of their continued history after persecution possibly forced them from the Levant into Arabia in the early centuries of the Christian era. There are several reasons for this historical lack of knowledge. One is the fact that the Ebionites were less significant and less known than the Nestorians, the larger Christian sect in Arabia at the time that did accept the divinity of Jesus. Another is that Christian historians typically had little access to ancient Islamic history, until recently only available in Arabic, that made scattered references to the Nusraniyah (taken from the town of Nazareth, this is the Quranic word used to describe the non-orthodox Christians in Mecca at the time of Muhammad).
There is another and more significant reason. After Muhammad, Muslims paid little or no attention to the beliefs of Christians and Jews in the Arabian Peninsula other than to compare them critically to Islam. Muslims believe the Quran was revealed directly to Muhammad from Allah via the angel Gabriel. They historically had little interest in the beliefs of others, and even less interest in the possibility that their religious texts and practices influenced Muhammad and the formation of the Quran.
Muslims have placed much emphasis in creating an imaginary genealogy for Muhammad that passes through Abraham all the way back to Adam. Of more historical relevance is that Muslim scholars emphasize his lineage from his ancestor Qusay to Muhammad's grandfather Abdel Mutallib, but ignore that same lineage from Qusay to grandson Assad who was the grandfather of Khadijah, Muhammad's first wife, and Waraqa bin Naufal, the Prophet's distant uncle. The reason Muslims have deliberately ignored that side of the family is that it included relatives including Waraqa and possibly Khadijah herself who were members of the Nusraniyah.
Ancient historian Abu Faraj Al Isfahani noted in his Kitab Al Aghani that Waraqa bin Naufal converted to Nusraniyah, and biographer Ibn Ishaq describes him as a Hanif, one who believed in only one God.
Hadith compilers Bukhari and Sahih Muslim both state that Waraqa bin Naufal translated the Book of the Hebrews and the Gospel into Arabic. It is possible the book they meant was the Gospel of Matthew to the Hebrews.
Among the characteristics of the Ebionites was compassion for the poor and the orphaned. Waraqa bin Naufal, who was both a scholar and the leader of the Ebionites in Mecca, took a special interest in his young relative the orphaned Muhammad. He saw in him qualities of leadership, spent much time with him, and over the years taught Muhammad the Gospel of the Ebionites as well as the contents of the Torah. Waraqa bin Naufal performed Muhammad's marriage to Khadijah, and groomed Muhammad to replace him as the Ebionite spiritual leader in Mecca.
(When presented with criticism of Muhammad's later multiple marriages, Muslims often point out that the Prophet remained in a monogamous relationship with Khadija for 25 years. The reality is that Muhammad's marriage with Khadijah was essentially a Christian marriage, with both divorce and having more than one wife not allowed to the Ebionites).
When Muhammad first announced that he was receiving revelations from God, the revelations were in large part the stories he had learned from Waraqa bin Naufal. Waraqa encouraged Muhammad to consider himself a Prophet, with the understanding that just as Abraham had been the Prophet to call the Jews back to Allah, and Jesus the Prophet who called his generation back to Allah, so Muhammad would be the Prophet who could call the Arabs back to Allah. It is interesting to note that at this time Muhammad did not see himself as founding a new religion, but only in calling people back to the Islam of Abraham, Moses, and Jesus.
The influence of Waraqi bin Naufal upon Muhammad and his revelations continued until Waraqa died. It is not accidental that the Hadith writers note that "revelations ceased for some time" following the death of Waraqa. The reason, of course, is that Muhammad was no longer learning from his Ebionite uncle.
The presence of the Gospel of the Ebionites in the short, poetic Meccan suras with their vivid descriptions of hell and Muhammad's repeated claim that he is a Prophet just like Abraham, Moses, and Jesus is something most Muslims are not allowed to even think about, at least publicly. It's much easier, and safer, to just toe the party line. I would encourage Muslims to be a little more open in their thinking and scholarship.
(Acknowledgements to Joseph Azzi, author of The Priest and the Prophet, for much of the above material).
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
The Challenge Facing Thinking Muslims
Saudi journalist Saleh Ibrahim Al-Turigee, who writes for the Arabic newspaper Okaz (his article is available here), is upset that the Saudi Ministry of Justice is unwilling to ban the marriage of young girls. A spokesman from the Ministry announced they were only prepared to study "stipulations and limitations on marriages to minors".
"What does the phrase stipulations and limitations mean?" Saleh asked indignantly. "Does it mean they will never forbid these marriage, but will simply lay down some regulations before signing the marriage certificate of a little girl to a man in his thirties, or sixties, or eighties?"
"Many argue," Saleh continued, "That the Apostle of Allah married Aisha when she was nine. OK, let's look at Islamic history and see how old Aisha really was when Muhammad married her."
Saleh then quoted a study he had apparently just come across that has been floating around the Internet for several years. Entitled Hazrat Aishah Saddiqah, the study uses flawed evidence to suggest Aisha was 19 or even 24 when Muhammad married here. Articles at numerous websites, including here, have painstakingly proven the study false.
Following Saleh's presentation of the evidence that he seems to believe has eluded Islam's greatest scholars for the past 1400 years, he continued, "We need to reexamine our history. Perhaps we will discover there were some who wanted to introduce harmful customs and traditions into religion. We also need to ask ourselves what it means to rape and molest a child. Does it not mean that a man in his 30's who engages in sex with a child, with or without the permission of her father, is raping and violating the rights of that child?"
I don't think Saleh understands the dilemma he faces. He acknowledges that sex with a young girl is rape. He realizes this was as true 1400 years ago as it is today. But he cannot - he is not allowed - to take the next logical step and consider the possibility that his Prophet was guilty of this crime, and this same Prophet was the one who introduced those "harmful customs and traditions into religion". All he can do is float a bogus theory that Aisha was older than nine and therefore the Prophet cannot be accused of child molestation and rape (about which I have written here).
I have a theory. It is that many thinking Muslims and Muslimahs - perhaps millions - are beginning to recognize the answer is not to be found in this or that theory justifying Muhammad's behavior, but instead in honestly confronting that behavior. They have been taught all their lives that the practical definition of being a Muslim is to defend Muhammad at any cost. For the first time in Islamic history, these intelligent young people might realize there is more to faith than defending their Prophet.
"What does the phrase stipulations and limitations mean?" Saleh asked indignantly. "Does it mean they will never forbid these marriage, but will simply lay down some regulations before signing the marriage certificate of a little girl to a man in his thirties, or sixties, or eighties?"
"Many argue," Saleh continued, "That the Apostle of Allah married Aisha when she was nine. OK, let's look at Islamic history and see how old Aisha really was when Muhammad married her."
Saleh then quoted a study he had apparently just come across that has been floating around the Internet for several years. Entitled Hazrat Aishah Saddiqah, the study uses flawed evidence to suggest Aisha was 19 or even 24 when Muhammad married here. Articles at numerous websites, including here, have painstakingly proven the study false.
Following Saleh's presentation of the evidence that he seems to believe has eluded Islam's greatest scholars for the past 1400 years, he continued, "We need to reexamine our history. Perhaps we will discover there were some who wanted to introduce harmful customs and traditions into religion. We also need to ask ourselves what it means to rape and molest a child. Does it not mean that a man in his 30's who engages in sex with a child, with or without the permission of her father, is raping and violating the rights of that child?"
I don't think Saleh understands the dilemma he faces. He acknowledges that sex with a young girl is rape. He realizes this was as true 1400 years ago as it is today. But he cannot - he is not allowed - to take the next logical step and consider the possibility that his Prophet was guilty of this crime, and this same Prophet was the one who introduced those "harmful customs and traditions into religion". All he can do is float a bogus theory that Aisha was older than nine and therefore the Prophet cannot be accused of child molestation and rape (about which I have written here).
I have a theory. It is that many thinking Muslims and Muslimahs - perhaps millions - are beginning to recognize the answer is not to be found in this or that theory justifying Muhammad's behavior, but instead in honestly confronting that behavior. They have been taught all their lives that the practical definition of being a Muslim is to defend Muhammad at any cost. For the first time in Islamic history, these intelligent young people might realize there is more to faith than defending their Prophet.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Yusuf Qaradawi: Is There More than One Islam?
A common refrain heard by those who adopt a critical approach to Islam is that there is not one but many Islams. Dr. Yusuf Qaradawi, probably Sunni Islam's best-known theologian and apologist, discussed that question on a recent Al Jazeera TV edition of Shariah and Life. The broadcast in Arabic is available here.
Host Uthman informed viewers at the onset of the program that the Quran states in Surat Al Imran (3:19) that Islam is the only religion accepted by Allah, and that those who follow any other religion will be condemned (3:85). But what is this Islam, and is it possible to speak of many Islams?
Dr. Qaradawi quoted Surat At Taghabun (64:8) and Surat An Nahl (16:44) to say the Quran was revealed from Allah as a clear and plain light, and there was no religion in the world more clear than Islam. He gave the classic definition of Islam as not the religion founded by Muhammad, but the only true religion that has existed for all time. Since the beginning of history Allah sent his Prophets and his Messages to call people back to Himself. Just as there were not many Prophet Abrahams or many King Davids, so there are not many Muhammads and many Islams. Just as there were not different Islams for different eras throughout human history, there are not different Islams today.
Dr. Qaradawi then took a moment to illustrate the Quranic teaching that all the Biblical heroes were Muslims who followed one single Islam in their submission to Allah. Noah said (10:72), "I have been commanded to be among the Muslims." Surat Al Imran (3:67) states that Abraham was neither a Christian nor a Jew, but a Muslim. Jacob, who was the grandson of Abraham, encouraged his offspring to be Muslim as he was (2:132). Joseph declared that he was a Muslim (12:101), and Moses commanded his people to follow Islam (10:84). Jesus and his Disciples bore witness to the fact they were Muslims (3:52). The only difference between Muslims today and then is that Islam is now complete, having been perfected by Muhammad, as demonstrated in Surat Al Maidah (5:3), "I have now perfected and completed Islam for you as your religion."
The Quran, continued Dr. Qaradawi, defines Islam in 4:136 and 2:177. The Muslim is one who believes in Allah, his Angels, his Books, his Messengers, and the Final Judgment (by contrast, the one who does not believe those - including belief in Muhammad as a Prophet and the Quran as Revelation - is a Kafir). These five Quranic statements of faith are accompanied by the five Pillars of Islam (exemplified not in the Quran, but in the life of Muhammad), the Shahada (I testify there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is the Prophet of Allah), the Salat (five daily prayers), Sawm (Ramadan fast), Zakat (almsgiving), and the Hajj (pilgrimage to Mecca).
As Uthman pressed for the reason some claim there are "many Islams", Dr. Qradawi reminded viewers of the Quranic teaching that "some verses are clear and others are not" (3:7). The "unclear" verses allow for various Islamic schools of thought, and difference of interpretation about minor issues, but cannot be construed as different Islams. "Everywhere I go in the world," Dr. Qaradawi said, "I see Muslims praying at the same time and fasting at the same time. I see Muslims avoiding pork and alcohol, and eating only with their right hand. The laws of inheritance and the prohibitions against usury are the same. It is true that some Muslims follow their whims and ignore some of the rules of Islam, but that does not mean there is more than one Islam."
"There are two circles within Islam," continued Dr. Qaradawi, "An open circle that represents rulings open to interpretation, and a closed circle with rulings that are not. The Quran, for example, is within the closed circle and there can be no question about its rulings. The person who commits adultery is to be lashed exactly 100 times. It cannot be changed to 95 or 105 lashes. The open circle represents differences of opinion on how to apply, for example, different aspects of Shariah."
Uthman asked who were those insisting on many Islams. Dr. Qaradawi replied they were Western Orientalists who insisted that the Islam of Europe was not the Islam of Africa, and both of these were not the Islam of Asia or the Middle East. These same Orientalists separated Islam into the Islam of the Prophet and the Early Caliphs, as well as that of the Umayyid, Abassid, or Ottoman Empires, and "Modern Islam". They also tried to separate Islam into that of the Sufis, the intellectuals, or folk Islam. All these are vain attempts by the enemies of Islam to divide the one Islam accepted by God.
Dr. Qaradawi acknowledged that some who called themselves Muslims, such as the Black Muslims of America who thought that Satan was the White Man, or the Druze who did not pray in mosques, or the Qadaris in India who followed their own Prophet, were not really Muslims at all although some of them were open to reconciliation. Groups such as these, however, represent only a small minority of the worldwide Ummah.
A second guest, University of Lebanon Professor Ridwan Sayyid, added that a new generation of Western Orientalists had influenced even some Arab scholars to consider the existence of differing Islams. He agreed, however, with Dr. Qaradawi that the vast majority of Muslim scholars rejected the idea. When Uthman asked how Muslims could confront the false notion of various Islams, Dr. Sayyid replied they needed to recognize the power of a united Islam throughout history, and speak out against those whose interests lay in advocating a divided Islam.
My comment: As I noted at the beginning of this post, those in the West who are critical of Islam are often told they are being unfair because there are many Islams. Perhaps the many-Islam-Muslim-proponents in the West are the Arab scholars referred to by Ridwan Sayyid who are themselves influenced by Western Orientalists (why do I have a feeling that those whom Qaradawi and Sayyid unfavorably describe as "modern Western Orientalists" would include the many non-Muslim professors in our universities who see themselves as moderate and unbiased scholars of Islam?). At any rate I think it is noteworthy that, at least according to Qaradawi and Sayyid, those who speak of "many Islams" only represent a fringe of Islamic scholarship in the Muslim world.
Another common refrain recently heard in the West is that Shariah is such a massive and unwieldy subject it cannot even be spoken of as a united whole. It is worth noting that, according to Dr. Qaradawi, there are elements of Sharia that are open to application and interpretation. That is much different, however, than saying that Shariah is so broad it cannot even be discussed, or the application of Shariah to Western society cannot even be brought to the table.
Host Uthman informed viewers at the onset of the program that the Quran states in Surat Al Imran (3:19) that Islam is the only religion accepted by Allah, and that those who follow any other religion will be condemned (3:85). But what is this Islam, and is it possible to speak of many Islams?
Dr. Qaradawi quoted Surat At Taghabun (64:8) and Surat An Nahl (16:44) to say the Quran was revealed from Allah as a clear and plain light, and there was no religion in the world more clear than Islam. He gave the classic definition of Islam as not the religion founded by Muhammad, but the only true religion that has existed for all time. Since the beginning of history Allah sent his Prophets and his Messages to call people back to Himself. Just as there were not many Prophet Abrahams or many King Davids, so there are not many Muhammads and many Islams. Just as there were not different Islams for different eras throughout human history, there are not different Islams today.
Dr. Qaradawi then took a moment to illustrate the Quranic teaching that all the Biblical heroes were Muslims who followed one single Islam in their submission to Allah. Noah said (10:72), "I have been commanded to be among the Muslims." Surat Al Imran (3:67) states that Abraham was neither a Christian nor a Jew, but a Muslim. Jacob, who was the grandson of Abraham, encouraged his offspring to be Muslim as he was (2:132). Joseph declared that he was a Muslim (12:101), and Moses commanded his people to follow Islam (10:84). Jesus and his Disciples bore witness to the fact they were Muslims (3:52). The only difference between Muslims today and then is that Islam is now complete, having been perfected by Muhammad, as demonstrated in Surat Al Maidah (5:3), "I have now perfected and completed Islam for you as your religion."
The Quran, continued Dr. Qaradawi, defines Islam in 4:136 and 2:177. The Muslim is one who believes in Allah, his Angels, his Books, his Messengers, and the Final Judgment (by contrast, the one who does not believe those - including belief in Muhammad as a Prophet and the Quran as Revelation - is a Kafir). These five Quranic statements of faith are accompanied by the five Pillars of Islam (exemplified not in the Quran, but in the life of Muhammad), the Shahada (I testify there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is the Prophet of Allah), the Salat (five daily prayers), Sawm (Ramadan fast), Zakat (almsgiving), and the Hajj (pilgrimage to Mecca).
As Uthman pressed for the reason some claim there are "many Islams", Dr. Qradawi reminded viewers of the Quranic teaching that "some verses are clear and others are not" (3:7). The "unclear" verses allow for various Islamic schools of thought, and difference of interpretation about minor issues, but cannot be construed as different Islams. "Everywhere I go in the world," Dr. Qaradawi said, "I see Muslims praying at the same time and fasting at the same time. I see Muslims avoiding pork and alcohol, and eating only with their right hand. The laws of inheritance and the prohibitions against usury are the same. It is true that some Muslims follow their whims and ignore some of the rules of Islam, but that does not mean there is more than one Islam."
"There are two circles within Islam," continued Dr. Qaradawi, "An open circle that represents rulings open to interpretation, and a closed circle with rulings that are not. The Quran, for example, is within the closed circle and there can be no question about its rulings. The person who commits adultery is to be lashed exactly 100 times. It cannot be changed to 95 or 105 lashes. The open circle represents differences of opinion on how to apply, for example, different aspects of Shariah."
Uthman asked who were those insisting on many Islams. Dr. Qaradawi replied they were Western Orientalists who insisted that the Islam of Europe was not the Islam of Africa, and both of these were not the Islam of Asia or the Middle East. These same Orientalists separated Islam into the Islam of the Prophet and the Early Caliphs, as well as that of the Umayyid, Abassid, or Ottoman Empires, and "Modern Islam". They also tried to separate Islam into that of the Sufis, the intellectuals, or folk Islam. All these are vain attempts by the enemies of Islam to divide the one Islam accepted by God.
Dr. Qaradawi acknowledged that some who called themselves Muslims, such as the Black Muslims of America who thought that Satan was the White Man, or the Druze who did not pray in mosques, or the Qadaris in India who followed their own Prophet, were not really Muslims at all although some of them were open to reconciliation. Groups such as these, however, represent only a small minority of the worldwide Ummah.
A second guest, University of Lebanon Professor Ridwan Sayyid, added that a new generation of Western Orientalists had influenced even some Arab scholars to consider the existence of differing Islams. He agreed, however, with Dr. Qaradawi that the vast majority of Muslim scholars rejected the idea. When Uthman asked how Muslims could confront the false notion of various Islams, Dr. Sayyid replied they needed to recognize the power of a united Islam throughout history, and speak out against those whose interests lay in advocating a divided Islam.
My comment: As I noted at the beginning of this post, those in the West who are critical of Islam are often told they are being unfair because there are many Islams. Perhaps the many-Islam-Muslim-proponents in the West are the Arab scholars referred to by Ridwan Sayyid who are themselves influenced by Western Orientalists (why do I have a feeling that those whom Qaradawi and Sayyid unfavorably describe as "modern Western Orientalists" would include the many non-Muslim professors in our universities who see themselves as moderate and unbiased scholars of Islam?). At any rate I think it is noteworthy that, at least according to Qaradawi and Sayyid, those who speak of "many Islams" only represent a fringe of Islamic scholarship in the Muslim world.
Another common refrain recently heard in the West is that Shariah is such a massive and unwieldy subject it cannot even be spoken of as a united whole. It is worth noting that, according to Dr. Qaradawi, there are elements of Sharia that are open to application and interpretation. That is much different, however, than saying that Shariah is so broad it cannot even be discussed, or the application of Shariah to Western society cannot even be brought to the table.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
