Shave your beard if your brown
And you best salute the crown
Or theyll do you like Brazillians
And shoot your ass down
Check out the Post 9/11 Blues by UK rapper MC Riz
Grenada: i guess we ALL look alike
The Observer: What happened to MC Riz?
Sunday, August 13, 2006
the jamaa'at tableegh and the deobandis
I feel a little weird including this link to the online book The Jamaa'at Tableegh and the Deobandis. On the one hand the book is probably the most detailed text I've seen which disusses the specific beliefs of the Deobandi movement and really helps to locate the Deobandis in their proper place with respect to Islamic thought. On the other hand, the author is definitely a hostile witness who sees the Deobandis as a deviant group and so the book is very polemical throughout. I'll just say that the book is interesting reading but to take what it says with a great deal of salt. I'm sure you can learn a great deal about the Deobandis by reading it, but you can probably learn a lot more on what the Salafis think about the Deobandis.
the cultural politics of paul robeson and richard wright
Chickenbones: The Cultural Politics of Paul Robeson and Richard Wright: Theorizing the African Diaspora by Floyd W. Hayes, III compares and contrasts how two great African-American cultural critics dealt with living in the belly of the beast.
radical african-american muslims
Thanks to George Kelly of negrophile for the heads up:
Radical Trends in African-American Islam by Chris Zambelis starts off by acknowledging the fact that the Seas of David, the group whose members were recently arrested in Florida, aren't actually a Muslim organization. But his article still goes on to raise an alarmist note about possible radical militant tendancies among African-American Muslims.
Florida African-American Group Inspired by al-Qaeda Ideology also by Zambelis, goes into a little more detail about the Seas of David and its similarities to other movements. He also points out that just because a group may be tactically working with al-Qaeda that doesn't necessarily imply any kind of ideological affinity. For example, the white supremacist group Aryan Nations has manifested some willingness to co-ordinate their efforts with al-Qaeda as well.
I would want to underline again the point I made earlier in ideology and temperament that violence and militancy need to be viewed seperately from the issue of ideology.
Perhaps the point would be easier to see in a different context. In the U.S. one of the main examples we see of Christian terrorism appears in the form of violence directed at abortion clinics and the doctors and nurses who work in them. There is a small extremist fringe which engages in such violence, even though in principle the overwhelming majority of Catholics and evangelical Christians believe that abortion is morally equivalent to murder. So the difference between the terrorists and the non-terrorists doesn't lie in their beliefs about abortion but somewhere else (e.g. their mental health or emotional state, attitudes towards "the system" and a host of other factors which could be lumped together under the umbrella of "temperament")
I would suggest that in a similar way one can make room for "radical" (deep, to the "root") Muslims whose worldview is thoroughly shaped by the principles of orthodox Islam. Truly "radical" Islam will inspire and guide its practitioners to lead more compassionate and spiritual lives. Such "radicals" will be good neighbors who make positive contributions to whatever society they live in. Terrorism, on the other hand, is rooted in narrow thinking, short-sightedness and anger. It doesn't come from "depth" or being "radical", on the contrary, it is the ultimate example of superficiality which treats life and death as means to an end.
I feel like I plug it too much but I want to just point to the Third Resurrection blog to demonstrate that a deep "radical" commitment to the Quran and Sunnah combined with the collective spiritual, historical, political, and philosophical wisdom of people of African-descent is a good thing; something to be prized and valued and cultivated instead of feared.
see also:
islam needs radicals
islam in latin america (which links to another article by Chris Zambelis)
laughing lions
miami and the seas of david
eric robert rudolph
Radical Trends in African-American Islam by Chris Zambelis starts off by acknowledging the fact that the Seas of David, the group whose members were recently arrested in Florida, aren't actually a Muslim organization. But his article still goes on to raise an alarmist note about possible radical militant tendancies among African-American Muslims.
Florida African-American Group Inspired by al-Qaeda Ideology also by Zambelis, goes into a little more detail about the Seas of David and its similarities to other movements. He also points out that just because a group may be tactically working with al-Qaeda that doesn't necessarily imply any kind of ideological affinity. For example, the white supremacist group Aryan Nations has manifested some willingness to co-ordinate their efforts with al-Qaeda as well.
I would want to underline again the point I made earlier in ideology and temperament that violence and militancy need to be viewed seperately from the issue of ideology.
Perhaps the point would be easier to see in a different context. In the U.S. one of the main examples we see of Christian terrorism appears in the form of violence directed at abortion clinics and the doctors and nurses who work in them. There is a small extremist fringe which engages in such violence, even though in principle the overwhelming majority of Catholics and evangelical Christians believe that abortion is morally equivalent to murder. So the difference between the terrorists and the non-terrorists doesn't lie in their beliefs about abortion but somewhere else (e.g. their mental health or emotional state, attitudes towards "the system" and a host of other factors which could be lumped together under the umbrella of "temperament")
I would suggest that in a similar way one can make room for "radical" (deep, to the "root") Muslims whose worldview is thoroughly shaped by the principles of orthodox Islam. Truly "radical" Islam will inspire and guide its practitioners to lead more compassionate and spiritual lives. Such "radicals" will be good neighbors who make positive contributions to whatever society they live in. Terrorism, on the other hand, is rooted in narrow thinking, short-sightedness and anger. It doesn't come from "depth" or being "radical", on the contrary, it is the ultimate example of superficiality which treats life and death as means to an end.
I feel like I plug it too much but I want to just point to the Third Resurrection blog to demonstrate that a deep "radical" commitment to the Quran and Sunnah combined with the collective spiritual, historical, political, and philosophical wisdom of people of African-descent is a good thing; something to be prized and valued and cultivated instead of feared.
see also:
islam needs radicals
islam in latin america (which links to another article by Chris Zambelis)
laughing lions
miami and the seas of david
eric robert rudolph
Saturday, August 12, 2006
cageprisoners.com
Cageprisoners.com is a website for more up-to-date information about those imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay
Grenada's past:
un calls guantanamo a us torture camp
don't know what else to say
guantanamo suicide attempts
guantanamo and planet grenada
Grenada's past:
un calls guantanamo a us torture camp
don't know what else to say
guantanamo suicide attempts
guantanamo and planet grenada
hairpeace or "how to take over the world and still remain human beings"
One of my favorite examples of storytelling is called Hairpeace by Pearl Cleage. In college, a friend of mine had given me a copy of a spoken word tape he had dubbed from another classmate. The tape was mostly The Last Poets along with some other unidentified spoken-word pieces (including Hairpeace). For the longest time I had no idea what the piece was even called or the name of the person speaking.
But a few months ago, with Google's help, I was actually able to track the text of the original work down and have included the link above. The piece is, on one level, a commentary on how prominent "hair issues" are in Black culture.
The premise is that there is actually a formal requirement to tell a minimum of 10 hair stories a year if you want to be a black woman writer. But Cleage has not been sticking to quota and since the deadline is coming up and it is too late to get extension (pun probably intended), she decides tell all 10 hair stories in one sitting.
If I had to tell my own hair story, I would have to mention how in college I'd always admired the brothers with their own clippers who had the skill to make a little extra money by giving haircuts. Later on, I would get my own equipment so that I could at least take care of my own hair. But eventually, after a "tragic" clipper accident I started shaving my hair off altogether and the rest is history. I haven't paid for a haircut in years.
I'm reminded of Hairpeace now, especially because of one passage in particular:
I was really struck by that phrase, "how to take over the world and still remain human beings". That is what it is all about. Grenada. Progressive politics. The spiritual left. Food not bombs. The Civil Rights Movement. All sorts of humane activism and social justice work. Revolutionary movements throughout history have given into temptation and found themselves on the wrong side of this dilemma, becoming at least as bad as the regimes they overthrew.
Or in terms of my own small-scale political world: How do you change a political system for the better, while holding on to your integrity? How do you deal with dishonest and Machiavellian actors without adopting their methods? How do you follow Jesus' instructions to "be as wise as serpents, and as innocent as doves"?
If I figure it out, I'll let you know.
Grenada's past (the connections to the above aren't necessarily deep or obvious)
somewhat machiavellian
it's a small world after all
it's just the mood i'm in
at the risk of sounding ridiculous...
But a few months ago, with Google's help, I was actually able to track the text of the original work down and have included the link above. The piece is, on one level, a commentary on how prominent "hair issues" are in Black culture.
Sometimes it seems like all we ever talk about is hair. But it's not our fault. It's a rule. You can't be a black woman writer in America and not talk about hair. They won't renew your license and, well, a black woman writing without a license in America? I guess you know the penalty for that.
The premise is that there is actually a formal requirement to tell a minimum of 10 hair stories a year if you want to be a black woman writer. But Cleage has not been sticking to quota and since the deadline is coming up and it is too late to get extension (pun probably intended), she decides tell all 10 hair stories in one sitting.
If I had to tell my own hair story, I would have to mention how in college I'd always admired the brothers with their own clippers who had the skill to make a little extra money by giving haircuts. Later on, I would get my own equipment so that I could at least take care of my own hair. But eventually, after a "tragic" clipper accident I started shaving my hair off altogether and the rest is history. I haven't paid for a haircut in years.
I'm reminded of Hairpeace now, especially because of one passage in particular:
Discourse about afternoon slow dancing and the possibilities of grown-up, non-monogamous love, and the raising of sane and thoughtful and affectionate children, and the methods necessary to take over the world and still remain human beings is not allowed, because whenever we get together, we're supposed to bolt the door and dim the lights and look at each other and say, "O-o-o-o-o-o! This terrible hair!"
I was really struck by that phrase, "how to take over the world and still remain human beings". That is what it is all about. Grenada. Progressive politics. The spiritual left. Food not bombs. The Civil Rights Movement. All sorts of humane activism and social justice work. Revolutionary movements throughout history have given into temptation and found themselves on the wrong side of this dilemma, becoming at least as bad as the regimes they overthrew.
Or in terms of my own small-scale political world: How do you change a political system for the better, while holding on to your integrity? How do you deal with dishonest and Machiavellian actors without adopting their methods? How do you follow Jesus' instructions to "be as wise as serpents, and as innocent as doves"?
If I figure it out, I'll let you know.
Grenada's past (the connections to the above aren't necessarily deep or obvious)
somewhat machiavellian
it's a small world after all
it's just the mood i'm in
at the risk of sounding ridiculous...
Friday, August 11, 2006
a recent interview with suheir hammad
Out in the Indian Ocean somewhere
There's a former army post
Abandoned now just like the war
And there's no doubt about it
It was the myth of fingerprints
That's what that old army post was for
-Paul Simon
The above is from "The myth of the fingerprints", one of the more thought-provoking songs on Paul Simon's Graceland album. The myth of the fingerprints (in my view) is the idea that we are all different and absolutely unique, all unconnected and alone. This illusion of isolation leads to division, a lack of empathy and ultimately violence ("That's what that old army post was for").
I am reminded of that song after finding a recent interview with Suheir Hammad on the Electronic Intifada, and especially after reading the following section:
The Black Nationalist Movement, the Power To The People Movements, plural, all made these connections. African Nationalism, Arab Nationalism, the indigenous movements in South and Central America which were crushed by our government all made the connection, it came back to land. [...] I can make that connection without reading any book and without having a political view on any one of the ethnic conflicts around the world. I can make the connection with me and a Palestinian farmer whose olive trees are razed, or an American farmer in Nebraska who can no longer save seeds because the big pesticide companies say that seeds can no longer be saved. I think that connection is already there. One of the things that happens - it has happened with the work of June Jordan and Audre Lorde - the criticism that would be thrown upon them is: "The world is not that connected." There are these huge differences and there is a reactionary part of nationalism, of course, which says "no one suffers like my people suffer." That is what Angela Davis calls "the oppression Olympics" - "No one has been through this history. No one knows how I feel." The gap that I'm trying to fill isn't whether or not we are connected, because people understand this connection no matter the language that addresses the culture we are talking about, but the sense that the differences are okay and should be celebrated. And that ultimately, the differences don't matter when it comes to putting food on your child's plate or the kind of education that will be available to them. People have a hard time and we tend to feel isolated in our victimhood - that's the idea of victimhood, right? No one else understands and no one else can help you.
Wednesday, August 09, 2006
palestinian che
I'm not sure about the original source of this image, but it certainly seems to fit the blog. So does:
"jerusalem is ours"
you say it like its a bad thing...
salsa diplomacy
which are also about interesting juxtapositions between elements of Arab/Muslim culture on the one hand, and Latino culture on the other.
terry howcott
I just wanted to give a shout-out to Terry Howcott's page and her list of strongly recommended sites. I also added a link to my side bar. The bulk of the sites are largely Black-themed but a few are also progressive-, Latino- or Muslim-related as well.
weeping and nashing of teeth aka he got game
This is very non-Grenadaesque entry about love, romance and game theory which I started to write on over a month ago but didn't pick up again until now. One of the more oddly thought-provoking scenes from the film A Beautiful Mind takes place in a bar where the mathematician John Nash and his classmates are admiring the same blonde woman from across the room:
I think there is a stereotype/fetish out there that Black men are especially attracted to thick white women and vice-versa (e.g. Lose weight, or be reduced to dating Black men! Oh, the horror. . .). To explain this phenomena some people point to different "African" standards of beauty, class issues, racial self-hatred and other factors. And those are all part of the picture. But something which occurs to me that another way to think about this situation is to say that on both sides, the relevant players have learned to "go for the brunette". Men judge women by their appearance. Women judge men by their status and earning power. And what happens in terms of relationships is that the different actors learn to swim in the part of the pool where they can handle the competition and certain equilibrium points are reached. First tier with first tier. Second tier with second tier. etc. However athletic, handsome, funny, etc. a black man is going to be "second tier" in terms of status. (e.g. consider all the personal ads where people openly declare a racial preference). However kind, intelligent, talented, a women who doesn't fit into anorexic standards of beauty is going to be "second tier" in terms of appearance. Thus the stereotype.
An article which shares some other insight on the issue of body image and romance among Black Americans asks the question Is the Size of Beauty Changing in the African American Community? and is also worth a look at.
The last brief remark I wanted to share on this general subject of relationships and game theory (which actually kind of inspired the whole entry) relates the concept of Nash equilibrium to romantic situations.
For those who don't know what a Nash equilibrium is, imagine a game of at least two players. Each player chooses a particular strategy. In a simple game, the strategies would be something like "always choose rock" or "randomly choose paper half the time and scissors half the time". A more complex game would have strategies like "be coy and play hard to get" or "be the bad boy since girls like that". So if you can imagine that all the players in a particular game have chosen a strategy, a Nash equilibrium would be a situation where no player has anything to gain by unilaterally changing that strategy. So a Nash equilibrium is a kind of stable place where the players would tend to adopt certain patterns of behavior which worked and stick to them.
When I began this entry and was thinking about the lives of my friends, I had initially wanted to make the claim that post-romantic break-up situations didn't seem to have Nash equilibria. I looked at the weirdness and foolishness they seemed to be going through where one person or another always wants a little more or a little less than the other person is willing to give.
But for his dissertation Nash proved that if you include what he calls mixed strategies every finite game has a Nash equilibrium. And as I'm writing now, more than a month after making my initial conjecture, it turns out that in spite of my early pessimism, the specific situation I had in mind actually has settled to a more or less stable point. And in my own way I've found some small but still surprising empirical confirmation of Nash's result, showing that mathematics occasionally has something relevant to say about our social lives. Pretty deep.
Nash: If we all go for the blonde, we block each other, and not a single one of us is goin'’ to get her. So then we go for her friends, but they will all give us the cold shoulder because nobody likes to be second choice. But what if no one goes for the blonde? We don'’t get in each other'’s way, and we don't insult the other girls. That'’s the only way we win. That's the only way we all get laid.
Nash (continuing): Adam Smith said, the best result comes from everyone in the group doing what'’s best for himself, right? That's what he said, right? Incomplete. Incomplete! Because the best result would come from everyone in the group doing what'’s best for himself and the group.
Hansen: Nash, if this is some way for you to get the blonde on your own, you can go to Hell.
Nash: Governing dynamics, gentlemen... governing dynamics. Adam Smith... was wrong.
I think there is a stereotype/fetish out there that Black men are especially attracted to thick white women and vice-versa (e.g. Lose weight, or be reduced to dating Black men! Oh, the horror. . .). To explain this phenomena some people point to different "African" standards of beauty, class issues, racial self-hatred and other factors. And those are all part of the picture. But something which occurs to me that another way to think about this situation is to say that on both sides, the relevant players have learned to "go for the brunette". Men judge women by their appearance. Women judge men by their status and earning power. And what happens in terms of relationships is that the different actors learn to swim in the part of the pool where they can handle the competition and certain equilibrium points are reached. First tier with first tier. Second tier with second tier. etc. However athletic, handsome, funny, etc. a black man is going to be "second tier" in terms of status. (e.g. consider all the personal ads where people openly declare a racial preference). However kind, intelligent, talented, a women who doesn't fit into anorexic standards of beauty is going to be "second tier" in terms of appearance. Thus the stereotype.
An article which shares some other insight on the issue of body image and romance among Black Americans asks the question Is the Size of Beauty Changing in the African American Community? and is also worth a look at.
The last brief remark I wanted to share on this general subject of relationships and game theory (which actually kind of inspired the whole entry) relates the concept of Nash equilibrium to romantic situations.
For those who don't know what a Nash equilibrium is, imagine a game of at least two players. Each player chooses a particular strategy. In a simple game, the strategies would be something like "always choose rock" or "randomly choose paper half the time and scissors half the time". A more complex game would have strategies like "be coy and play hard to get" or "be the bad boy since girls like that". So if you can imagine that all the players in a particular game have chosen a strategy, a Nash equilibrium would be a situation where no player has anything to gain by unilaterally changing that strategy. So a Nash equilibrium is a kind of stable place where the players would tend to adopt certain patterns of behavior which worked and stick to them.
When I began this entry and was thinking about the lives of my friends, I had initially wanted to make the claim that post-romantic break-up situations didn't seem to have Nash equilibria. I looked at the weirdness and foolishness they seemed to be going through where one person or another always wants a little more or a little less than the other person is willing to give.
But for his dissertation Nash proved that if you include what he calls mixed strategies every finite game has a Nash equilibrium. And as I'm writing now, more than a month after making my initial conjecture, it turns out that in spite of my early pessimism, the specific situation I had in mind actually has settled to a more or less stable point. And in my own way I've found some small but still surprising empirical confirmation of Nash's result, showing that mathematics occasionally has something relevant to say about our social lives. Pretty deep.
Sunday, August 06, 2006
Friday, August 04, 2006
music and islam
The previous post, along with the discussion of fiqh differences got me thinking about how different Muslims view music. The general "orthodox" position for all four sunni schools is that most forms (or at least a very wide range) of music are actually prohibited but of course there are also classical scholars who disagree. And obviously the existence of a sizeable Muslim musical tradition, shows that in practice, Muslim behavior is generally more liberal on this point.
Music Good: Issue of singing and music in Islam
Music Bad: Legal Status of Music and Singing
If you accept the Bible, one of the more powerful arguments in favor of the value of music is the fact that the Psalms (the Zabur of David mentioned in the Quran) are a collection of songs. The musical aspects of the Zabur/Psalms are not as obvious in the Quran as they are in the Bible so Islamic scholars have not always accepted the claim that David's revelations were meant to be sung.
Music Good: Issue of singing and music in Islam
Music Bad: Legal Status of Music and Singing
If you accept the Bible, one of the more powerful arguments in favor of the value of music is the fact that the Psalms (the Zabur of David mentioned in the Quran) are a collection of songs. The musical aspects of the Zabur/Psalms are not as obvious in the Quran as they are in the Bible so Islamic scholars have not always accepted the claim that David's revelations were meant to be sung.
Wednesday, August 02, 2006
"if god is a dj"
For a long time now, I've realized that there is an intriguing comparison/contrast which can be made between the music and chanting which forms a part of sufi dhikr sessions and secular dance music played in clubs, (especially the less verbal genres like techno, house and trance). But recently when I heard the following lyric:
it made me wonder if the lines had some antecedent among some form of Sufi poetry (e.g. "If God is a tabla player"?). It turns out I didn't find exactly what I was looking for but I did come across the following from musician and mystic, Hazrat Inayat Khan:
In some ways, Hazrat Inayat Khan is a controversial figure. Some people almost consider him to have played a large role in creating the false notion that Sufism is something which is seperate from Islam, instead of seeing that Sufism (tasawwuf, tazkiyah, the fiqh and science of acquiring ihsan) as something very integral to Islam. So I would say that he has definitely been influential, but I wouldn't recommend his works as a way to understand authentic Sufism. But in any case, if you want to get a sense of the rest of his opinions you can check out:
The Sufi Message of Hazrat Inayat Khan
Wahiduddin's Hazrat Inayat Khan site
If God is a DJ
Life is a dance floor
Love is the rhythm
You are the music
If God is a DJ
Life is a dance floor
You get what you're given
its all how you use it
"If God is a DJ", Pink
it made me wonder if the lines had some antecedent among some form of Sufi poetry (e.g. "If God is a tabla player"?). It turns out I didn't find exactly what I was looking for but I did come across the following from musician and mystic, Hazrat Inayat Khan:
Why is music called the divine art, while all other arts are not so called? We may certainly see God in all arts and in all sciences, but in music alone we see God free from all forms and thoughts. In every other art there is idolatry. Every thought, every word has its form. Sound alone is free from form. Every word of poetry forms a picture in our mind. Sound alone does not make any object appear before us. Music, the word we use in our everyday language, is nothing less than the picture of the Beloved.
In some ways, Hazrat Inayat Khan is a controversial figure. Some people almost consider him to have played a large role in creating the false notion that Sufism is something which is seperate from Islam, instead of seeing that Sufism (tasawwuf, tazkiyah, the fiqh and science of acquiring ihsan) as something very integral to Islam. So I would say that he has definitely been influential, but I wouldn't recommend his works as a way to understand authentic Sufism. But in any case, if you want to get a sense of the rest of his opinions you can check out:
The Sufi Message of Hazrat Inayat Khan
Wahiduddin's Hazrat Inayat Khan site
Tuesday, August 01, 2006
Monday, July 31, 2006
differences between schools
I'm intrigued by the prospect of trying to understand the differences between the madhabs. I know that people often try to gloss over the differences between the madhabs and say they are insignificant, but I'm not sure if that's right. Don't get me wrong. Unity is important. And it is important to have good adab when it comes to these issues and see them in their proper perspectives. The differences between the madhabs are issues where pious, sincere, intelligent and knowledgable Muslim scholars can disagree, so they shouldn't be cause for arrogance, takfirs or insults.
At the same time, they are rooted in differences in methodology and principle. And even thought more than one position can be "correct", in some sense only one is "right".
One interesting group with which to illustrate the above are the Murabitun. They are sometimes called "extremist Malikis" because their shaykh (Abdalqadir as-Sufi) has some strong things to say in favor of Imam Malik and the example laid down by the early Muslim community in Medina. To be honest, I think they definitely cross the line in terms of not being tolerant enough of the other Sunni schools
From The Recovery of True Islamic Fiqh (the title almost says it all) by Abdalhaqq Bewley:
I would want to say a couple of things. First I would note that Abdalqadir seems to believe that through Imam Malik one can have "direct access to the Book and Sunna in their primal form" as if this was impossible with the other madhabs. In fact, there are other passages in his writings where he is more negative about the other schools of thought.
But secondly, I was really attracted to his description of the Hanafi methodology (at least in the above passage). I actually like the idea of Islam not being tied to a particular community in a particular time and place. It is a living and powerful deen which can be adapted to new cultural soil. There are some specific ways that the Hanafi school does give a little more weight to reason and is flexible in certain areas (while, of course, being stricter in others) In fact, I'm tempted to say that I'm a Hanafi almost in the same way that the Murabitun say they are Maliki... although hopefully I'm a lot mellower about it than they are.
For a more balanced, but still meaty, description of the development of different schools of fiqh and the differences between them, I would recommend: Source Methodology In Islamic Jurisprudence: Methodology for Research and Knowledge by Taha Jabir Al 'Alwani which is available free online.
Another good book (which I've linked to before) is the Ethics of Disagreement in Islam, also by Al 'Alwani. There are useful comparisons between the schools throughout the book, but the most concise and inclusive descriptions are found in chapter 6 on juristic perspectives.
Also here is a brief article: Which of the four orthodox madhabs has the most developed fiqh for Muslims living as minorities? by Nuh Ha Mim Keller (his answer, basically Maliki and Hanafi) Interestingly enough, apparently when Sheikh Keller had to decide which madhab to follow, the story goes, that he put the four names into a hat and randomly picked "Shafi".
And finally another good text is: The Fundamental Principles of Imam Malik's Fiqh by Muhammad Abu Zahrah. Obviously it is written from a Maliki perspective but what is interesting (to me at least) is that it gives a sizeable list of the various principles and considerations a mufti would keep in mind when evaluating whether a particular action is halal/ haram/ sunnah/ makruh/ etc... I think it gives a really good sense that fiqh is not just a matter of finding the right ayat of the Quran or finding a single hadith and acting on it. A lot of thought goes into such decisions which is why the schools developed in the first place.
And for some early comments related to the Hanafi school, check out: people of direction
At the same time, they are rooted in differences in methodology and principle. And even thought more than one position can be "correct", in some sense only one is "right".
One interesting group with which to illustrate the above are the Murabitun. They are sometimes called "extremist Malikis" because their shaykh (Abdalqadir as-Sufi) has some strong things to say in favor of Imam Malik and the example laid down by the early Muslim community in Medina. To be honest, I think they definitely cross the line in terms of not being tolerant enough of the other Sunni schools
From The Recovery of True Islamic Fiqh (the title almost says it all) by Abdalhaqq Bewley:
The received position regarding the madhabs is that they are virtually identical with certain insignificant peripheral differences and the whole business is really a matter of geography so that if you live in Malaysia or Indonesia you are automatically Shafi'i, if you live in India or Turkey you are Hanafi, and if you live in North or West Africa you are Maliki, and it doesn't matter which because they are basically all the same. When he investigated the matter, however, Shaykh Abdalqadir rediscovered something which proved crucial in his search for the genuine Book and Sunna. What he discovered was that the madhhabs were by no means identical and in actual fact represented quite divergent methods of deciding what constituted the Book and Sunna.
The madhhab of Imam Abu Hanifa, may Allah cover him with mercy, was formulated in Iraq, a very different environment to that of Madina al-Munawwara where the deen had been laid down, and the number of Companions who had settled there had been too few to allow a complete picture of the Sunna to emerge. For this reason Hanafi methodology involved the logical process of examining the Book and all available knowledge of the Sunna and then finding an example in them analogous to the particular case under review so that Allah's deen could be properly applied in the new situation. It thus entails the use of reason in the examination of the Book and Sunna so as to extrapolate the judgements necessary for the implementation of Islam in a new environment. It represents in essence, therefore, within the strict compass of rigorous legal and inductive precepts, the adaptation of the living and powerful deen to a new situation in order to enable it take root and flourish in fresh soil. This made it an ideal legal tool for the central governance of widely varied populations which is why we find it in Turkey as the legacy of the Uthmaniyya Khilafa and in the sub-continent where it is inherited from the Moghul empire.
[...] With Imam Shafi'i... the practise of Islam ceased to be a matter of oral transmission and behavioural imitation and became, instead, based on written texts from which the actions of the deen were derived. Imam Shafi'i's system was brilliantly devised and the Muslims owe a great debt of gratitude to him because there is no doubt that it is the rigour of his methodology which preserved so many of the sources of Islam in such a remarkable way over all these centuries.
Shaykh Abdalqadir's desire, however, was to have direct access to the Book and Sunna in their primal form as they were first implemented by the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and his Companions, may Allah be pleased with them, and both these methods presented the phenomenon at one remove so they were clearly not what he was seeking. It was with Imam Malik, may Allah have mercy on him, that the shaykh found what he had been looking for.
I would want to say a couple of things. First I would note that Abdalqadir seems to believe that through Imam Malik one can have "direct access to the Book and Sunna in their primal form" as if this was impossible with the other madhabs. In fact, there are other passages in his writings where he is more negative about the other schools of thought.
But secondly, I was really attracted to his description of the Hanafi methodology (at least in the above passage). I actually like the idea of Islam not being tied to a particular community in a particular time and place. It is a living and powerful deen which can be adapted to new cultural soil. There are some specific ways that the Hanafi school does give a little more weight to reason and is flexible in certain areas (while, of course, being stricter in others) In fact, I'm tempted to say that I'm a Hanafi almost in the same way that the Murabitun say they are Maliki... although hopefully I'm a lot mellower about it than they are.
For a more balanced, but still meaty, description of the development of different schools of fiqh and the differences between them, I would recommend: Source Methodology In Islamic Jurisprudence: Methodology for Research and Knowledge by Taha Jabir Al 'Alwani which is available free online.
Another good book (which I've linked to before) is the Ethics of Disagreement in Islam, also by Al 'Alwani. There are useful comparisons between the schools throughout the book, but the most concise and inclusive descriptions are found in chapter 6 on juristic perspectives.
Also here is a brief article: Which of the four orthodox madhabs has the most developed fiqh for Muslims living as minorities? by Nuh Ha Mim Keller (his answer, basically Maliki and Hanafi) Interestingly enough, apparently when Sheikh Keller had to decide which madhab to follow, the story goes, that he put the four names into a hat and randomly picked "Shafi".
And finally another good text is: The Fundamental Principles of Imam Malik's Fiqh by Muhammad Abu Zahrah. Obviously it is written from a Maliki perspective but what is interesting (to me at least) is that it gives a sizeable list of the various principles and considerations a mufti would keep in mind when evaluating whether a particular action is halal/ haram/ sunnah/ makruh/ etc... I think it gives a really good sense that fiqh is not just a matter of finding the right ayat of the Quran or finding a single hadith and acting on it. A lot of thought goes into such decisions which is why the schools developed in the first place.
And for some early comments related to the Hanafi school, check out: people of direction
murabitun gathering
I've been thinking about the Murabitun movement recently. A few days ago someone mentioned them to me out of the blue, and I was actually already planning to blog a little about them momentarily when I found the following from You Tube: Footage of a Murabitun Sufi dhikr session in Granada, Spain during the 1980's
Grenada's past:
islam in latin america
Grenada's past:
islam in latin america
Sunday, July 30, 2006
islamic ecumenism
From The American Muslim, I thought I would include Shia-Sunni Dialogue: Maulana Kalbe Sadiq's Theology of Islamic Ecumenism by Yoginder Sikand as another "obligatory" su-shi piece to contribute to the Su-shi blog ring. Just a bright spot and example of Muslim unity.
willie lynch: the next chapter
Rand Report's attempt to change Islam lets the cat out of the bag and describes explicit plans on the part of Western policy-makers to divide-and-conquer the Muslim world. Old dog. Old tricks.
fatima's hand
For a while now I've been kind of intrigued by the image of Fatima's hand (Jews call it the hand of Miriam). First, it is interesting that both Jewish and Muslim cultures would share a common "religious symbol" (really more of a good luck charm). And it is interesting to me personally because growing up, my family would occasionally make references to "mal de ojo" or the evil eye (a concept which exists in Muslim, as well as Latino cultures). The idea behind Fatima's hand is that it protects you from the evil eye by "looking back" at the source of the curse. I don't think of myself as superstitious and am not interested in "amulets" but I think I would like to use the image for decoration, maybe on a ring.
religion or ideology?
Imam Zaid Shakir recently wrote an article called Islam: Religion or Ideology? on the dangers of viewing Islam superficially as a political ideology:
Reducing Islam to an ideology threatens to subordinate those laws and principles to political imperatives that have little to do with Islamic teachings. If this happens consistently enough, the social foundation of our religion may be lost. As Muslims we may well continue in our various struggles. However, those struggles would be better informed by the revolutionary teachings of Bakunin, Georges Sorel, Rosa Luxemburg, Lenin, Mao, Che Guevara, and others than by the revelation given to our Prophet Muhammad, Peace and Blessings of God upon him. In some circumstances, we could possibly muster a credible defense against any number of threats confronting us. However, at the end of the day, we may find that we have very little left to defend.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)