Try not to be superficial

This essay motivated current post.

Reducing social problems in general and women’s problems in particular to a simple dilemma, i.e. Islam, is the misleading theme repeated by those who fail to comprehend complexity of social phenomena. From their point of view, Islam has been and is a fixed set of rules imposed on society by an external power. Such an argument is flawed at least from two perspectives: it’s neither a fixed set of rules nor imposed by an external power. Few months ago, I explained about former flaw. Now let’s consider the latter.

From a secular point of view, religion is a matter of supply and demand. In other words, any religion that successfully spreads throughout a certain demographic area can not be just an external thing. It should be constructed internally and appropriately to meet some needs of the people. In other words, society itself creates a religion to heal some of its perceived wounds. Then, even if that certain religion is removed from society, as long as the society prefers similar cure to its perceived wounds, it would continue to prescribe very acts endorsed by the outlawed religion. This time, however, such prescriptions would be made under a brand new name.

Let’s be a little more specific. A society may be eager to keep family a solid, unaltered foundation. Honor-killing may be considered, due to various historical reasons, an acceptable way to do so. Hence, the people expect any new religion to support such a well-established mean. That’s why honor-killing enters any new religion the people might choose to practice, and that is exactly why it would remain in the society even if that certain religion gets outlawed. Honor-killing is socially acceptable in some areas for people find it a cure to a perceived wound.

Above view is supported by some evidences, one of which is that people who do not practice a certain religion may share many beliefs with other people in their own society. That is why some people who do not practice any religion still resort to honor-killing; for honor-killing is originally a social issue not a religious one.

From above point, the best way to eliminate social problems is to educate the people, i.e. to make them rational compared to modern norms. That would make them reconsider their demands, which consequently results in a change in what the religion supplies to the society.

In practice, Iranian example may testify to above analysis. Education led many people to demand equal rights for men and women which consequently led some Ayatollahs to find some sort of justifications to reform religious rules. The process continued up to a point that some state rules were changed and some others are expected to change within years.

Religion, one might argue, can play a negative role by inhibiting education process. Yeah, that’s possible and indeed has happened frequently throughout history. In the age of information, however, that can be next to impossible. One just needs to join Global E-Village in order to overcome barriers to his/her education.

Tradition of Holy Prophet: Distinguishing Content from Form

When I published previous post in Mideastyouth, somebody called Rayed Al Sunni posted a comment:

In our Islam we know if you love Mohammad or religion the sign of love is to follow it not to celebrate in Birthday Mohammad didn’t celebrate for that. Islam didn’t do like this to celebrate in someone.we celebrate for E’ad Al Fater and E’ad Al Ad’dha.

Here is my reply to that comment, which constitutes basis of Ijtihad in Islam:

*****

I do certainly agree with you that we as Muslims have to adhere to very tradition of Holy Prophet.

However, the very term Tradition, to me, means something close to this: following very measures that Holy Prophet set as True Islam. In other words, there had been two distinctive dimensions to Holy Prophet's deed: Content and Form. Our actions must be conforming to the Content, but not necessarily to the Form.

For example, we have repeatedly heard that Holy Prophet donated bread and date to the poor. It's one of his deeds, which includes Content (i.e. being kind to the poor) and Form (i.e. donating some certain materials, including bread and date). We have to imitate the content (be kind to the poor), but not necessarily the Form (just donate bread and date). Now, let me ask, if somebody happens to donate Pizza, in your opinion, he is far away from Holy Prophet's tradition? I don’t think so: he "is kind to the poor", thus his act is conforming to Holy Prophet's standards, even though he does not follow the very 'Form' Holy prophet had been used to.

So there is a certain set of Objective Measures, or Contents, to which we have to subscribe. But there are too many forms which may assume those very contents. Some of these forms have been common and usual in the time of Holy Prophet, and consequently he practiced them. Some of them were not common in the time of Holy Prophet, and consequently he failed/refused to practice them; however it does not forbid us to practice them.

Therefore, I don’t think that we have to imitate every act that Holy Prophet did, and avoid every single thing he either failed or refused to do. And there is another reason to it: it's practically impossible.

Again, I do agree that the Forms we decide to practice should be conforming to the measures set by holy prophet. For example, the tradition of Holy Prophet was to show his happiness for Eids, i.e. Holidays. We may come to use some new Forms to show our happiness, but not the forms which may be in conflict with His Tradition (such as dance and drinking alcohol).

So, after all, Holy Prophet orders us to be kind to our mothers. Is there any problem if we dedicate a certain day every year to our Mothers? And is there any problem if we use birthday of a great woman, daughter of Holy Prophet, to do so? A stone and two birds: expressing our kindness to mothers (as the Holy Prophet ordered us) as well as his family (again as he ordered us).

Divine Will (II)

A very busy week I had, sorry for delay. Let’s go a bit further with the current point.
Lord is a believer in “an omnipotent God” who “can do whatever acts he desires”, but unfortunately it is not likely to solve the problem. Remember the main point which fueled our whole debate: existence of different, inconsistent and even contradictory understandings of that Divine Will. How can we justify such a thing? Lord gives his own view: “God did his best to tell us his Divine Will, and if there are different views and understanding, he wanted so.” Then, the main point is left untouched; Hurray!
Let me paraphrase the case: Indeed, I was aimed to find a reference authenticated by God as the original understanding of His Divine Will. Here, Lord proposes another alternative: if there are different views and understandings, it is possible that God wanted it so.
Therefore, with regards to the fact that God sent us his messengers and revealed many verses in order to make a religious structure for our lives, first of all we should find out if God prescribes a sole definite code for our lives, or just gives us some clues and then wants us to act based on our understanding of that clues which may make many different or even contradictory structures? In other words, there are two possible maps:
(I) There is a precise Code which God and Religion means it and we should try to find it, though some times we may misunderstand it (if this misunderstanding happens while we do our best to find out that Divine Will, God may forgive us); and God's code includes instructions for every simple task of human's life, i.e., in any certain time and place, God has a Will which is Unique and we have to find it.
(II) God has ordered some principles on which we should build our understanding, and from which we should try to derive a kind of Code, and different people may conclude differently, i.e. God has not (meant) a Unique Determined Code.
A simple example may show the difference between above maps more precisely: somebody concludes that right now, ‘A’ (an act, behavior, etc.) is allowed, while the other finds it forbidden. Map (I) tells us that not both of them are true, for God’s code is unique and covers all aspects of human's life: one of them is true, and the other is wrong. Map (II) tells us that it is possible that both of them are true at the same time, on the basis that God has probably not determined a definite Code for A and has left it for people to decide which is true themselves. You know the idea behind ‘Straights Paths’ of Dr. Soroush which is somehow based upon this ideology.
Let me clarify the stand of advocates of Map (II) a bit more: they say that God has a determined code for just few things like Prayers, Fast, etc. In other areas (especially when it comes to some features of contemporary life like economy, geography, etc.), God has left it to the Wisdom of Crowd. People should make trial and errors and step by step develop their own systems of life.

*****

Dear Lord!
In either case, almost all scholars do agree that an ordinary person is not able to find out the path, for he/she first of all should think of all such matters and then decide about them. The only things that Quran has for everybody (and there is no need for an interpreter to find out them), is prescribed principles of Islam, things of this kind:
1- There is a God, who is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and unique.
2- There will be a day of doom, the last day, Day of Judgment.
Etc.

Good Luck

Divine Will (intro)

Note: Since our debate about Islam’s position on Jews led to a much broader discussion about Quran itself, this post is named ‘Divine Will (intro)’ to cover the very basis of our later arguments. This post works just as an intro to the subject, and gives some hints on our next posts.

*****

I hope you have read Lord’s new post. Ideas he has developed in his new argument open the door to a very broad discussion about Quran, about which there is an extensive body of different views within Islamic scholars and various schools of thoughts.

Also Fariborz contributed to that post of Lord, though his commentswere taken word by word from a Sunni site. However, those comments also matter.

Let me ask few questions to clarify what subjects are in the root of all the different views about Quran. Read the following questions, contemplate them, and try to find your own answer to them, whether as a Muslim, or just as a believer in God, or as a nonbeliever. Also it should be noted that these arguments, with few modifications, would apply to all holy scriptures, whether Quran, Testaments, or else.

1- When God tried to reveal those verses to Muhammad, there was a Divine Will, but was that will in the form of a human language? How did Muhammad understand that Divine Will? As you well know, while translating a text from source to target language, very often it happens that the will of original author gets lost. Is the process of revelation immune to such failures?

2- Let’s suppose that God revealed some words, and He meant exactly what those words meant. Here another problem arises: Whose understanding of those words is closer to that Divine Will? Indeed you agree that the same words, particularly the words similar to Quran verses (which are full of metaphors, etc.), may mean differently to different people. Even if we suppose that the people of then Arabia must be our reference in this case, did they all have the same understanding of those words? The same problem, again.

3- Is today's Quran equal to the Quran revealed to Muhammad? Indeed there are different versions of Quran, called Qera’at (which means: readings); but some Muslim scholars believe that these differences, believed to be caused by different dialects of the Arabs, are so insignificant that don’t show any difference in the whole meaning of disputed verses. Another point is that some people doubt the way that Quran was gathered and claim that there is a possibility of flaws in that process.

4- Suppose that we solve all the above questions, and finally establish an original understanding of The Divine Will with very simple statements which may mean just in one way to all the people. The next problem rises when we ask of the role of ‘Reason’ in applying those rules to the contemporary society. Indeed this is not a new story of 20th century. Roots of such debates back to few centuries after Holy Prophet’s death (Footnote 1). I have too many things to say about this 4th subject, but leave them all for future.

hope that this intro was useful.

Good Luck

Footnote 1: Let me refer you a simple story of history which helps you get the point better, and leave rest of the matter for later posts. As you well know, Asharite used to believe that reason is incapable of discovering the will of God when this will is not strictly and frankly given to us; and they had some followers in between Shiite. It is said that one of the Shiite Imams wrote on the coffin of his deceased son: “Ismael, rest in God” (Ismael was his son’s name), and an Asharite follower of that Imam, wrote “Ismael, rest in God” on the coffin of his own deceased son, though his son’s name was Muhammad, not Ismael. This was because they did not identify any role for reason in understanding the Will of God.(Note that for Shiite, 12 Imams are supposed to be infallible like the Holy Prophet himself, and their deeds and words provide a source for Shiite Jurisprudence.)

Anti-Semitism vs. Anti-Zionism

As you well know, there is not a good attitude to Israel within Muslim societies. Here I don’t want to enter this debate, explore the roots of the problem or propose any solution; but I want to focus my attention on something which came to me as a surprise.

I used to believe that all of those Muslim analysts, who oppose Zionism, don’t offend Jews as a whole (i.e. are not anti-Semitic). Now I'm not that sure of this idea. You may want to know why; if so, follow this post.

Since about 7 years ago, by the beginning of my university studies, I was obsessed with Mideast conflict. Reading the articles and analysis of both sides (if we assume that there are only two sides in this conflict, which may be rather simplistic) and following the news, was part of my routine program. You know, there are too many groups in Iran (mostly, if not wholly, related to hardliners) which are bonded to this subject, and I have attended some of their seminars, meetings and workshops.

As said above, most of the anti-Zionist analysts (either in Iran or else) claim that they respect Jews, but the only thing they can never stand is Zionism. Yeah, it may be possible in theory, for we see even some Jews (some orthodox ones) who oppose Zionism. (Again, this is not my aim to judge if they are sincere, if such a thing is rational, etc).

Meeting some of these so-called Iranian anti-Zionist analysts helped me get a better grasp of their actual beliefs. Yeah, one may refuse to state his innermost feelings and thoughts in a public seminar, for reports and reporters may make many problems. Then when you get into the depth of his mind, you may find something completely different from what gets out of his mouth. Without referring to any special figure or case (for it may make problems), now I think that anti-Semitism is in the root of some of these anti-Zionism movements.

How can we find such an argument in their statements? It's not that complicated. Though they first claim that 'respectable Jews also do exist' and divide Jews as being 'bad' or 'good' (a completely black and white view indeed), after a while they (either implicitly or explicitly) state that 'if a Jew is a True Jew, he/she is bad'. Believe it or not, I saw some of them who even try to find a historical pattern of conspiracy done by (true) Jews to eliminate Islam. This kind of conspiracy theory is what I call anti-Semitism.

Women's Rights and Islamic Laws

Nowadays there is a strong voice in Muslim societies, among them Iran, which claims reinterpreting Islamic laws in favor of women's rights.
But the question is that which Islamic laws may be reinterpreted to which extent? In other words, is a modern understanding of Islam able to enforce equality conforming to international norms and standards?
Briefly: Can Islam bear such reforms and still preserve its known identity as being Islam?
*****
Recently, Iran's leader was quoted as saying "Some issues about women, which exist in religious jurisprudence, are not the final say. It is possible to interpret new points through research by a skillful jurist". This quote may truly reflect the fact that this attitude not only exists between Women's Rights Activists, but also enjoys the support of some Ayatollahs in Iran, especially those who try to make Islam more consistent with day to day life of a modern world.
This group of Ayatollahs claims that Islam would support such reforms, but how?
A brief description of the basis of such reforms form the point of Shiite is following. Firstly you will read a little about the way that an Ayatollah can state a Fatwa (religious decree), and then we will consider some of the issues related to women's rights.
*****
There is an Arabic term in the glossary of Shiite, called 'Ijtehad'. This word is derived from 'Jahd' which means 'trying so hard'. Ijtehad officially means 'the process of deriving Islamic laws from original resources'; and these original resources are: Quran, Tradition (quotes and behaviors of Holy Prophet and Infallible Imams), Reason, Ejmaa (general agreement of all Mujtaheds about the same law).
Those who study in theological schools after some years (after passing some certain courses, including but not limited to: Arabic literature, Quran, History, etc) are recognized as Ayatollah which means that they are able to get into original resources and find God's decree in every case.
The important part of the story is that some kinds of Fatwa may change during the ages. For example, consider the case of chess. Old Ayatollahs would agree that chess is forbidden in Islam. But Ayatollah Khomeini (founder of Islamic revolution) stated a revolutionary Fatwa that "Shiites are allowed to play chess if chess is not considered generally as a mean of gambling and as long as they do not bet on chess".
This fatwa was a very important one: there are some quotes of Infallible Imams which state explicitly that 'chess is forbidden', But Ayatollah Khomeini concluded that though there is such an explicit ban on chess in Tradition, it is Gambling which is forbidden not chess itself.
*****
Now, let's consider the case of inequality between Men and Women in financial issues of which Islam seems to be approving.
We have some verses in Quran which explicitly state that 'woman should inherit half of a man' or 'money paid to the (family of a) male victim is 2 times of a female victim'. But some Mujtaheds today believe that this belongs to the time in which Woman was used to staying at home, and the only element of family which was economically active and had to be the only breadwinner was Man. In such a system, a Man is worth 2 times of a Woman and his loss would press the economy of family (and society) 2 times of a woman's loss. Then, some Ayatollahs conclude that it is the financial values and responsibilities of the person which determines the rate of inheritance or blood money, not the gender.
Finally, in a modern life that man and woman work together and share the expenses of the family, also both of them are active workers or business doers in the society, the decree may change: man and woman may inherit equally, and the money paid to the family of a victim will be fixed whether that is he or she.
*****

Everybody who saw this place, got happy

Once upon a time, an Arab Caliph got out of Baghdad. Riding here and there, he finally arrived at a very beautiful suburban area of Baghdad.
The beauty of the place was really amazing. He ordered to make a palace and a small town there, and named it: 'everybody who saw this place, got happy'.
*****
A history teacher in high school told us this story.
Right now, I wonder how 'Chaos Theory' is able to predict the 'Butterfly Effect' of that decision (the decision of Caliph to build a city right there).
If that king were sick that day, if his horse were not riding that way, if that day were within winter not spring, and too many more ifs, we might never see that city on the map.
Indeed, if one of these IFs had come true, that city would have been wiped off the map before its appearance!
One more question: if the Caliph were still alive in these days, would he name the city 'everybody who saw this place, got happy' again?
I'm not sure. Yesterday, this city saw again one of the most... sorry! I can't find a proper adjective to describe my feeling. Check news headlines for yesterday attacks on Samarra, in Iraq. The holy shrine of 2 Shia Imams got exploded again.
Waiting for a time to see peace brought back to Iraq, and see that 'everybody who sees this place, gets happy'.
God Willing
*****
Samarra: Medieval Islamic writers believed that the name “Samarra” is derived from the Arabic phrase, “Sarre men ra’a” which translates to “A joy for all who see”.