Day: November 9, 2019

In “Jihad and the Modern World” on page 407, Dr. Sherman Jackson states that “Muslims will have to avoid the fallacy of assuming that the realities of yesterday pass automatically into today or that the factual or historical assessments of the Muslims of the past constitute authoritative doctrines that are binding on the Muslims of the present.”

In Islam, the Quran is considered to be the eternal word of God. Is Dr. Jackson’s statement contradictory to this belief or can Muslims who agree with Dr. Jackson consider the Quran to be the eternal word of God while acknowledging that times change and certain instructions have to be reinterpreted while considering the original context?

Although I don’t believe the Bible is the eternal word of God in the same way Muslims understand this about the Quran, I am familiar with a similar method of interpretation when it comes to the Torah. For an example, sometimes nonreligious people ask me why I wear mixed fabrics. The simple answer is that I look at the reason for why this law was made. If the reason applies to today, I follow it. If the reason no longer applies, I don’t have to follow it. Mixed fabrics were forbidden because it was a style of clothing that polytheists wore. Today, everyone wears mixed fabrics and it has nothing to do with being a polytheist or a monotheist. This is why the law, at first glance, doesn’t make sense to us.

When it comes to the Quran, do you think that extremism comes from not understanding the context and believing that the world is in the same state of war as it was when the Quran was revealed?

The hadith sets up a dichotomy. Either a place is a dar al-Islam (house of Islam), or it is a dar al-harb (house of war). A place considered to be a house of Islam is a place where Muslims are in the majority. A house of war is where Muslims are in the minority.

In your opinion, is this a false dichotomy and an oversimplification? Can Muslims be safe in a place where they are not the majority, and are there times when they are not safe even though they are the majority?

Why do you think this dichotomy is expressed? Is it more of a statement meant to insinuate there will never be peace in the world unless Muslims are able to establish a government according to their religion? Or is it simply an observation that in the experiences of Muslims, they were never safe unless their community was the majority?