Subtitled The Qur\u2019an, the Media, and that Veil Thing.<\/p>\n
The front cover alone lets you know what to expect: a smiling woman, with nothing that really marks her as \u201cother\u201d \u2014 no headscarf, wearing Western clothing, a touch of make-up and a contemporary hairstyle.\u00a0She doesn\u2019t even really look like the daughter of Indian immigrants that she is, and the message that this picture communicates is \u201cwe Muslims could just as well be your next-door neighbors and we\u2019d fit right in.\u201d<\/p>\n
And her approach to Islam? \u00a0It\u2019s, well, different<\/em>. \u00a0Never mind all this business about hijab, and jihad, and the Sword Verses, and polygamy. \u00a0Her bottom line is this: \u00a0anything in the Qur\u2019an that is inspiring, and preaches justice, equality, tolerance, and mercy, is to be taken at face value and good for all time. \u00a0Anything that suggests otherwise must be understood in context, in ways that transform the verse or the teaching.<\/p>\n As I\u2019ve done on other occasions, I\u2019m going to just present her words without (much) commentary, to start with anyway. \u00a0Here are my notes as I read through the book:<\/p>\n On atonement:<\/p>\n Jesus did not die for the sins of humanity or atone for anyone else\u2019s sins. \u00a0In Islam, only the sinner can atone for his or her own sins. \u00a0(p. 41)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n On heaven:<\/p>\n The Qur\u2019an\u2019s description of heaven is not an exclusively spiritual, sober one. \u00a0It contains many earthly pleasures, such as beautiful gardens, fruits and water more pure than imaginable, and even immortal dark-eyed beings or houri<\/em> to serve these things. . . . the Qur\u2019an was addressing an ancient, patriarchal, polygynous society and conveying concepts in the terms people (men<\/em>, actually) nearly fourteen centuries ago would have understood. \u00a0(p. 44)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n On war:<\/p>\n But Muhammad never entered into a war that was not defensive and never used military operations if he could use diplomacy instead. (p. 55)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n On justice:<\/p>\n Nothing was more important to Muhammad than social justice. \u00a0The Qur\u2019an and the recorded quotations of the Prophet make this absolutely clear. \u00a0He wanted to change the entire social and moral fabric of Arabia, but he knew that to turn the world of his fellow Arabs upside down would backfire and do no good at all.<\/p>\n Therefore, Islam sometimes does not prohibit outright undesirable, pre-Islamic practices. \u00a0Rather, it retains them but fences safeguards around them and strongly encourages a gradual progression toward their elimination. (p. 57)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n and on war again:<\/p>\n Those verses that do sanction fighting do so in the context of a just war and against the backdrop of the verses that command Muslims to practice tolerance, never aggress, make peace when the other side desires it, and never harm noncombatants (p. 76)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Taking Qur\u2019anic verses in context:<\/p>\n It is difficult to know whether verses are metaphorical or symbolic. \u00a0Still other verses are superseded by later Qur\u2019anic verses or by hadith<\/em> (sayings of the Prophet). \u00a0Sometimes, a Qur\u2019anic verse carves out an exception to a rule in another verse. (p. 80)<\/p>\n All this goes to show that quoting the Qur\u2019an out of context and without the interpretive literature is misleading. \u00a0The actual meaning may be completely unrelated to what it seems to mean. \u00a0Considering the idiosyncrasies of 1,300-year-old Arabic, the obscure historical figures and events to Qur\u2019an refers to without explaining, the enormous difficulties of translation, and the historical context of the verses, it should be obvious why someone knowing nothing about Islam might come up with inaccurate conceptions of what the Qur\u2019an means. . . . Even all Muslims do not agree on what each verse of the Qur\u2019an means. \u00a0No particular meaning is absolute. (p. 81)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n On heaven, again,<\/p>\n A primary reason my husband is Muslim is because it is established in Islam that anyone, Muslim or otherwise, may go to heaven. \u00a0. . . in Islam, if you do good deeds, you go to heaven. \u00a0(p. 82)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Regarding\u00a0Shia vs. Sunni Muslims, she explains the historical context but says that, among Muslims, these are considered to be minor differences among Muslims.<\/p>\n Whoops, where\u2019d that come from? \u00a0Out of nowhere, in talking about how the West thinks that the Saudi\u00a0and\u00a0Taliban extremism is the majority belief because it\u2019s most visible:<\/p>\n Similarly, the September 11th attacks (whoever engineered them) were coordinated so that all television cameras would be trained securely on the destruction of the first tower when the second plane crashed. \u00a0(p. 98).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n \u201cWhoever engineered them\u201d? \u00a0Is she, for all her moderation, still a 9\/11 truther, or of the opinion that Muslims were framed?<\/p>\n On women leading prayer, and on decision-making: \u00a0the rationale for separating men and women during prayer was modesty, because everyone\u2019s bending over in close quarters, but there are some voices in favor of changes.<\/p>\n As a Muslim, I am entitled to listen to the various opinions of the Islamic authorities, pray for guidance, and choose the view my conscience tells me is right. \u00a0My view \u2014 which is one of several valid Islamic viewpoints on this issue \u2014 is that we should follow the Prophet\u2019s example, as well as the view of early and modern jurists, to allow learned women (or learned men) to lead the prayer. \u00a0I do not think we should consider men to be so weak that they could not concentrate on God with a woman leading the prayer. . . . I would love to be able to pray together with my husband and children, all standing together, rather than in separate rooms or even separate groups. \u00a0(p. 104)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n On immutability \u2014 or mutability \u2014 of Islamic law\/teaching:<\/p>\n After the twelfth century, the books of jurisprudence assumed a formal structure that made Islamic law look as though it were unchanging. . . . But in reality, they continued to develop the law. \u00a0. . . many countries in the Muslim world have tried to implement reforms without straying from the original message of the Qur\u2019an. \u00a0At times, this is the result of a reinterpretation (called neo-ijtihad) of the Qur\u2019anic verses. \u00a0For example, Tunisia has prohibited polygamy outright by reinterpreting the Qur\u2019anic verses. (p. 107 \u2013 108).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n On apostasy:<\/p>\n The Qur\u2019an itself minimizes apostasy, discourages it, does not really treat it as a crime, and odes not specify a punishment for it. \u00a0The Qur\u2019an does not<\/em> specify the death penalty. \u00a0In fact, the Qur\u2019an decrees that apostates must be encouraged and given the opportunity to turn back to Islam.<\/p>\n Yet, Muslim medieval jurists developed, a part of their Islamic juristic literature, a law of apostasy that did allow specific punishments and even death to the apostate, though in practice this was rare. \u00a0Most modern Muslims view apostasy in its historical context and do not consider it applicable to the modern world. \u00a0In fact, some scholars write that the crime of apostsy in Islamic law only came about because of a misreading of the early written discussions on the subject. \u00a0(p 115)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n On women in Islam: \u00a0 Muhammad meant for Islam to be egalitarian but the scholars interpreting the Qur\u2019an and the Sunnah after his death imposed their own perspectives on their interpretations, for instance, in interpreting sections on beating one\u2019s wife, on inheritance law, the veil, etc. \u00a0(p. \u00a0126 ff). \u00a0On the veil, interpretations are varied, due to culture and customs, but veiling and headcovering are not required by the Qur\u2019an.<\/p>\n On polygyny:<\/p>\n This is what my Muslim friends and I were taught while growing up and learning our religious tenets: \u00a0a man can have more than one wife if he can treat them equally, I remember my father saying, but since that is impossible, the Qur\u2019an is actually obliquely limiting a man to one<\/em> wife. \u00a0We all regarded polygyny as a historical condition and no longer applicable to the modern world. \u00a0(p. 142)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Besides which, she says, polygyny was originally a way of helping widows, who would otherwise suffer because there was no provision for them.<\/p>\n About divorce, as with other topics, Ali-Karamali takes the approach that Muhammad was comparatively egalitarian for his time, so that any apparent inequities between men and women should be straightened out based on \u201cthe spirit of Islamic law and a reinterpretation of the religious texts\u201d as occurred in Tunisia when men and women were given equal divorce rights. \u00a0(p. 149)<\/p>\n What about Shari\u2019a courts in Western nations? \u00a0She rejects the idea of following \u201cthe minutiae of divorce law developed over a thousand years ago by Islamic male scholars.\u201d<\/p>\n There\u2019s also a text that seems to endorse hitting one\u2019s wife. \u00a0After discussing some aspects of interpretation, she says,<\/p>\n Islam is old; the Qur\u2019an is old. \u00a0We forget history even fifty years old and we forget language three hundred years old. \u00a0How then \u2014 if we are as conscientious as humanly possible \u2014 can we be sure of the meaning of every single word in the Qur\u2019an? \u00a0Given the Qur\u2019an\u2019s equalizing message for women, given the historical context, given the grammar and the plethora of juristic writings and prophetic sayings condemning any kind of wife beating, given\u00a0all<\/em> that, I cannot believe the Qur\u2019an meant to allow a man to strike his wife except as a limitation of the particular practices of the seventh century.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n On jihad: \u00a0yes, it\u2019s no surprise that she\u2019s saying what we\u2019ve heard before, that jihad just means personal struggle for self-improvement. \u00a0 With respect to \u201cclassical jihad,\u201d that is, the fact that Muslims did in fact conquer vast amounts of territory in its early history, well, she seems to take the view that this was really unconnected to Islam at all and mostly a coincidence that these rulers happened to be Muslim, and, besides, well, empires just \u201chappen\u201d anyway.<\/p>\n And on abrogation, that is, the notion that later verses in the Qur\u2019an \u201coverride\u201d earlier verses where they appear to conflict, and, in particular, that verses on fighting (after the Muslims gained strength) supersede earlier verses on peace and tolerance (when Muhammad was trying to convert others):<\/p>\n Abrogation makes little sense to me . . . . Not only does it mean that parts of the Qur\u2019an are read out of context while other parts are ignored, but it imples that God, in all His infinite wisdom, changed his mind. \u00a0Abrogation was used to allow seventh-century Arabs to reconcile their holy scripture to their comprehension of society. (p. 176)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n That\u2019s not the end of the book, but I\u2019m getting tired of what\u2019s turning into a lengthy summary.<\/p>\n Here\u2019s the bottom line.<\/p>\n What Ali-Karamali believes, in brief is this:<\/p>\n God is merciful and compassionate, and answers prayers, and Muhammad, and God by extension, wanted a world of justice between rich and poor and men and women.<\/p>\n While, admittedly, there are passages in the Qur\u2019an which seem to say otherwise, these can be disregarded via various approaches. \u00a0Some troublesome passages are explained by emphasizing context: \u00a0e.g., the \u201csword verses\u201d were based on self-defense. \u00a0Some passages are contextualized by placing them in 7th century Arabia and saying, \u201cfor the time, this was very progressive,\u201d and suggesting that Muhammad would have gone even further in implementing full equality of men and women but for the fact that it wouldn\u2019t have been accepted, so that we can take from it an underlying message of equality. \u00a0Likewise, some practices are not even supported by the Qur\u2019an but by a patriarchal interpretation, and such interpretations may be abandoned. \u00a0And when all else fails, any suggestion of unjust or unequal practices can be discarded by acknowledging the multiple meanings of Arabic words, which may have been lost in the meantime, and a certain unknowability of what a passage may have actually meant that now seems, on the face of it, to be unjust or intolerant.<\/p>\n Yet to come: \u00a0I have a couple more books, and then I will tell you what I make of all this!<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Subtitled The Qur\u2019an, the Media, and that Veil Thing. The front cover alone lets you know what to expect: a smiling woman, with nothing that really marks her as \u201cother\u201d \u2014 no headscarf, wearing Western clothing, a touch of make-up and a contemporary hairstyle.\u00a0She doesn\u2019t even really look like the daughter of Indian immigrants that […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2209,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3444","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"yoast_head":"\n