Nzingha's Soapbox
Salaam 'alaikum,
The points you've raised, in my opinion, are valid and should be addressed.
However, you seem to imply that Muslim scholar=bad shariah and rational layperson=good shariah. I doubt that it is as simple as that.
First, in order for reform to have any real and significant impact on most people it has to be seen as coming from specialists well-versed in the subject. -Unless of course the people begin to disdain the Ulama altogether (which was the case in almost all countires where salafism went on to become the norm.)
Second, if laypersons are allowed to derive their own fiqh based on... actually I'm not sure, are you proposing that there be some standard? If not, then, for instance, your point #5. "A woman should be free to marry whom she chooses as long as it is a halal marriage." becomes moot, since halal is in the eye of the betrother.
Third, this sort of relativism in fiqh easily leads even the best people to come up with self-serving conceptions of halal and haram. It becomes like Western Judeo-Christianity has, a population of religious claimers whose description of their deen is "I believe, but in my own way" or, conversely, psycho-fundamentalists who believe in the destruction of everyone but them.
I know, sister, that this result is far from what you are arguing for. But I also believe that this is the slipperiest of slopes.
Wallahu Alam.
wa alaikum salaam
>>However, you seem to imply that Muslim scholar=bad shariah and rational layperson=good shariah>>
Not at all, just because a scholar says it doesn't make it bad. But being a scholar doesn't guarantee that one will not err. A scholar can be wrong, and those wrongs tend to hamper and oppress so many in our ummah. The idea that the non highly educated masses of our ummah become off limits to understanding the diyn is an error that many other religions have made in the past.
major reforms in societies have come from the people, not from from the "speacialists" but from everyday people who are fed up with the accepted norm and seek to challenge the authorities that be. "Salafism" doesn't discount the ulema, Salafis tend to adhere more willingly to their own accepted "speacialists" than any other group today. The idea that they 'discount' all scholars is more than a bit off. But this is basically the horn that is tooted by the self labeled "traditionalist" who seek to discount Salafis as a whole.
I thought I had made it clear as I mentioned the Qur'an and Sunnah as a basis. For one to assume that it is just willy nilly judgements captured out of thin air because they disagree with the more stringent line of 'not questioning scholars' (chosen on their own standards of course) is off, to say the least.
This is a clear issue of 'scholars' although perhaps well intended defining fiqh based on their own cultural and political influences. What is halal in marriage for a Muslim woman is clear, a Muslim man. This the the set criteria, while she may make better choices, to refuse her marriage keeping her the prisoner of her family because he doesn't come from the right tribe, or nationality, or social class, or is a revert, or doesn't have enough money for them are all examples of deriving rulings by scholars that doesn't represent the true teaching of Islam.
This is based on the assumption that what you have now isn't based on ones on self serving conceptions of what is right or wrong. That personal influences do not have a impact on ones interpretation, be it upbringing, culture, political influences, or anything else. The idea th
sorry this thing cut out my selection of quotes from your first comment. I hope you can make sense that each paragraph is in direct response to a quote from you.
Salaam 'alaikum,
Thank you for responding and yes I was able to make out what each section was referencing.
I still believe that people can and will (do?) make outlandish rulings from our primary sources. And that the ijaza system is the best and surest way of curtailing that. People smarter than I have argued that the abandonment of this is the cause of a lot of the madness you see there in KSA.
I don't want to highjack your blog with this so I'll leave it here. I'll probably write more about this on my own.
One clarification be fore I go. Rereading my comment, I realize I wasn't clear about how/why no ulama= salafism. I didn't mean that they don't adhere to scholars. On the contrary they are full of them.
What I was referring to was the historical process by which traditional scholars disappeared or fell from favor with the public (usually by design of the state via it's control of the awqaf) and the void that is left is then filled with salafi books and scholars.
Thank you again for the response. You've given much to think about.
wasalaam 'alaikum
A brilliant post Nzingha! I agree completely that we must not be apologetic. I believe we must challenge rulings that are simply immoral or unjust even if they have some basis in Qur'an or hadith. I also believe that we must do more than debate, 1) because in a debate the scholars have the upper hand in terms of the audience's respect and assumption of authority/knowledge and 2) because while we carry on civil conversation, women and children are being hit, wounded and perhaps killed.
I don't remember the woman's name, but the Saudi journalist who went public about the abuse she suffered at her husband's hands is a prime example. She was not content with nattering on about how men shouldn't beat their wives senseless, but showed the horrific results of our sitting around talking while women and children are being hit.
I hope you submit this post to MuslimWakeUp -- it deserves a very wide readership.
i'm so glad to have been linked here by the happy feminist. Congratulations on your courage, commitment, and clarity. it is through the brave efforts of sisters like you to observe and analyze that will shine light onto these injustices and allow the conversation to grow, so that women can begin to hope for something better for their daughters. blessedbe.
Commenting by HaloScan
