Interview: Mohammad Fadel on the Equality of Men and Women in the Qur'an
Mohammad Fadel and I had an extended e-mail conversation on equality between men and women in the Qur’an. Fadel is a member of the faculty of Law at the University of Toronto. We are pleased to have him on as one of our new contributors to the site. He has been working on finding "best practices" in the established legal tradition to resolve gender matters in the contemporary North American context.
I have always understood that while the Qur’an provides for moral equality between men and women, there is no legal equality between men and women, not to mention the free and the enslaved. Moral equality implies that no matter the distinct social heirarchies, all human social roles are equally valuable before God. However one might respond to the fact of legal inequality in the Qur’an, it seems to me that there is no way around the fact of it. Fadel disagreed with me. It turns out I was confusing analysis of legal history and legal thinking itself. Kecia Ali's new book Sexual Ethics and Islam is a superb example of analysis of legal history. She is not trying to make law herself, but rather give an analysis of how law has been made and on what assumptions. Fadel is making analysis of legal thought that makes an explicit legal argument for one position over another. So while Ali's analysis demonstrates that legal equality in the Qur'an has a contested matter and why, Fadel's analysis shows that it should not have to be given our legal options. Fadel argues that the legal equality between men and women in the Qur’an is implicit and was made explicit in a number of important early legal sources. Moreover, he shows that while long-standing social preferences restrict women’s legal rights in practice, those social preferences are not legally normative. Meaning, social preferences can influence which implicit meanings of the Qur’an are made explicit, but they cannot be the source of law themselves. Social preferences that keep women at home or that give women a full role in society may permissibly influence rulings concerning their legal rights and responsibilities. Given present social preferences, there is no social barrier to making the Qur’an’s implicit legal equality between men and women explicit in rulings.
Interview:
LS: Does the Qur'an have a message of equality for men and women that has been covered up? The Qur'an seems to argue for moral equality but not equality with respect to legal rights and responsibilities. Men and women, let alone free people and slaves, have legally distinct and hierarchical social roles that are nevertheless considered morally equal by God.
MF: it is not plausible to believe that the Quran has a message of gender equality and then also believe that this message did not have an important impact on Islamic doctrine. I happen to believe that the general principle of gender equality is in the Quran, and that it was recognized by (especially) the legal tradition.
First, as a minimum, no one can deny the moral equality of men and women (and hermaphrodites, for that matter). I would have no problem declaring a person who believed that God has a moral preference for one sex over the other to be a non-muslim. The prinicple of legal equality, however, is only implicit in the Quran. Nevertheless, I believe the pre-modern tradition generally accepted the notion that equality between men and women is the rule, not the exception.
LS: You find moral equivalence between men and women to be explicit in the Qur'an and legal equivalence implicit in the Qur'an. You seem to be saying we know it is implicitly there because we find interpreters articulating it even when it goes against their own social inclinations. To put it simply, if equality were not implicit in the text, they could not find it. What is an example of a legal ruling that is implicit in the Qur'an and only made explicit by scholars?
MF: For example, I don't believe that the Quran mandated, in any objective sense, emancipation of slaves. It is an essential part of Quranic teaching, however, that slavery is bad, and that it should be remedied, either by encouraging manumission, in some cases mandating it, and in all cases requiring decent treatment of slaves. Accordingly, a broad prohibition of slavery is consistent with Quranic teaching, even if not objectively required, although as I said earlier, other prinicples may operate to prohibit individuals from owning slaves. I obviously believe that personal idiosyncrisies are very important in interpeting revelation, but despite that, one can recognize "principles" as opposed to "biases" at least in circumstances where multiple scholars accepted the point and the point was contrary to prevailing social biases. In that case, it is plausible to attribute the normative shift to revelation. To put it differently, it is discrimination on the basis of sex that is exceptional. There are several pieces of evidence I can adduce for this.
First, Ibn al-Salah, in his discussion of the necessity of taqlid [following a scholar in legal matters], notes that there is a type of analogy called "la farq" [no distinction]. It is permissible for a muqallid [an average person who can fulfill the obligations of the law] to employ this type of legal analogy because it is not an analogy at all, as the name implies. His example: He takes a text which mentions only men and extends it to women [In doing so, he makes the point that there is no legal distinction between men and women that would require an analogy to resolve]. For example, consider the hadith "talab al-'ilm wajib 'ala kulli muslim" [seeking knowledge is incumbent on every muslim (male)]. Some versions of this hadith have at the end "wa muslima" [and muslim female]. Rosenthal, in his book "Knowledge Triumphant" notes that the eight-century historian and hadith critic al-Sakhawi rejected the addition of "wa muslima" but stated that its "meaning is correct" [In other words, in the words "every muslim" there is no distinction made between men and women].
Second, with respect to legal capacity, there is no doubt that as a general matter, Islamic law recognized the equal capacity of men and women to manage their own affairs. The difference between the two was, in my opinion, a result of sociological factors regarding the comparative ability of men and women to attain the skills necessary to manage their own affairs. This difference was explicitly understood to be a result of "nurture" and not "nature". Shafi'i discusses in his Umm a woman's right to manage her own property. Shafi'i makes the point that males, as a general matter, are involved in managing property even before they attain puberty, and accordingly, whether they are competent or not is something that will be well-known by the time they reach the age of puberty. As for those boys that do not, then additional information will be needed before the guardian is obliged to deliver the boy's property to him.
Similarly, in the case of women, he makes the argument that women, once they prove competence, will have all the same rights as men with respect to their property, except that it takes longer for women to attain these skills because they generally do not go out into to the public.
He recognizes, however, that there are women who regularly participate in the market, and for those, they will attain the skills necessary to enjoy their property fully sooner than those women who generally do not participate in market relations. The interesting point is that he describes the women who stay at home as "sa'ina" and the woman who goes to the marketplace as "mumtahina". In other words, he recognizes that it is the socially preferable norm for women to stay at home, where she is "protected" and "honored", rather than go into the market, where she is "abased." This is clearly a social bias, not one going to woman's natural capacities or her legal rights under Islamic law.
Third, Malik was of the view that a waqf made for the exclusive benefit of the son's of the founder was invalid while a waqf for the exclusive benefit of a person's daughters was fine. Later Malikis argued that the difference is that the former harkens back to jahiliyya, while the latter does not. That seems to be an indication that improving the status of females, even beyond what is set forth in revelation, is a valid principle, whereas using voluntary transactions to reduce women's status is forbidden because, for want of a better term, it is taking us back to a state that Islam delivered us from.
LS: So the Qur'an offers us implicit legal equivalence between men and women—like that between the free and the enslaved—that scholars have the ability to make explicit when social preferences do not create a barrier to it. The point here seems to be that social prefernces are not legally normative. This means that we are not obligated to account for them when making rulings. Social preferences may be reflected in the law, but they are not the basis for the law. Is that correct?
MF: Yes, Shafi'is characterization of women as either "sa'ina" or "mumtahina" is of no relevance to his analysis of their legal rights, except to point out that a women who is "mumtahina" will acquire the social skills necessary to manage her property more quickly than a woman who is "sa'ina". Clearly, the latter was socially preferable to the former, but not as a matter of law.
LS: Your observation concerning social preferences and the law makes sense to me given what I have seen in my own work on early pious and Sufi women. There does not seem to be a distinct feminine spirituality or path. I am finding that differences between men and women's piety arise from social preferences, not anything considered to be "essential" to women or femininity. Social boundaries restricted the average woman from access to the public means of authority. Exceptional women (e.g., a famously insightful woman or a woman who was mentally ill or in a long-term ecstatic state) and average women in exceptional circumstances (e.g., on Hajj) publicly conversed with, taught, and were students of pious or Sufi men. All to say, in this early period social preferences were not considered normative. When the social conditions changed it was reflected in practice. Returning to legal matters, since social norms change and are not legally normative, then we need not continue to reflect them in the law.
But I would like to press the point that some of these social preferences seem rooted in the Qur'an and cannot be argued away except through juristic loopholes, if at all. For instance, we cannot say that men do not have the right to hit their wives under certain circumstances. But we can argue that because we cannot guarantee that the men will do it safely or lightly, we should restrict hitting to the point of prohibition.
MF: Here, the question is whether these restrictions, e.g., the husband's right to discipline, is a command. In other words, does it describe an "ideal" marriage type, or does it merely establish one form of marriage that is permissible? Clearly, I believe the latter is the case, because no one is ever obliged to discipline his wife. In fact, I believe Shafi'i narrates a hadith that says that "the best of you shall not strike their wives." In any case, by the 18th century, Malikis had come to the view that discipline could only be an affirmative defense to a claim of abuse, and that he bore the burden of proof that he complied with all reuirements of the law prior to exercising his right of disipline. For these reasons, I don't think that abolition, as a legal matter of such rules, is at all in conflict with the Quran. Perhaps not necessary, but certainly not in contradiction.
LS: But the social preference that gives men the right to discipline their wives seems to be explicit in the Qur'an. How do we argue that it is not legally normative? Men are in charge of women (qiwama) if men support them. Those men may hit their wives under certain circumstances. You've shown those circumstances can be argued away. But that still leaves the explicit wording that men are charge. If you are to argue that women are implicitly legally equal—and we must all agree that women are morally equal—then you have to account for this part of the verse. In the vein of the prohibition of slavery as "consistent but not obligatory," how to we argue that full legal autonomy for women is consistent with the Qur'an in this case?
Can it be said that financial obligation is a social preference? Can it be said that if a woman supports a man she then has concomitant rights over men? Also is supporting herself entirely the only way for a woman to have full legal autonomy? That is no resolution. Why do women have to give up some of their legal autonomy by virtue of the husband spending money?
MF: Qiwama, from the perspective of legal furu`, is solely a monetary obligation of the husband. It does not make him a guardian over his wife or of her propety. Shafi'i, for example, explicitly rejects the notion that a married woman has diminished rights vis a vis her property relative to a man. Even with respect to sexuality, the husband does not have a "property" claim to her fidelity. In other words, if his wife is unfaithful to him, he has no right to sue her or her paramour for compensation. His only right — if he catches her in the act — is to dissolve the marriage and be free of any obligations of subsequent children that are born to that woman. Another way of understanding this is that the jurists all agreed (with the possible exception of a late Shafi'i of no importance) that a claim of zina [adultery] involves only a right of God. To further this point, Malik, prohibits the husband of an unfaithful wife from extracting compensation from her in the form of a khul'; instead, he says he should simply divorce her (talaq) and in no case is he permitted to abuse her in order to extort a financial settlement from her in exchange for an agreement to a divorce. In no way would I agree with the proposition that the right to discipline is a quid pro quo for the obligation of qiwama . . . I actually believe that qiwama, understood as the economic obligation of the husband, is the economic compensation to the wife for the opportunity costs she incurs as a result of bearing children and taking responsibility for her husband's home.
LS: I have heard economic compensation argued before, by a Shia scholar. Then in this case, we could say that the social preference of men over women becomes one implicit or one possible interpretation but not an explicit or necessary one. You were going to address the matter of sex and marriage. It has been argued that women give up their negative rights over their body at marriage. A woman has no right to say "no" to sex should her husband desire it. In other words, the law aids men in securing usufruct over women's sex by making a legal condition of marriage. Wouldn't this be considered forced consent or a submissive consent wherein if the woman wants to marry she has to give up her right over her own body? If this is true, then it would seem to me she never had consent or full legal rights equal to the man to start out with.
MF: Most women in the pre-modern era would be married, I assume, without explicit consent, since the rule was that, with respect to a girl's first marriage, her silence was tacit consent, the assumption being that modesty would preclude her from admitting desire for a man. Interestingly, the Malikis preserved this rule even for a never before married girl who has repeatedly engaged in fornication to the point that "the robe of modesty has completely departed from her." I believe this has to do with the notion of privacy and the legal right one has not to impeach one's own reputation. I would suggest the following: marriage makes intercourse and other acts of intimacy presumptively lawful, in contrast to the time prior to marriage, when they were categorically forbidden. After marriage, we know that intercourse is prima facie lawful for the couple. I say only prima facie, and not absolutely, however, because even if a husband has a presumptive right to engage in sexual intercourse with his wife, he may not enjoy that right if it can only be obtained through the use of violence. When a wife refuses to sleep with her husband, the husband's remedy is not to force her to have sex with him but rather he must make a decision as to whether he wishes to continue his relationship with her. If so, he must resolve whatever problems he is having with his wife that has led to this problem. If the wife no longer willing to sleep with him, however, I think the marriage is over, and a court must decide if she is at fault. If she has legal grounds for divorce, e.g. he abuses her, then I don't think she can be deemed rebellious [nashiz]. If she lacks legal grounds for divorce, but for one reason or another, is repulsed by him, she is obliged, in my opinion, to seek divorce from him on the basis of khul' [returning the dower and refusing future support]. I do believe it is haram for a woman to accept the support of a husband whom she despises and is unwilling to sleep with . . . I would add that
according to Malikis, a pre-requisite for any level of discipline, even verbal, is a good faith belief by the husband that it will repair the marital relationship. In other words, even aside from the degree of discipline deployed, discipline cannot be used to control the wife simply for the sake of controlling her, as one can do with property. Hence she is not legally property at marriage.
LS: So the presumptive right to sex with his wife does not make her property. She retains the right to refuse sex with the understanding that refusal at the level of constructive abandonment indicates a failed marriage. A woman has a right to not be in the mood and a right not to be raped. There does not seem to be a developed notion of consent, unfortunately. But US law is still working on that as well. I would like to address the point about discipline and good faith you just made, though. Any man who has good faith that beating or verbally disciplining his wife will repair their relationship is not one from whom we should define the nature of "good faith." Note the problem of the word "discipline." Men should not be able to discipline—by definition—his equal. If he can discipline her, she is his inferior. We discipline those under our guidance and children. We do not discipline our elders or our peers. Good faith in the context of a relationship between equals would require consulting each other as equals. As you argued before, there should be no discipline permitted at all. How can we bring what you just said back into line with what you have argued about the implicit equality of men and women in the Qur'an.
MF: Look, the Quran was revealed to a society in transition. There is the verse that permits a qualified right of discipline, no doubt greatly restricting a prerogative that already existed, and then elsewhere says: "wa 'ashiruhunna bi-l-ma'ruf" (and live with them according to customary standards of kindness). Why didn't God use the tafa'al form and say "wa ta'asharu bi-l-ma'ruf"? Does that mean that women have no obligation to live with their husbands in kindness? No, but the Quran was addressing men since they are the primary problem and women were in the process of having their status elevated to one of equality. I think Amina Wadud's book is very good on this point.
Now, what does this mean as a legal/historical matter? Clearly, at some certain point in time, a limited right of husband's to discipline was considered tolerable, although, as I mentioned, even by Shafi'i's time it was clear the jurists already took the view this was disfavored and men could be liable for injuries they cause to their wives, something not achieved in the US until this century. So, I view the Quranic right to discipline as clear, but qualified, and more importantly, transitional and amenable to prohibition by legislation or other legal avenues. That does not mean that I can say, as a theological matter, that in all circumstances the only marriage deemed permissible by Islam is one between equals.
LS: This is a crucial point. A number of legal options—including equality—are implicit in the Qur'an. The social preferences that lead to making one legal option explicit over another are not legally normative. So as those social preferences change, we are likewise able to choose to make explicit implicit legal rulings that best reflect our current social preferences. In another conversation we had, you called this "best practices." Or put in more prosaic language, it doesn't have to be this way. We can choose legal options that reflect the equality of men and women, because as you have argued traditional scholars have already demonstrated that legal equality is implicit.
Main Menu
Login
Recent comments
- I got a little confused are
1 day 17 hours ago - Assalamu’alaikum, if you
2 days 5 hours ago - The irony of the Naqba was
5 days 1 hour ago - What has happened and what
5 days 6 hours ago - Tokyo has some serious
6 days 21 hours ago - Gustavo perhaps you can
1 week 4 days ago - How cool. I like your
1 week 5 days ago - I think a woman who cannot
2 weeks 6 hours ago - If your family was from
2 weeks 16 hours ago - What is the Gustavo-Laila
3 weeks 16 hours ago
Recent blog posts
- Obama - the candidate that muslims fear/ Or how about Bilary for a change?
- Pure Genius
- Thoughts on al Nakba: 60 years and counting...
- Bush Administration: We're Working on the Legalities
- town's emergency drill targets simulated masjid
- Never be caught unprepared
- Long time reader here from Myspace wants to post
- Northern California Muslim Nurses Association
- If you're going to read one Op-Ed on Pakistan...
- Love without Sex, is that a muslim marriage?
Comments
Emancipation & the
Emancipation & the Qu'ran
http://literarydiscussions.myfreeforum.org/ftopic726.php
The above is something I wrote a year or two ago in response to an essay by a college student in Denmark (female, non-Muslim).
Reading your post here reminds me of that 2 page epistled in the New Testament, to Philemon, in which Paul advises a slave who has recently converted to Christianity to remain content with his lot in life as a slave, and be obedient to his master.
Of course, during the era of the slave trade in North America, various Biblical passages were used to justify the practice of slavery.
The Old Testament (Torah/Penteteuch) has laws regarding the treatment of slaves which may be construed as an endorsement for the practice of slavery.
(excerpt from my essay)
it is interesting that the
it is interesting that the only thing a husband can do TO his wife if she commits zina is to divorce her, yet,
the Quaran asks {THE STATE}A-zani wa az-zaniah (to) ‘ujludo each one …80 jaldah or lashes)
Does not this kind of logic say something problematic???
It says that a husband may
It says that a husband may not act as judge and jury over his wife, which would indicate a certain wisdom about the Qur’an- familiar with it?
Also, neither Drs. Fadel or Ali discuss issues that lie beyond a dual-gender system. I’ve spoken with Kecia, and she tried to discuss genderqueers, but it made for some unwieldy chapters. We need to discuss moving beyond a dual gender view, as it will benefit those of all genders.
I'm so happy to see this
I’m so happy to see this interview and Laury I appreciate your pushing the point with regards to what a husband can and can not do.
However, (and this is where I previously wrote a long ado about the uneasiness I have with the entire discussion, but erased it.)
But to state it bluntly:
It kind of creeps me out when people dissect God-speak in order to find out if it’s OK to beat your wives. I mean come on! Sometimes I wonder, what the f- I’m involved in here.
Implicit? Explicit? Don’t fucking hit people.
Domestic violence occurs in every facet of human existence it seems. Surely we are beyond debating whether or not it’s “permissible.” Can’t we simply begin with it’s fucking ridiculous and work from there? I simply have a hard time debating the permissibility of this.
But I guess one needs to speak to people on their level, and if the Qur’an in there level…
I guess what I'm saying, and
I guess what I’m saying, and not to be too blasphemous, is:
Is the Qur’an the best platform to base our decisions with regards to how we touch another human being?
As much as the Qur’an breaks my heart in that happy/sad way every time I unfold it and open its pages and hold it and touch it, I’m still not sold that the Qur’an is the only model for interpersonal relations.
Yeah, I'm in the don't hit
Yeah, I’m in the don’t hit people camp as well, and I’ll happily claim it as fitra. Don’t forget, God gave us this wondrous moral compass, so even if we don’t read the map (Qur’an), we can still find our way home.
Of course, language is a
Of course, language is a slippery thing. You can’t simply say: Don’t hit people, cause someone will ask immediately: What about if that person is ready to faint into oncoming traffic, can I smack them to wake them up?
So, we’re already in a bind.
But something doesn’t feel right about this debating of hitting wives. I can hear my post-marxist friends being like: are you serious?!
But as the great DC punk vangaurd Ian MacKaye said once about his early days as a straight-edged punk: I tried to say it simply and people just fucked it up.
Meaning: there is no plain speech.
So perhaps the Qur’an in it’s uncontainable complexity and slippery speech truly IS the best model…
perhaps I am simply pissed that people actually need to be told not to hit your wives.
But then again, it doesn’t say that woman can’t hit their husbands, in which case I’m all for fair and equal play. Perhaps if a little throw-down needs to occur, and if one pareter is bigger than the other, that partner must tie their hands behind their back while the other doesn’t have to. And since this will ultimately be hilarious, they’ll just laugh and either get divorced or move on.
Well, this is why languages
Well, this is why languages have so many words. Hitting may be acceptable under certain circumstances, but violence is a bad thing in civil society. Sacred texts always have this quality of the words not being able to contain the message- I struggle with trying to fit a message into words, messages far less important than Divine discourse. (Which is why I am a musician. ) There is an account in which the Prophet (SAWS) permitted women hitting men, but he was obliged to take it back. Either way, a violent house is not a home, especially for children.
Islamic law bores me, yawn,
Islamic law bores me, yawn, I’m sorry, maybe the former Protestant in me just chooses to ignore the endless scholasticism that is found in “divine” law.
Islamic law as practiced is patronizing as best, and despite what the intent is meant to be, social reality and oppressions speaks louder than lofty ideas.
I hear that FM. GM: This is
I hear that FM.
GM: This is when the anarchist in me reminds me that there is nothing in the Qur’an that says we should be playing around with making laws regarding inter-communal relationships, etc. I htink a healthy and happy society is what is intended, and there are many ways to get there, if “there” is even a reasonable place to expect to be.
There are other models of personal/community relationships that tend to work in smaller groups that don’t involvepicking apart law-speak in order to get at the intention of God.
Baraka, Islamic law seems
Baraka, Islamic law seems more and more to be an academic mind-teaser with little serious discussion on implementation. What safeguards would need to be put in place to ensure that injustice does not become the norm. We only have to look at the Hadud laws in Pakistan, they have amounted to nothing more than personal vendetta.
Throughout the world, we have gross injustices that are committed in the name of “shariah” and though shariah comes from a root which means “annointed” and “watering hole” I don’t think we can ever go back to a time when shariah was a legal norm that was comparable to other great legal systems.
Shariah is heterosexist and heteronormative. Women as I have been told “are equal but men and women have their roles” which excuses what are inequalities in Islamic law.
There seems to be a heavy focus in Islam on sexuality and sexual propriety, but often with women having to bear the brunt of most restrictions to ensure “proper relations” with the opposite gender.
Islamic law arose as a result of dynastic, imperial Islam in the medieval Middle East. In essence, the legal system being deemed “divine” runs into the problem of bidah.
Basically Islam has this issue that I see more and more each day, as a religion, Muslims fear “innovation” and therefore we must keep the “state of Islam pure” since “divine law” is a Heavenly mandate that is “applicable for all times and places till the Day of Judgment.”
But conservative elements in the faith have some disproportionate clout now. Shariah has evolved into becoming a defense mechanism against the “evil influences of European colonialism and Western hegemony.”
When Muslim men are insecure in their global status, they will often assert control over the bodies and autonomy of women and use the Qur’an and man-made documents that lack divine authorship as a means to control them.
I’m not saying I’m anti-Sunnah and anti-Hadith, but these sources do lack one key ingredient, divine authorship and are subject to the bias and prejudice of their authors.
We rarely focus on who the compilers of these alleged sayings and comments of the Prophet were, instead we focus on their authenticity by ranking them from most reliable to least reliable, but we never focus on the men who compiled them, often times a generation removed from the Prophet or via second-hand accounts.
To me the Hadith are the “Muslim Pauline books,” we blast St. Paul for his “innovation” and “corruption of the meaning of the Gospels” but in Islam, I also see the same thing.
I know this is not popular, but if Muslims can be increasingly critical of Christianity, they should extend the same courtesy to their own faith-based tradition.
I know what I saw is dangerous, especially being someone who identifies as a Muslim, but I think it’s time to engage in such a discussion.
Jews do with their tradition, I think we should do the same.
I guess being a Westerner as well, with Islam being presented to me as a religion of individual accountability, I think individuals ultimately should decide for themselves how they implement shariah in their lives, to me this would be through acts of individual submission to God.
Excellent post, gave me a
Excellent post, gave me a lot to digest and think over. I also appreciate the responses regarding maintaining an internal moral perspective and the feeling of ridiculousness-is that a word lol?- in having to even discuss whether hitting women is ok.
I am fond of this quote lately regarding that – "Morality is doing what is right, regardless what we are told. Religious dogma is doing what we are told, no matter what is right." — Elka Ruth Enola
And in an article from the New York Times I got from PMU this quote also struck me- "People mistake tradition for religion," Ms. Kaldi said. "Men are always saying, `Women can't do that because of religion,' when in fact it is only tradition. It's important for us to study so that we will know the difference." August 29, 2006 Islamic Revival Led by Women Tests Syria's Secularism
The softest things in the world overcome the hardest things in the world.
Lao Tzu
GM: I'm in agreement with
GM: I’m in agreement with your sentiment as far as completely can get me.
I tend to be a little closer to “anti-hadith” than the next person, but only in using it as a basis for law. A. I;m not interested in laws per se, and B. I’m more interested in the intentions of Muhammad (s) and less in the day to day miswak basics.
That said, I read hadith on a weekly basis and just love hearing that Muhammad peed “like a woman” (squatted). And the Medina Charter is wonderful to pull out and shove in the face of the Jew-haters in this world and the people who think Islam is inherently anti-Jew.
In a patriarchal society, when threatened men attempt to control women and sexuality. This has always been the case. Which is why I get so frustrated wiht these so-called scholars who try to prove women can’t lead prayer by digging through endless jurist records and “I once saw the Prophet turn to look at Fatima standing behind him” as a basis for saying that women pray behind men. The entire impulse and lens is hetero-normative and sexist.
This leads me towards a different approach when talking about community. That’s what this is all about really: community and how to get one whose participants feel nurtured, heard, and supported. For me that’s what it’s about, but clearly for others it’s more about a singular notion of “order.”
There is this assumption that laws and punishment-as-deterent for so-called transgressions is the only method, and this simply isn’t the case. And this is why I support a complete overhaul of the notion of what a society is and how many it takes to make up one. Cause when you need a post-graduate degree to understand the rules, and 9 out of 10 can’t get that degree, the system is rightly understood to be a shitstem, to quote Peter Tosh’s eloquence.
>>Islamic law arose as a
>>Islamic law arose as a result of dynastic, imperial Islam in the medieval Middle East.
That’s interesting! Shariah as a result of an imperial system. That would certainly turn the rhetoric on its head. I think you should run with this as a whole post, ‘cause plenty of ideas about this are popping up in my head; and I hate it because I can’t turn it off ;-)
- A Salafi in worship, a Sufi in society, a Secularist in government.
Islamic law arose as a
Islamic law arose as a result of dynastic, imperial Islam in the medieval Middle East.Gustavo
what imperial islam ?
what medieval Middle East, what era is this ‘medieval’ stuff you are talking about?
The Umayyid and Abbasid
The Umayyid and Abbasid caliphates were dynastic empires, based not on selecting the most pious, but continuing one’s blood line.
Some of the caliphs were homosexuals by today’s standards and drunkards a little too fond of alcohol and women.
Hardly the qualities the conservatives would bestow on the “vicar” of the faithful to borrow from Catholic-Latin terminology.
The medieval period, the first 1,000 years of Islamic history, sorry if I come with a Western bias, I use the Gregorian calendar which is based on the birth of Prophet Isa, not the fleeing of Muhammad to Medina.
'medieval period' is a way
‘medieval period’ is a way to characterize societal and social conditions of Europe. it was a time of corruption and grotesque despotism.
the first 1000 years of Islamic calendar was marked by the birth of the prophet and the rule of the four khulafa and the expansion of the faith. this is not ‘medieval stuff’, it was a period of dynamism and the ascendance of the new faith.
Gustavo, you did not use the Gregorian calendar; you abused it.
>>it was a period of
>>it was a period of dynamism and the ascendance of the new faith.
Sounds pretty imperial to me, that is, the part where Muslim states expanded through conquest and warfare. I’m only too happy when people choose to be free from idolotry via accepting the worship of One God, but let’s not pretend that the Umayyads, the Abbasids or any other dynasty were anything but imperialist dynasties the same way France, England and other were. And, its an intriguing idea that the codified shariah was a necessary instrument in the administration of this initially demographically non-Muslim empire (that is, a minority of Arabs ruled a majority of Christian Syrians, Copts, Berbers and Zorostrian Persians).
- A Salafi in worship, a Sufi in society, a Secularist in government.
Center, but the Umayyids
Center, but the Umayyids commissioned erotic art in their palaces, and you thought Muslims forbade the representation of the human figure.
WRONG!
All I’m saying is that Muslim civilization was a hybrid civilization, borrowing from the conquered peoples and their culture.
However, the dynastic period of Islam was not free from debauchees who donned the title “caliph.”
Hegemony and power corrupts, that’s why Islam now is so weak, the legacy had its roots prior to European colonialism, Europeans merely exploited the weakness of the Muslim world in the early modern period.
The Ottomans in their rivalry with the Safavid Persians, adopted a “conservative” strain of Islam that would be disastrous for Sunni majority Islam.
During the medieval period, Europeans rediscovered classical antiquity via Arab language translations, rediscoverd medicine, capitalism, modern forms of banking and accounting, perfected the art of warfare employing technology, navigation thanks to Muslim cartographers, the visual arts with perspective and realism, circumventing Muslim traders by finding alternate routes to Asia, etc.
Europeans were not completely barbaric or that backwards.
My studying Islamic history from a non-Muslim chauvinist perspective, allows me to see that Muslims and their history is no different from other peoples.
Empires are empires, America is an empire, it’s not perfect and certainly nothing like the Ottomans in Istanbul, but all super-powers eventually decline. Declines need not be catastrophic like the Mayans, but nations fade and wane in power over time when they reach an apex.
To me shariah as many people try to implement it, is derived from Ottoman models and templates that simply are not appropriate today.
Look, the Cresent and Star are PAGAN BYZANTIUM symbols, that grace most Sunni masjids.
And we complain about the Christians and their Hellenic theology.
Muslims have preserved Hellenic gender apartheid.
Some historians like Gibson stated that “Islam is the heir of Rome.”
Islam not as a religion, but as a human civilization, that like all human endeavors is flawed and imperfect.
And was the first three generations of Muslims truly “perfect”?
I mean, look at all the infighting, intra-group conflict, and political intrigue that plagued the early community of believers!
Not something I would call exactly perfect, would you?!
Remember that Prophet Isa said, “All have sinned and come short of the glory of God.” When Pontius Pilate questioned him about being the King of the Jews, he said, “My kingdom is not of this world.”
If Muslims actually paid more attention to the earlier revelations, they would gain a better understanding of the ministry of the Rasul.
The Muslims had the
The Muslims had the pre-conditions for capitalism and certainly could have “discovered” the Americas first, but you see OmarG’s Italian ancestors, those clever Latins outwitted the Muslims.
See Muslims were on top of their game, but they had an Anchilles’ Heel.
but let's not pretend that
but let’s not pretend that the Umayyads, the Abbasids or any other dynasty were anything but imperialist dynasties the same way France, England and other were.OmarG
how could one refute half truths!!! True, Muawiya and king George lived in luxury. You can not convince me, though, that Muawiya was dictatorial and inept like George. Muawiya’s intent was to advance the ‘faith’; George wanted to keep the revenue and wealth coming from the colonies. Omar have you noticed the muslim historians never refer to the new lands incorporated into the muslim ummah as ‘colonies’. have you noticed that the men who delineated the sharia and the hadith are muslim first and foremost? on and on…
Don’t you think of Abizaid as Muawiya of old? Both were pushing for enlightenment and liberation of the people of their times..
just say: abizaid and muawiya, ... no imperial stuff, please
Center, I'm not saying
Center,
I’m not saying shariah has no place in the 21st century, but from my reading of debates on Islamic law, we focus on past scholars, past scholarship, and past methodologies.
We live in the present, not the past. Our generation faces challenges that would have been unknown to the Rasul. Every generation has a challenge to overcome, but always looking to the past and never engaging in novelty, we will lose in the long run.
Shariah doesn’t deal with intellectual property rights and piracy, does it?
Muslims need to focus on new scholars, new scholarship, and new methodologies which confront the world we live in now.
We live in a age of migration, we live in an age of telecommunications, how will shariah deal with human cloning? How will shariah rule on stem cell research?
What does shariah say about bio-ethics?
This whole debate unknown
This whole debate unknown poster reminds me of “Islamic fascists.”
Muslims do not like parallels being drawn from Western civilization.
Fair enough, but not everyone welcomed the invading Muslim armies. There was resistance among many subjugated peoples who found themselves in a New Muslim World Order.
Many people reverted for insincere reasons. Their motivation was less about faith and more to do with social clout and status.
Imperialism is defined
Imperialism is defined as:
im‧pe‧ri‧al‧ism  /ɪmˈpɪəriəˌlɪzÉ™m/ Pronunciation Key –
1. the policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries, or of acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies.
If early Muslims were not imperialists, why would they feel compelled to wage “jihad” against non-believers, if Islam was a universal message for all Mankind, could they not have sent missionaries overseas to non-Arab lands, like the Buddhists did?!
Why the need to accompany the sword with the Qur’an? Would the Qur’an not have been sufficient enough to establish a world religion?
>>new lands incorporated
>>new lands incorporated into the muslim ummah as ‘colonies’.
Does it matter that these lands were incorporated against thier will? Whatever the polemical stories of priests welcoming the Muslims as liberators from Byzantine rule (sounds familiar!), the fact is that this did NOT occur in Persia or Sindh or Central Asia or among the Berbers. One example cannot be made into a universal justification (although, you didn’t explicitly mention it, surely it was to come).
>>Muawiya’s intent was to advance the ‘faith’;
But, how do you know this? The son of Abu Sufyan, who advanced the faith by starting a civil war with Ali, who, Shia polemics aside, was no doubt closer to the Prophet than was Muawiya or his father who was the greatest enemy of the Prophet up to the very end. I see Muawiya as nothing more than the eventual victory of the Quraish through coopting Islam: can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em!
There are akhbar (reports that are not hadith) that say that the treasuries in Madina were overflowing with the wealth of Persia, Egypt and Syria during Umar’s time. Faith in the form of loot, indeed!
So, again, let’s not pretend that the dynasties were altruistic or pietistic; they were anything but “innocent” of imperialism. Nevertheless, I know it is important to Arabs that they maintain the moral high ground against the modern colonialists, and holding that high ground (smirk…) demands the denial of Arab imperialisms of the past and how they have deeply shaped the modern middle east just as much as the European (Algeria is the only true example of colonization; the rest were just control over resources without massive resetlement of Europeans onto thier lands) and Israeli colonization.
- A Salafi in worship, a Sufi in society, a Secularist in government.
History is told from the
History is told from the vantage point of the victors.
History is debatable though.
Jerusalem was given to the Arab armies, handed over, the city did not put up a fight.
The Muslims engaged in building projects for the purposes of Islamicizing the Byzantine, late antiquity, Christian city.
Buddhism became a major Asian religion without any armies whatsoever.
Buddhism and its legacy is still prevalent in Muslim Maritime Southeast Asia still.
Christianity initially was spread by missionaries converting the various royal houses and supreme tribal chieftains. They then forced their subordinates to convert, not extending the choice to do so.
It was not till the 15th century, that Christianity would explode from the Western Asian peninsula known as Europe to the Americas by sword.
The reason why Byzantine
The reason why Byzantine priests would welcome invading Muslim armies in Syria was the fact that there was much intra-Christian fighting over the “proper interpretation” of the message of Christ. Many sects deemed heretical by the Catholic Church were being persecuted in Western Asia and northern Africa.
People don’t like being invaded or colonized. People cling to their culture and identity as strong as they cling to their religious identity.
If the Rasul was an Asian Indian, I would imagine Islam would have acquired a very “Indic” character.
Persians unlike Arabs have no qualms confronting their imperial past, even now, the Iranians are asserting an imperial influence among the Arab Shia to undermine Sunni hegemony in the Middle East.
And al Qaeda is mad as hell, telling Sunnis to wage “jihad” against the Shia “apostates.”
The thing I love about Western social science academia, the trend of deconstruction.
Omar is engaging in deconstruction, and so am I.
The violence I see now in the Middle East is probably no different from the violence that prevailed after the death of the Prophet.
Nomadic Arab wealth was
Nomadic Arab wealth was acquired by raids and war booty/loot. This is the nature of nomadic peoples, I’m not passing any judgment on such social behaviors, the Turkic peopes of the Western Eurasian steppes also had similar social practices and customs.
**Does it matter that these
**Does it matter that these lands were incorporated against thier will?**OmarG
The question above should be looked at in the ‘context’ of the time. you know you are questioning the “norm” for that time. No one did it differently. your question has to be answered in the context of the time.
if evaluation of an incident is not done in its social context (including niyyah), evaluation is rendered inaccurate.
You’ve got to start with a good question.
Center, In today's world
Center,
In today’s world killing your sister in a “fit of passion” because she may engage in an extra-marital affair does not comform to today’s “context.”
Having a hand severed off because someone stole a loaf of bread does not conform to today’s “context.”
Hanging a female rape victim from a construction crane does not conform to today’s “context.”
But all these examples are enacted according to “shariah” as people apply it in many parts of the world.
Crime and punishment in America is not merely punitive but rehabilitative.
From my readings of shariah, most punishments should focus on rehabilitation and “cruel and unusual” physical punishments should be employed sparingly. But why is this not the case?
>>Muawiya's intent was to
>>Muawiya’s intent was to advance the ‘faith’;
But, how do you know this? OmarG
one depends on the ‘Thahir’ (what one sees, exterior), not the batin (that which is not obvious, interpretive). It is obvious, islam spread to regions outside arabia.
what you see is what you get is a sunni saying!...
Gustavo, i understand what
Gustavo,
i understand what you are saying.
Center: so you are saying
Center: so you are saying conquest was OK in the 7th century but not today? Inwhich year did it not become OK? (I know the answer: the year the Arabs started to be on the receiving end!) This is moral relativism at its best. If one subscribes to absolute moralism, then one can successfully condemn any imperialism and not have to deny one’s own in order to condemn Europe’s.
But, then we have a problem. Its known that the Prophet lead and ordered expiditions against the Byzantines. What was the intent?? Was it defensive? Does the Quran allow or even mandate expansion by war?
So, I already mentioned one of the outward aspects of intention “Zahir an-niyyah” which was the inpouring of wealth from the conquered territories. Yes, then let’s judge thier intentions from this, then, why don’t we?
- A Salafi in worship, a Sufi in society, a Secularist in government.
OmurG: do not ask me what I
OmurG: do not ask me what I am saying….Read what I posted. Read it again. do not jump to conclusions.
I have a feeling that one of your conclusions is that the people who spread Islam at that time were NOT Muslim? Instead of thinking about the improvements in the spiritual lives of the new Muslim people, you, as one expects, thinks of how much liras have changed hands. Would it make things a bit easier on you if you knew that some of those who spread Islam (and benefited from it in more than one way) are Sicilians?
Center, the lira is history
Center, the lira is history with the advent of the Euro.
Charlemagne’s dream of a unified Europe is coming true. I think Turkey is delusional to think a Christian/secular Socialist continent will allow a Saracen majority nation in the union.
Islam actually did florish
Islam actually did florish in Sicily until the Muslims F-ed it up and let themselves become vulnerable to the Normans. One can still see Arabic writing on the walls of what used to be the Grand Mosque of Palermo and cuscus is still cooked in the South…
My point is: you have a very idealized view of Muslim history, as if they were all innocents. You should read a number of the early histories where the rashidun (especially Umar) and some of thier successors were very concerned with people doing jihad for the sake of gaining booty, land and power. This is possibly one of the reasons why the Arabs were ordered to live in encampments (amsaar) and not mix with the population.
So, this much is undeniable:
1) The early Muslims benefited greatly from the booty captured in their colonies (although some companions and successors were not happy about the bad effects it was having on Muslims, but these people lost both the moral battle and then lost the physical battle against Muawiya).
2) The mawlaa system subjugated non-Arabs, much to the resentment of even Muslim converts among the Persians, who have left a large literature called the Shu’ubiyyah in protest to this elitist system.
Both of the above are un-Islamic, yet they still happened. My question to you is: do you deny it? Do you really think that these issues did not shape Muslim culture, a culture which still haunts us to this day? Why or why not?
- A Salafi in worship, a Sufi in society, a Secularist in government.
OmarG: 1-those who benefited
OmarG:
1-those who benefited from the spread of islam were the early muslims, true. early muslims included arabs and non arabs. right? for you to single out arabs as the only VILLINS is historically in accurate and shubi (divisive) if done intentionally.
2-mawali was not a system. apartheid is a system. your loosey-goosey use of concepts has made the discussion more murky than it should. it was a tradition that went against islam; it was politically expedient. the mawali concept is doing well world wide: do you remember Rwanda? the rape of Nan kin by the japanese, the disdain germans and other europeans have toward the gypsies, the jim crow rules in the south, etc….this is not a justification for it. it is more of reminder that we as ‘human beings’ need to do a lot to better ourselves.
OmarG, you ask: Do you really think that these issues did not shape Muslim culture, a culture which still haunts us to this day?
OmarG, of course abuse of power happened..of course islam was used to justify some of the injustices that took place and still take place. what a question! a snow storm or a sand storm affects peoples ways let alone an issue that gave some a leg up to assuming power..
my question to you is: why do you single out the arabs (actually agitate against the arabs) in your comments. do you have a grudge that you parade as an academic position? early muslims included bilaal and uthman and ali and abu sufyan, abu huraiyrah, bukhari etc.
again, examine issues and incidents within their context.
I'm sorry, your argument is
I’m sorry, your argument is incomprehensible to me. It seems you are appealing to the context, which means to you the early Muslims are excused from violating the Quran and Muhammd’s avoidance and prohibition of ethnic chauvenism. I challenge those Arabs of the time because they had the utmost responsibility to do the same and they failed.
Also, you seem to argue that since you think everything turned out OK, there’s no problem (what is your definition of ‘OK’? That people became Muslim so their sould are saved anyway which absolves the practitioners of the mawali system?).
I suspect there is a reason that it was mostly Persians who intellectualized Islam: fellow riders among the Arabs who converted for the benefits mistaught them thier new religion and they figured they had better go back to the sources, evaluate them and find the truth that the insincerity which started to prevail would destroy thier religion. Read deeply what those scholars say about conditions in thier time and what motivated them. Even earlier, Uthman himself collated the copies of the Quran because of all the deaths of sincere Muslims in war with the other empires and inter-Musim civil disturbances. so, for the umpteenth time, let’s not pretend that a civil war did not happen. And let’s not pretend that despite your explicit acknowledgement of the mawali system, we can nevertheless dismiss it, which still seems to exist in the mind of some religious and not so religious Arabs to this day in America.
- A Salafi in worship, a Sufi in society, a Secularist in government.
You say that humans are
You say that humans are prone to moral failures like Nanking and so on. Yes, I think so, too. But don’t you think that such a widespread and massive failure in upholding the Quran is worthy of investigation into how it shaped our received notions of how to be Muslim today? I sure think so. And, since context seems important for your argument, please explain the context of this issues and incidents.
- A Salafi in worship, a Sufi in society, a Secularist in government.
And let's not pretend that
And let’s not pretend that despite your explicit acknowledgement of the mawali system, we can nevertheless dismiss it, which still seems to exist in the mind of some religious and not so religious Arabs to this day in America.OmarG
1-‘mawali’, as a concept still exists. do i approve of it? No.
is it a system? No. unless your definition of ‘system’ is pedestrian.
2- you say re mawali, ‘...still seems to exist in the mind of some religious and not so religious Arabs to this day in America.’ i have no argument with this assessment; i am not defending it. it seems, though, that this more than anything else about mawali bothers the hell out of you; it even has colored your dialogue on the board; so intolerant of Arabs, {dead , alive or yet to come!}.
By the way, being an Arab is pretty much like being an American, it is a feeling, it is a construct not a racial category.
OK, so we agree its a bad
OK, so we agree its a bad thing. If you are arguing that there was a reality of certain conditions which inevitably led to the rise of that system, then I agree. Of course there were reasons and I propose that those reasons originate in the insincerity of people like Abu Sufyan, Muawiya and other fellow travelers. Its is wrong that we sanctify all people whom we call Sahaabi or tabi’i whether they helped or hindered.
I’m intolerant of the attitude of some Arabs of thier inherent superiority over other Muslims. Sometimes, it seems ingrained in the culture, especially the religious culture. I oppose it so much because it reinforces muslimness as a tribe, an inheritance rather than a construction. As for Arabness being a construction, of course, most if not all national identities are constructions: based on geography, language, blood relations, you name it. Thier legitimacy partially counts, in that a weakly and faultily constructed identity will not give vitality to its resultant culture. But, for me, what counts more is how such identities clash when they are thrown together in a mosque…sometimes its downright ugly, but most of the time it just results in an inneffectual and apathetic community, which has to end.
- A Salafi in worship, a Sufi in society, a Secularist in government.
'' Of course there were
‘’ Of course there were reasons and I propose that those reasons originate in the insincerity of people like Abu Sufyan,....’‘ OmarG
from my perspective, it was a way to achieve power rather than ‘insincerity’. Only god knows that and those very close to Muawiya et al. we know now that it was for power and domination over the new muslim community.
it is not sanctifying muawiya by saying (ra) or (saaws). I like to say (ra) every time I mention the name of Collin Powell or J. Carter or my aunt. I say (saaws) every time i mention my dad’s name. ra or saaws are nothing but respecting and acknowledging one’s admiration; it was never meant to be a form of edification.
as to the turmoil in the mosque, the turmoil may be symptomatic of the bangs of ‘new community’, much like what Condi (ra) predicted about the new middle east.
Islam came to rid groups of ‘hamiyyat al jahilyyah’.
the mosque could turn out to be the melting pot for a more egalitarian group of muslims to emerge. (i am theorizing here since i find answers to my concerns outside the mosque.)
thx for ruining a great
thx for ruining a great interview with your comments.