Interpreting the Quran

The Quran as the Final Arbiter of Diverse Interpretations

by Zainab Alwani

THE MOSQUE IN MORGANTOWN brings to the forefront critical issues regarding the identity of the American Muslim community, the position of women in the mosque and the authority to interpret religious texts.  This essay specifically addresses the question of Quranic interpretation, which is at the heart of any juristic interpretation.  Some of the questions brought forth in the documentary are ones that have been debated among scholars throughout Islamic history.  Other questions, however, are a product of the unique circumstances that face the Muslim American community in the twenty-first century.  This essay explores the following: Who possesses the authority to interpret the Qur’an?  What are the limits of Quranic interpretation?  If the Qur’an is universal, then how do its interpretations continue to be relevant for every age and society?  When there is a multiplicity of interpretations, how do we determine which interpretation best reflects God’s intention?

Muslims regard the Qur’an as the last divine Speech revealed by God.  Unlike previous books sent by God, the Qur’an was not revealed to any specific group of people, culture or religion.  It came with a message that is universal and to an audience that comprises all of humanity.  The Qur’an does not only address those who believe in it as God’s Word, but also addresses those who disbelieve in it.  By addressing Christians and Jews as “People of the Book,” the Qur’an recognizes that there are other religious communities that have previously received divine guidance.  Muslims’ identification of Christians and Jews is hinged upon their recognition of the divine truth that was sent to their messengers.

A consistent feature of Quranic interpretation throughout the last fifteen hundred years of Islamic history has been its multiplicity of interpretations.  Even the Companions of the Prophet (pbuh), who learned Islam directly from the Prophet, who received divine guidance, understood the Qur’an in different ways.  Scholars have made no attempt to limit or restrict the number of interpretations that could exist.  Every human being will bring his/her own background to his/her reading of the Qur’an.  Muslim or non-Muslim, poor or rich, male or female, child or adult, black or white, every human being will read the Qur’an based upon his or her beliefs, education, conditioning, culture and a variety of other factors.  Further, as a message that addresses all of humanity, the Quran allows room for a myriad of readings, as long as they do not conflict the Qur’an’s main principles.  It is therefore impossible to impose a single authoritative reading upon the Qur’an without violating the Qur’an’s own description of itself as universal and for all people.

Despite the interpretative pluralism that exists, why have some interpretations of the Qur’an gained greater acceptability or recognition by the community of Muslim believers?  If every human being is free to understand the Qur’an as he/she wishes, then what conditions govern the interpretive process so that it does not become an arbitrary and subjective process?

First, an important distinction needs to be made between private or personal interpretations of the Quran and scholarly interpretations of the Quran that become part of the scholarly interpretive or exegetical discourse.  While human beings will naturally bring their own understanding to their reading of any text, this does not give them the authority to impose their understanding of the Quran upon the entire Muslim community.  Moreover, it does not give them the authority to render their personal interpretation as equal to or just as valid as those interpretations that are governed by standard hermeneutical principles — principles that have characterized the exegetical tradition of the Quran from the onset of Islamic history until the current century.  It is one thing for an individual to understand any particular verse of the Quran in a certain way and it is an entirely different matter for an individual to engage the interpretive scholarly discourse, deduce a specific interpretation according to established hermeneutics, put forth this interpretation as one possibility among many, and expect it to be considered with any merit or seriousness by the scholarly community.  The difference between the former and the latter boils down to the qualifications of the specific interpreter and the interpretive process he/she follows.

Second, the interpretive process is governed by important principles, on the basis of which the Qur’an then rejects or accepts a single interpretation.  Any interpretation that contradicts the main Quranic principles will be rejected.  These principles, among others, are:

1)    There is a consensus among the scholars throughout the history of the Ummah that interpreting the Qur’an through the Qur’an is the most accepted method of interpretation.  This requires a comprehensive reading of the Qur’an in every meaning.  The Qur’an criticizes a reading that is decontextualized and selective. As Asma Barlas writes in Believing Women in Islam, the Qur’an emphasizes reading it holistically, hence intratextually, which also emerges from its praise for those who say: We believe in the book; the whole of it is from our Lord” (Quran 3:7).

2)    Interpreting the Qur’an through its ultimate objectives. As Taha J. Alwani notes, these objectives are 1) Tawhid or man’s belief in the oneness of God; 2) Purification of man’s soul; and 3) Imran, or the development of human civilization.

3)    Understanding the grammatical, syntactical and etymological nuances of the Arabic language.  God revealed the Qur’an in the Arabic language for a reason, a reason that is perhaps beyond the grasp of human understanding.  As God says in verse 12:2, “We have sent it down as an Arabic Qur’an, in order that ye may learn wisdom.”  This does not mean the Qur’an privileges Arabic-speaking peoples or that it exclusively addresses the Arabic-speaking tribes that existed at the time.  Simply, God chose this language to be the tongue of the Qur’an to fulfill His divine plan for humanity.

The Qur’an’s divine language is different than the human language of Arabic.  In early Islamic history, Muslims understood that Arabic as a divine language is different than Arabic as a human language.  The human language is usually restricted and influenced by the culture, the customs and the regional history and traditions of the Arabs.  The language of the Qur’an, on the other hand, is a divine language and not subject to the regional, cultural and historical influences which inevitably impose themselves upon the evolution of human languages.  It is no coincidence, therefore, that the most prominent scholars of the Arabic language, who are regarded as founders of the major linguistic sciences, were not Arabs.  They established those linguistic sciences based upon the Quranic language, which is divine in its terminology and meaning.  There is a complete consensus that a mastery of the Arabic sciences (grammar, lexicology, poetry, etc.) is a necessary requirement for interpreters of the Qur’an — those interpreters who are engaging the scholarly discourse and putting forth their interpretations as one possibility among many others.

Third, the Qur’an, as divine Speech, is the final arbitrator of all interpretations.  The Qur’an itself hands down the final verdict on any single interpretation.  For Muslims, God’s promise to protect the Quran means that it is immune and unsusceptible to interpretations that violate its essence or explicit meanings.  As clear guidance with an unambiguous message, the Quran — through its words — ultimately stands as evidence of interpretations that best reflect its true meaning.  The Quran becomes the criterion by which an interpretation is then accepted or rejected.  As God says in verse 13:17, “…This way does God set forth the parable of truth and falsehood: for, as far as the scum is concerned, it passes away as [does all] dross; but that which is of benefit to man abides on earth. In this way does God set forth the parables.”

Finally, when it comes to changing an aspect of an established Islamic ritual or arriving at a new interpretation that changes an aspect of an obligatory ritual, such interpretations are governed by strict conditions.  When it comes to reinterpreting the conditions in which prayer is to be performed, one must take into consideration: 1) Quranic verses that ordain how, when or where prayer is to be performed, 2) Prophetic sayings or practices that establish how, when or where prayer is to be performed, 3) the objective of prayer based on textual evidence, 4) the historical practice of the first community of believers, and 5) scholarly interpretations.

Prayer is the cornerstone of Islam.  Every movement connected to the ritual prayer, the salat, reflects its objectives.  As in all the other acts of devotion, salat is not an end in itself. It is about reviving one’s connection to God, reminding one of his/her purpose in life and his/her ultimate destination and instilling peace and tranquility in one’s soul.  The specificities of prayer have been explicitly prescribed in the Qur’an and Prophetic tradition.  The steps one must take to prepare one’s self for prayer, the purity of the place where one prays, the condition of the clothes one wears for prayer, etc. have all been described by our beloved Prophet (pbuh) — the source of divine guidance.  It is not up to any human being to change any aspect of divinely prescribed rituals.  It is these divine prescriptions that give Islam its unique identity.

 

 

Zainab Alwani received her Ph.D. in Islamic Sciences from the International Islamic University in Malaysia. She is currently the Program Director and an Adjunct Professor of Arabic Language Studies at Northern Virginia Community College. She also teaches Arabic Studies at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University and is a professor at a number of consortium institutions including Wesley Theological Seminary, the Washington National Cathedral and Cordoba University.

She is an Executive Member of the Fiqh Council of North America and serves as a board member for both KARAMAH: Muslim Women Lawyers for Human Rights and FAITH: Foundation for Appropriate and Immediate Temporary Help, a community-based organization in Herndon, Virginia.

Dr. Alwani has published many scholarly articles, most notably “Al Ghazali and His Methodology,” “Aisha’s ‘Istidrakat’ Commentaries” and “Methodological Premises: Reclaiming a Lost Legacy.” She is also co-author of several books, including Change From Within: Diverse Perspectives on Domestic Violence in Muslim Communities, What Islam Says about Domestic Violence and Perspectives: Arabic Language and Culture in Film.

Tags: , , , ,

Interpreting the Quran

Some Reflection on PBS’s The Mosque in Morgantown

by Jamal Badawi

This documentary depicts, mainly, an internal debate within some mosques/Islamic centers in North America concerning the role of Muslim women in their own community centers, including a fair space for worship and other activities, and also their meaningful involvement in the management and leadership of their centers.  There are certainly some legitimate concerns and grievances that need to be addressed.  For one, I have been speaking and writing about such concerns and issues from the late 1960s on.

But can these grievances be addressed best through fresher interpretation of Islam’s primary sources or through external imported paradigms?  Are some of the diverse cultural practices of Muslims inconsistent with normative Islamic teachings?  If so, how can we disconnect between normative Islam and anti-Islamic teachings and practices, cultural or otherwise, such as the alleged connection between Islam and indiscriminate violence or “oppression” of women?  Or are the problems of violence and women’s oppression rooted in normative Islam itself and as such, it is Islam which requires fundamental re-formation and major deep-rooted changes?  Can desired and often legitimate change be effected only through radical revolutionary means and overbearing imposition that may defeat its very objectives?  Can failure on that level contribute to a more ambitious goal of “changing the world”?

At the heart of these classical/modern questions is the vital issue of who understands and interprets Islam and how.  From one perspective, every Muslim is entitled to understand the broad message of Islam through its universally accepted primary sources, namely the Qur’an and authentic Hadeeth of the Prophet of Islam [peace be upon him].  After all, such revelatory sources are not the monopoly of any individual, institution or generation.  Rather, they address believers, and in many instances humanity at large, on these core issues of faith in a direct and unimpeded way.  No “rocket science” is needed to understand what the Qur’an teaches about the oneness of God (Allah in Arabic), God’s immutable moral guidance such as “The Golden Rule,” human trusteeship [or stewardship] on earth or human’s accountability for his/her deeds

Does that apply as well to making challenging juridical interpretations of Islamic Law?  Is a student who successfully completed “Law 101” qualified enough to give a verdict in a highly controversial constitutional law issue or sit on the Supreme Court?  On such level of complexity, we tend to show respect for specialization and require minimum qualifications.  A serious question here is this: should that minimum competence be disregarded when it comes to juridical interpretations of Islamic Law.?

Of course, any person  is free to agree or disagree with any or all qualified juridical interpretations, to choose one over the other or even reject faith altogether.  But is it legitimate, without minimum qualifications and sound juridical reasoning, to make claims about what “Islam says or does not say” based on one’s own whim and to pressure others into accepting his/her “made-to-order” Islam?

Even when qualified jurists interpret primary sources, however similar or different their conclusion may be, they are bound by certain rules and methodologies.  In this essay, I have chosen only a few key rules and applied them to a specific, but representative allegation that is made in this documentary (and in other media as well): that it is “explicitly written” in the Qur’an [5:51] that Muslims should not befriend Jews and Christians, with the conclusion that the Qur’an can not be God’s verbatim revelation.  There are multiple errors in this common allegation, all rooted in violation of proper universal methodology of interpretation including the following:

IN THE FILM:
Asra Nomani on Literalism

1.    Dependence on erroneous translations of the Qur’an such as rendering the original Qur’anic Arabic term (Awliyaa’) in 5:51 into “friends.”  Awliyaa’ means, among others: overlords, guardians, protectors or allies.  A related error is to understand the terms “Jews” and “Christians” as inclusive of all Jews and Christians for all time to come, rather than to only a group of them who engaged in hostilities as explained above and as will be further confirmed in point 4 below.

2.    Disregarding the historical and textual contexts of the verse(s).  For example, the prohibition of alliance (not friendship) with “Jews and Christians” in 5:51 applies only to those who were mocking at the Muslim faith [5:60-61] and who are “racing each other in sin and aggression” [5:65].  Other verses like 5:51, if studied carefully and contextually, disprove the claimed sweeping generalizations commonly attached to them as stated in the documentary.  The same generalization error applies to verses in the Qur’an that sanction Muslims’ right to defend themselves in response to aggression and severe oppression [e.g., 2:190-194 and 9:5].  More detailed analysis of many such battlefield-related verses can be found in my paper “Muslim and Non-Muslim Relations” on IslamOnline.net.

3.    Careless and highly opinionated interpretations by those who are not grounded enough in the process of juridical interpretations.  Review of traditional interpretations or initiating new ones by a qualified scholar(s) in response to modernity is encouraged through Islam’s internal mechanism of Ijtihaad and its methodology.  Any new Ijtihad is subject to scholarly debate as no single authority has the right to impose one uniform interpretation to the exclusion of other legitimate ones.  However, such interpretations must be rooted in the primary sources of Islam, consistent with their texts and in line with the supreme objectives of Shari`ah; safeguarding faith, life, mind, family, human dignity, justice and property rights.  Neither tampering with the essential and stable aspects of the Law nor elevating a debatable opinion to a permanent edict is in line with serious scholarship.  Many Muslim scholars hold the view that friendship with peacefully co-existing peoples of other faith communities is not forbidden.

4.    Disregarding other verses in the Qur’an which contradict the “no friendship” claim.  A Muslim male who is lawfully married to a Jewish or Christian wife [as sanctioned in 5:5] is required to love her as a wife irrespective of her religion [as in 30:21].  Surely, normative marital relationship is more intimate than “friendship.”  More general and profound are verses 8 and 9 in Chapter 60, where it is clearly stated that those (non-Muslim) who refrain from fighting Muslims or drive them out of their homes are entitled to be treated in kindness respect and justice.  A detailed analysis of these key but least quoted verses is found in the article cited above.  Similar misunderstanding of some verses dealing with women issues can be found at www.jannah.org.

In conclusion, there are considerable problems with the selective and “cut-and-paste” approach to the scriptures, Muslim and otherwise.  Avoiding such flaws is the first step in dealing objectively, truthfully and wisely with the many problems facing Muslims everywhere, and maybe others as well.

 

 

Dr. Jamal Badawi is Professor Emeritus at St. Mary’s University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, where he served as Professor of both Management and Religious Studies. During its May 2008 Convocation, Saint Mary’s University granted him an Honorary Doctorate of Civil law in recognition of his promotion of “ a better understanding of Islam” and contribution “to civil society around the world.”

Dr. Badawi completed his undergraduate studies in Cairo, Egypt and his Masters and Ph.D. degrees at Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana. He is the author of several works on Islam, including books, chapters in books and articles. He is a member of The Islamic Juridical (Fiqh) Council of North America, The European Council of Fatwa and Research and the International Union of Muslim Scholars. He has been serving as a volunteer Imam of the local Muslim community in the Halifax Regional Municipality since 1970.

Tags: , , ,

Interpreting the Quran

Mixed Up in Morgantown: Reclaiming Islamic Diversity

by Sumbul Ali-Karamali

I was deeply impressed to see how painstakingly, as well as how defiantly of our soundbytes-and-snark culture, THE MOSQUE IN MORGANTOWN endeavored to explore the various viewpoints germane to its featured conflict.  For me as an American Muslim woman, the film highlighted both what I myself find most beautiful about my religion and what I am most uncomfortable with about the way it is being practiced in my country.

Watching the film, I found it unsurprising that, in a mosque where so many people from different countries converged to worship, different interpretations and cultures would clash.  A similar situation might arise in a church comprised of Evangelicals, Unitarians, and Catholics, both progressive and conservative, originating from over 30 different countries, all attempting to decree the correct form of worship at the church.  Any similar situation would pose challenges.

However, in the Muslim case at least, diversity of opinion is built into the very structure of the religious law.  Over five hundred schools of Islamic law once flourished in various areas of Islamic civilization, and disagreement between them was acceptable.  Even now, the remaining four main Sunni schools and one main Shi’i school accept each other as valid, whether or not they agree.   Muslims have never had a single authority, like the Pope, to lay down what Islamic law is or isn’t.  Numerous historical examples illustrate long theological debates waged over decades and distance (including those regarding women’s places in society), considering a wealth of factors, including geography, culture, hardship, and context.  These debates were preserved in the historical record even by those jurists who did not agree with them, because they recognized that Islam allowed for various interpretations, freedom of thought, and critical thinking.

How is such diversity possible, if there is only one Qur’an and only one Sunnah (words and deeds of the Prophet Muhammad)?  The Qur’an contains both general principles and specific injunctions, and it allows room for interpretation.  Muslims are allowed to ask questions: Is a verse metaphorical or literal?  Was it revealed in response to a particular historical situation?  If the Qur’an mentions a particular practice, does that mean that every other practice is disallowed?  What is the historical, circumstantial, and textual context in which the verse was revealed?  What was the “reason for revelation,” a factor that formed an integral part of the development of Islamic law and understanding?  On all these points jurists could disagree and still be consistent with the Qur’an and the Sunnah.

This was why Islam flowered.  Muslims were not afraid to engage their tradition and respect the opinions and writings of even those with whom they vehemently disagreed.  Muslims were secure enough in their tradition that they could read other juristic interpretations of the Qur’anic text and debate them rather than close off their minds with cries of “No!  That’s haram because I don’t agree with it!”

IN THE FILM:
Asra on Literalism

Yet, the trend I see in the mosques — though not in the general population of American Muslims — is dogmatism.  This is highlighted in the film not only in the way the religious conservatives relegate women to the back door, but also in the way that Asra Nomani aggressively forces her views into the mosque.  The women condemning Nomani claim that it is “God’s law” that they are following — but what is God’s law?  If the religious scholars through the centuries debated the specifics of God’s law when it came to (among other things) women, then who are these modern women to say that their own personal view is God’s law?  Similarly, when Nomani isolates Qur’anic verses from their 7th century historical context and attributes to them the roots of Daniel Pearl’s murder, she engages in the same kind of one-dimensional, thoughtless rhetoric as her opponents.  She is right to want to discuss the status of women in the mosque and in Islam.  She is right to read the Qur’an.  But there is a huge spectrum between religious conservatives (even misogynistic ones) and Daniel Pearl’s murderers; to connect them by calling them all extremists is counterproductive to dialogue.

It is this type of unawareness of diverse valid opinions that is currently causing conflict and isolation within the American Muslim community, most of whose members do not attend mosques.  To illustrate: suppose an Islamic jurist somewhere issues a fatwa (a reasoned legal opinion by a recognized religious jurist), and then suppose imams all over the United States start proclaiming this fatwa as shari’a (“the way of God”).  A fatwa is not binding or enforceable.  Contradictory fatwas may be just as Islamic.  So where are the other possible fatwas on the same issue?  Where is the debate? For an imam to choose one view as “shari’a” and exclude other, equally valid Islamic views, would be presuming he knows God’s will and other scholars do not.  And if I, as a Muslim, disagree with that fatwa but am told that it absolutely amounts to shari’a, might I not be completely disillusioned by what I am told is my religion?

Why then, for example, are some imams dictating that women must pray in separate rooms?  Not all Islamic jurists would agree.  At the Ka’ba itself, men and women pray in the same room. Isn’t it time Muslims again allowed intellectual debates to flourish in a civil manner in mosques and meeting places?  Each group in the film had trouble listening to its opponents.  Each side insulted the other by saying, “I’ll pray for you,” as if they were doomed otherwise.

Throughout history, when Muslim shaikhs conducted religious classes, some required women to sit in the back, some in the front, and some on the side.  All forms were acceptable; one could choose which to attend.  Today, if we Muslims cannot practice together or reconcile varying interpretations in the same mosque, then perhaps we need to form separate mosques to accommodate our different interpretations.  But whatever we decide, we must dispense with dogmatism and reclaim our Islamic heritage of respect, dialogue, and diversity of interpretation.

 

Sumbul Ali-Karamali has a graduate degree in Islamic Law and is the author of The Muslim Next Door: the Qur’an, the Media, and that Veil Thing (White Cloud Press, Sept. 2008). Please visit her website at www.muslimnextdoor.com.

Tags: , , ,

Interpreting the Quran

The Quran and Wife Beating

by Laleh Bakhtiar

As a follower of “the middle community” of Islam (Quran 2:143), I thought the film THE MOSQUE IN MORGANTOWN gave a fair and just picture of what many mosques across America are facing today.  That is, a narrow, exclusive agenda that coerces those who follow the faith to adhere to their one imported view of Islam with rarely an opportunity for dialogue or discussion.  Not only is this the case with those who attend the mosques, but also in regard to the interpretation of the Quran.

While the debate over whether the Quranic Word of God is eternal or created has continued on and off since the 8th century CE, Muslims throughout the centuries have agreed that it is only the Arabic of the Quran that is considered to be the unchanged Word of God.  The English, or any other translation, is only an interpretation to help non-Arabic speakers develop an understanding of the meaning.  If there are verses that one cannot accept on face value, one has to study the Arabic and critique interpretations from the view of the Arabic and not a translation.

IN THE FILM:
Yusuf Estes on Quran 4:34

This brings me to the translation I did entitled The Sublime Quran.  I could not accept that 4:34 allowed husbands to beat their wives (or “give them a crack,” as Yusuf Estes said in the film, “with a yardstick”!).

In the Introduction to the Sublime Quran I give irrefutable arguments from the Quran itself as to why the word idrib has been misinterpreted when it is said to mean “beat them (f),” that is, husbands being commanded to beat wives when the wives are nushuz (the meaning of which I discuss below).  Islam prides itself on promoting marriage and discouraging divorce.  When we reflect on the misinterpretation of 4:34 along with 2:231, we see in that in 2:231 husbands who divorce their wives, must do so honorably.  They cannot harm or commit aggression against their wives.  The conclusion: a Muslim woman who is to be divorced cannot be harmed but a Muslim woman who wants to stay married, does so under the threat of being beaten!!!  Does this promote marriage and discourage divorce?  No.  It creates a contradiction that is not in the Quran but is man made.

In addition, three other words are used in the Quran to mean “to strike” or “to beat” a person.  Therefore, the word idrib does not necessarily mean “to beat, strike, harm, crack or spank.”  One has to look at other meanings that the word may have rather than deciding on a meaning that goes against the legal and moral principles of the Quran.

We Muslims are proud to say that the Prophet never beat anyone, much less his wives.  What we forget is that the word idrib is a command in the Quran, an imperative form of the verb. Therefore, the Prophet did not obey the command of God if the word means “to beat” when some of his wives did exhibit “nushuz” behavior.  However, he did carry out the command of God and did not beat anyone as well.  When there were issues between husband and wife, he “went away.”  It is interesting that the word idrib also means “to go away.”  Therefore, by interpreting the verse to say: “Husbands who fear resistance on the part of their wives, first admonish them, then abandon their sleeping places then go away from them (f) (or leave them (f)),” we follow the behavior of the Prophet as well as the fairest of sayings of the Quran as Muslims are asked to do.  (Sublime Quran 39:17-18)

Jurists say that the word “nushuz” in 4:34 (that I translate as “resistance”) actually means women who disobey their husbands.  What they fail to point out is that in 4:128, the Quran uses the exact same word in regard to husbands.  It says: “Women who fear resistance (nushuz) on the part of their husbands. . .!!!”  If someone wants to interpret nushuz in 4:34 as referring to “disobedient wives” or “wives of ill-conduct” then 4:128 referring to husbands has to be “disobedient husbands” or “husbands of ill-conduct.”

Finally, in 16:126 of the Quran, one is commanded to chastise with the same chastisement that person has been given.  If Muslim husbands persist in beating their wives, they will leave themselves open to being given the same treatment as that which they handed out according to the Quran.  The Prophet knew this and did not want his community to go in this direction so he understood the word idrib to mean: “to go away,” let the anger subside and then return to a consultation with one’s wife.

The misinterpretation of idrib in 4:34 has denied women at least two rights given to them in the Quran.  The first is in 2:231 where a wife who is to be divorced cannot be harmed.  The second right that she is denied is in 24:6-9 where if a husband accuses his wife of anything and he is the only witness, she has a right to defend herself from any kind of chastisement by swearing an oath four times that her husband is the one who lies and a fifth oath that the anger of God be upon her if her husband has been among the ones who are sincere.  In a domestic situation, husbands, acting as judge and jury because of the misinterpretation of 4:34, beat their wives before the wife has an opportunity to take advantage of the right she has been given in 24:6-9 to defend herself.

The issue of 4:34 is just one of the issues faced by the Muslim community. It should be noted that many Muslim men agree that this verse has been misinterpreted.  The tragedy for the Muslim world is that there are also many Muslim women who believe that women should be beaten!!!  Therefore this is not a gender issue, but a human rights issue and as long as our mosques in the United States are run by extremists, there will be continue to be confrontation, not only between Muslim men and women, but between Muslim extremists and those of “the middle community” as well.  It is excellent, fair and unbiased films like THE MOSQUE IN MORGANTOWN that will bring conversations out into the open.  Let us hope that those of us who engage in conversation are able to do so with love and respect for those with views opposing our own view.

 

Laleh Bakhtiar has a BA in History from Chatham College, Pittsburgh, PA; an MA in Philosophy; an MA in Counseling Psychology; a Ph.D. in Educational Psychology; and is also a Nationally Certified Counselor and Licensed Professional Psychotherapist in the State of Illinois. She is co-author of A Sense of Unity: The Sufi Tradition in Persian Architecture (University of Chicago Press) and author of SUFI Expressions of the Mystic Quest (Thames and Hudson), three volumes of God’s Will Be Done on Moral Healing and some 15 other books on various aspects of Islam. Through her works on psychology she has become the leading authority on the Sufi origins of the Enneagram. She has also translated over 30 books on Islam and the Islamic movement into English. She is the first American woman to translate the Quran.

She has traveled around the world three times giving lectures on topics on the right of Muslim women. She is an expert in the psychology of spiritual chivalry (futuwwa, javanmardi). She directs her work towards Muslim women and youth who, once they learn of this model of spiritual chivalry become more positive oriented towards their faith and family. She is presently Director of the Institute of Traditional Psychology and In-House Scholar at Kazi Publications. She taught Islam at the University of Chicago. She has a computer based training program on the internet at www.sufienneagram.com.

Tags: , , , ,

Please wait