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, Islamic law, literalism, Quran 5:51
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: domestic violence, Interpreting the Quran, literalism, Quran 4:34, Yusuf Estes
