I haven't been to the Muslim WakeUp! site in a while, but I recently found a piece there called Nourished by the Waters of Indigenous Islam by Laury Slivers which seemed Grenada-esque. It is another response to Sherman Jackson's latest book and an extension of some of his ideas. It is a step in the right direction but ultimately, I think she goes too far and would make the label "Muslim" so inclusive that it doesn't mean anything at all. Granted, there are also some people in our communities who give out takfirs more readily than salaams. I guess I'm praying that the two sides will meet somewhere in the middle.
For some more thoughts on the limits of tolerance within strictly traditional Islam, check out the people of direction.
2 comments:
Hmm.. yeah, actually I was thinking about that too. That an academic historian's notion of what is valid to study is a very different concept from a Muslim theologian's notion of who is or isn't Muslim.
I guess I would say those heterodox groups obviously exist. Moorish Science Temple, Five Percenters, Druzes, Bahais etc. And it seems reasonable that scholars who do "Muslim history" might be well-suited to study these groups because whether they are actually Muslim or not, they have a family resemblance.
But ultimately, I think just for the purposes of communication there probably should be some kind of doctrinal boundaries. I feel like maybe I might set them more broadly than most. We should "err" on the side of openness. Give people the benefit of the doubtm if there is one. But I still think that somewhere those lines get drawn.
Salams,
Don't you think you can do both at the same time?
I would say historically Islam includes any group that has self-identified as Muslim either through declaration or social affiliation (this actually accords with a hadith of the Prophet as well. He was a good historian!).
Within those groups, the majority group (the Sunnis, and sometimes the Shia) has doctrinal boundaries that have excluded those outside themselves from the right to call themselves Muslim (although, as we know, who is out and in has been defined in different ways at different times and places--this is not to mention popular opinion which is just as diverse or more so). Some other outsider groups are named ambiguous cases (such as Sunnis do not always admit the Shia as fellow Muslims) and others are not mentioned at all. Likewise, some groups outside the majority exclude the majority from the right to be called Muslim (Shia sometimes exclude Sunni and the Moors used to exclude the Sunnis--they don't anymore), while others do not engage the issues at all (the Five-Percenters walk away from the whole thing).
I think we can. I think we can say we are part of the same history and that the differences in doctrine are so significant that we sometimes do not see ourselves as part of of the same community. Doesn't mean we cannot shake hands across boundaries and learn from each other.
Peace!
Laury
Post a Comment