Interfaith Dialogue a Moral Duty to Finding Common Ground

Extreme voices in the three religions that claim the monotheist heritage of Prophet Abraham--Judaism, Christianity, and Islam--are busy sowing the seeds of confrontation and hate. They have recently taken the advantage of the politically rooted tensions between western and Middle Eastern countries to develop misunderstanding and mistrust among the followers of these religions.

Quoting selectively from Islamic sources, they have painted Islam as an intolerant religion that urges its followers to hate people of other faiths. This depiction belies both the historical record of Muslims dealing with the followers of other faiths, and, most importantly, the Qur'anic message itself. Although historical Muslim societies were imperfect, there are plenty of examples to show that Islamic values inspired Muslims to develop multi-religious societies in which people of diverse religious backgrounds lived in considerable harmony. The tolerance of Medieval Muslim Spain and the invitation extended to Jews expelled from Jerusalem to return to the city upon the defeat of the Crusaders are two shining examples.

The Qur'an reiterates a fundamental truth taught by all the prophets who were sent by God to guide human endeavors. It asserts that true and honest living is the assured way for spiritual and social harmony, and for protecting the long term self interests of every human being.

The Qur'an further asserts that humans are fallible and can never be free of error in understanding and judgment. Human knowledge is imperfect, and subject to bias and error. Knowledge of intentions and inner thoughts are beyond human capacity, and so is the knowledge of the final destiny of individuals. People of faith must show humility and put their trust in divine wisdom and the absolute justice of God, and must focus on doing what is right and just, instead of sitting in judgment on the eternal salvation of others. The Qur'an is clear that only God knows who is true and sincere in worship and service, and who has gone astray.

"Your lord knows best who strays from his way: He knows best who they are that receive His guidance." (6:117)

"And we granted them clear signs in matters (of religion): it was only after knowledge had been granted to them that they fell into schisms, through insolent envy among themselves. Verily your lord will judge between them on the Day of Judgment as to those matters in which they set up differences." (45:17)

The duty of the faithful is, therefore, not to judge others and look down on those who have different understanding and faith, but respect their choices and try his or her best to live an upright life and manifest the values of his and her faith through good work and good deeds.

"To you we sent the scripture in truth, confirming the scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety: so judge between them by what Allah has revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging from the truth that has come to you. To each among you have we prescribed a law and an open way. If Allah had so willed, he would have made you a single People, but (his plan is) to test you in what he hath given you; so strive as in a race in all virtues. The goal of you all is to Allah; it is he that will show you the truth of the matters in which you dispute." (5:48)

The Qur'an came to confirm the truth revealed in early scriptures, and the people of the book, the followers of the revealed scriptures, have a special place in the Qur'an, particularly those who carry the Abrahamic legacy. Significant portions of the Qur'an focus on the story of the Biblical prophets and their followers, the Jews and Christians. It presents their stories as the story of the journey of faith, reminding the followers of the last revelation of the ups and downs in the struggle of the early communities of faith.

Some commentators have stressed the down side of that story by focusing on the Qur'anic critique of the People of the Book. The Qur'an has pointed out several excesses and mistakes committed by the followers of the Biblical prophets, and warned the followers of Prophet Muhammad against committing similar excesses.

Yet the Qur'an is also full of stories of great struggles and shining examples of the followers of early prophets whose commitment and devotion were crucial for establishing the Monotheistic traditions and translating divine guidance into social practices: The strong faith of Saul (Talout) and those who stood firmly with him (2:249); the devotion of the people of the Trench who remained true to their faith in the face of a horrifying aggression committed by ruthless enemies (85:1-11); and the unwavering commitment of the followers of Christ to the ethical code and compassionate spirit he brought to humanity (61:14). Prophet Muhammad repeatedly emphasized that his mission confirmed those of early prophets. He directed early Muslims to seek refuge in Abyssinia, pointing out that the country was ruled by a just Christian King. This was the beginning of an excellent relationship and strong alliance between Muslims and Christians in Abyssinia that lasted for a thousand years.

Therefore, Muslim attitude toward the followers of other religions, particularly the People of the Book, should not be one of self-righteousness and pride, but one of compassion, mutual respect, and concern for the wellbeing and welfare of other communities. The Qur'an encourages Muslims to cooperate for the common good and to search from a common ground, based on mutual respect and help.

"Say: O People of the Book! Come to common terms as between us and you: that we worship none but Allah; that we associate no partners with Him; that we erect not, from among ourselves, Lords and patrons other than Allah." If then they turn back, say: "Bear witness that we (at least) are Muslims (bowing to Allah's Will)." (3:94)

The common ground Muslims are asked to seek with the followers of other religions is a society in which people are free to worship God. In such open society Muslims must display positive attitude and unwavering respect of the followers of other faiths. Dealing with respect and positive engagement does not mean that differences in doctrine and interpretation do not matter. Rather, it means that those differences must be addressed through free and open dialogue.

It is this open, free, and dignified dialogue that allows the followers of various religious traditions to affirm their diversity and discuss their similarities and differences, and it is what Islam requires from its followers. Muslims have a moral and religious obligation to engage in interfaith dialogue with other communities of faith, and they must do that by maintaining ethical standards required by the Qur'an, including the directive to "argue with [the follower of the revealed books] in ways that are best and most gracious."

This article appeared in the following publications:

iView
The American Muslim

Read more >>>

Intricate Transition: From Moon Sighting to Astronomical Calculation*

[This article is a condensed summary of a scholarly paper entitled "Reading, Sighting, and Calculating." Please click here to view the full paper]

The Fiqh Council of North America's ruling in favor of using astronomical calculations for determining the beginning of the Muslim lunar month provoked a strong response, and the American Muslim community continues to be divided over this issue. Scholars on the two sides of the divide present arguments rooted in Islamic traditions, and often support their views by citing the same Qur'anic and Prophetic sources, or by referring to statements by early Muslim scholars.

It does not take much for an observer to realize that the division and disagreements are not about the sources themselves, but about how the sources are read. The division is between scholars who place emphasis on the apparent meaning of the text and those who emphasize its intended meaning and purpose.

The arguments for relying on sighting the new crescent as a means to determining the Islamic calendar confound religious duties with the empirical knowledge and practical skills required to identify the days on which these religious duties commence. Observing Ramadan and performing Hajj is ibadah (religious duty), but observing the birth of the new crescent to determine the beginning of the lunar month is not. The latter relate to the human capacity for determining the birth of the new crescent, and it is a function of the observer's scientific and physical capacity to identify the moment of the birth of the new crescent with increased precision. This capacity varies, needless to say, with the knowledge of the position of the new crescent in the sky, the sharpness of the eye-sight of the observer, the access to refined tools, the climatic conditions, etc.

Although some Muslims tried to root the practice of moon sighting, particularly for the month of Ramadan, in the Qur'anic and Prophetic injunctions, a closer examination of the Qur'an shows that it regards fasting of Ramadan and performing of Hajj as religious obligations, but considers the sun and moon movements as part of the natural order.

The Prophet, indeed, directed the companions to establishing the first day of Ramadan by sighting the moon, but then he stated that the reason for his directive was the inability of early Muslim community to provide accurate calculation. The community, he pointed out, was then illiterate and did not master reading, writing, or calculation. They had no experienced astronomers who have access to the knowledge, tools, and facilities to determine with accuracy the beginning of the lunar month. Consequently, moon sighting was the only tool available for the early Muslim community.

If the distinction between these two areas of knowledge is confirmed, then the only reason for moon sighting to be favored over astronomical calculation is when the former is more accurate in determining the birth of the new crescent than the latter.

Early Muslim scholars agreed, by and large, on Moon sighting as the only acceptable way for determining the beginning of the new lunar month. However, their consensus was greatly influenced by the state of the science of astronomy, as well as the lack of direct access by the scattered Muslim villages and towns to reliable astronomers.

The consensus reached by early Muslim jurists on rejecting astronomical methods resulted from the lack of any clear line of demarcation between astronomy and astrology. Most early Muslim scholars equated astronomy with magic and fortunetelling.

The basis of the historical consensus on moon sighting has changed. Today, astronomers can calculate with great precision the date and time of birth of the new moon. Moon sighting, on the other hand, has become less reliable, as the conditions of the sky and the observers have deteriorated markedly over the last two centuries. Muslims do not only live in middle latitude regions of mostly clear sky--as was the case in the early years of Islam--but also in high latitude regions where the moon can rarely be sighted, and in areas of high humidity and frequent rain. The sky conditions have worsened in most inhabited regions.

Observation of the new moon is quite disturbing in countries where Muslims do not employ the service of qualified observers using advance tools and facilities. Communities in the United States, for instance, rely on claims by ordinary Muslims with limited experience and astronomical knowledge. Even in Muslim countries where fairly advanced facilities are available, religious authorities accept the sighting of laymen with little or no training.

It must be asserted, therefore, that astronomical calculations provide a higher degree of certainty than an actual Moon sighting. For while astronomical calculation provide a precise date and time of the birth of the new moon, sighing the Moon produces, even with the use of advanced telescopes, less accurate and reliable results.

Yet the actual choice is not one in which we are asked to choose between astronomical calculation and moon sighting. The choice is really between calculations and individual testimonies. For several centuries, the Hanafi school of fiqh required that every qualified person must go to open fields outside his village and town to observe the new moon. Other school of fiqh required two qualified witnesses, in some cases one, to verify the actual sighting of the moon. The Hanafi school ultimately abandoned the group requirement, and followed the practice of verifying the sighting with two witnesses.

Those who insist that Muslims abandon astronomical calculation and rely on individual testimonies are in actuality asking Muslims to abandon the certainty of reliable knowledge, for the inconsistency of unverifiable individual reports. Individual reports, every student of fiqh knows, produce uncertain knowledge (ma'rifah zaniyah). This is amply illustrated by the established records of Moon sighting testimonies. These testimonies have been exceedingly inconsistent, and have resulted in numerous contradictions and reversals.

There is an ample evidence to convince anyone who is familiar with both shari’ah injunctions and contemporary astronomy that astronomical calculations provide a more reliable and certain approach for determining the beginning of the Islamic lunar calendar. The fact that contemporary Muslim scholars are reluctant to embrace this certainty underscores the challenges facing contemporary Muslim scholarship.

The Fiqh Council of North America's decision to formally adopt astronomical calculation represents a major step forward in overcoming historical inertia. Although the decision of the FCNA has not so far brought about a consensus among North American Muslims, it has set the foundation for the development of a position that can potentially bring a new consensus in deciding the beginning of Ramadan and the two Eids for the world-wide Muslim community.

*This article is a condensed summary of a more elaborate scholarly paper on the question of determining the birth of the new Islamic lunar month. For full version of the arguments, please refer to Dr. Safi's article Reading, Sighting, and Calculating, at http://lsinsight.org/articles/Current/Hilal.htm

This article appeared in the following publications:

The Muslim Oberver
Media Monitor Network
Milli Gazette
The American Muslim

Read more >>>

Gender Politics - ISNA's First Female President

The recent election of Ingrid Mattson to the presidency of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) was received with great enthusiasm by the North American Muslim community and the public at large. Her election was seen as a sign of maturation, and as a vindication of Islam's respect of women's rights and contemporary Muslims' ability to overcome cultural traditions and rise to the level of the high moral demands of Islam.

Yet some Muslims in North America, and many in Muslim societies, raised questions as to the propriety of a female presiding over the largest Muslim organization in North America, and as to the compatibility of female leadership with Islamic principles and precepts. As one of the skeptics about the position taken by the Islamic Society of North America put it: "Why ISNA is violating [the] Sunnah and clear guidelines in Islam? Is that ISNA now being influenced by [a] local version of Islam?"

Those who resist the notion of women leadership in the name of Islam base their position on historical arguments made by early Muslim jurists. Yet a fair examination of early Muslim scholarship and Islamic sources reveals a variety of positions with regards to the public rights and duties of women. While Ibn Jarir al-Tabari places no limitations on women's right to assume the post of judge in all legal matters, al-Mawardi contends that women cannot be allowed to serve as judges under any circumstances. In between stands Abu Hanifa who allows women to serve as judges but only in cases involving commercial deals.

Historical Islamic jurisprudence, while recognizing the capacity of women to enjoy certain civil and political liberties, managed, nonetheless, to curtail these liberties on social and rational grounds. The degree of limitation on the exercise of civil and political rights also varied across historical periods and legal schools.

When approaching Islamic sources to shed light on the issue of women's rights, a clear distinction emerges between the rights of women in the public sphere, and their rights in the area of family law. For while Islamic sources differentiate men's and women's responsibilities within the family, all limitations on women's rights imposed by early jurists in the public sphere were based on either historically-bound interpretations of Islamic texts, or practical limitations associated with the social and political structures of historical society.

The Qur'an is unequivocal in assigning equal responsibilities for men and women for maintaining public order: "The believers, men and women, are protectors one of another; they enjoin the right (ma'ruf) and forbid the intolerable (munkar); they observe regular prayers, practice regular charity, and obey God and His Messenger." (Qur'an 9:71). Since men and women are entrusted with the same public responsibility to enjoin the right and forbid the intolerable, one should expect that both would enjoy equal political rights. Yet it is obvious that classical jurists deny women political equality with men. The question therefore arises as to what is the basis of the classical position?

Jurists who deny women the right to public office base their arguments on one Qur'anic and one prophetic statement. The Qur'anic statement reads: "Men are the protectors (qawwamun) of women, because God has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because men support women from their means." (4: 34) The word qawwamun which connotes "support" and "protection" has come to signify authority as well. The fact that qawwamun also signifies authority is not difficult to see as the remainder of the above Qur'anic statement empowers men with the right to discipline women guilty of mischief. But can the above verse be used to deny women access to public office?

The answer is an emphatic no. For the authority implied by qawwamun and the obedience it entails is relevant--even under classical interpretation--within the confines of the family. It is clear that the Qur'an does not intend to give authority to every single man over every single woman. Nor do those who extend the implication of this verse to the public sphere expect that any single woman in society should obey any single man. This being the case, no one can invoke the notion of qawwamun to deny women access to public office.

The other textual evidence used by classical jurists, and continues to be held by contemporary traditionalist jurists, is in the form of a hadith text that states: "They shall never succeed those who entrust their affairs to a woman." Reportedly the statement is a comment made by the Prophet upon hearing the news of the accession of Puran, the daughter of King Anusherawan, to the Persian throne after the passing away of her father. The hadith is authentic, and was reported by Bukhari, Tirmidhi, and Nasa'i. Its narrator, Abu Bakra, stated that the Prophet uttered this statement while commenting on the news of the accession of Puran. As such, the hadith has bearing only on a particular incident, and does not embody a univesal principle. The fact that it contradicts a universal principle establish by the verse (4: 34) of the Qur'an discussed above reafirms its particular nature.

Further, the following issues must be recalled when interpreting the above hadith: (1) The hadith statement is not given in the form of a directive, but an opinion that has to be understood in its historical and cultural context. That is, the hadith has to be interpreted in the context of a historical society where women were not active participants in political life, and in the context of a political culture that places the hereditary rule over the principle of merit in deciding political succession. (2) The hadith is a single statement that has no support in the most authoritative Islamic source--i.e. the Qur'an. Indeed, the narrator of the hadith had no following among the Prophet's companions in his effort to extend the application of the hadith to 'Aishah, the Prophet's wife, as he invoked it to object to her leading the Army. (3) The hadith stands in a direct contradiction with the principle of moral and political equality of the sexes, a principle established by numerous Qur'anic verses. (4) Finally, the hadith, being a singular narration (khabar ahad), is of a lesser degree of certainty than the Qur'anic narration (khabar mutawatar), and hence cannot overrule principles established in the Qur'an.

The issue of women leadership is influenced more by cultural, rather than religious, traditions, and hence boils down to rational arguments on psychological differences between the two genders, as well as the impact of full participation of women in public life on the family. The critics of women's participation in leadership functions are fully entitled to express their misgivings with regard to women leadership, but then they should respect the public choice when it supports female leaders. The critics are not, however, entitled to elevate their misgivings and literalist interpretations to the level of formal requirements.

The objection to the election of the first female president of the Islamic Society of North America is borne out of a serious confusion: the Prophet, God's peace and blessings be with him, questioned the wisdom of appointing an inexperienced woman to a leadership position because she happened to be the king's daughter; the Islamic society of North America elected an experienced Muslim leader, with a long track record in leadership and public service.


The article has appeared in the following publications:

Alt.Muslim
Middle East Online
Naseeb Vibes
Official Wire
The American Muslim
Media Monitors Network

Read more >>>

The Politics and Morality of Apostasy*

[This article is a summary of a longer paper, whose url is provided below]
The issue of apostasy under Islamic Law (shari'ah) brought recently to public attention in the widely publicized case of the conversion of an Afghan citizen raises troubling questions regarding freedom of religion and interfaith relations. The Afghan state's prosecution of an Afghan man who converted to Christianity in 1990 while working for a Christian non-governmental raises in the mind of many the question of the compatibility of Islam with plural democracy and freedom of religion. Although state court dropped the case under intense outside pressure, the compatibility issue has not been resolved because the judge invoked insanity as the basis for dismissing the case.

The case was presented as an example of conflict between Islam and democratic governance, but in many respects the case is rooted in, and influenced by, the forced secularization of Muslim society, and the absence of free debate under authoritarian regimes that dominate much of the Muslim world.

The issue of apostasy, like many other issues stemming from the application of shari'ah in modern society, is rooted more in the sociopolitical conditions of contemporary Muslim societies than in Islamic values and principles. More particularly, it is rooted in the incomplete transition from traditional to modern sociopolitical organization. It is rooted in the decision of many post-colonial Muslim countries to abandon traditional legal codes informed by Islamic law (shari'ah), in favor of European legal codes developed to suit modern European societies. The new laws where enforced by state elites without any public debate, and with little attention for the need to root legal code in public morality.

Islam is the foundation of moral commitments for the overwhelming majority of Muslims, and is increasingly becoming the source of legitimacy for state power and law. Yet the post-colonial state in Muslim societies has done little to encourage debate in the area of Islamic law. The increased interest in adopting legal codes based in Islamic values, leave the majority of Muslims with outdated legal codes that was intended for societies with markedly different social and political organizations and cultures.

The apostasy controversy highlights the importance of allowing Islamic reformers more say in public debates about political and legal reforms, and demonstrates the extent to which world powers undercut cultural and religious reforms by backing autocratic regimes the crack down on Muslim reformers in the name of combating political Islam. To legitimize their political rule and enlist the support of religious voices, autocratic rulers often align themselves with traditional religious scholars, who perpetuate rigid and anti-reform agendas in Muslim societies.

Traditionalist scholars have long embraced classical positions on apostasy that consider the rejection of Islam as a capital crime, punished by death. This uncritical embrace is at the heart of the drama that was played in the case of the Afghan convert to Christianity, and which would likely be repeated until the debate about shari'ah reform and its relevance to state and civil law is examined and elaborated by authentic Muslim voices.

At the heart of the apparent conflict between Islamic and democratic traditions is a static and stagnant approach to understanding Islamic law. The conflict stems mainly from a literalist understanding of the revelatory sources, i.e. the Qur'an and Sunnah (the Prophet tradition), and the body of Islamic jurisprudence derived from them through the exercise of juristic reasoning. With the marginalization of Islamic juristic learning and the restriction of public debate on Islamic law by the state, and the traditionalist jurists allied with it, a literalist approach of Islamic law has become rampant in many Muslim societies.

Under such climate, the most rigid and literalist interpretation of Islamic sources prevails, while enlightened and reformist views are suppressed and marginalized. The voices of many enlightened contemporary scholars who reject the literalist interpretation of the Islamic sources are pushed to the side.

Islamic law (shari'ah) is essentially a moral code with few legal pronouncements, and the question of which precepts are purely moral and which that have legal implications are determined through the theory of right.

The theory of right devised by late classical jurists - around the eighth century of Islam - emphasizes that people are ultimately answerable to God in all their dealings. However, by using the term rights of God to underscore the moral duty of the individual, and his/her accountability before God, classical jurists obscured the fact that rights are invoked to support legal claims and to enforce the interests of the right-holder. Because the Qur’an makes it abundantly clear that obeying the divine revelation does not advance the interests of God, but only those of the human being, the phrase “rights of God” signifies only the moral obligations of the believers towards God, and by no means should they be taken as a justification for legal claims.

It follows that the rights of God which are exclusively personal should be considered as moral obligations for which people are only answerable to God in the life to come. As such accepting or rejecting a specific interpretation or a particular religious doctrine, and observing or neglecting fundamental religious practices, including prayer or hajj, should have no legal implications whatever. A legal theory in congruence with the Qur'anic framework should distinguish between moral and legal obligations, and should confine the latter to public law that promote public interests (constitutional, criminal, etc.) and private law that advances private interests (trade, family, personal, etc.).

Unless the above legal reform is undertaken, there is no way to ensure that takfir (charging one with blasphemy) and zandaqa (charging one with heresy) claims would not become a political weapon in the hands of political groups to be used as a means to eliminate rivals and opponents.

*This article is a shorter version of more elaborate paper entitled “Apostasy and Religious Freedom.” The paper can be viewed on line at: http://lsinsight.org/articles/Current/Apostasy.htm

This full article appeared in the following publications:

Media Monitors Network
The American Muslims
alt.muslim
iviews
Future Islam
Naseeb Vibes

Read more >>>

Woman and the Masjid between Two Extremes

The masjid, better known in North America as the Islamic center, is the center of spiritual, social, educational, and, most recently, political activities of the American Muslim community. The masjid is also the place where Muslims of diverse cultural and ideological backgrounds meet and interact. The diversity of interpretations of Islamic sources and practices has created tensions, particularly in Islamic centers where the tendency is to impose strict interpretations about the appropriate place and role of Muslim women in the masjid and the community.

An increasing number of young Muslim women complain of restrictive arrangements and practices, impeding their ability to fully participate in educational and social programs. Many masjids today restrict the main prayer hall to men, and assign women to secluded quarters. Women are asking out laud: is this the place Islam assigns for us, or is it the imposition of cultural traditions? Some have even gone to the other extreme of rejecting all traditions and discarding all limits.

For Believing Men and Women

The masjid is a place for spiritual growth and development for all Muslims, and should be equally accessible for both genders. The Qur’an has set the spiritual and moral equality of men and women in explicit and unequivocal terms:

Allah has prepared forgiveness and great rewards for the Muslim men and women; for the believing men and women; for the devout men and women; for the truthful men and women; for the men and women who are patient and constant; the men and women who humble themselves; for the men and women who give charity; for the men and women who fast, for the men and women who guard their chastity; and the men and women who are exceedingly mindful of Allah. (Al-Ahzab 33:35)

Both men and women, the Qur’an stresses, have a moral obligation to develop themselves spiritually and morally, and to fulfill their social responsibilities. The masjid is, and has always been, the center of moral and spiritual learning and growth.

Likewise, the masjid is a public place for discussing issues of public concern and to respond to challenges facing the community. The Qur’an is also clear on the equal responsibility of both men and women for developing the public good:

The believing men and women are protectors and helpers of each other. They (collaborate) to promote all that is good and oppose all that is evil; establish prayers and give charity, and obey Allah and his Messenger. Those are the people whom Allah would grant mercy. Indeed Allah is Exalted and Wise. (Al-Tawbah 9:71)

Promoting public good and opposing evil are public duties equally required from men and women, and the masjid is the place where Muslim men and women can meet to plan community development and devise strategies for promoting public good.

The Prophet Affirms Equal Access

During the formative years of Islam women participated in public services, and shared the Masjid of the Prophet’s main hall. Sharing the main prayer hall allowed women to fully engage in public debate and influence decisions affecting their lives and the life of the community. When the second Caliph Umar bin al-Khatab wanted to put a cap on dowry, he was challenged by a woman, who stood up in the middle of the masjid and pointed out that his proposed policy violated Islamic law. He conceded and the proposed policy was never carried out.

Although the Qur’an is clear on the spiritual and moral equality of men and women, the Prophet, recognizing the tendency of some men to be overprotective of their female relatives, cautioned the Muslim community against preventing women from frequenting the masjid:

Ibn Umar narrated: The Messenger of Allah, peace be with him, said: Do not deprive women of their share of the masjids, when they seek permission from you. Bilal said: By Allah, we would certainly prevent them. 'Abdullah said: I say that the Messenger of Allah, peace be with him, said it and you say: We would certainly prevent them! (Sahih Muslim Book 4, Number 891)

Ibn Umar also narrated: The Prophet, peace be with him, said, "Allow women to go to the Mosques at night." (Bukhari Volume 2, Book 13, Number 22)

Sidestepping Established Principles

The argument against women sharing the main prayer hall is based on the principle of “corruption prevention” (dar’ al-mafasid). The principle states that “whatever leads to unlawful practices (haram) is in itself unlawful.” The principle, though not widely accepted by Muslim jurists, has been extensively used to limit actions that are otherwise lawful under Shari’ah. It was invoked by some jurists to reject the use of radio, TV, press, and other inventions because these were used to promote corrupt practices. Indeed, by invoking the principle of “corruption prevention” many good practices and devices could be declared unlawful, including the use of the internet and popular governance, as both are open to abuse.

Employing the “corruption prevention” argument, a number of masjids have decided to assign secluded quarters for women, and have placed many restrictions on women’s use of the masjid's facilities. In recent visits to three Islamic centers, several Muslim women complained bitterly to me about their experiences with community leaders. They complained of their inability to participate in general lectures and discussions, of the quality of the quarters assigned to them, and of their reliance on audio and video systems that frequently cut them off from the ongoing lectures or discussions.

Assigning women to separate quarters during lectures and discussions does not “prevent corruption” but rather “prevent education and spiritual growth.” I have heard many accounts of women completely immersed in conversations about shopping and cooking recipes during public lectures. The seclusion gives some women the feeling of distance and separation, and some women conclude that the events that take place in the main hall do not concern them. In such instances, the women’s quarters become less friendly to women who want to concentrate on learning and community issues.

Not all masjids embrace a mandatory seclusion policy. Many leading masjids, such as Dulles Area Musim Society (ADAMS), ensure that women share the main hall, participate fully in learning and consultation, and take active role in running the masjid. Women serve on the executive board of ADAMS and on its board of trustees. 5 of the 13 Board of Trustees members are women, and ADAMS vice president is a women. While ADAMS gives full access to women to use its main prayer hall, it still permits women who want privacy to stay in a separate quarter, thereby ensuring the Muslim women with different needs and convictions have place in the masjid.

Preventing women from exercising established rights or undertake duties cannot be justified under argument of “corruption prevention.” This argument was used at the formative stage of Islamic society, but was rejected by early Muslims. Abdullah bin Umar rejected this same argument of prevention:

Ibn 'Umar reported: Grant permission to women for going to the mosque in the night. His son who was called Waqid said: Then they would make mischief. He (the narrator) said: He thumped his (son's) chest and said: I am narrating to you the hadith of the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him), and you say: No! (Sahih Muslim Book 4, Number 890)

Problems with Women’s Seclusion

Assigning women a separate and secluded space does not only go against Qur’anic injunctions and the practices and directives of the Prophet, peace be with him, but is detrimental to the spiritual and moral growth of women and the development of the community.

Preventing women from gaining direct access to the main hall of the masjid, where lectures and study circles take place, deprives them from taking active role in learning. In addition to the psychological and emotional feeling of not taking active part in the meetings, the ability to interact with the speakers, to ask questions and offer comments, is impeded.

Secluding women deprive the emerging Muslim community from a growing number of young Muslim women who do expect, and rightly so, that the masjid does not take away their right to take active part in serving the community. When legitimate expectations are not met, and when the customs and cultural traditions are given priority, they often force women to stay away from the masjid, and hence from Islamic learning and activities.

Elevating the cultural traditions and customs of immigrants works against the very mission of the masjid, as it becomes an impediment for educating people of other faiths about Islam. Historically, Islam found home in different communities throughout the world because of its ability to accommodate local customs and cultures, as long as they are not in conflict with Islamic teachings. Immigrant communities would be betraying their mission and trust if they insist on imposing their customs and cultural traditions.

Women and Masjid’s Governance

Women’s leadership in the community is another contentious issue. Women have assumed, in some Islamic centers, key leadership positions, by serving on the executive boards, and leading key committees, while they are kept at arm’s bay in others. Although Islam recognized the capacity of women to enjoy equal moral responsibility, as we saw earlier, many Muslim community managed, nonetheless, to curtail women’s participation in public duties on social and rational grounds. The degree of limitations placed on women’s ability to serve in public capacity varies across historical periods and fiqh schools.

Early jurists disagreed as to whether women can assume public office; while Ibn Jarir al-Tabari placed no limitations on women’s right to assume the post of judge in all legal matters, al-Mawardi contended that women cannot be allowed to serve as judges under any circumstances. In between stands Abu Hanifa who allowed women to serve as judges except in cases involving commercial deals.

To their credit, early Muslim jurists recognized women’s rights to serve in public capacity at times when many women have limited involvement in public life, and limited exposure to public service. Contemporary Muslim jurists should ensure that the original Qur’anic position of equal spiritual and moral rights and obligations is respected and advanced in today’s society. This is more pressing today as the question of women capacity to exercise leadership and serve the community is put to rest through impressive track record of Muslim women achieving in the academia, professional work, and community service.

Our masjids must reflect the leading role played by American Muslim women by ensuring that they are represented on the masjid board and join the rank of leadership. The importance of women taking active part on the executive board and in executive committees is further underscored by the need to represent concerns that can not be expressed except by women, who feel the impact of decisions made by the masjid on the quality of life and participation of other women.

Swinging to the Other Extreme

Several feminist Muslims, supported by a network of progressive activists, have been pushing the pendulum to the other extreme. Their solution for limiting women to secluded quarters, and their marginalization in ultra conservative masjids, is to open the masjid to a mixed congregation led by women. The Progressive Muslim Union has already announced a mixed congregation to be led by Amina Wadud this month in New York. It is unfortunate that Muslim feminists are following in the footsteps of their secularist precursors, breaking all traditions, and engaging in experimentations that break out with formative principles and values. For individuals and movements interested in reforming attitudes and practices to take the opposite extreme can only hurt the reform agenda already underway throughout North America.

The recent push to break out with community and tradition goes far beyond any reform agenda. Reform requires that one articulates the foundational principles and then engages the larger Muslim community in dialogue to create a new awareness and to translate the articulated principles into a living tradition. Reform aimed at critically engage Muslim traditions must stick closely to the Qur’an and prophetic practices, to clarify Islamic injunctions and established prophetic traditions. The Progressive Muslim Union’s leaders have apparently decided to push the envelop beyond all limits and operate in revolutionary rather than a reformist mode.

It is quite apparent that Muslim reformers, concerned with evolving the practices of the American Muslim community, and ensuring the full and meaningful inclusion of women in community life, must navigate their way by maintaining a middle ground, away from extremist tendencies: away from extreme conservative tendencies obsessed with preserving cultural traditions even at the expense of distorting Islamic teachings, and from extreme liberal outbursts that want to break fully with all traditions and delve into an empty space with no directions and road signs.

Read more >>>

Islamic Law, Modern Critique, and Moral Choices

The democratization process in Nigeria, ushered with the demise of Gen. Abacha in 1998, brought with it new demands for the implementation of shari'ah (Islamic Law). By 1999. several Northern Nigerian states announced plans to adopt shari'ah code. The announcements created an uproar and civil strife, and resulted in fatal clashes between Muslims and Christians.

The issue of the implementation of shari'ah resurfaced again in 2002, when a shari'ah court sentenced Amina Lawal to death after being found guilty of adulterous relationship. The case generated great interest, and the shari'ah court's decision was met with international protest and condemnation. Many in the West saw death as an excessive and cruel punishment for an act that falls within the realm of individual and private choice in modern culture.

The opposition to the shari'ah court's ruling was not confined to western societies, but was shared by many Muslims. Muslim scholars and jurists of repute found many flaws in the shari'ah court's judgment. The court did not, for instance, give due attention to due process, including a forced confession the police took from the accused. Although the lower court decision was overturned by the court of appeal, the case generated fierce debate, and the suitability of Islamic law for modern application became an issue.

To address this issue, the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy (CSID) and the Centre for Islamic Legal Studies (CILS) organized a conference on the implementation of shari'ah, held in Abuja, Nigeria, in July 2004. The proceedings capture the important debate that revolves around Islamic law and its application. The debate touches on a wide range of issues that are likely to define the direction and nature of the profound transformations taking place in Muslim societies, which have also far-reaching implications for the future development of Western society.

At the heart of the debate lies the question of how democracy relates to law, Islamic values, and culture. The Nigerian experimentation with shari'ah is directly linked to the popular choices in various Muslim societies, and to the right of Muslims to embrace a legal system rooted in their moral choices and cultural heritage. These popular choices are the source of apprehension among Western policy makers, as they provide a reminder that increased demand for democracy in Muslim societies are likely to bring about norms and practices rooted in Islam and Islamic law and morality. Democratization in Nigeria, Iraq, Iran, Malaysia, and Turkey has been associated with the affirmation of Islamic choices.

More particularly, Western apprehension relates to the radical expression of Islam, including the implications of reasserting Islam and adopting shari'ah for non-Muslims and women. While these concerns are legitimate, and have been highlighted by actual developments on the ground, they are greatly exaggerated, and apparently influenced by faulty interpretations, extrapolation from one socio-cultural experience to another, as well as cultural and ideological distortions.

In the mind of many, shari'ah is associated with severe penal code that includes stoning, hand cutting, and corporal punishment. While the penal code is part of the historical shari'ah, it does not encompass the entire realm of shari’ah ruling, but rather constitutes a small and limited area of Islamic law. Shari'ah also covers basic Islamic values, including emphasis on fair treatment, honesty, charity to the poor and needy, care and support of neighbors and kin, honor of promises and contracts, obligation to parents, children, relatives, and spouses, etc. Shari'ah, further, includes prohibition of extra marital relations, of usury, mispresentation, exploitation, etc. Some shari’ah principles have moral bearings, while others have legal consequences as well.

The challenge facing modern Muslim society is how to reapply the principles of shari'ah in markedly different social and political context than those existed during the historical articulation of shari'ah. This aspect of shari'ah is debated in academic and intellectual circles in Muslim societies. However, in the absence of an open political debate, little has been done to educate the public on these issues, and to deliberate the relevance of shari'ah to cultural and legal practices. In addition, there is a significant debate in academic quarters about the historicity, even the authenticity, of certain historical pronouncements of shari'ah. For example, there is a credible evidence and considered opinion to suggest that stoning and apostacy punishments are not an intrinsic shari'ah principles, as they have no basis in the Qur’an, the most fundamental source of Islamic norms.

While some opposition to the implementation of shari'ah comes from quarters opposed to Islam, Muslim scholars and jurist have expressed genuine and profound concerns regarding any direct and uncritical application of historical shari'ah rules. Concerns include the lack of clear delineation between the moral and the legal in Islamic law. What parts of shari'ah are moral, and hence fall within the realm of education and voluntary compliance, and what parts are legal, and can therefore be enforced by society? The question of delineating the legal and moral also relate to the issue of state intrusion into individual privacy, and to what extent can the state police individual morality? Also of concern is the question of due process, rules of evidence, and individual privacy. To what extent can the court rely on circumstantial evidence to convict a person of a crime he or she has not voluntarily confessed? Is it proper for a shari'ah court to make ruling without ever considering mitigating circumstances? This latter concern emerged in the case of Amina Lawal, and in a previous case in which a Nigerian Islamic court convicted a woman of committing adultery, discarding her plea that she was raped.

As the debate in the Nigeria Conference reveals, the scope of the contending perspectives is wide, and ideas about how Islamic norms and heritage relate to modern society are as varied as those debated in Western societies. The debate should be encouraged and must continue, as openness and dialogue are the best guarantor that radical expressions do not go unchallenged, and that claims to authenticity by extreme voices are addressed and handled appropriately. Open debate, and the freedom to put popular choices to the test of time, as long as they do not infringe on human rights and human dignity, have been crucial for the maturation of Western democracy. The maturation of Islamic democracy and law requires similar space of freedom and democracy. The dialectical relationship between theory and practice, as experienced through trial and error, is crucial for political and legal development, and can only proceed if sufficient moral and political space is created within the political system of Muslim societies.

Nigeria Conference on the implementation of shari'ah reveals deep awareness by major players in Nigeria of the historicity of shari'ah rules, and the need to contextualize the rule making process, and critically examine sources and methods. Indeed, a great deal of confusion about shari'ah rules and their application comes from the failure to recognize that shari'ah rules and doctrines are essentially moral, and that legal rules were historically derived from local customs and moral choices rooted in community practices.

Finally, Western societies and policy makers need to understand that Muslim societies and law makers have every right to reconcile their legal system and moral values. This basically means that westerners should cease using alarmist tone and sweeping condemnations of shari'ah, and should pay a closer attention to the lively debate taking place within Muslim societies on law and morality. While every human being, regardless of their nationality and religion have every right to be critical of practices they deem immoral, inhumane, and degrading to human life and dignity, no culture or religion has the right to dismiss off hand the capacity of other religions and cultures to develop, through an open political process and engaging dialogue, their own moral and legal systems.

Read more >>>