Islamic Scholar Hamza Yusuf: Is Reform Possible?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If I understood your question- I think all sects of Islam are accessible to nonMuslims, but the reform is likely to make Islam even more accessible. Rules may be less strictly interpreted.

I guess I didn't phrase that well.

I meant "accessible" in terms of the ordinary layperson's ability to understand Islam and to participate in personal ijtihad/interpretation. I didn't mean "accessible" as a synonym for "attractiveness" to non-Muslims who might be more likely to convert as a result.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I understood your question- I think all sects of Islam are accessible to nonMuslims, but the reform is likely to make Islam even more accessible. Rules may be less strictly interpreted.

I guess I didn't phrase that well.

I meant "accessible" in terms of the ordinary layperson's ability to understand Islam and to participate in personal ijtihad/interpretation. I didn't mean "accessible" as a synonym for "attractiveness" to non-Muslims who might be more likely to convert as a result.

To be quite honest, I don't have enough knowledge to answer your question correctly. It's a deeply philosophical question. I know that in nonMuslim countries the concept of Ijtihad does exist somewhat because there is no one leader of Islam here. We have western scholars but none that issue fatwas, judgments, or punishment on Muslims here. Occasionally they may issue judgments but only if they are requested to. Even then, Muslims are not compelled to follow their judgment because we do not live in a Sharia state. Islam in western states, without a central Imam or religious leader, and so many independent opinions and judgments because of the diversity of people here, can exercise true Ijtahid here. Islam can be practiced wholly as a relationship between the believer and God, with no one else intervening. Thus, if a woman is born a lesbian into a Muslim family here in the US, she may consider herself still a Muslim even though the world Muslim community would largely condemn her lesbianism and many may not even consider her a Muslim. Her faith is free to be practiced as she understands and interprets it here.

While it may be true that Muslims may rely on the word of scholars, ultimately, in the end, the Muslim who lives in a nonMuslim country has great autonomy in personal decision making and judgment. He must rely on his own understanding of Islam. Muslims countries, however, often select scholars to interpret and make judgments about the Quran and Hadith and so i think Ijtahid is less possible there.

Ijtahid may be more important in some Muslim countries due to their low literacy rates also. I've read Saudi Arabia's literacy rate is now over 85%, however my parents can recall a time when it was much lower. To be quite honest with you, I'm not sure I even trust this figure. Somalia, Pakistan, Afghanistan also have low literacy rates. It would be difficult, if not impossible for many people in these countries to interpret the Quran and hadith, let alone make sound judgments independently and without the help of a group of scholars to guide them.

In my opinion, the Quran must be interpreted in 7th century Arabic if one is to truly understand what God intended. Since it is universally regarded by all Muslims to be the true word of God, it must be interpreted in the language God revealed it in. To interpret it in the context of modern Arabic when modern Arabic is so different now could result in verses bring completely misinterpreted.

This probably doesn't answer your question, I'm not sure.

What would you like to see happen with Quranic reform?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I understood your question- I think all sects of Islam are accessible to nonMuslims, but the reform is likely to make Islam even more accessible. Rules may be less strictly interpreted.

I guess I didn't phrase that well.

I meant "accessible" in terms of the ordinary layperson's ability to understand Islam and to participate in personal ijtihad/interpretation. I didn't mean "accessible" as a synonym for "attractiveness" to non-Muslims who might be more likely to convert as a result.

To be quite honest, I don't have enough knowledge to answer your question correctly. It's a deeply philosophical question. I know that in nonMuslim countries the concept of Ijtihad does exist somewhat because there is no one leader of Islam here. We have western scholars but none that issue fatwas, judgments, or punishment on Muslims here. Occasionally they may issue judgments but only if they are requested to. Even then, Muslims are not compelled to follow their judgment because we do not live in a Sharia state. Islam in western states, without a central Imam or religious leader, and so many independent opinions and judgments because of the diversity of people here, can exercise true Ijtahid here. Islam can be practiced wholly as a relationship between the believer and God, with no one else intervening. Thus, if a woman is born a lesbian into a Muslim family here in the US, she may consider herself still a Muslim even though the world Muslim community would largely condemn her lesbianism and many may not even consider her a Muslim. Her faith is free to be practiced as she understands and interprets it here.

While it may be true that Muslims may rely on the word of scholars, ultimately, in the end, the Muslim who lives in a nonMuslim country has great autonomy in personal decision making and judgment. He must rely on his own understanding of Islam. Muslims countries, however, often select scholars to interpret and make judgments about the Quran and Hadith and so i think Ijtahid is less possible there.

Ijtahid may be more important in some Muslim countries due to their low literacy rates also. I've read Saudi Arabia's literacy rate is now over 85%, however my parents can recall a time when it was much lower. To be quite honest with you, I'm not sure I even trust this figure. Somalia, Pakistan, Afghanistan also have low literacy rates. It would be difficult, if not impossible for many people in these countries to interpret the Quran and hadith, let alone make sound judgments independently and without the help of a group of scholars to guide them.

In my opinion, the Quran must be interpreted in 7th century Arabic if one is to truly understand what God intended. Since it is universally regarded by all Muslims to be the true word of God, it must be interpreted in the language God revealed it in. To interpret it in the context of modern Arabic when modern Arabic is so different now could result in verses bring completely misinterpreted.

This probably doesn't answer your question, I'm not sure.

What would you like to see happen with Quranic reform?

PP Thank you for this thoughtful post--I like that you put your own views into this.

I did the earlier post, agreeing with interpretation in light of seventh century Islam. But I made the suggestion that nonMuslim scholars with that rare knowledge be a part of the scholarly linguistic effort. Did that strike you as reasonable or as a bridge too far?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I understood your question- I think all sects of Islam are accessible to nonMuslims, but the reform is likely to make Islam even more accessible. Rules may be less strictly interpreted.

I guess I didn't phrase that well.

I meant "accessible" in terms of the ordinary layperson's ability to understand Islam and to participate in personal ijtihad/interpretation. I didn't mean "accessible" as a synonym for "attractiveness" to non-Muslims who might be more likely to convert as a result.

To be quite honest, I don't have enough knowledge to answer your question correctly. It's a deeply philosophical question. I know that in nonMuslim countries the concept of Ijtihad does exist somewhat because there is no one leader of Islam here. We have western scholars but none that issue fatwas, judgments, or punishment on Muslims here. Occasionally they may issue judgments but only if they are requested to. Even then, Muslims are not compelled to follow their judgment because we do not live in a Sharia state. Islam in western states, without a central Imam or religious leader, and so many independent opinions and judgments because of the diversity of people here, can exercise true Ijtahid here. Islam can be practiced wholly as a relationship between the believer and God, with no one else intervening. Thus, if a woman is born a lesbian into a Muslim family here in the US, she may consider herself still a Muslim even though the world Muslim community would largely condemn her lesbianism and many may not even consider her a Muslim. Her faith is free to be practiced as she understands and interprets it here.

While it may be true that Muslims may rely on the word of scholars, ultimately, in the end, the Muslim who lives in a nonMuslim country has great autonomy in personal decision making and judgment. He must rely on his own understanding of Islam. Muslims countries, however, often select scholars to interpret and make judgments about the Quran and Hadith and so i think Ijtahid is less possible there.

Ijtahid may be more important in some Muslim countries due to their low literacy rates also. I've read Saudi Arabia's literacy rate is now over 85%, however my parents can recall a time when it was much lower. To be quite honest with you, I'm not sure I even trust this figure. Somalia, Pakistan, Afghanistan also have low literacy rates. It would be difficult, if not impossible for many people in these countries to interpret the Quran and hadith, let alone make sound judgments independently and without the help of a group of scholars to guide them.

In my opinion, the Quran must be interpreted in 7th century Arabic if one is to truly understand what God intended. Since it is universally regarded by all Muslims to be the true word of God, it must be interpreted in the language God revealed it in. To interpret it in the context of modern Arabic when modern Arabic is so different now could result in verses bring completely misinterpreted.

This probably doesn't answer your question, I'm not sure.

What would you like to see happen with Quranic reform?

PP Thank you for this thoughtful post--I like that you put your own views into this.

I did the earlier post, agreeing with interpretation in light of seventh century Islam. But I made the suggestion that nonMuslim scholars with that rare knowledge be a part of the scholarly linguistic effort. Did that strike you as reasonable or as a bridge too far?

I agree. Knowledge of 7th century Arabic is rare. I think anyone with specialized knowledge should be permitted to opine on Quranic verses and their opinion should be heard. However, I think the panel of scholars that must make the final decisions should be Muslim, and a Muslim of good character. This removes (or at least minimizes) any possible doubt about their interest in preserving the authenticity of the Quran and minimizes any conflict of interest. It's not that I assume nonMuslims will want to alter the integrity of the Quran to advance ulterior motives, but it is a possibility. A panel of Muslims of good character ensures this will not happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I understood your question- I think all sects of Islam are accessible to nonMuslims, but the reform is likely to make Islam even more accessible. Rules may be less strictly interpreted.

How would accessibility be increased, if consensus forms that only a priestly elite, one that knows 7th century Arabic, can determine the "right" understanding of the Quran?

Because the interpretation of the Quran as a result of this reform is likely to be less strict, more inclusive, less harsh. None of the translation of the Quran do the Quran justice. Even the ones that provide commentary are inadequate. As a result, verses are taken out of context and used as the justification for abuse. We have to assume that not all of the scholars who studied 7th century Arabic have an unbending, strict interpretation of the Quran.

There are scholars who have a more rational interpretation of the Quran. For example, Muhammad Asad. I believe CAIR distributes his Qurans only. I might be mistaken in this, but I'm pretty sure.

He didn't end well, you know. White people who try to reform Islam always end up rejected by their clients.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

- The greatest human achievement has been that the preservation of the Quran. There are people who have studied 7th century Arabic very well and they need to be involved in the reform/renovation.
-Given the ambiguous nature of the the language of Arabic, it should be understood that verses can be reinterpreted in light of new knowledge.

HA!

So, not the polio vaccine? Not airflight? Not space travel? Not eradicating the bubonic plague?

But then of course Yusuf would say that, wouldn't he. That job security thing. Living in a state with modern healthcare and conveniences would do that.

The Quran could have been less preserved, and the humankind would have trotted on just fine.

Of course, "preservation" doesn't mean "correctness", you know. One can be 100% authentic and 100% wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Isn't one of the pros of Sunni Islam is that it really is accessible to the ordinary person? I'd hate to see that disappear, with interpretation given over to some priestly or scholarly class.

Sunni Islam worships the ruler as if ruler were God. In the Sunni tradition resisting the rulers is a big sin.

Shia Islam worships the cleric.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't one of the pros of Sunni Islam is that it really is accessible to the ordinary person? I'd hate to see that disappear, with interpretation given over to some priestly or scholarly class.

Sunni Islam worships the ruler as if ruler were God. In the Sunni tradition resisting the rulers is a big sin.

Shia Islam worships the cleric.

I often wonder where people get this from. I am Sunni Muslim and do not know what you are talking about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

- The greatest human achievement has been that the preservation of the Quran. There are people who have studied 7th century Arabic very well and they need to be involved in the reform/renovation.
-Given the ambiguous nature of the the language of Arabic, it should be understood that verses can be reinterpreted in light of new knowledge.

HA!

So, not the polio vaccine? Not airflight? Not space travel? Not eradicating the bubonic plague?

But then of course Yusuf would say that, wouldn't he. That job security thing. Living in a state with modern healthcare and conveniences would do that.

The Quran could have been less preserved, and the humankind would have trotted on just fine.

Of course, "preservation" doesn't mean "correctness", you know. One can be 100% authentic and 100% wrong.

Maybe for an atheist or nonreligious person those other things are more important, but Yusuf is a shaykh so its understandable he would place importance on the authenticity of the quran. And its correctness is for Muslims to decide, not atheists or nonreligious folks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

- The greatest human achievement has been that the preservation of the Quran. There are people who have studied 7th century Arabic very well and they need to be involved in the reform/renovation.
-Given the ambiguous nature of the the language of Arabic, it should be understood that verses can be reinterpreted in light of new knowledge.

HA!

So, not the polio vaccine? Not airflight? Not space travel? Not eradicating the bubonic plague?

But then of course Yusuf would say that, wouldn't he. That job security thing. Living in a state with modern healthcare and conveniences would do that.

The Quran could have been less preserved, and the humankind would have trotted on just fine.

Of course, "preservation" doesn't mean "correctness", you know. One can be 100% authentic and 100% wrong.

Maybe for an atheist or nonreligious person those other things are more important, but Yusuf is a shaykh so its understandable he would place importance on the authenticity of the quran. And its correctness is for Muslims to decide, not atheists or nonreligious folks.

I have no problem with this as long as Muslims don't put pressure on other people to recognize their book as the direct word of god.

I wonder what Yusuf would say if his child was dying and he had a choice: you can have medicine to restore your child to health, or you can have the preserved Quran. The joys of the first world, I tell ya.

[Anonymous]

Besides, seeing as Quran, if has been preserved, would have been preserved by Muslims, it seems that Yusuf is saying the biggest achievement of HUMANKIND has been done by Muslims. Uh-huh.

[Anonymous]

Do we really think that changing a few diacritical marks, even with the blessing of a committee of scholars of Islam and 7th century Arabic, will result in extensive or progressive changes to Quranic rules on inheritance, apostasy, punishment ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

- The greatest human achievement has been that the preservation of the Quran. There are people who have studied 7th century Arabic very well and they need to be involved in the reform/renovation.
-Given the ambiguous nature of the the language of Arabic, it should be understood that verses can be reinterpreted in light of new knowledge.

HA!

So, not the polio vaccine? Not airflight? Not space travel? Not eradicating the bubonic plague?

But then of course Yusuf would say that, wouldn't he. That job security thing. Living in a state with modern healthcare and conveniences would do that.

The Quran could have been less preserved, and the humankind would have trotted on just fine.

Of course, "preservation" doesn't mean "correctness", you know. One can be 100% authentic and 100% wrong.

Maybe for an atheist or nonreligious person those other things are more important, but Yusuf is a shaykh so its understandable he would place importance on the authenticity of the quran. And its correctness is for Muslims to decide, not atheists or nonreligious folks.

I have no problem with this as long as Muslims don't put pressure on other people to recognize their book as the direct word of god.

I wonder what Yusuf would say if his child was dying and he had a choice: you can have medicine to restore your child to health, or you can have the preserved Quran. The joys of the first world, I tell ya.

I agree, Muslims should not pressure anyone to recognize their book as the direct word of God. No one should, actually. Given the choice, I think he would put his child's health in Gods hands. He is, after all, a shaykh, and the implication is that he is devout and puts much faith in God.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do we really think that changing a few diacritical marks, even with the blessing of a committee of scholars of Islam and 7th century Arabic, will result in extensive or progressive changes to Quranic rules on inheritance, apostasy, punishment ?

NO I do not think there ail be "extensive" changes. I think the interpretation will change because additional commentary will be provided from original texts to explain rules better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do we really think that changing a few diacritical marks, even with the blessing of a committee of scholars of Islam and 7th century Arabic, will result in extensive or progressive changes to Quranic rules on inheritance, apostasy, punishment ?

NO I do not think there ail be "extensive" changes. I think the interpretation will change because additional commentary will be provided from original texts to explain rules better.

Do you think that people who provided previous commentaries did not see the original texts?

Basically, what is the basis for your expectation that the review of ORIGINAL texts will yield something different from what already exists? You may not like what people wrote in the 8th century, but you can't deny they were closer to the source than you ever will be.