Songs of love and devotion

For God`s sake, man, come out of your ivory tower and try and deal with our problems. At the end of all the gibberish that you insist upon citing, your conclusion is still that the Shariah is the Shariah and if you don`t like it, then you just have to lump it. Why? Who said that the Quran is unalterable? Who said that the Quran itself is part of the Divine Essence? Not the Quran itself. If you had read more books on Islamic history you might have realised that the debate as to whether the Quran was created or uncreated formed a very important part of early Islamic intellectual development. I don`t want to love God. I don`t want to lose myself in the nameless wonders of cosmic contemplation. I want to live a decent human life. I want freedom of thought. I want dignity for my wife and daughter, all of which things your religion denies.

On a more intellectual (or even jurisprudential) plane, your basic assumption that law (as opposed to fundamental principles) remains unchanged and unchangable is where you go wrong. The Quran is a great document and tells us all sorts of good things but law either grows with the times or it dies. People like you avoid the sterility of choice that a blinkered view of Islam imposes by retreating into mysticism. Please, step out of your shell and realise that Islam does not have all the answers. Your Islam has failed for centuries and your pseudo-mysticism is simply a cop-out. If Islam is to be a vibrant and relevant force in todays world, it will only be because millions of ordinary Muslim reject your rigidities and instead try to do the best that they can to deal with the challenges of the modern world.

Oliver Wenderll Holmes once said that the life of the law has not been logic but experience. Islamic law is no exception.

Dear Mr. Farooqi,

You write:

“There are two traditions in Islamic thought: the ‘intellectual’ tradition and the ‘jurist’ tradition. The representatives of the ‘intellectual’ tradition ask the ‘why’ of things, and not simply the ‘how’. This is the ‘Hadith’. The representatives of the ‘jurist’ tradition tell the people ‘what’ they must do and not ask ‘why’. This is the ‘Sharia’ or the ‘Kalaam’.

Proponents of the ‘Kalaam’ have been called ``fundamentalist`` or “Islamist” or something equally strange by Westerners. But this imposes a category that does not, that cannot, exist in Islam. All Muslims believe in the Quran. By this definition all Muslims would have to be categorized as ‘fundamentalist’. A Muslim is a Muslim.”

You also write:

“All Muslims follow the Hadith and the Sharia:

This means that Islam can only be followed in its entirety.”

So, you have your own categories? Intellectuals, and jurists – and they are two different groups of people in Islam? But since Islam can only be followed in its entirety, how can a jurist who is not an intellectual implement sharia in its essence?

I agree with you that Islam is misunderstood and misrepresented in the west, but can you explain the behavior of proponents of ‘kalaam’ in Afghanistan? Quote me a Hadit or a Quranic verse which says that women are not be educated…. Or that women are not to take part in the economic development of a nation…Or that killing innocent men, women and children is OK by Islam….

Fair enough, you don’t like the term ‘fundamentalists’ - it is alien to Islam…. No worries, come up with your own term to describe them…

``Islam granted rights to women, the likes of which the Western world is just now beginning to give to its women, more than a thousand years later. It was nothing less than revolutionary.``

Even if one were to agree that the rights granted to women under Islam were revolutionary in the 7th century, it is equally true that today it lags far behind in granting women the equality that they deserve. And the way the Saudis and the taliban interpret womens rights under Islam would probably be considered barbaric at any time. Why should an objective observer not conclude that Islam is less than fair to women, based on the observed behavior of these nations? What authority makes your interpretation of Islam a more ``correct`` one than the Saudis?

``If men are so superior, why does the point have to be emphasized so much?``

Let me point out the error of your reasoning here by asking you the following question: If the prophethood of Muhammed (PBUH) was so evident, why does it have to be emphasized so much?

I very much fear that this article is an exercise in post-facto rationalization.

Though I essentially agree with you that Islam has been coloured by a westernised view, I think that it has been coloured even more by the `male` point of view of all the interpretations or `igtihad` if you would like to call it that, of the various sheikhs, mullahs, muftis and what have you. Islam has taken quite a turn from what it used to be in the early days of the times of the prophet or even the 4 rightfully guided caliphs. Quran itself might not have changed, but you have so many different interpretations of it now, and not everyone is educated enough or even proficient enough in arabic to understand the original writings.

Liked your somewhat rhetorical questions though, they open many an avenue for constructive discussions. Looking forward to following the replies on your article.

Salam

I find your observations compelling. But at the same time, they seem to be describing something rather than getting right to the heart of it - a common problem when writing of mystical concepts. Still, would love to discuss this with you. Please write at bina@chowk.com

Thanks,
Bina