Bismimg2
*update: please take note that my use of specific ayats is to ‘cater’ to the argument parameters set forth by those I am discussing with. I am arguing for the permissibility of things established in Islamic Law. As far as the applicability, this is a secondary concern and not one that is part of the discourse.
It is truly amazing the direction this conversation has taken.
Haroon has responded at Avari/Nameh to the conversation with eteraz.
I’m not a writer per se, and I don’t plan on selling any books in my lifetime. With this post I respond now to another accomplished writer whose command of that very same language far outstrips mine. On the other hand, I like to think my comments are grounded in rationality, and I adore bullet style points and responses. It appeals to my computer-science trained brain.
So that is how I will approach this.
Thabet led me to a fierce if somewhat hollow assault on Eteraz by Yursil, of Mind, Body, Soul; be sure to read the comments section for one especially brutal note. However, Eteraz is not one to take any of this bending over — he slams back, both here and then here, making it clear that he wasn’t taken too seriously by Yursil, to Yursil’s disadvantage. (Then Eteraz receives his response; I am upset that Yursil has to qualify what Muslims can tolerate, vis-a-vis the Divine, as the specific respect exclusive, by implication if not deduction, of the traditionalist.)
I would recommend that Haroon first catch up as to what occurred here. My post responded to a direct assault on traditional Islam.
I-S-L-A-M.
The beliefs, laws, rules, guidelines of Islam. My faith. Excuse me for being passionate about it.
Haroon’s boxing-style commentary of the discussion is quite entertaining, but fairly inaccurate. Several questions have been left unanswered by eteraz, and his last comments on my previous post speak volumes as to where the conversation ended.
While he might have his reasons to accuse Eteraz of practicing in, or agreeing to, an imperfect or erroneous Islam (by and large according to his traditionalist model), the debate is not, and has never been, about who is the good Muslim and who is going to heaven and when and after how long in what level of hellfire.
In the first part Haroon speaks of determining a perfect or erroneous Islam, and in the next we are speaking of good or bad Muslims. This is a disingenuous transition for Haroon, as the topic, since Eteraz decided to attack traditional Islam in the post-that-started-it-all-for-me, has been just that:
Is my ‘Islam’ barbaric, backwards and deserving such denigration?
What is the correct ‘Islam’, the ‘progressive’ understanding or the ‘traditional’ one?
The topic was not whether I am a better Muslim, personally, than Eteraz.
The difference (that Haroon chooses to ignore) is that Eteraz presents his personal ideals as the true Islam or at least truer than what he considers ‘traditional Islam’. In his mind, eteraz’s ’Islam’ far outweighs us traditional barbarians in social justice and moral legitimacy.
Of course, his gauge for this judgement is Western humanistic morality.
Frankly, this seems more of a support-your-blog-buddy type post than I would have expected from Haroon.
Not being aware of the initial attack on traditionalism, and then trying to redefine the debate to one that Haroon is more comfortable with (traditionalists scholars take on history) is quite alarming.
Where did Eteraz bring up these points? Why didn’t he? Because it wasn’t relevant, I wasn’t discussing a utopian society of some time past.
I understand Haroon’s criticism of ‘traditionalism’ in terms of historical idealism, heck I may agree with him. But what does that have to do with Aqidah, Fiqh, Adab and our basic fundamental understanding of the Quran?
[In his responses, Eteraz is brilliant: He points out that traditional Islam had its strengths, but also its weaknesses, and globalization and modernization are sufficient to force us to change our paradigms.]
Ego-stroking. We know from previous praise where Haroon stands on Eteraz. He may wish to reconsider this opinion.
Honestly Haroon, I appreciate your command of history and the English language, but history as irrelevant to this conversation.
This, to me, is about belief, sacredness, and deviation. Not what occurred a 100 years ago or 200 years ago, or even 500 years ago. This is about what occurred 1400 years ago when the Prophet Muhummad (S) received a Divine Message from God.
This is the age old debate between Muslims who have encountered other civilizations, other ideas they deem superior to their own Tawheed-based philosophy. Is the Quran is a complete metaphor, designed for the uneducated masses… which a new, ‘enlightened intellectual elite’ can rise above or see through?
Islam is from God; the Qur’an is from God; the Sunnah is from God through His Prophet, peace be upon him, and the course of the Prophet’s mission was of course divinely intended. But how do we draw the lines between where context begins and immanence ends? What is reason and what is revelation? What makes the Qur’an God’s word? By which I mean — what type of speech is God’s speech, if God’s speech is being delivered in a language developed by humans over centuries? (I don’t mean to be impious, and I don’t want to be taken impiously. I want to point out the fuzziness of our boundaries.)
Haroon gets a bit more on topic here.
Haroon may have fuzzy boundaries, but he probably would not be surprised by the fact that I am not fuzzy on these subjects at all. The Quran is God’s speech. It is delivered in a language that He declared:
Surely We have revealed it– an Arabic Quran– that you may understand.” Surah Yusuf
Can we say that this verse is ’fuzzy’? Not to me. It means the Almighty gave us the Quran in Arabic at that time and place for a purpose.
A few of the issues at hand.
“Marry women of your choice, two, or three, or four; but if you fear that you shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one.” (4:3)
When condemning polygamy, does Haroon join Eteraz? Can we blame this on a ‘fuzzy’ understanding of Arabic, or is there more to it? This verse directly deals with polygamy.
Etereaz complains that it is permitted here and here.. Why is there even a doubt as to whether it is permitted in his mind?
“And who guard their private-parts - Save from their wives or the (slaves) that their right hands possess.” (23:5-6)
The same, except the topic is slavery. Here we are shown we can expose ourselves to wives and the slaves our right hand posses. Is there doubt to this? Etereaz condemns that it is permitted here and here.. I could understand doubts by a lack of knowledge, but there is no doubt here. This is condemnation.
Allah enjoins you about [the share of inheritance of] your children: A male’s share shall equal that of two females — in case there are only daughters, more than two shall have two-thirds of what has been left behind…. (4:11)
Woman’s inheritance, a condemnation in his original post here.
… party liable is mentally deficient, or weak, or unable Himself to dictate, Let his guardian dictate faithfully, and get two witnesses, out of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as ye choose, for witnesses… (2:282).
Eteraz complains about the witness of a woman being (according to the traditional understanding, in certain cases) less than a man. The Quran is pretty clear on this above. Do we think time and such have made the Quran less valuable or less clear?
Eteraz already essentially tosses out hadith for determining anything of substance, so these are direct QURANIC ayats. What is the response? Nothing. Sidetracking issues.
There is an outstanding question of what Eteraz considers such verses to mean. If he ignores them, then we might as well be speaking to the atheist Eteraz that once was. When we don’t have a common ground on even a sacred text we have a problem with terminology, “Muslim” is being misused.
Let’s put aside my original responses on FGM not existing within traditional Islam, Islam providing a means out of slavery (and the West’s debt-slavery replacement program), and finally that the West also puts different norms for female and male dress.
When he criticizes these things, he is in my opinion, directly criticizing God’s word. Does Haroon see this differently? Are we sure this is the man we want to be defending?
Joking or not, should Islam be morphed into something that allows us to casually say:
“There are times when I don’t believe in God (it’s an organic relationship).”
Should the Almighty be treated with such reckless abandon that His words are actually mocked and that His name is even on the same line as a ‘pimp’? Should the rewards of Paradise be mocked and rejected, while we stay silent? Is this the man/Islam that Haroon endorses?
Conclusions to these and other questions, for a believing Muslim should be clear.
I recommend Haroon re-read the dialogue with some more context.
And while I love reading his excellent prose (Allah has Blessed Haroon, and he should be grateful) I hope he manages to stay on topic.
Here is the post again, Haroon. Brilliant.
May 6th, 2006 - 4:31 am
Salam
My take on Haroon’s comments exactly. The fellow while providing an excellent analysis relating to some aspects of history has conflated some scholars’ view on history and the traditional view towards Islamic Law. He critiques the former and concludes from it that the latter has problems. I don’t understand it at all.
Wassalam
May 6th, 2006 - 5:43 am
Bullet points, per your request:
“Excuse me for being passionate about it [Islam]”
- excuse you for owning it
“Of course, his gauge for this judgement is Western humanistic morality.”
-maybe you should read Orientalism by Edward Said, flip it around, and see whether you view the west as “the other”
“This is about what occurred 1400 years ago when the Prophet Muhummad (S) received a Divine Message from God. ”
-No. It is not about that at all. This is about what you think the Prophet meant. It’s about what you think Islam is. It’s about what right you have to tell others it means. It’s about ownership of faith. And finally, it’s about sharing. Can you share the title Muslim with Eteraz, or did the Angel Gabriel whisper in your ear that you do not have to?
“When he criticizes these things, he is in my opinion, directly criticizing God’s word. ”
-I’m so glad that people no longer need to think about what Islam means. It’s done now. Should Muslims all go home?
“If he ignores them, then we might as well be speaking to the atheist Eteraz that once was.”
-Ok back up. So lets get this straight. If someone leaves the faith, and comes back, you can hold that over their head forever, correct? It seems to me that if people who leave the faith can expect to be second class Muslims for the rest of their existence, they might as well leave for good. I thought Bismellah Arahman Arahim talks of mercy? Guess not for people you disagree with. Further, I guess any doubts eteraz has are unacceptable.
“Are we sure this is the man we want to be defending?”
-Are you sure this is the God you want to be speaking for?
Lastly, Yursil, Islam has indeed lasted for over 1400 years, it survived the Crusades, civil strife, Russian invasions, Mongol invasions - it can survive Eteraz, must you truly attack him so profusely in order to sleep soundly at night? Or do you fear that the Message is that frail?
I wonder, Yursil, have you rewritten Surah 109, verse 6 to read “To you be my way, to me be mine”?
May 6th, 2006 - 5:45 am
Assalam-o-Alaikum Yursil,
Though your comments are very valid and accurate, I would say that unless the other side put their methodology and their understanding of your method on table, there is no use defending your views. Thats the traditionalism that I understand from my little knowledge.
wassalam
May 6th, 2006 - 7:14 am
“This is about what occurred 1400 years ago when the Prophet Muhummad (S) received a Divine Message from God.”
Is it really? I think it might be about something else.
May 6th, 2006 - 8:58 am
Salam Habibi,
I hope to write-up a full, deserving response to this response soon. In the meantime: My concern is that you’re still not seeing that traditionalism, as a methodology, can be misused, and because it is a methodology, and as such, other methodologies to interpret Islamic law — rigorously — also have their benefit. While I excuse you for being passionate about your faith, Islam is not limited to traditionalist interpretations alone. (Unless you want to say that what Hasan al-Banna preached is not Islam. Which is treacherous road to go down.)One does not have to fully agree, nor fully disagree.
Moreover, you are quoting ayat, but missing the point when it comes to clearness: These ayat are not as clear as you make them out to be. For example, polygamy: Is it solely for the sake of desire? Does it serve a social function? When does this social function arise? Can it be regulated by a government, or does it go on good faith? If we look at Islamic law in its formative stage, it lacks an awareness of a nation-state of intense regulational capacity — obviously. As such, we wonder about the position of Islamic law, which developed in a certain context, versus a new context now.
My criticisms of AHM’s ahistoricality are intimately tied into this willing dismissal of new context: To talk about the validity of traditionalism, and its benefits, based on a history that never happened, is disingeneous to say the least. The very notion of traditionality is constructed as the result of its noted absence. This is, as Simon says, not about what happened 1400 years ago, but our understanding of what happened immediately after Revelation and through the period until colonialism, at the least. Quoting ayat is legitimate, to some extent, but fails to take into account my methodological and constructionist concerns.
May 6th, 2006 - 10:01 am
Walaikum-assalam Habibi,
Interesting
I do agree with you that traditionalism can be misused, and I absolutely consider Hasan al-Banna a Muslim who preached Islam.
As for your second point. I don’t believe these ayats are open to such questions in terms of ending their permissibility.
The ayats are quite clear, and we are all aware that God exists without a time and place. He is also well aware of the actions of a single ant in the year 408413 (if it comes to be) much less our society today. And furthermore, this ant was not any mystery to him in the year 0 A.H.
If these considerations were needed before determining polygamy’s very permissibility, then the conditions would have been mentioned in the Quran or Sunnah. Who are we to deny what God has permitted?Â
We can empirically determine if the worldly benefit of some aspect of Islam is declining, but in the end can we ever determine the spiritual loss of abandoning it, much less hating it?
I welcome a criticism of the traditional methodology vs Salafism etc, but this is a different beast altogether.
May 6th, 2006 - 10:48 am
I’m not talking about throwing out verses of the Qur’an; I’m talking about applicability. If you can’t debate applicability, then do you believe we should continue with the practice of slavery? Should we forego international conventions of war and instead treat all captured prisoners as potential slaves, for us to have free sexual relations with? Because that is what Islam traditionally did — if traditionalism is not what Muslims, over their history, by and large did, then it shouldn’t be called traditionalism, because that invites a) ahistoricism and b) the blanket approval of behaviors none of us would tolerate.
Polygamy is not ‘ibadat, nor is it a fard on us. Moreover, studying its context, and its applicability and permissibility, do not require us to treat the Qur’an as less than Divine. Rather, it requires us to understand how the Qur’an is to be applied to different arenas in life. This revivification of Islamic practice requires the synthesis of new methods with established and valid legacies, critically and openly, and does not require an unreflexive retreat into an established pattern that clearly hasn’t existed for a long time, or has in a very corrupted form.
May 6th, 2006 - 12:48 pm
as-salamu’alaikum Haroon,
I agree with you on applicability. Eteraz’s criticisms on permissability however require additional consideration as far as the Divine nature of the Quran is concerned.
When we say something is not permissable anymore, or has a faulty moral foundation (which Eteraz insists), then we are doing something far beyond discussing applicability.
We are inherently denying God’s ability to know our reality, in the here and now, 1400 years ago. Even worse, we are faulting Him for it, and correcting Him. The Muslim becomes the reverse.. the Milsum, where God submits to him.
May 6th, 2006 - 6:38 pm
Salamat,
Ok, totally off topic.. I notice your use of the world ‘milsum’.. someone on msn added me to their buddy list milsum@hotmail.com… do you know who that is? (Aside from that Email, this is only place I see that term, that’s why I ask) and ya.. I thought whoever it was was just spelling ‘muslim’ backwards *blush* k, bye
ps: interesting debate
May 6th, 2006 - 7:04 pm
wassalaam Danya,
Actually I have no idea! :)  I did just spell Muslim backwards, to demonstrate a person with a reverse belief (God submits to him)Â
May 10th, 2006 - 5:42 am
Yursil,
I read one of the posts that you had tracked to. A person who prays to Mary or to the ghost of a philosopher should not be taken seriously.Fellas like Ali are too smart for their own good;as Muslims let us pray that they see the light.
May 10th, 2006 - 7:58 am
Ameen ameen!
December 1st, 2006 - 7:14 pm
I don’t agree with Yursil very often.. but I have to agree with him on how we have to handle clear cut verses from the Quran. I also agree with Haroon’s attempt to get Yursil to be a little bit more open minded about looking at the possible benefits of other approaches to Islamic Thought vs. “Traditionalism”. I also agree with Haroon on being able to determine what can be applied where and when. For example in the US it is not legal in any state to take more than one wife. Simply for that reason I think Muslims should refrain from doing so at this point in time. I do think Ali needs to be more careful when discussing ayat, hadith or even opinions of scholars. You can be a great thinker and writer, but if you don’t have adab then it’s not even worth it.