Hey guys, so in conclusion of this course, I was just wondering what some of your ideas are concerning what we’ve learned. I know we’ve learned a lot, but what stands out to you? What things do you think are most practical and can be applied and used in our everyday lives?
As I may have mentioned in class, I’m currently taking “Religion in Residence” along with “Islamic Traditions.” Along with several other RAs, we discuss ways in which we can make the lessons we learn in our courses applicable to our campus. My perspective has been primarily through an RA lens and how I could make my floor more inclusive. However, I’d like to get more non-RA opinions on how we can make campus, as a whole, a more inclusive and equitable space for students. Since we’re in Islamic Traditions, I’d love if you could comment based on what we’ve learned together.
For example, a topic that’s come up a lot in our class is maybe having food accommodations during Ramadan. We’ve also talked about how to make the area in which Muslim students are encouraged to pray in the MultiCulti Center feel less like a closet. I’d really appreciate any other insight!
As I was reading this article, I found it very interesting with the types of perspectives individuals had about Islam, whether they were Muslim originally, or a convert. For example, Omar Ibn Sayyid, a former slave, justifies slavery because his owner fed and nurtured him, and he learned about that family’s Christian beliefs. Once he did, he decided to convert from Islam to Christianity. While other individuals like Mohammed Webb was raised Christian and converted to Islam. Sayyid talks about Islam in a negative connotation, while Webb does not. Why do you guys think these contrast perspectives developed and do you think religious scholars view this as a sense of those individuals turning their backs on their “original” religion? How do you think culture influences the religion that you grow up with?
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?
After leaving class today, I was still a little confused about what distinguishes Shias from Sunnis. After watching a few Youtube videos to help figure it out, I found one (linked below) that gives a very brief summary of what makes them different. It also brings in current day Sunni and Shia groups, talks about their geography, and interactions with one another and the United States. I found it very helpful and interesting, and I hope it could help some of you too!
In al-Khalili’s text, “Translation and the House of Wisdom,” there’s one section in the piece that discusses the ways in which great sums of knowledge were translated into Arabic from languages vastly different from the scholars’ own. Although much of the article focuses on “scientific” and “mathematical” knowledge, it also touches on al-Rashid’s love for the arts. Within this paragraph, the author writes that Muslim scholar studied Indian and Greek works and attempted to assimilate them into Arabic culture. Later in the paragraph, al-Khalili refers to this rush for translation as a movement and a fervent passion to infuse teachings outside of the scholars’ own cultures into their own heritage.
We have learned a lot about how idioms, connotations, and other characteristics of language that can easily be lost in translation. What do you think are the effects of trying to do this on a large scale in the context of translating cross-cultural contexts? Once something is assimilated into another culture, does it then become a hybrid or does it “belong” to the new culture into which it has been adopted? Do you see this pattern in our own environment?
~ Michelle
This year’s Center for Ethics theme is about national borders, and in Vincent Cornell’s writing about the networking of Ibn Battuta, it speaks about the Circle of Equity, which in a sense, talks about borders on page 34. Specifically, he says, “The world is a garden, and its walls are the state” (Cornell 34). This quote represents a nation-state sentiment, and gives the idea that once you leave a certain nation-state, every aspect can change, like language, culture, and accepted norms. Relating to class discussions and any of the Center for Ethics presentations, we feel that there is a distinct connection that can be made between this quote and what is happening in today’s society with immigration policies. Do you think that governments, specifically that of the US, are still implementing this same idea? Why/ why not?
Ashleigh and Jeff
The author, Maria Rosa Menocal provides readers into her view of the history of the religion of Islam. After reading this, it almost seems as if Menocal problematizes the fact that when Muhammad dies, there seems to be no one good enough to take over. This seems problematic to me, because the religion is heavily based on holding fellow followers accountable for their actions. This made me wonder, do you think that Muhammad would actually want a new “ruler” of the religion, or do you think he would want everyone to be held to the same standards he was held to? Do you think he would want everyone treated equal with no succession line? I think that maybe he would want people to view god in this way, what do you think?
From the reading “The Ornament of The World” we learn that Spain held Jewish, Christian, and Muslim beliefs and that they all lived amongst each other. However, Christianity became more prevalent as it tried to wipe out Jewish and Muslim beliefs. Do you guys have any ideas as to why certain religions view their beliefs as the “correct” one? Why can people not respect different perspectives, wouldn’t that make “world peace”? I am pretty interested to hear about the ideas people have on why religions have to fight for them to be labeled as the “right path to God” or “to heaven”.