Who owns Islam?
No one but Allah!
Is there a clergy system in Islam? No!...
Is there a central entity that should ratify anything said in the name of Islam? Never!
That's in theory...
But
on the ground, some people still believe that no one can speak about
Islam except the SCHOLARS. Consider the comment that Theresa Corbin's
website received here...
First dilemma in this argument: define a scholar!
It is not enough for some one to hold a BA or MA or even a PHD in Islamic Shariaa to be defined as a scholar.
A scholar needs to at least:
- Memorize and understand the Holy Quraan
- Memorize and understand the aunthentic Hadiths
- Understand the different sciences related to Hadith, like: Biographical evaluation (علم الرجال), hadith authentication (تخريج الحديث) and whatever sciences that enable him to decide what is the authenticity level of a hadith and to what extent it can be relied on to deduce knowledge.
- Fully understand and master Arabic Language, not only the vocabulary and grammar, but also the science of eloquence and the ability to understand metaphor
- Fully understand the history of Islamic Jurisprudence and know what issues have been talked about and what logic was used to assess them and under what circumstances they were assessed
- Fully understand the context in which the scholar's community is living and be up to date on the every day life matters of people
Under these conditions, very few of the sheiks of modern day could be considered as scholars. So if any one would come forward and ask ordinary people to hold off and not discuss Islam, then, sorry. Give me a reference with the above mentioned qualifications first and I will keep silent and refer any issues to him.
Second dilemma is the fact that Islam is a religion of life, not temples. Never should Islam be locked in the houses of worship. So we, as Muslims, have the right to narrate whatever we experience regarding Islam's different aspects of life, because we are the ones applying it in our lives! And the Islamic Fiqh that the scholars study is meant to be applied in our own lives, so our experiences should be their useful feedback! They should listen to us (supposing that they exist, of course!) and know what exactly we face and in which contexts exactly, because this knowledge is designed to function WITHIN our lives.
Third dilemma is that the world of today is DIVERSE. Very diverse. And Islamic Fiqh is very much related to the context in which it is being applied. So the valid Fiqh is Saudia Arabia, for example, might not be valid in the UK. The fiqh valid in Morocco, might not be valid in Jamaica. So sheikhs should stop trying to expand their influence outside of their regions and trying to impose their opinions on people who live in completely different contexts. I might highlight here the non-Arab communities. The Islamic heritage has been born and flourished within an Arabic context. This has caused alot of Arab traditions to be defined as "Islam", which is not true. At all.
So the fourth dilemma would be the separation of Islam and culture. A very sore issue. Alot of things have been passed down to the Muslims as part of "Islam" while they are no more than Arab culture. Like Abayas for example. They are only ONE form of hijab. But they are not THE hijab. I know of sheikhs who try to convince women that their hijab is never proper until they wear an Abaya! Names is another issue. Having an Arabic name is not part of Islam. The other day I was invited to a friend's house and her mother was pleased to see baby Leo. She asked me what did I name my boy, and when I said "Aslan, it is a Turkish name that means lion." she -right away- said "Then why chose this weird name! Why did not you name him Osama for example?" I wanted very much to answer her: "Because we are not Arabs and having Arabic names does not make us better Muslims" but I kept silent because we were guests in their house!
Fifth dilemma is the issue of women. In Islam, women have an outstanding state. In theory, of course. But in application, MOST if not ALL of the sheikhs, preachers, dawa people that I have come across are biased against women. I can tell loads of stories to emphasize this, but let me leave the wounds without adding salt to their sourness. So if tackling issues of women was left to the scholars, the reality will remain as sucking as it is. We should speak in the name of our cause. Istead of shutting us up, sheikhs should listen to the hardships in our life and try to look into them.
That was a quick brainstorming of an issue that was pressing on my mind.
Of course, I have omitted -on purpose- the dirty part of it, politics. The political manipulation of Islam is a whole subject by itself and I am not really enthusiastic to discuss it here in the mean time.
Let us all remain friends and sisters :-)
That was a quick brainstorming of an issue that was pressing on my mind.
Of course, I have omitted -on purpose- the dirty part of it, politics. The political manipulation of Islam is a whole subject by itself and I am not really enthusiastic to discuss it here in the mean time.
Let us all remain friends and sisters :-)
Wow...I followed that link of yours where that man tried to silence the women regarding rights in a divorce...lol! Every person can know their rights. A scholar can tell you why those rights exist and their history, etc.....but of what use are rights if every person doesn't know and exercise them when necessary? When my kids were little, because their people get stopped by the police on a fairly regular basis, I had them know the law and what the police could legally ask them to do and what they couldn't. ( I also had to warn them that the police often try to overstep their bounds and them you have to decide if your life is in danger and whether to comply and file a complaint later, etc.) But the idea was for them to have that knowledge so they could use it. They have had to use it...successfully so far. They don't need a legal scholar standing by to make it effective.
ReplyDeleteThe knowledge of rights is still an issue for some Islamic sheikhs, actually. The traditional old style mentality of monitoring one's rights and assessing his eligibility to know these rights and then deciding that "Well, if they know that this is their right they will go insane, so let us just prevent them from knowing".
DeleteThis is how alot of them dealt with the "Khul' " issue. The Khul' is the right of a woman to initiate a divorce in return of giving up her financial rights of divorce.
This was not listed in law as an available legislation in Jordan for example. It was institutionalized in law just a few years ago. Although the law in Jordan is based on Islamic Shareaa (supposedly!) and the law was a subject of massive discussions between members of the house of representatives, and sheiks... etc, although it is a simple Islamic rule: if a woman asks for a divorce without a reason like being harmed or so on, just because "she does not like to live with this husband any more" she has the full right to get divorced in return of giving up her downy and financial rights. As simple as that.
But the sheikhs behaved as if agreeing to this law will cause all of the woman throughout the Islamic nation to (Khula') their husbands!
That's the dilemma :-) Not women speaking about the hardships they face as Muslim women without them being sheikhs :-)
How are the women represented in these discussions?
ReplyDeleteWomen scholars?
What about in the legislature?
Are they represented? :-)
DeleteNot really.
It was really shocking for me to listen, once, to a female PHD holder of Law attacking the concept of "Women Empowering" stating that the word "Empower" translates in Arabic into a word equivalent to "Encroachment"!!!
Her argument was that the "Women Empowering" discourse aimed at nothing but unleashing the beast within women! As if helping women to be financially independent will cause houses to break down! Oh, and when she discussed Khula' she made it sound as if Khula' was a product of CEDAW!
Unfortunately, these are the most of women scholars here around. Women in the house of representatives (who come from Islamic backgrounds) are almost the same. And the rest of women are on the other extreme: completely freed up women who wear revealing stuff, smoke in public, have high voices (they raise them just to show they are powerful), are rude, and are showing off in every possible way that they do not care to any one. The type of rudely rebellion.
Those who are in the middle are lost. They are fought by both side. For the Islamic people they are not Islamic enough. for the "free" people they are so uptight. So their voices are lost!
What do you think needs to happen there to make things better for women? Why are rights that are plainly given being ignored? How do the religious leaders keep the information from women? I suspect most women there are fairly well-educated? Where are the men on this spectrum?Jordan, in the West, is not generally looked upon as a "problem place"...although many Americans would be surprised it is a place where women can " rudely rebel"...lol. Stereotypes again. But generally don't know too much about it except that you had an American Queen.
DeletePeople are not -in general- interested to do any research. So the easiest way is to listen to whatever sheikhs and preachers say to them. So the sheikhs' duty is really easy: just ignore what you do not want people to know.
DeleteYes, there is a good amount of women here that are well educated. But when it comes to social norms, they just coincide. They prefer to go with the flow in order not to fight a losing battle. Like, for example, women who get good marks at secondary school and study physics and specialize in atomic physics: and they end up science teachers at schools because this is the job most desirable by future husband: minimum mixing with the other gender, acceptable salaries, summer holiday, and a chance of good offers for future children's education in the form of discounts for children of teachers. I, for example, studied electrical engineering in my BCs degree. I was so ambitious to work in the technical field, but was surprised that in order to excel, I would have to work night shifts (which is both not safe and not socially acceptable for women), go into the field, climb towers, work with their hands and get them dirty. I received comments from guys around me as if I was a man. They started dealing with me as one. Either that, or forget completely that I was an engineer and treat me as only a woman, and ask me to cook! That was insane. And actually I felt that there is no reason to fight. I was alone, and there were no audience to watch and learn if I had to make a point! So I gave up and changed my whole field.
I guess alot of other women choose to do the same.
And I think before we start trying to apply what we think of in reality, we should lay the appropriate grounds. By raising awareness, by talking to people, and by raising our children to be what we wish to see.
Oh, women who rudely rebel? :-D
Come to some areas of Amman and see how they shave their heads and paint their eyes with black eye shadow and wear hooker tights. They do whatever they can just to scream: WEEE DOOON'T CAAARE... but the truth is that most of them are desperate for attention!
Amazing post!
ReplyDeleteIt can be hard to find a voice sometimes because there is alway's someone who will try and burst your bubble. Especially in today's world with social media opinions are forever expressed.
It's odd because over here although the population of Muslims is huge, the is no law's specific to Muslim life. Meaning that women are protected not Islamically per say but nonetheless protected.
We have one God and one holy book the Qur'an clearly says we are obliged to learn/read whether man or woman. So how people think it's ok to strip women of their rights not general ones but Islamic ones is just absurd.
I actually hate social media. Every one who knows how to create a social media account feels that he is educated enough to preach people.
DeleteI am really curious to have more insight into how Muslims are treated from the legislative point of view as a religious minority. Awareness to minorities issues is in rise in general. And I know that in some parts of the world there are systems for internal legislation within a specific group. In some other parts of the world, the law is modified to contain minorities needs. Like when you say that "women are protected not Islamically per say but nonetheless protected". Do you mean that the law is meeting their needs in the UK? Or the sheikhs there have a higher awareness in which women can safely have their rights protected?
It is really sad how some people try -in the name of Islam- to obscure the rights that Islam has preserved for vulnerable people!
The US is a secular nation, of course, so the laws are not based on any particular religion ( supposedly ).There is no state religion. You can have any religion or no religion. The theory behind the Constitution is that all people are equal and the law should reflect that but, as you know, both minorities and women have had to fight for their rights historically since " all people" seemed to mean "white men "for a long time. I did notice that it says there are certain seats in your House of Representatives " reserved" for women and minorities. Lol! Even the US doesn't have that! I don't know how it works out in practice over there, but it might be nice to try that over here! The Senate and the House in the US have until recently been the preserve of white males and it is only slowly changing...even with a black president and a woman running for president. However, there has been a lot if progress in minority and women's rights in the last 50 years.
ReplyDeleteAmerican Muslim scholars will have interesting work and they will have to " fight out" a lot of things ,IMHO.
American Muslims will probably be on a spectrum, like everyone else, on how liberal or conservative they are but I think most will support the society's purported values of equality for women or minorities , personal self-determination, and religious freedom.
Already some Muslim leaders have expressed approval of gay rights ( at least one even does the marriages), they take a dim view of parents who bring racist views from the " old country"...especially when it comes to parents wanting their kids to marry someone from their own ethnic group, tribe or village ( quite honestly the rate of intermarriage between even Muslims and non-Muslims has reached such a number in some places that the religious leaders have met to explore ways to help these inter-faith couples be successful in their unions) and women are taking places of leadership all over. And that's just the stuff I know about in my limited experience. So some of the emerging forms of American Islam is going to run afoul of the " old ways from the old country" and I doubt they will care very much. One of the things Americans do very well...lol!... is feel they are better than everyone else and I don't see young American Muslims being much different, if my daughters friends are any indication.
As far as how Muslims are treated here...they are theoretically on an even footing with all other faiths constitutionally and have full rights to practice their faith any way they want. It's against the law to prevent that. What happens in reality locally can be very problematic. Around here, the proposed first mosque ever to be built here is welcomed by other religious leaders and most of the population. When it is finished, the Muslims will probably have a giant party for the whole town so everyone can go and see it.
That's the way we do things around here...you accomplish something, then have a party!
But some towns in other areas don't want mosques in them and the Muslims have to replicate it even though the federal government should step in and take the city councils to court, etc. I think the reason it hasn't happened too much yet us that a lot if the older Muslim leaders are immigrants that don't want to " rock the boat". Their American-born children are unlikely to tolerate this,so I suspect you will see some fireworks over that kind of thing in the future. However, the American- Muslim leadership is trying hard to educate the public, so maybe these kinds of issues won't be happening so much anymore.
" relocate " the Mosque, not " replicate" autocorrect again!
ReplyDeletemmm... yes I agree, the US is a secular country. Again, supposedly. As you said, the law has been written by white males, who seem to be the stereotype of the "American". America is a political nation. There is not specific ethnicity, or religion, or whatever bases to unite the majority of American except their loyalty to America. So, from my previous reading in minorities rights, I got the impression that America might acknowledge minorities' rights socially and within the media and "Hollywood", they are transparent to the law. Transparent in the sense that no specific law is designated to them. The argument is that the law is well tailored in order to fit the needs of all, so there is no need to specify categories for whatever minorities there are because from the official point of view, there are no "minorities" in the known sense of the word, every one is American and every one has equal rights, and every one is under the umbrella of the law.
DeleteHere in Jordan for example, yes, we have specific categories for minorities. Ethnic and religious minorities, for example, have the right to establish their own schools. Our need to teach our ethnic language in our schools is protected by the law. Also, religious minorities have the right to practice their rituals as they want, and take their religious festive days off. In the parliament, we have special quotas for Circassians and Chechens, for women, and for Christians. That is from the legislative point of view.
However, at time of application on the ground, you cannot really have control over the process. The people here are mostly tribal. And the loyalty for the tribe is above any other issue. So no matter what the electoral program is or the agenda is people will end up electing their tribe's representative. So no one can really compete in elections unless they have a tribal background. Hence the quota system to enable people with small census to take their chance to be represented in the house. But the people are not satisfied with this, the sons of tribes claim that this is the right of every tribe to have reserved seats on the house. Which does not make any sense because they all can compete without the quota. For people of minorities, without the quota they cannot even compete. They have no chance.
I see your point regarding American Muslims. It is very true and very valid. And by the way, it applies for the people of the Middle East. It is just no one is looking at the bigger image. Even the Arab Muslim nations of the Middle East are not all the same. They do not have the same culture. For some, the face cover is a must. For some it is not. For some colorful clothes is the norm. For some black clothes is the norm. But it seems that they all consider themselves to fall under the umbrella of (Arab Muslims). And so, I expect some to deal with the "American Islam" as an attempt to miss with Islam. But its fine. Eventually the strongest and most capable of convincing argument will prevail :-)
Thanks.
ReplyDeleteActually, the law in America is constantly being worked and reinterpreted because it has not traditionally served minorities well. People of different races could not marry , go to school, or even eat together in some places. Women had no vote. The Constitution had to be amended 27 times, in many cases to give rights to people left out of the social contract. The federal Civil Rights Act was passed when I was 8 to very specifically list protected categories and ensure that places open to the public and businesses could not discriminate against people of different races,genders, and religions ( in my state it also protects LGBTQI people). Native religion ( in spite of their being theoretical " freedom of religion" guaranteed by the Constitution) was in reality not fully legal until I was in college with the passing of the American Indian Religious Freedom Act. ( BTW, natives are in a unique position in American law...my son majored in it in at the University ...and it is based mostly on treaty law and a few major Supreme Court decisions. Natives were not automatically considered citizens of the US until 1924, which was 150 some years after the founding of the nation-state, which meant many of our grandparents were born non-citizens, in spite of the families being here before everyone else. Natives were simply considered citizens of their tribes and, quite honestly, still consider themselves that today, holding a type of dual citizenship since tribal entities are somewhat autonomous and reservations are like small sovereign nations and hold a government to government relationship with the US federal government. They have a status higher than the states, which causes some clashes too complex to get into here. At least one tribe issues its own passport and a couple refused American citizenship ..the law gave it to them anyway...and refuse to vote in any election except for their own tribal leaders .( One of my own children is like that,too.) Suffice it to say if you were to ask my children if their greatest loyalty was to America or the tribe, they'd say the tribe because they think it will survive after the current occupying nation-state is long gone. But it's very different than in Jordan because America is an " immigrant nation" ( for now) and the population of tribal natives is low compared to the rest of the population.... although the numbers are growing after the genocide...so tribes don't influence elections much. The tribal leaders go to Washington to make sure the rights for the people according to treaty law is protected ( an uphill battle) but they aren't a very powerful force outside of that.
Most Americans don't understand any of this.
Most other minorities don't either, being immigrants themselves.
They also are amazed to find us still fighting the social genocide ( natives are more likely to be killed by the police than any other ethnic group and our children removed from us by the government in violation of the ICWA and the UNDRIP) in the court system and other places. An important lawsuit filed by the tribes regarding the removal of children is working its way through the court system as we speak.
Guess this is a long way of saying that yes,although all are citizens, there are many recognized minorities in the US and many of them have not been historically well-protected by the law. In fact, there were and are laws that are discriminatory. This is often called the " American nightmare" as opposed to the "American Dream". America , in spite of a lot of propaganda, is not particularly united, IMHO. Pretty soon we will have the classical class struggles as well as the other ones. The government is largely considered to be corrupt and run by the wealthy people and the corporations.( Lol! I guess everyone's is these days!) What will happen? I don't know. Will be interesting to see.:-)
Hmmmm... Very interesting!
DeleteBy the way when I said "united" I meant "forced to unite". The point I intended to mqke is that in the US the law was designed as if to force people to consider themselves all the same, although on the ground they never are.
The situation with natives in America is very similar to that of Circassians in the Caucasus. Not exactly the same, but similar in many sides. In the Caucasus Circassians now exist in three autonomus republics that -almost- follow Russia only in foreign policy. But internally they are autonomous. Citizens of these republics hold Russian passports, but they used to be given a sub-nationality as "Circassians" that was acknowledged by Russia. But after some extremist attcks -the most famous being the Beslan school siege- this right and some more were taken back.
Now the language in which some of the Russian officials are using is like "what do you mean by Circassians?". I once tried to submit a proposal of a project to encourage reverse migration in the context of development to the International Organization for Migration. I spoke to a Russian lady there to discuss the proposal, so she asked me: "how are you going to convince the government official? On what bases you want them to consider it "reverse" migration? Only as an ethnicity that originates from there? This has no legal definition."
And the result of the discussions was that it will not be feasible! :-)
So the government is corrupt in the US? Whose government is not? Lol
Even Mr. Erdogan, my example, had his share of this! :-D
I hope you can revisit the reverse migration issue again. Maybe in the UN? Would be great for you folks to go home.
DeleteThe issue of " American Islam"...yes, you are right...I think the people from the " countries of origin" are looking at it as an attempt to " mess with Islam". It would be easy for me to say " not my circus, not my monkeys" except that some people a I care about are right in the middle of it. In fact, I was thinking of your statement when my daughter reported one of her friends was on the phone with her licking his psychological wounds after having ,as she said , " an American Muslim meltdown" when he was confronted with some old country attitudes the other day. Lol! He is so sick of it and basically told them to box it up and send it back where it came from. ;-)
DeleteI would really love to have some other pathway to that. But I would really try my best to establish a neat well-organized channel of reverse migration. It would be better than relying on the spontaneous actions of individuals. It needs lots of work, but, yes, every little step some one like me would make will bring us closer to the target.
DeleteThat was a good answer :-D Yes, these issues should remain at home. Immigrants do not understand that these issues are the ones that hindered them from living a good life back at home, and taking these issues with them to the west will just transfer their bad life settings as packages to their new place!
As you said... we will wait and see :-)