This helps add force to his argument for a liberal reading of the religion, one that promotes freedom of thought. Akyol accepts that his position is a minority one, arguing that Islam has a lot of self-reflection to do. But, he offers historical and scriptural evidence that he path is both reasonable and has precedent. At times, he even uses a form of originalism to argue the true original text and practice, as compared to years later, fits his approach.
The book argued that a correct understanding of Islam promoted tolerance. But, argues the author, at a certain point in its history, intolerance became more acceptable. So, his view is not actually the mainstream view according to many. I don't recall how much of a minority he sees his view. Either way, there was an uphill battle.
Others are less combative, in that fashion, than Reopening Muslim Minds: A Return to Reason, Freedom, and Tolerance. Like various Jews and Christians, they argue their religion can quite reasonably (even if everyone doesn't) be applied in a liberal way. They do mix in some "and that is really doing it right." I think the best (and perhaps often the main) sentiment is that there is enough discretion possible that at least the spirit of the Quran and Islam itself can be applied in a liberal/libertarian way.
In both cases, we see some discussion on how Islam was rather liberal for its time. One can say that about Christianity as well in various respects. The fully honest account here is that the holy books in question were still written quite a long time ago. We should recognize they are products of their time and we cannot take them literally. At some point, they are just wrong about certain things, even if better than the then current median.
I read a liberal blog that at times has comments that are anti-religion, which basically is anti-conservative Christianity. This bothers me since that is not the only form of religion. The people know in some sense this, unless they are not familiar with Martin Luther King Jr. or something. Anyway, you don't have to toss out the baby with the bathwater here. Obviously.
Still, you should understand the limitations of the material. At some point, I do feel a need to get off the bus totally. For instance, the core concept of Christianity is tied to Jesus dying and being resurrection. Some don't focus on that; a few early Christians (see, e.g., the Gospel of Thomas, which focuses on knowledge without a passion story added at all) did not.
But, it still is the basic point of it. It isn't just about some good guy who promoted reforms and stuff. And, let's be blunt, that's ridiculous. It is tied to old philosophical and religious concepts, some few accept even if they are practicing Christians. The gospels have some good stuff in them. You can basically be a "Christian" without concerning yourself with the miracles and all that stuff. Basically, a Unitarian. Still.
This is a long prologue to talking about Demystifying Shari'ah: What It Is, How It Works, and Why It's Not Taking Over Our Country. This is from the "Islam is liberal" field of readings. The author wrote two other books that basically cover the same material, one for teenage readers. She's child of South Asian immigrants and a liberal minded gung ho Muslim.
Sumbul Ali-Karamali knows her subject. She is not just a lawyer, but has a degree in Islamic law. She also has a degree in English, which adds one more useful piece on writing this subject. Her overall approach is nice but gung ho. She doesn't want to cause waves -- "people disagree" comes up repeatedly. She still discusses in detail the charms of her faith and the history behind it.
And, she is loathe to say she disagrees with anything. Sometimes, human believers did not follow the rules, including in some fashion to build an Islamic Empire (it wasn't all in self-defense!). But, there is nothing really wrong with the material. So, if you read closely, you will see that there is some double standards about men and women in the Quran. Still, overall it was greatly an advance for the time. And, it can be interpreted to fit modern day views, especially if you read (as you should!) it using the spirit of the text. Living constitutionalism should appeal to her.
The books are very helpful to inform. I am left with some doubts, which this approach will not likely answer. Again, I don't think you need to toss out the baby with the bathwater. I personally am not going to be Muslim. I personally lean toward Unitarianism and am a minister of the Universal Life Church. As I noted in the past, I think the institution has at its core some value. All I'm saying, is that you need to meet me half-way.
I will generally comment here.
First, you have the Qur'an itself (that's how she spells it). I'll be blunt and say that I doubt the Angel Gabriel told it to Muhammad in a cave and so forth. But, that is not really my concern. I respect religious role in society, including as a sort of poetry. Few people (and she doesn't either though the revelation part apparently happened in her view) take all of this literally.
(I would be concerned with someone who emphasizes the ability to find some exact "word of God" here when we are dealing with a collection of sayings verbally expressed over a span of years and then written down years after the original recipient died. An oral culture is more able to do something like that accurately, but only so much.)
No, my concern is more specific. First, there is the belief it is the very word of God. The Bible isn't that, is it? People generally take it as inspired and some take it literally. But, others accept it is not all the very word of God. So, you have books of proverbs, poetry, history, and so forth. Then, you have gospel accounts of specific people and letters. It's a lot easier to loosely apply some instruction by a human person, especially when it is widely accepted it isn't even "Paul" writing in various cases.
She notes that Muslims (there being over a billion, I assume this is one of the cases she is taking a median view as she notes at one point) believe the Qur'an cannot be "translated" since it is the actual word of God. Uh huh. Christians and Jews don't have this problem. Jews, e.g., translated their scriptures early on into Greek. The meanings changed at times, and probably some didn't like that, but even then, it is not like the books were the literal words of God. So, translations into a local tongue would be okay.
And, basically practical and humane. She notes Muhammad felt it important to note the universality of Islam. The first person chosen to announce the times of prayer was a former (African) slave. But, the very word of God that guides the faith is in 7th Century Arabic. To truly understand the basic guide of Islam, you need to learn the language. It was problematic when mass was only in Latin. This is so much worse.
Muslims today clearly do not all know Arabic, even if many do go to school to learn it so that they can truly understand God's word (in their view). Many basically accept translations (sic) of the Qur'an. But, being nice and all, she has to voice "the rules" as if it would be rude to challenge them.
The first book I cited argued there is a limit of open-minded views in Islam. From reading her, you'd think it was mostly a minority view. Still, there are doubts to be found if you read closely. First, huh, Muhammad destroyed a bunch of pagan idols, since he was a monotheist. So, Islam was not quite totally about freedom of religion. The "people of the book" were favored.
Then, there is the women stuff. It's fairly easy to respond to stereotypes here. The most problematic cases are cultural. There is the "modest" rule. But, that is found in other religions, if you take the text literally. So, fornication is disallowed as is divorce in most cases. There is a reference to women covering their heads. And, more sexist stuff. Catholics still do not have women priests. Being modest is seen as "Christian" by many.
(And, it is unclear from her summaries that some of the stuff she had to follow is compelled by the text. Is not dating really necessary? She herself was raised not to need to cover her head at all, her father noting that in the U.S. that would ironically cause more attention. Okay. So, why not date?)
Still, men and women are not treated the same. She argues this is mainly a matter of interpretation based on the times. True enough. But, the text also specifically treats women differently in certain instances. The fact they were treated better than others at the time is very important. Still, the 21st Century has some advancements there from the 7th. How do you get around it totally, however, when we are dealing the literal word of God, which has been determined to have existed eternally?*
That part is just a bit much. So, e.g., she notes that bans on pork probably arose because it was unhealthy to eat pork at that time. Fine. Food and other taboos often have such practical origins. And, it is fine to continue doing them to honor your religious faith. Still, once the reason for not eating pork passed, what is exactly the value in it? This is more of a symbolic thing, probably, and as loyalty to your "tribe," it's fine really.
Anyway, again, given her approach, some of this stuff will not be covered. That's okay as a whole, though readers very well have a reason to at some point feel that she is basically assuming certain things as givens. Maybe, I'm more scientifically minded than some, but that got me bothered at times. The books as a whole remain useful to educate, including citing an interesting theory that English common law grew out of Islamic law.
---
[footnote added]
* She notes the Islamic belief that each people worldwide was sent a messenger like Muhammad at some point.
A religious book of such a society specific nature seems -- under that principle -- best limited to the society itself. This probably is best seen in place and time fashion, especially if so much focus will be put on the exact language used. But, Islam now is a world-wide religion. Not that even Arabia could fully apply the "original" so long afterwards.
In various ways, we have had seen some value in use of scriptures, religious or otherwise. Ancient philosophical writings still are of some value though only a limited number of people actually read the things. Such value is limited -- Aristotle's view on both science and morals (e.g., slavery) has only held up so much. Religious texts are no different.
We see this is the Christian Bible, which also includes Jewish scriptures. A lot of religious development occurred over the span of time of even the gospels (decades), a lot more so in Jewish writings. Many in the Middle East thought Jesus was the final word. Then, Mohamed came along!
The author recognizes the limits of writings of a certain era, but maybe then it is best not to treat male focused accounts of the afterlife as if they were the eternal word of God. Applying ancient texts to the modern age is possible, but only so much without redacting some content. It is not to be forgotten, since she references it at one point, the Constitution (unlike the Qur'an) allows amendments.
I wonder in fact if the messenger of God thought his recitations (not even written down in his lifetime formally!) was the final word. Why assume he is the final prophet, again after Jesus was not? Seems presumptuous.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!