aziz
-
07:58:32 am on June 9, 2008 | # | |
Some years ago, I proposed a draft of a declaration of principles for American muslims. I’d like to reprint them here and invite your comments. Of course, these should be generalized to all muslims residing in the West.
1. America, as the sole nation on earth where religious freedom is guaranteed to all, is the greatest Islamic country on the face of the Earth.
2. It is the duty of an American muslim to be a law-abiding citizen, to work hard and with integrity, and to be an asset to their community both inside and outside the masjid.
3. Shari’a is a divine code to live by, and trancends Man’s Law. Trying to mandate the practice of Shari’a by using Law is against Islam, as per Qur’an ayat 2:256: There is no compulsion in religion.
4. The American muslim will not allow non-muslims to define the faith. Our core concepts such as hijab and jihad shoudl be routinely embraced and deliberately used in dialouge with non-muslims. We do not accept the value judgement of any non-muslim upon our religious practices.
5. The American muslim is bound to excercize Al Aql al Insaan (the Reason of Man) in interpreting Islam. The American muslim is free to be a conservative or liberal, and owes no allegiance to any political party or leader.
If perhaps we can tweak these to our collective satisfaction, we might consider publishing them in some fashion.
-
Tag this post
Comments
Leave a Comment
BK 9:10 am on June 9, 2008 | #
The Hijab as a mandatory “core concept,” obligatory upon women, is in direct conflict with American culture.
This may be an area where Islamic tradition has to bend as American culture bends. Muslim women should be free to wear hijab, not required to wear hijab.
What is obligatory upon Muslims is to dress and behave with dignity and modesty.
Willow 9:16 am on June 9, 2008 | #
While I see how you arrived at ‘America is the greatest Islamic nation on earth’ (and I know how you, personally, conceive of that idea), I can’t help but think it would be threatening to some people. (They really are taking over!! They see America as the seat of their new caliphate!! Bwaaaaah!!)Perhaps there’s another way to phrase it. It’d make an arresting title for an op-ed, (the new patriotic Muslim!), but perhaps in this context not so much.
thabet 9:20 am on June 9, 2008 | #
Well, as Razib has pointed out (with some posts from me), religious freedom for all is not a guarantee even in a liberal democracy. Religious sensibilities (primarily, and perhaps exclusively, ‘practices’) are to be subordinated to the demands of the state.
BK 10:09 am on June 9, 2008 | #
. Shari’a is a divine code to live by, and trancends Man’s Law.
Religious law is subordinated to the common good in a pluralistic nation. As stated above.
This sounds more like a declaration of revolt and independence.
You should try to find a compromise that will work for Muslims and America.
Holy Prophet was a tremendous and ground breaking diplomat. You have to protect Muslim rights and the state’s rights.
aziz 10:27 am on June 9, 2008 | #
to be honest, G, I intended it to be worded a little aggressively. I am being, in a sense, Brass.
i think we have a duty to fight for our freedom of expression so that we dont dilute the concepts we are trying to promote within our communities, for the sake of potential (and inevitable regardless) misinterpretation by outsiders. It does trigger a debate, at least, and debate is better than nothing, because we then have an opportunity to persuade.
agreed, thabet, but we can advocate for that freedom as part of our Muslimness and Westerness without compromising either. That puts us in an advantageous civil and moral position.
razib 12:31 pm on June 9, 2008 | #
4. The American muslim will not allow non-muslims to define the faith. Our core concepts such as hijab and jihad shoudl be routinely embraced and deliberately used in dialouge with non-muslims. We do not accept the value judgement of any non-muslim upon our religious practices.
there are two problems with this
1) how does consensus occur? do ahmaddiya’s get counted as muslim? can they “vote” on how to define the faith? what about ismailis?
2) since muslims probably require some sort of accommodation (unless muslims form their own amish-like accommodations) non-muslims who are going to be accommodating within reason will practically help shape what american islam is. if you look at the history of judaism and catholicism in the united states the impact of protestant expectations is pretty clear, and i also thing to some extent your own post has all the ticks of being shaped in in an american milieu which non-muslims are obviously strong voices.
aziz 2:03 pm on June 9, 2008 | #
razib,
1. I don’t think that concensus enters into it at all. I am not advocating for a unified american islam, I am advocating that muslims themselves can decide for themselves what islam is. The point is that we will not surrender terms like “jihad” as an example to the definition promoted y Daniel Pipes. If a muslim chooses to embrace the Pipes viewof jihad themselves, thats one thing, but forcing ME to accept Pipes’ definition is quite another.
2. I dont see any real need for “accomodation” here. We arent asking for special treatment of any sort. Muslims can fast for ramadan, pray, take Eid off as a holiday (use a vacation day, etc), all quite fine without requiring any assistance from anyone else. Can you give me an example of an accomodation that muslims might require so this is less theoretical?
razib 2:52 pm on June 9, 2008 | #
i guess i don’t understand what #1 entails practically.
We arent asking for special treatment of any sort.
yes. some muslim women believe that their face must be veiled for driver’s licenses. i don’t think that islam requires veiling, but they do (so far their requests for alternative forms of ID have been rejected). if a large proportion of students in a school district or prisoners in a prison are muslim then it is usually the case that some changes in cafeteria menus are entailed (if half if your students avoid pork then having pork be in the “mystery meat”) unless you want to force vegetarianism (this is more of an issue for prison since it isn’t like there are other alternatives for prisoners). some public schools have constraints on dress (usually for pragmatic and contextual reasons) or requirements for physical education, and some muslim parents argue that their religion requires some consideration that their faith requires some deviation. there are requirements for religious slaughter which might violate the statutory codes (humane or public health) in some jurisdictions.
a more extreme case would be that of somali immigrants in seattle who believe a very mild ritual female circumsion is entailed by islam (obviously this is debatable). there wasn’t any real engagement here about whether this was or wasn’t islamic by the hospitals which fielded the request, they rejected the request for the incision in a prima facie manner. no argument was going to make them budge, religious or not.
aziz 7:50 am on June 11, 2008 | #
with respect to #1, I am simply stating that the process of interpretation and religious practice is one that only muslims can engage in. Jafis like Daniel Pipes, Debbie Schlussel, etc insist on performing exegesis of Qur’an and hadith for their own purposes, but it is a mistake to attempt to engage them on these matters (I now believe; though for years at City of Brass I did precisely that. And got nowhere). I reject the legitimacy of the interpretation of Islam by a non muslim entirely and without reservation (apart from academic and theoretical interests).
thabet 9:09 am on June 11, 2008 | #
I reject the legitimacy of the interpretation of Islam by a non muslim entirely and without reservation
What about where people go to a (’non-Muslim’ state) court to prove or disprove something is an integral part of Islam?
thabet 9:10 am on June 11, 2008 | #
FYI here is Article 9 of the ECHR:
Willow 9:14 am on June 11, 2008 | #
Here here. (Hear hear?) We don’t walk up to Catholics and say “A shame about all this alter boy naughtiness–I think the solution is to convene Vatican III and expose outdated Catholic rhetoric for what it is. I’ll let you know how it goes, and possibly write a book about it. Anyone have a copy of the Bible handy? I’ve never read it all the way through…”
It’s amazing the way people think they really have a right to reform someone else’s religion.
Willow 9:15 am on June 11, 2008 | #
PS–That here here was directed at Aziz’s comment. Thabet jumped in before I pressed Enter.
thabet 9:17 am on June 11, 2008 | #
I’m always jumping in where I am not wanted.
Willow 9:22 am on June 11, 2008 | #
Razib, I think what you’re talking about is simply a conflict of interest, rather than non-Muslims limiting the ability of Muslims to practice. The doctors also have a constitutional right to uphold their own beliefs.
There is no such thing as ‘freedom’. There are simply freedoms. Once yours come in conflict with mine someone is going to have to give something up.
What Aziz is talking about is more abstract–the push (which is not limited to Jafis; I ran into some educated leftists this weekend who said similar things) by non-Muslims to reform or reinterpret Islam. This is unhelpful and patronizing, even racist. (I don’t think this noblesse oblige attitude toward reforming the poor backward Muslim masses would have developed if Muslims were predominantly white.)
thabet 10:20 am on June 11, 2008 | #
I would like to refer back to this quote.
aziz 10:33 am on June 11, 2008 | #
thabet, thats a good point, for which I have no easy answer, other than to muse in a general sense that to some degree the courts are granted that legitimacy by the muslim community seeking “millet” status. If the muslims ask for a separate context for legal decisions as pertains to their community, then they have implicitly granted said legitimacy. However I am not well-informed on these issues; some thoughts from you in that regard would be instructive.
To address part 2 of Razib’s comment above regarding accomodations, I still don’t see these as necessarily a fundamental conflict. Lets take the drivers license case as an example - there were multiple issues there, as elucidated by Laura aka Al Muhajabah, including the fact that the Indiana state supreme court upheld the right of certain Christian groups to obtain non-photo-ID drivers’ license on the grounds that their religious belief considered photos “graven images”. Note that I was initially quite steadfastly against the muslim woman’s case for a veiled photo, but the case law with respect to whether driving is a privelege or a right, and whether drivers licenses are for licensing purposes or identification purposes, is not black and white. I subsequently had to moderate my own position on the matter.
My point here is that these cases where ostensibly the muslim is requesting special accomodation are not as black and white as they seem in the media narrative. I think we can discuss the other examples you gave (cafeteria food, somali circumcision) in similarly reasonable terms and find that no “accomodation” is explicitly required.
Of course, sometimes you do come up against teh brick wall of law. If my religion mandates someone murder their first born daughter by burying them in the sand, well, thats gonna be a problem. For them. Thats an extreme example because frankly only the extreme examples ever come up against such hard limits.