Fuck no you can't, not if you're an actual Muslim who believes in the word of the Quran.
I think that just raises the question of how exactly does one define an actual real remember of any given religion who believes in their holy word?
It's more or less common knowledge at this point that just about every holy book there is in use today is chock full of scriptures and rules that nobody follows and even fewer are even aware of, what's the minimum level of adherence to the faith that qualifies you? At what point are you disqualified?
It sort of strikes me as putting the cart before the horse. Plays into a 'no true Scotsman' kind of thing, I think, and gets people trying to enact positive change bogged down by the people who should be on their side, which makes it that much easier for the regressive system they're trying to enact change in to preserve the status quo
I think it's a moot point, really. I've already been over how religions are changing and schisming all the time, if a woman wants to be a feminist and a Muslim and enact the positive changes within her religion that the things being a feminist implies, why is she a hypocrite for this? What is the actual problem with it?
Martin Luther nailed his ninety-five theses to a door five hundred years ago and now Protestants are one of the largest groups of Christians on the planet. Henry the Eighth wanted a divorce and created an entirely new religious movement to get one that persists to this day. Christianity and Catholicism are about as homogenous as a clever analogy about things that are decidedly not homogenous. Islam is broadly divided into Shia and Sunni, but it's not exactly a clear cut picture. The same is true of Hinduism, and Judaism is certainly no exception
People ignore the letter of their religion all the time for far worse causes all the damn time and I just don't understand this weird response people have to progressives unwilling to give up their faith just because the culture of that faith is flawed now
An interesting statement. What is an actual Muslim? What would you consider is believing in the word of the Quran?
Are the people who follow the Nation of Islam considered true Muslims? Are Shia Muslims considered true Muslims? Are people who live in Southeast Asia and practice Islam true Muslims? Or is it only Arabs? Or perhaps only people who practice Sunni Islam? Is a Muslim who drinks once in a while for celebration, but otherwise practices the religion faithfully a true Muslim? What about a Muslim parent who has a gay son, but still loves him all the same? What about the Ahmadiyya? The Wahhabi? The Kurds? Albanian Muslims? What do you define as an actual Muslim who believes in the world of the Quran?
If your definition of a Muslim or Christian ends up defining nobody then your definition needs to change. Using "logic" to arrive at the conclusion that is wholly inconsistent with reality ("actually, there no real Christians or Muslims at all!") is not very fruitful.
There is a definition. A Muslim is someone who practices Islam. But how do you determine what the right way to practice the religion is? Is the Ahmadiyya incorrect in their ways because they believed that their founder was a Prophet? Are those that practice Shia Islam incorrect because they believe that Abu Bakr was not the true successor, and that Ali ibn Abi Talib was? It's not that there are "no real Muslims at all", but genuinely, how do you define one? Rigidly setting standards for what is a true Muslim and is what not leads down to very dangerous thinking, and is frankly regressive and hurtful to the umma.
If a person follows the Five Pillars, has memorized the Quran, and follows the hadiths well, but is a feminist, does that mean that they are, in fact, not a true Muslim? That's what people don't seem to understand. The concept of orthodoxy is dangerous, whether it it's Christianity, Islam, or whatever religion. The concept of a "true belief" divides the umma. It makes it impossible for Islam to be more unified and peaceful. A lot of the conflict in the Middle East is because of that false sense of orthodoxy. Terrorist organizations believe that their way is correct, and that thee rest are unorthodox Muslims. Saudi Arabia believe that their way is correct, and the rest are unorthodox Muslims.
Well, if you follow the word of the Quran, which is categorically what you have to do to be a muslim since that book is quite literally what defines the religion, that would categorize you.
That's a funny idea, because it implies you can define right and wrong ways to practice religion. After all, religions just like all traditions are arbitrary. The difference being there tends to be institutions upholding the rules and tenets. The institutions are not absolute either though, catholic church has changed their rules countless of times and protestants straight up made their own institution when they didn't like it. Are either of them truly Christian at this point? Does it matter?
Let me give you an example.
I'm a Muslim. I've dealt with this supposed dichotomy essentially my entire life. I've practiced Sunni Islam for a good part of my life, except at points where I strayed away from the religion for personal reasons. I go to Friday prayers. Every week. I pray five times a day, never taking a break. I calculate and pay my zakat. Every month. I fast for Ramadan. I've memorized a good portion of the Quran, and am getting to the point where I might become a hafiz. I help out at the Downtown Islamic Center, and do Arabic/Quran lessons for kids in local mosques. I've visited mosques around the world. Experienced a wide diaspora of Islamic cultures. I've read countless upon countless books about Islam, its history, and the cultural zones all around the world. I'm even preparing for my pilgrimage to the Mecca this summer, Mashallah.
But I drink sometimes. Especially for celebration. I have tattoos. I believe in feminist ideals. I don't mind homosexuality at all. In fact, I helped one of my students, who came out to me as being transgender since he trusted me. My girlfriend is a Christian woman. I would never force her to cover herself. I've joined in the Women's March last year, and I'm going to do it again this year. I've donated to women's educational programs in the Middle East plenty of times.
Am I not a Muslim? Is all that I've done for my faith for naught? Maybe some people who are fundamentalist in nature might consider that. But I don't think so. I have submitted to Allah. Allah guides me. Islam is in my blood. It has given my life meaning when I believed nothing did. If it wasn't for Islam, I wouldn't be here. But for someone to tell me I'm not a true Muslim because I believe in feminism? Or tell a Shia Muslim that they are unorthodox because they believe in something differently? Or denounce an Islamic scholar because they interpret a verse in the Quran in a modernist sense? I think that's quite the ridiculous sentiment. Let people interpret the Quran, lest the umma regresses back into a fundamentalist way of thinking.
I guess that my position arises from the fact that the Quran is supposed to be the direct word of Allah. I can't reconcile the idea that one can interpret the direct word of the divine or willingly go against it while still believing that the book is, indeed, the word of divinity; to do so seems, in my mind, to deny that the book is indeed what it claims, which in turn calls into question the origin and claimed divine authority of the book, which in turn erodes the basis of the faith.
This is sincerely in no way meant to be an attack, but is an honest question; how can you treat the book as something other than direct divine command while still following the religion, since the religion itself stems from the assumption that the book is the word of the divine? I guess that I personally have difficulty understanding that position.
I think this post has only reinforced the questions I have here:
I think mostly I want to know why the two have to be mutually exclusive. Religion is just as mutable a part as anything else in human culture, so shouldn't we be encouraging things that push it in directions of positive change? Why does it have to be a choice between equality and faith?
Did Henry VIII stop being a Catholic when he made his church? What about our friend Martin Luther? What about all the people who agreed and disagreed with them? Who are the real Catholics? Who are the heretics? Were they hypocrites for following the word of their God as they knew him but still desiring a change within the church and their religion, their culture? They were all still practicing Catholicism as a religion and by and large continue to do so
Can a Muslim woman not want to see her religion and culture change because she recognizes the problems and inequalities within it and what they do to people just because she is unwilling to renounce her faith? Even though her faith may be a defining part of her person and life?
What if renouncing faith simply isn't an option? Should the positive change simply not be pursued because of that? Would she still be a hypocrite to practice the faith while seeking to change what makes it objectionable?
What reasons are there that the two can never be reconciled? What makes Islam the odd man out among the hundreds of other Abrahamic offshoot faiths that makes them so irreconcilable?
The other Abrahamic religion's texts don't claim to be the direct, unadulterated, uninterpretable word of god in the preamble.
For a more detailed explanation, look up how the Quran was written according to the faith; it doesn't leave the text much, if any, room to modernize.
Jews are a bit of an exception since there are religious Jews and ethnic Jews. You can be an ethnic Jew without being particularly religious.
This is what I wrote on the first page.
You have a slight misconception here. The Quran exists as Allah's revelation, yes. However, the book was not written by Prophet Muhammad, it was written by the scribes and companions that traveled with him (at least, traditionally, this is the case). In this manner, while the Quran is God's word, and must be followed, the holy book has always been interpreted and analyzed, even from the times of the true Caliphates, in a notion we call tafsir. Tafsir can be categorized within two spheres: التفسير بالمأثور (tafsir bi'l ma'thur), which is a stricter interpretation of the book, and follows Prophet Muhammad and his compatriots' thinking, and التفسير بالراي (tafsir bi'l ra'y), which is realized from personal thought and rationality. With this, it's the same as any other piece of writing, from the Bible to the Constitution, which leaves the Quran essentially up to interpretation.
A central belief of Islam that the Quran is divine command. But how you treat that divine command is up to you. Traditionally, you use other verses, the hadiths, or the knowledge and scholarship of the ulama. Unlike Christianity, there is a very strict methodology to the interpretation of the Quran. You cannot do it on a whim, or just a random personal opinion. Or to justify evil with it. Even the Quran recognizes this:
And if you are in doubt about what We have sent down upon Our Servant [Muhammad], then produce a surah the like thereof and call upon your witnesses other than Allah, if you should be truthful.
But if you do not - and you will never be able to - then fear the Fire, whose fuel is men and stones, prepared for the disbelievers. al-Quran [2:23-2:24]
The words of Allah are final. You're right in this notion. The Quran is sacred in this regard. But Allah forgives. Allah is merciful. Those phrases resonate throughout the entire text. If you ponder over these verses with a pure heart, Allah is forgiving. Have I sinned? Yes. Do I not listen to everything in the Qu'ran? Yes. But within the holy book, Allah will judge me with my good deeds and bad deeds. A sin is an act, not the state of being. I live my life how I want to, with Allah guiding.
I'm not all too familiar with the Quran, but I would imagine much in the same way Christianity does that it states that continued wilful sin without repentance or attempt to change ones conduct would make them damned by god should they die without proper repentance.
That makes sense, thank you for putting it that way. There is that extra layer of Allah not being as dictatorial and vindictive as Jewish interpretations that I wasn't accounting for. With that being said, there are still some things that I cannot personally reconcile about the word of the Quran, specifically related to the context of the thread and attitudes towards certain groups.
The Quran has strong overtones of sexism, particularly with Allah's view towards women's intelligence
Sura 2:282: "O you who believe! When you contract a debt for a fixed
period, write it down. Let a scribe write it down in justice between
you. Let not the scribe refuse to write as Allah has taught him, so let
him write. Let him (the debtor) who incurs the liability dictate, and he
must fear Allah, his Lord, and diminish not anything of what he owes.
But if the debtor is of poor understanding, or weak, or is unable
himself to dictate, then let his guardian dictate in justice. And get
two witnesses out of your own men. And if there are not two men
(available), then a man and two women, such as you agree for witnesses,
so that if one of them (two women) errs, the other can remind her. "
Their role as dedicated submissives
Sura 4:34: " If you fear highhandedness from your wives, remind them [of
the teaching of Allah], then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit
them. If they obey you, you have no right to act against them. ALLAH is
most high and great."
Sura 4:35: "Men are guardians over women because ALLAH has made some of
them excel others, and because men spend on them of their wealth. So
virtuous women are obedient, and guard the secrets of their husbands
with ALLAH's protection. And as for those on whose part you fear
disobedience, admonish them and keep away from them in their beds and
chastise them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them.
Surely, ALLAH is High and Great."
Among many other examples. It seems like the Quran, and by extension Allah, has a very lowly view of women, which is why I cannot reconcile the idea that a practicing Muslim could be a feminist; to do so would be to deny the opinion of god himself, which seems like a major conflict. Am I missing something?
It is. In Islam, the concept is known as tawbah. Those who are relieve this duty of tawbah or do not partake in it, are considered Unjust.
But in that case, who am I to kid myself? While I do believe in Allah, and the umma, I won't allow myself to demean those other than me, who don't deserve to be demeaned. Is there an afterlife? I don't know. Religion plays a big part to me, but I will not allow it to overtake what I personally believe is right. Does that not make me a true Muslim in some peoples' eyes? It may. But I believe myself to be a true Muslim. I will never leave Islam. I will always call myself a Muslim, no matter the persecution or the hatred. If there is an afterlife, and Allah judges me, so be it. I have no regrets. But my belief in the Five Pillars, and my interpretation of the Quran as a whole, leaves no room for question in my mind. Just like how the Ahmadiyya believed that Ahmad was another Prophet (even though that is strictly forbidden in the Quran), or how the Nation of Islam had seen Elijah Muhammad as a Messenger. Or how the Sufi believe in Islamic "mysticism", a great sin in the religion.
If you see me as not a true Muslim, that's alright. Sometimes, I feel like I'm not a "true Muslim" either. But religion is what religion is to you. Everyone takes it differently. Some days, my faith in Allah wanes. Some days, my faith is strong and stalwart. I do not let the small things affect my life though. Islam is my guide, but not my decider. If that leads to me burning in Jahannam, so be it. If the afterlife doesn't exist, so be it. Either way, I die knowing I've made life easier and good for other human beings.
I don't know if I'm making any sense. Sorry if this is confusing.
You're doing an extremely good job of explaining all of this clearly, actually.
Well of course they don't
Not anymore
But as I've already gone over, religions change constantly as a part of human culture
Islam is only some 1400 years old, it's reckoned. It's the youngest Abrahamic faith. Christianity is some six hundred years older, and the oldest by far is Judaism, at around five hundred years more
Islam started in the Middle Ages. The era where the written word and the importance of preserving records had already been well established as part of what religions are
Judaism and Christianity did not have that luxury, and they have not had a peaceful history by any stretch of the imagination, especially not in the early centuries
We don't actually know what the original religious texts of the Abrahamic religions contained. The closest thing we have is the Tanakh, which is only a scholarly reconstruction of the Urtext in Judaism, and the basis for the Christian Old Testament. That text, however, is largely held, if not explicitly stated to be, the direct word of god. And was for centuries, just like the Quran is now. Before Christ did whatever on Earth it is that Christ did to inspire the New Testament, which fundamentally changed the religion some two thousand years ago
And y'know what, I think you should look up more about Islam as a culture, because the more I delve into my research which is just quick and dirty checking of my own mouth, the more it seems to me that the Quran isn't quite so clear cut
Religion changes all the time. Religious books get reinterpreted, rewritten, translated, studied, mistranslated, misinterpreted, transcribed, repackaged, rewritten, other synonyms for changed all the time, and they're one of the oldest cultural phenomena still persisting to this day
Religions claiming to hold the absolute, unchangeable, eternal, final word on the faith and that is is unthinkable to even think of changing or reinterpreting are a dime a dozen. Everybody claims to be the absolute authority in their holy books somewhere, that's sort of the whole point
I don't think it's a question of if Islam can change, I think it's a question of when
Why can't it be this century?
Why shouldn't we allow people to hold on to their faith while they try to change it for the better? Isn't that worthwhile?
Religions are, after all, a part of human culture. They change all the time as humans change. Why should this one be an exception? Just because it says it's an exception?
It is very difficult to change a religion that was designed for the purposes that Islam was. Islam was created for the specific purpose of Allah's intent being made clear, as it other Abrahamic faiths were perceived to have perverted his will over time; this results in scripture that has much less room for interpretation, since it was designed for the purpose of resisting change as to not be perverted itself. As @Omilinon 👻 pointed out, there are multiple ways to actually practice this faith, but as for the actual underlying attitudes in the scripture, and the meaning of the Quran itself? You're not going to get much wiggle room, since it is the word of Allah.
This is one of the most major chapters of contention in Islamic lore. A small point to be made, is that you really have to look around the verses that you cite. Unlike the Bible, the Quran flows from one topic to another because of the nature of the Arabic language. It's much harder to realize in an English translation, but you gotta do with what ya got.
Amina Wadud, an Islamic scholar (and a progressive feminist!), believes that there are "three interpretations for the chapter", which can be categorized as the "traditional, reactive, and holistic". I will give you the holistic interpretation (progressive), and then contrast it with the most reactionary.
Sura 2:282 actually isn't saying that 1 man > 1 woman in terms of intelligence. It's saying that in order for a financial transaction to occur, you must have 2 men, or (through contextualization) 2 women. This is to ensure that the other party will not marry/love the other and create bias. It specifically says two women because the other woman is there to make sure that no love will occur and ruin the transaction.
The reactionary way of believing this is that women are emotionally vulnerable, and must require another to not be "defiled". The holistic way of believing this is that during this time period, men would be much more likely to try and marry a woman, than the woman making the first move. So, another woman would be placed to "defend her" from the man, if he tries anything. Or some manner of that. I can't explain it that well!
Sura 4:35 needs a little bit of context, which goes back to the flowing poetry I mentioned earlier, and that the English translation can really mess stuff up.
And do not wish for that by which Allah has made some of you exceed others. For men is a share of what they have earned, and for women is a share of what they have earned. And ask Allah of his bounty. Indeed Allah is ever, of all things, Knowing. al-Quran [4:32]
The Quran is not saying that men specifically excel better than women. He is saying that most men have excelled in comparison to women, and thus will take care of those less successful-- the women. It's not that women are inferior to men; the Quran is stating that those who have earned a greater share will guard that who has less, and that all bounty (money, land, etc,.) is not under either, but bestowed by Allah.
Also in this case, there is no mention of women not being able to do the same. That's the more holistic approach to interpreting it. The verse literally just talks about the equivalent of going to bed angry and ignoring your wife, but it's essentially the same for women. The reactionary approach is that it's only for men that are able to do it.
Sura 4:34 is extremely in contention by Islamic scholars. Mostly because of one word. The hitting part. Iḍribūhunna. This word encompasses many meanings depending on how you structure it. It can mean to literally strike. Or it can mean to separate (divorce). Or it can mean to condemn. In the Quran, there are many mentions of striking another. But, in those contexts, the word is always followed with "مَع " (with). In this verse, it does not. Which means it is not striking, but probably means in terms of divorce.
This blogpost (I know, I know! But I can personally testify that it is extremely well-written and the guy definitely knows what he's talking about) explains it very well.
You're the first person I've ever interacted with that has actually explained this in a manner that I can in good faith say that makes sense within the constraints of the religion and text, thank you very much for putting in the time to write this. I still have some issues with Islam, but now that I know that my understanding of certain aspects may be incorrect, it has called into question my understanding of others as well. Sincerely, thank you for spending the time that you did on this and for explaining it the way that you have.
It was my pleasure. It makes me greatly happy whenever I am able to teach others about the Quran and Islam, and alleviate their fears or issues.
If you ever have more questions, don't be afraid to ask me. I have plenty of recommendations literature-wise as well (including the Quran itself!). And never be afraid of going to your local mosque and talking to the imam personally. Most of the time, they will gladly answer any questions or clear up issues, and if not, they're practicing in bad faith.
Institutionalization of religion has a huge role in this. Islam has a far greater role in informing politics in certain countries than any other religion. Yes, it could be argued that Christian symbolism is cited very commonly in many western countries, but there is a clear distinction between church and state that does not exist in many Islamic countries.
Well, yes? Isn't that how any label works, really?
Christianity and atheism aren't compatible. The fact that you can make them compatible by throwing out all the aspects of Christianity that involve deities doesn't make them compatible. The fact that you can make Nazism and Judaism compatible by throwing out all the parts of Nazism that concern racial supremacy doesn't make them compatible. There have to be limits, or the labels 'Christian' or 'Muslim' or 'Jew' are literally meaningless.
It kind of is?
Deism isn't Christianity, and if anybody claims it is they're grossly ignorant of what deism is. It's a rejection of Christianity, in favor of a more ambiguous religious belief.
But either way, this is missing the overall point: If you can weasel-word 'Christianity' into meaning whatever you want to twist it into being compatible with some other idea, then 'Christianity' as a label is worthless. At that point it's just word games. You can claim that any belief is compatible with any other, so long as you selectively dismiss all the contradictory bits- but you're no longer talking about the same belief system that anyone else using the term 'Christianity' or 'Islam' or Judaism' is talking about.
I think the simplest solution is that religious people don't fully believe in their religion. On a subconscious level they don't fully apply it.
I'd argue there are no really religious people given that none of them actually follow the teachings of their religion. And if we can argue that no teaching of a religion is actually a teaching of a religion, then there's no fucking religion to begin with.
This makes you an extremist.
Well yeah you can define right and wrong ways but nobody has the supreme authority or final say on what these limits are. So yeah labels are not inherently meaningful, and they're only useful if everybody present agrees on their definition.
I don't agree with this at all, I've known people who would follow their religion to the word, to the point of even dying in the name of following it. You underestimate the extremes many people will go to for their faith.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
