I do not pretend to have expertise in the area of Islamic tradition or history. This post is a personal exercise in rationalizing my own views and should not be construed as an attack on the religion or an attempt to force my opinions on others. This post is prompted by several things: the recent revision of MUIS’s stance on organ transplantation and my personal encounters with Syariah law in matters of probate. But mostly my personal unwillingness to believe in too literal an interpretation of Islam.
Religion is a human contrivance with, predictably, human failings.
Many do not, or choose not to, realise that religion is a human construct. This does not, by any means, mean that it is a fabrication, but rather that human factors must naturally have had influence on the way the religion was institutionalised and delivered to the masses. The Quran, from what I understand, is a compilation of Prophet Muhammad’s divine revelations, recited over a period of about 23 years and memorised by his close companions, the actual act of compiling only done much later. Not once disputing the authenticity of the divine message, the potential for errors and probability of mistakes in the process of recording is undeniable. The companions were human after all, and not infallible.
Moreover, aside from the Quran, much of muslim tradition is derived additionally from the Sunnah (loosely translated to “the way of the Prophet”), the deeds of Prophet Muhammad. The Sunnah, together with the Hadith, oral traditions passed down from the time of the Prophet, form the basis of Syariah law, under which all Muslims are bound. The oral nature of the transmission of Hadith complicates matters, as one would naturally expect it to be more prone to errors than, for example, transmission using physical records. Time and the fallibility of human nature would likely result in unavoidable alterations to the original message, and we cannot take for granted that what we accept now is what was initially intended. The failings of using oral traditions to form the basis of law should therefore be evident.
Translation of the Quran would also further compound the problem, as mistranslations are inescapable. Even when avoided, much of the nuance of the oiginal arabic phrasings would be lost, resulting in potentially significant differences in meaning. One example of such is the highly debated mistranslation of the Hebrew word for “maiden” to “virgin”, resulting in the Biblical recounting of the famous virgin birth of Jesus.
Antiquated practices in contemporary conditions?
More importantly, there is the matter of context. Is it acceptable to automatically apply practices in ancient Arabic civilisation to modern times? For some things, the most important being the five basic pillars of Islam, there is little contention, being personal in nature. But other civil issues, particularly those concerning the behaviour and gender-specific roles of people in society, should not be taken out of the context of ancient times and blindly enforced as Syariah law today. At least not without first re-examining the rationale behind the outdated laws and subsequently adjusting regulations to present day situations.
That in mind, is polygamy still relevant today, and in all situations? A man was formerly encouraged to take more than one wife in war-torn and poverty-stricken times of old, as it was a way to care for and protect the many unmarried women, unable to provide for themsleves. While this may still apply to countries like Iraq, embroiled in war and strife, how relevant is it in modern Singapore? And why then, is there an imposed limit of 4 wives, seemingly arbitrary in number and purpose?
The disparity in gender roles also bears rethinking. As far as I am aware, there are no religious prohibitions on women working or providing for their families. Men and women can therefore be expected to shoulder equal responsibilities, and similarly, have equal stakes in the family. Is it still relevant then for sons to be given a bigger portion of a deceased father’s estate than daughters? In ancient muslim society, more often than not, the husband was the sole family breadwinner, and bequeathing a larger part of one’s inheritance to sons was pragmatic. Not so today, when increasingly, both husband and wife work to support the family. Is there justification in persisting with such antiquated practices?
If adulterers are no longer killed for their crimes, as was the fitting punishment in ancient times, are there still grounds for enforcing similarly outdated laws pertaining to other aspects of life? This does not, however, call for the total abandonment of our religious practices but rather, increased openmindedness when considering differences in interpretation. More importantly, it calls for active exploration of the reasons behind our actions and greater willingness to rethink old practices to address modern needs, while still observing the core principles of the religion. Turning away from blind, dogmatic worship and embracing healthy, open discourse cannot but improve our understanding and appreciation of the religion.
August 2, 2007 at 9:21 pm
Faith is used when logic will not give you the desired result. It is like saying Bush isn’t president; it just looks that way to everyone else. But if you are faithful enough you can make it change reality to fit your beliefs. It is called doublethink.
August 3, 2007 at 3:17 am
One employs logic to help in making sense of things he does not understand. I do not think it is some kind of tool to shape theories into your own “desired results”. The basis of logical thinking lies in reasoning, not in twisting facts to suit one’s own ends.
What’s that about Bush not being president? I’m not sure I really understand your point on changing reality based on faith. In my opinion, faith must be substantiated in some way. For example, the train has always come at 12.30 everyday. As such, because of inductive reasoning, I have faith that the train will come today at 12.30. Not, “I don’t know how to explain this, but i want to believe that its true, so ill just call my belief in in faith and not waste time justifying it.” Again, i don’t really understand your point on doublethink. Care to clarify?
August 6, 2007 at 6:13 am
Sure thing. I refer to doublethink because religious people use logic to build their positions, but if the logic is refuted then they fall back on faith, or in other words they relied on faith the whole time, but were pretending it was logic (should be italicized). Just because you want something to be true or you believe in it doesn’t actually make it true. Part of reason is that when you are proved wrong, you can’t ignore the parts you didn’t like and have to revise your beliefs. And finally the train, that is reason, not faith. It has come before, so you figure it will come again. That is your proof. Even if you have got your information from another person it would be reason if you could ask them to produce the train schedule.
August 6, 2007 at 1:57 pm
About the train, it does involve faith to a certain extent. Logical reasoning is usually based on 3 thought processes: 1)deductive reasoning, 2)inference to the best explanation and 3)inductive reasoning.
Examples:
1)All mice like cheese. Whiskers is a mouse. Therefore, Whiskers likes cheese.
2)Cheese in the larder is gone, except for a few crumbs. Scrabbling sounds were heard in the larder last night. Therefore it is possible that the cheese was eaten by mice.
3)The sun has risen every day. Therefore, the sun will rise tomorrow.
3)is an example of inductive reasoning, which is applied to my example of the train. As you can see, the premise does not entail the conclusion; i.e. just because something has always happened, doesn’t mean it will continue to happen. As such, a certain amount of faith is involved. This type of faith can be substantiated, and is intended as a contrast to the blind faith some people have in religion. While it is still an assumption, it is a justified one.
Also, I agree with you that many employ “doublethink” when trying to justify religion, but I do not think it can build a valid argument. Whenever logic breaks down, instead of falsifying the theory, inevitably, the word “faith” is invoked and people are spared from answering the hard questions.
August 7, 2007 at 1:33 pm
Faith is involved in assuming that things that have previously happened will continue to happen? I think the word faith has multiple means, the religious one (I have faith God exists), authority and friendship (aka trust; I have faith he will come through) and continuity (I have faith that it will happen because it has always happened before). They are all different and not surprising aren’t interchangable. The second two are based on reason (I believe he will come through because he always has before; past experience does qualify as a rationale) and are different than religious faith which isn’t.
August 8, 2007 at 12:37 am
The fact that you say that “religious faith” is not based on reason is exactly my point. Why not? Why is religion exempt from logical backing? If I say to you now that Humans were cloned from an alien species, would you accept it? Most probaby not, unless there was concrete proof. But that is exactly what members of the Raelian sect believe, and the alien origin of mankind forms the foundation of their religion. So why whould others choose to disbelieve their faith? Because, to others it would seem illogical. Why should any religion then be spared the scrutiny of logic and reason? Like I said, blind faith is as good as no faith, because you do not trust in your faith to survive the rigours of logical questioning.
August 8, 2007 at 12:20 pm
I agree with you andee. I think I should be more blatant in stating my position. Sorry about the misunderstanding.
August 8, 2007 at 2:24 pm
no problem, thank you developing the discussion. 🙂 do u have a blog of your own?
August 14, 2007 at 10:41 pm
No, I just like commenting (being my first time and all…). How long do these discussions usually last? I couldn’t get back for a couple days and for most of them I had the last word in (Nice, but I was amazed at how quickly people moved on.).
October 4, 2007 at 10:19 pm
your post is really thought-provoking. as a muslim myself, i find that i don’t really question much about my religion.
that said, do allow me to respond with what i do know. humans are fallible, but that doesn’t exclude us from doing amazing things. many in the world today memorise the Quran, although our memories are faulty. in the time of the Prophet, the written word was not widespread. most Arabs had to rely on their memory. nowadays people can depend on the written word and so our memories would not be so great. however, at the time of the Prophet, since most transmission was done orally, their memories would be really impressive, no?
as an example, the very fact that you have a vocabulary of perhaps 100,000 words attests to the power of the human memory. this you must consider in the present context of widespread use of printed material. imagine the memories of those who had to rely solely on their memories!
also, the Quran was revealed in small pieces throughout 23 years. if you think about it, each piece would not be that difficult to memorise if spread over 23 years. and at each sitting, many Companions were there to memorise each piece. they could then check against each other. no stone was unturned during the compilation of the verses.
October 4, 2007 at 10:19 pm
With regards to the bit about the oral transmission of the ahadeeth, there is actually a branch of Islamic religious knowledge dedicated to this called “Science of Hadith”. Refer to [http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Hadith/Ulum/]. In brief, the hadith can be categorized into different strengths according to the chain of transmission. If the chain of transmission is weak or reliable, then it is classified as such. A weak chain of transmission would have men of dubious character. There is even a branch of the “Science of Hadith” dedicated to the study and scrutiny of reporters of ahadeeth called “Rijal al-Hadith”. A reporter can be labeled, after intense scrutiny, as “Imam or Hafiz”, “Reliable, Trustworthy”, “Makes mistakes” and even as a “Liar, used to fabricate hadeeth”. You must understand here that what is being transmitted orally are not folk stories. They are matters of deen (here I refrain from using religion because Islam is actually a deen i/e way of life) and hence any mistake would have serious consequences.
October 4, 2007 at 10:20 pm
I take issue with how you call them “antiquated practices”. They are not practices in as much as they are laws which guide us in the way we live. And these laws, as you must have known, are not rigid. There is a lot of leeway given to the ‘ulama to interpret and make concessions based on context and contingency. I disagree with you when you say that there is no relevance in applying laws given to the people of Arabia to the people of today. The Quranic laws are in fact quite general and universal.
Polygamy in Islam is nothing of the sort imagined (or practiced) by most people. Polygamy is not suitable for all occasions, as enjoined in the Quran in 4:3. “And if ye fear that ye will not deal fairly by the orphans, then marry of the women (i.e., their mothers) who seem good to you, two or three or four; and if ye fear that you cannot do justice (to so many) then one only or (of the female captive) whom your right hand possess. That is better, that ye stray not from the path of justice.” The caveat here is that the husband must do justice to each wife and treat them with equal love and respect. And if he can’t afford it, then there is no reason to carry it out. Islam is a universal religion, and deals with human nature as it is. If polygamy practiced in the true Islamic spirit, can be one of the many solutions to prostitution and extramarital affairs, why not? An excellent article to read would be [http://muslim-canada.org/polygamy.html]. Please do go and take a look.
October 4, 2007 at 10:21 pm
As for the issue on gender roles and the seeming inequality between men and women in Islam, I would like to highlight to you that men and women were not born different without reason. The focus here is on duties rather than rights. The woman body is designed to carry children through gestation and feed them. The woman’s psyche is made to care for children and to be gentle. The man, on the other hand, is made for physical activity, for competitiveness and as protector. Correspondingly, the duties of each as extolled in Islam would be different. In short, the man is to provide for the family, while the woman is to raise the kids and take care of the family’s welfare. It is true that gender roles have changed through time, but have the duties changed? Human bodies have not changed drastically. Women still have breasts and are still the only one of the two to be able to bear children. Men have bigger frames and are still the ones who easily grow muscle tissue (might not be so relevant to today, but consider the mental capacity as well). Our duties, in relation to the way we are made, have not changed. As such, in Islam, the duty of the man is still to provide the means of living (i.e nafkah) to the family and protect it. The duty of the woman is still to take care of the family.
If the husband and wife are both working, did you know that it is obligatory on the husband to spend on the family from his income but for the wife, whatever she spends on the family is charity? Did you know that once a man and woman are married to each other, the man’s responsilibities towards his parents in addition to his wife and children whereas for the woman, her responsibilities are to care for her husband and children only? These are but just 2 of the examples I know of. Due to the fact that men face different responsibilities from women, is it any surprise that men and women should have different rights in Islam? I invite you to ponder over these issues with me.
Whatever good that has come from this is from Allah, and whatever bad is from my own ignorance and failings. May Allah bless you with His mercy and His guidance. (:
October 5, 2007 at 6:40 pm
Reply to 10:
“however, at the time of the Prophet, since most transmission was done orally, their memories would be really impressive, no?” Hmm, I am uncomfortable with this sort of reasoning because it sounds like reverse logic, something akin to saying: “I was required to write a perfect copy of a book, and since i have done it (to the best of my abilities), it is definitely a perfect copy.” The limiting factor here is human ability. Are you saying, then, that in that 23 years, there isnt the slightest chance that the information transmitted could have potentially been altered, whether crucially or inconsequentially? As you have already stated, humans are fallible, and our memories, faulty. This also does not take into account the fact that, as far as I know, these memorisations were not written down till much, much later.
October 5, 2007 at 6:43 pm
Reply to 11:
Honestly I was not aware that the “Science of Hadith” existed, and am grateful to you for bringing it to my attention! I will comment more when I’ve read more about it. 🙂
October 5, 2007 at 7:13 pm
Reply to 12:
Would you not conisder the abidement and enforcement of Syariah law to be rigid? Take for example the case in Malaysia. If I remember correctly, a married couple with children was broken apart because authorities discovered that one of the parents was Hindu and the other Muslim. In the eyes of Syariah law, I believe, the marriage is void because one spouse is a non-muslim. The family was effectively broken up because of a technicality. To be honest, I have not seen much practice of “leeway” when it comes to Islam, or other religions for that matter, and would gladly welcome any evidence that could prove otherwise.
I agree with you when you say that Polygamy would be applicable, if practiced in true Islamic spirit. People for get however that Islam’s concession on polygamy is warranted only in certain conditions, depending heavily on situation and context. While certain situations today might possibly warrant polygamy, you cannot deny that it is less applicable today than it was in the past. It is for this reason that I consider the practice of polygamy to be antiquated, not suitable to contemporary times.
October 5, 2007 at 7:29 pm
Reply to 13:
I disagree with your take on the gender disparity. While the biology of men and women has remained largely unchanged over the years, their “duties” now are more different and varied then ever. The hallmark of Man’s social development is our respect for choice and the freedom of any individual to do as he so chooses, as long as others do not suffer as a consequence of his actions. I am therefore strongly opposed to designating “duties” to people of different gender, or, for that matter, any other classification of people. Just because the two sexes have different physical and emotional characteristics doesn’t stop men from becoming nurses and women from becoming fire-fighters.
Why then, confine women to home and child-care and men to work? If, hypohetically, a muslim woman makes much more money than her husband does, should she be duty-bound to stay at home when she has her first child, consequently resulting in a less financially stable family situation? In reality, a substantial number of muslim wives contribute an important portion to the financial support of their family. If they were to take their “charity” away, their families would doubtless suffer as a result.
Your point about men taking care of their parents only works in an ideal situation. I myself have seen situations in which daughters make a more substantial contribution to the support of their parents and are also more responsible in careig for them than their brothers. Why penalise them just for being female, when they are, for all intents and purposes, assuming the “duties” of the sons? Clearly, the responsibilities of men and women are today not so easily defined.
I am grateful for your input and must thank you again for introducing new elements into this discussion, which i will most certainly explore. 🙂
October 15, 2007 at 10:37 am
Actually oral memory is extremely unreliable. The best example comes from ancient history where when one group conquered another they decided they had the same gods. This is one of the reasons the Jews did not get along with their neighbors: They had a written faith and could check up upon it. That isn’t to say that people who did oral tradition purposely lied; its just that memory is written in stone and just as importantly things can be forgotten, the meanings of words can change, people may shift parts to a more favorable light and the placement of text can change, all these things leading to a change in meaning. In addition real texts can be rejected as false because they don’t fit in, gradually shifting the flavor. For Islam a good example would be the fact that later texts over rule earlier text. Even if textual memory is perfect people may disagree about which order they go in; with different orders having radically different meanings.