Breaking Down the Muslim Monolith
Quite often, when I speak on the shari'a in the area of finance (and that hasn't happened for a few weeks at least and this issue on which I post it has been at least two months), I get some variant of the same question. If it is true that the shari'a as understood today forbids the taking of interest how come there are US banks in Dubai? Or how come there Prince Alwaleed invests so much in Citibank? Or why does my Muslim neighbor work for HSBC?
I give the simple answer--Prince Alwaleed doesn't care about those rules, and somehow you get a guy who thinks he's trapped you. Ah, but he donated so much money to Islamic studies, so he does care! My neighbor wears a headscarf, so she should care! Etc.
I always wonder why this is, presumably if I gave a lecture on Catholic rules, nobody would think to ask "but if those are the Catholic rules, then why does the Catholic couple next door use birth control." If you pointed out not everybody is religious in the world, surely the person wouldn't follow up "ah, but they go to Mass." Nobody thinks that because you go to Mass, you follow every single rule the Vatican gives you. Everyone is aware that people think of their religions, approach their religions, dissect their religions, advance their religions, their own way. Even if there are scholarly authorities interpreting, not everyone follows everything they say, and it's not on-off, either every word or nothing.
So why are Muslims perceived to be different? What makes people think that somehow once Sistani says something, every Shi'i jumps to his feet and obeys, that there is nuance and subtlety and gradations of adherence?
I always wonder about this and I think perhaps there are two causes. The first is the way Islamic law is discussed. It is the jurist's law, it is what these medieval guys say, all of this is what Muslims believe, and when you change this, then this creates problems. All legitimacy is located in the sacred holy old books. Look at the Muslims today, and how unsuccessful they have been at modernity, once they left the old books.
Well, leaving aside the fact that not everyone followed the old books in their times (see last two posts), have you seen an Iraqi soccer match? Think those guys are saying "this nation is a colonial construct, what I really want to see is a match between the classical Muslim schools of thought, Hanbali versus Hanafi, my money is on Ibn Qayyim in that one." Nationalism has permeated our construct, legal positivism has, secularism has, I'm not saying the pan national shari'a isn't important (as understood in our times, not whatever they thought in their times), but when we make it sound like the old books are everything, then people start to think of us as one big monolithic group of shari'a followers who care about nothing else. Some guy once was surprised I was talking to a Saudi about Ohio State football. I told him the guy graduated from there, and he still didn't get it. Look at his robes, how can he like the Bucks, he said. Excuse me? He's a practicing Catholic, how can he like the Bucks? Does that make sense? Why would the other?
Now that brings me to my second reason, which is related more to Edward Said's Orientalism. I think that anyone who knows anything about any part of the world probably knows pretty well that monoliths are pretty hard to come by. I think no matter how we described the Muslim world, people would understand variation if our parts weren't portrayed so often in the media as exotic, foreign, fundamentally odd in a noble savage kind of way. And so when it's understood that way, and then they hear shari'a rules, it all adds up. Ah, okay, I get it, they ride camels, they keep women in black tents, they don't watch football and they trade dates and figs and don't take interest. All adds up.
Miscomprehensions that are all part of the reason I'm trying to write this blog,and give more context to how Muslims really view the operation of Islamic law in our times.
HAH
I give the simple answer--Prince Alwaleed doesn't care about those rules, and somehow you get a guy who thinks he's trapped you. Ah, but he donated so much money to Islamic studies, so he does care! My neighbor wears a headscarf, so she should care! Etc.
I always wonder why this is, presumably if I gave a lecture on Catholic rules, nobody would think to ask "but if those are the Catholic rules, then why does the Catholic couple next door use birth control." If you pointed out not everybody is religious in the world, surely the person wouldn't follow up "ah, but they go to Mass." Nobody thinks that because you go to Mass, you follow every single rule the Vatican gives you. Everyone is aware that people think of their religions, approach their religions, dissect their religions, advance their religions, their own way. Even if there are scholarly authorities interpreting, not everyone follows everything they say, and it's not on-off, either every word or nothing.
So why are Muslims perceived to be different? What makes people think that somehow once Sistani says something, every Shi'i jumps to his feet and obeys, that there is nuance and subtlety and gradations of adherence?
I always wonder about this and I think perhaps there are two causes. The first is the way Islamic law is discussed. It is the jurist's law, it is what these medieval guys say, all of this is what Muslims believe, and when you change this, then this creates problems. All legitimacy is located in the sacred holy old books. Look at the Muslims today, and how unsuccessful they have been at modernity, once they left the old books.
Well, leaving aside the fact that not everyone followed the old books in their times (see last two posts), have you seen an Iraqi soccer match? Think those guys are saying "this nation is a colonial construct, what I really want to see is a match between the classical Muslim schools of thought, Hanbali versus Hanafi, my money is on Ibn Qayyim in that one." Nationalism has permeated our construct, legal positivism has, secularism has, I'm not saying the pan national shari'a isn't important (as understood in our times, not whatever they thought in their times), but when we make it sound like the old books are everything, then people start to think of us as one big monolithic group of shari'a followers who care about nothing else. Some guy once was surprised I was talking to a Saudi about Ohio State football. I told him the guy graduated from there, and he still didn't get it. Look at his robes, how can he like the Bucks, he said. Excuse me? He's a practicing Catholic, how can he like the Bucks? Does that make sense? Why would the other?
Now that brings me to my second reason, which is related more to Edward Said's Orientalism. I think that anyone who knows anything about any part of the world probably knows pretty well that monoliths are pretty hard to come by. I think no matter how we described the Muslim world, people would understand variation if our parts weren't portrayed so often in the media as exotic, foreign, fundamentally odd in a noble savage kind of way. And so when it's understood that way, and then they hear shari'a rules, it all adds up. Ah, okay, I get it, they ride camels, they keep women in black tents, they don't watch football and they trade dates and figs and don't take interest. All adds up.
Miscomprehensions that are all part of the reason I'm trying to write this blog,and give more context to how Muslims really view the operation of Islamic law in our times.
HAH
Comments