Washingtonpost.com kindly invites us to follow Irshad Manji as she travels the Arabian Peninsula “reconciling her faith in Allah with her love of freedom.” This is not a diatribe against Manji, or the amount of grand publicity pseudo Muslim reformers devoid of wisdom, legitimacy, or authority are getting; but a post on our perception of “freedom.”
In that brief sentence our expert editors have reinforced one long standing myth about Islam (and religion in general): faith in this “Allah” is somehow at odds with “love of freedom”; there is a need to “reconcile” those two disparate ideas. I am also marveling at their word choice, replacing “Allah” with “God” will most certainly take the discussion down a different path; it may open doors to Christians, Jews, and other conscientious Gnostics to wonder whether truly our faith in God takes away from our love of freedom.
In this case, “Allah” is not just an Arabic name for God, but insinuates a “Muslim God” completely separate and removed from The God that we all call upon to bless us. “Faith in Allah” has narrowed the discussion to Muslims only; we are immediately confronted with images of a super-hero Manji single handedly taking on misogynistic bearded men, “liberating” oppressed burqa clad women, and offering the next generation hopes of a freer future all the while ominous minarets are blaring adhans for the necessary backdrop music. Perhaps my imagination is getting the better of me, but the power of words can not be underestimated.
What is this freedom that we all yearn for? Is it freedom of choice (between what given options?) Is it freedom from responsibility? Is complete freedom even possible in this time/space continuum?
Moristotle raised a number of questions on freedom and ends with the tentative conclusion that “God is neutral or amoral” by permitting evil and good to co-exist in this earth and moreover our “being good” should not be tied to a fear of punishment or being “good with God” but rather “just because” (I am inserting this conclusion since Moristotle did not finish his thought.)
I like corresponding with Moristotle because he offers me a perspective different than my own and forces me to reflect on things that I normally for granted. I have been stewing this thought on freedom for days now and I still think I am woefully inadequate to respond to such weighty philosophical topics that wo/men much more brilliant than I, have tasked themselves to ponder and elucidate.
I raise the question whether freedom is even possible in this time/space continuum. If we look at just the observable phenomenon we realize that there are discernible physical laws that bound us to where we are. We are not physically free; and neither is the sun, moon and stars as they all float on their prescribed orbits. We can’t fly or jump past a certain height, we are all limited by our various physiques and the most we can boast about is perhaps relative strength or athletic ability that distinguishes us from our peers.
There are consequences that guide our behavioral norms too; for instance I am not necessarily “free” to eat all that I want (in a gluttonous manner) because I would have to face the negative consequence of being obese and other health detriments. I can not choose to indulge in the freedom of sex with whomever I want, whenever I want, without having to deal with the necessary consequence of STD’s, unwanted pregnancies, betrayals, loss of dignity and hurts. The point is I am not free to overindulge in my carnal desires beyond certain limits because the consequences are adverse.
Don’t these negative consequences to our “free” actions, point to a God that is not neutral or amoral after all?
I speak of the observable phenomena simply because they are easy to discern; they have the solid back-up and repute of a scientific community behind them, in whom most of us (if not all) have placed our unswerving faith in. But there are other matters; other ways of knowing; that give us glimpses of transcendence and keep us in touch with the “void” within; that yearning that keeps us restless and searching…for what?
As humans we are really ingenious in coming up with ways to seal that void and silence our whispers of discontent. It’s called “growing up”, “making do”; it could be called distractions in terms of “addictions” and “affairs”; it may even be the magic pill that keeps us sedated and zombie like; it could manifest itself in the frenzied consumer state that has us hankering after the next, bigger, shinier and better commodity. Whatever the case, perhaps owing to the fact that we are asking the wrong questions or pursuing unfulfilling paths, that feeble nagging voice within remains, in spite of our efforts to completely deaden it.
But then even in our seeking freedom through these other means aren’t we in essence shackling our senses and pre-occupying our selves with meaninglessness?
The universe is simply another text where God’s words and attributes are manifested. It is perhaps giving a chance to those who are understandably skeptical of revelations to glean our purpose. If every single bit of creation from a grain of sand, to a pesky bug, to the heart rending rise and setting of the sun has a distinct purpose; then what is the point of our own existence? Surely, God couldn’t have assigned responsibility and purpose to all of His creation and then leave us humans to our own devices to pander around in illusory freedom weighed down by consequences.
And what of the hankering soul that finds fulfillment in nothing material but the very transcendence that we run away from?
Revelations throughout time have removed the question marks that are raised by the universe. Both worlds speak of life and death, our impermanence, and point us to a general direction where our gifts can be applied meaningfully and our time can be spent productively. Both worlds point to a higher Being and the world of Revelation offers us a deeper glimpse into the the “why” behind our creation.
I agree with Moristotle, being ethical and good should not be motivated by fear of punishment or greed for reward; Rabiah the Mystic has been immortalized in her prayer
“O God, if I worship You for fear of Hell, burn me in Hell,
And if I worship You in hope of Paradise,
Exclude me from Paradise.
But if I worship You for Your Own sake,
Grudge me not Your everlasting Beauty.”
To me, seeking the source of all freedom, beauty, mercy and love, is the only pursuit that is worthy of this conscious breath we have been endowed with. What’s the point of being free when the objects of freedom we seek themselves are intent on suffocating us? Seeking the Creator frees me from the trappings of His creation; this search re-prioritizes my existence; and my actions are informed by a conscious spirit who is manifesting her purpose in the ways/means available encumbered by the self-same challenges that everyone else has to deal with.
What I also find amusing in our culture, is while the freedom and choice to remain cynical, apathetic, to bare it all, to de-sacralize our whole existence is lauded, understood as our fundamental right, and encouraged; the same intuitive celebration of freedom is not afforded to those who choose other ways of exercising that right. Is it conceivable that I, as a woman, choose to cover my body under no duress from any one around me? Why is the freedom to objectify myself somehow more readily understood and appreciated? Why is my conscious turning away from consumerism and pop culture considered boorish, snobby or anti social even?
Then what is left in that space that I willfully cultivate around me? What is left when unnecessary noises are muted and my senses are at rest; when my soul’s yearning is given an audience?
I am not sure what the “leap of faith” really entails; for me there remains nothing worthy of being awed by in this fleeting moment that passes us by.
04/19/07 at 3:55 pm
i think you are right on target about the way the media uses the word “Allah”. it is unhelpful and, even more, dishonest. to act as if there is a conflict between faith and freedom shows a deep incomprehension about the faith under discussion, a lack of understanding: certainly the god of abraham is the god who liberates.
LoA.
04/19/07 at 7:05 pm
[...] reflects on the nature of freedom. What is this freedom that we all yearn for? Is it freedom of choice [...]
04/19/07 at 7:43 pm
Assalamu ‘alaykum wa rahmatullah
I pray that you are in the best of health & imaan.
This is a short message to notify you that this entry has been selected for publishing on I J T E M A; a venture to highlight the best of the Muslim blogosphere.
To find out more about I J T E M A, and how you can further contribute, please click here.
May Allah bless you for your noble efforts.
Wa’salam
04/20/07 at 7:16 am
Your closing points are well made – many of those who loudly profess their love of freedom actively seek to repress those who interpret freedom differently. And don’t limit your musings out of fear that you don’t measure up to other minds, you’re musings have opened many windows perception for me. So you know, keep doing it for my sake.
Be careful of spending too much time defining freedom, that’s just semantics. The “meaning” of words can be and often is twisted and argued to the point where the original idea is lost and everything descends into bickering over shades of meaning. It’s a tactic often used by people who want to limit your ability to think and express yourself freely.
04/20/07 at 9:05 am
Blessèd Maliha,
I think you are quite right about “faith in Allah’s” being code for Islam. I should know, because I admit that I’ve used “Allah” in the same way. It’s an effective rhetorical…trick.
However, there does seem to me to be an impression (at least, if not a reality) that Islam does demand an abrogation of the Muslim’s freedom. (Maybe Christianity demands the same, but, unlike “Islam,” the name “Christianity” does not wear submission “on its sleeve”—and Islam, it seems to me, wears it rather proudly…
…and wrongly.) Just speaking from my own heart, I have to say that, at this point in my familiarizing myself with Islam, it is this “total submission” that most repels me. I admit, however, that I probably don’t yet understand the concept “correctly” (that is, as Muslim theologians would have me understand it).
As you, I think, “correctly” perceive about my own theology (such as it is), I argue for a minimalist understanding of what God commands. I hold that God commands essentially and sufficiently that we take responsibility for our freedom. I know it is immodest, but I recommend my brief gloss on today’s quotation on my blog from David Lodge’s novel about the Anglo-American writer Henry James (1843-1916).
You misconstrue my position entirely if you think that the freedom of which I speak has to do with “freedom from responsibility.” On the contrary, I think that “total submission” to precise mundane commands (as they are promulgated in various works held to be “The Word of God”) amounts to an evasion of our God-blessed freedom—amounts to an easy way out that is actually disobedience to God’s essential commandment.
After all, as I’ve argued, God created our freedom. And he created our intelligence to use it. It could even be argued that it is blasphemous to neglect our intelligence in favor of rote obedience of precise instructions. (I realize that this picture I have of a Muslim’s total submission is possibly no better than a caricature. But it is, honestly, the picture I now have.)
I suspect that I will have more to say about your post, but I need to study it more closely (and consult my muse <smile>.
04/20/07 at 9:52 am
Thank you Maliha for another wonderful essay, which I have printed out to help with my key note address in Berlin next week. The topic: Authority and Authenticity: Islam and Gender.
It is not uncommon for Muslims and non-Muslims to interpret the word “Islam” as submission, then conclude that it is coerced.
That is why I prefer the translation “engaged surrender”.
This term better highlights how Islam is at one and the same time a natural phenomenon, all of creation/nature is “in Islam”, i.e. in surrender according to the Qur’an; and yet humans have the freedom to choose.
It explains how the harmonious flow of all cosmic events and universal peace results from the synchronisation of the ebb and flow of time and space under the guidance of the meta-physical design of unity and peace. The divinity is ONE; and all of nature, including human creatures, are at-one with that peace.
However, because “free will” is also a major tenet of Islam and one of the 7 pillars of belief, it is impossibe to remove the moral agency of CHOICE from the formula.
Therefore, “engaged surrender” incaptures the combination of CONSCIENTIOUS choice of surrender, to achieve that state of at-one-ment with the entire universe
–and indeed with God/Allah in His/Her/It -self.
Every human has this potential. ONLY those who choose will achieve this harmony, which is understood under the LET GO, LET GOD idiom popular in US cultures.
No comment on the media sensationalism, I myself have selected poverty instead of it, and that is because the freedom to believe and do as I am able as an agent of Allah is NOT THE SAME as the fame and fortune that comes from the new commodification of Islam and gender.
Surely, Allah alone, knows best,
sincerely and in surrender, amina wadud
04/20/07 at 10:21 am
Maliha, I apologize for possibly overreacting to your question, “Is it freedom from responsibility?” imagining it to be your reading of what I might have meant by “freedom.”
I don’t know whether or not your next question, “Is complete freedom even possible in this time/space continuum”? might also possibly be a reference to your reading of my remarks. But, for the record, I am not talking about that either. I’m talking, simply, about the freedom we in fact have—and have, as I say, been given by God—to choose among available options according to the means as our disposal. In other words, I am not talking about the “freedom that we all yearn for” either!
In short, and at bottom, I’m talking about freedom as God’s actual gift to us, in all its grand imperfection, with all of the responsibility it entails.
What follows my “just because,” by the way, is “it is right” (as today’s gloss on David Lodge’s novel makes explicit). That is, we should do good (or “be good”) because it is the right thing to do. (I didn’t mean to “not finish my thought” in the earlier essay; I thought that the denouement would be obvious.)
I am amazed at your raising the question “whether freedom is even possible in this time/space continuum.” For, if it isn’t, what are we even talking about here? And why are we talking at all?
I do think I ought to have said something by now about consequences, rather than to be content, as I seem to have been so far, to bundle them up with “available means.” I admit that it’s stretching the meaning of “means” to include in the term not only material means but also teleological means (these are Aristotelian concepts). But clearly, when we act consciously and with as much knowledge as we can bring to bear, we naturally take into account what is likely to flow from acting. And we are responsible for consequences. In fact, if we aren’t responsible for consequences, what could the “responsibility of freedom” even mean?
I entirely fail to understand what you mean (or could possibly mean) by your next statement (or question): “Don’t these negative consequences to our ‘free’ actions point to a God that is not neutral or amoral after all?”
The only thing I can figure (dimly) is that you are now talking about “freedom from” (or “license”) rather than about “freedom for.” God certainly didn’t give us “freedom from”! We are hedged in all about by constraints of material and teleological means. The challenge of the gift of freedom is to use it for [what is right].
If you will elucidate what you meant by that question, please also elucidate what you meant by saying “Surely, God couldn’t have assigned responsibility and purpose to all of His creation and then [left] us humans to our own devices to pander [?] around in illusory freedom weighed down by consequences.” To the extent that I think I might understand what this means, it seems fair to respond, Why not? Or, what alternative do you see there being to offset our “being left to our own devices”? Unless you mean those explicit instructions that I find so confining and unworthy of free, intelligent, God-blessed creatures?
More anon.
04/20/07 at 11:51 am
While the final third of your post eludes my sure grasp, I sense in it an impassioned pæne to an exalted vision of how a human being might exercise her or his God-blessed freedom.
Some phrases that make me unsure how to interpret that part of your post include your seeming to say that “the objects of freedom we seek [are] intent on suffocating us?” If you are referring to “objects of freedom” that you have observed yourself choosing, then the remedy is simple, isn’t it? (Choose differently, Maliha.) But if you are saying that everyone is choosing to be suffocated, with what right do you speak for everyone?
How do you see seeking God as freeing a seeker “from the trappings of…creation”? Don’t seekers still have to clothe and feed their bodies?
I personally applaud your seeming to refer to God (to Allah!) as feminine when you write “a conscious spirit who is manifesting her purpose in ways/means available.” Or do you refer to your own [higher] spirit—sort of what I refer to as “my muse”?
Surely you are right to point out that “seeking the Creator…re-prioritizes my existence.” I don’t see how your own critique of “popular culture” could be any more acerbic than my own. American popular culture is indeed not admirable. I sort of suspect that God might be hoping that in exercising our freedom we will steer away from it!
Actually, it seems that I am even more critical of that popular culture than you are, for I wouldn’t refer to it, as you do (if I understand you aright) as “our culture” (which you imply you find “amusing” and I find pathetic and tragic).
But maybe you were only being ironic to say you find it “amusing”? For you are clearly hurt and dejected over the way popular culture jeers at noble choices. I say buck up, my dear Maliha! If God, who gives you the freedom to choose, also challenges you to choose well, then don’t you think that He may also give you the strength to persevere and rise above?
If I may, in all humility and in the consciousness that I may be wrong, I want to say to you, my dear friend: rail less against and praise more for.
And if my challenging views are an impediment to your doing that, I am sorry. Let me point out that I too have done some railing over the past weeks, but I trust that you can see I have survived and come through.
04/20/07 at 12:08 pm
Alas, I noticed too late (to correct it) that I misspelled “pæan” (in case you or others may have tried to find this unusual word in an English dictionary). It’s a word I came to cherish as an attentive high school student (at the feet of Miss Lois Thompson, English teacher extraordinaire in Tulare Union High School, Tulare, California).
04/20/07 at 2:27 pm
Salamaat,
LOA: Thank you for your response and you are right “the God of Abraham” is the God who liberates.
Editor: Thank you for publishing a link to this article. I pray it’s beneficial to those who read it.
Mr. Angry: Thank you for your nice comment: I will continue to write *just* for you; as long as you keep those hilarious witty rants coming in
Peace Moristotle:
I find your first statement curious, the manner in which you differentiate what Christianity demands of its followers versus Islam. I always thought all major religions beneath the surface pretty much preach the same thing: Belief in God, ethics, worship, salvation/repentance and an afterlife.
That somehow Islam demands an “abrogation” of Muslim’s freedom, while other religions do not (at least in the same way to you?) Makes me wonder how you came to that conclusion.
I think we will end up playing with semantics too; for you call it “abrogation” and I call it a means/redirection on “how” to effectively use the freedom given to us. At the end of the day, it is still a choice and your free will is at play. Whether you decide to believe and follow through with your actions or not, is still up to you.
The idea of “total submission” repels you; yet at some point, consciously or unconsciously we are submitting to some “thing” or some “one” (be it self/ego, money, etc and we do channel our energies/life towards serving those ends) In Islam bearing witness to the existence of God, means leading (by conscious choice) a God-centered life. It means always returning to the source and replenishing our spiritual energy and worldview from that point.
Just like God created our souls/spirits, He also encased that breath of Consciousness with a body and constrained it by space and time. We would be giving lip service to “truth” if it didn’t come with a path, in which we can accord our lives around it. I heard once that “belief/conviction is separated from mere opinion through actions.” All revealed religions would have worshippers who merely give lip service to their faith; had a path not been prescribed to walk upon. That is Revelation has to speak to both the soul/inner sphere and the body as well.
I also find it weird that you have to suspend your intelligence to follow religious prescriptions. To me being enjoined to be good, praying, charity, fasting (which are pretty much the standard prescriptions across all time and religions) already resonate with my own commonsense. That I have to learn the art of self discipline, to give more, and to incline my nature towards a more harmonious existence does not require me to squash my reason.
On your second response, I think we both agree that we have to use our freedom for “what is right” because it’s the right thing to do. That believers choose to add a vertical dimension to that “right thing to do”; and that is to live in harmony with the rest of creation while serving the Creator, does not diminish the liberating part in one bit. It only augments it with a transcendent *intention*.
In Islam, intent matters greatly, for the motivations/inspiration to doing “what is right” could stem from many sources and not all are ennobling and befitting our station (it could be as petty as doing what is right to impress others versus a sincere self-effacing and God conscious manner.)
Also we could get into a huge discussion as to how relative “doing the right thing” can be; especially in the face of human justification.
On the last bit that God could have created us in vain/ for no purpose/ to be left to our own devices: Then I have to say we will have to agree to disagree. That you refer to the belief that indeed we are created for a purpose; that our will power could be directed to a higher good; that we will be held accountable for this freedom to be “unworthy of free, intelligent, God blessed creatures” is another place we will have to agree to diverge. It’s interesting that you don’t consider that a free, intelligent, God blessed creature can choose to believe and that doesn’t/shouldn’t take anything away from their freedom or intelligence or God blessedness.
On the third response; I don’t claim to speak for everyone and I have chosen this path that I am on. Seeking God only frees one from the trappings of creation; in the sense that “clothing and feeding the body” does not become the sole reason for existence. It goes back to re-prioritization of my life and seeking to act meaningfully and consciously with the knowledge that these gifts, resources, and blessings I have, are to be directed for the general betterment of self and humanity and for His sake alone (not seeking glory, accolades, etc.)
On the point of being a conscious spirit, I was referring to myself and not God. I don’t want to get into a meaningless debate on God’s gender. God’s Being/Essence is beyond our grasp.
I think we share a similar sentiment on American pop culture; and trust me I don’t really let it get to me (I am clearly not that hurt or dejected, I just find that “jeering at noble choices” requires a skewed and inconsistent outlook.)
Most of my writings and reflections are geared towards praising and seeking the beauty in our existence; I am the last person you need to remind on railing “less against”, I find I have little energy for that endeavor.
I wish you the best on the path you choose to be on; and I pray we are all guided towards what is beneficial for us and meaningful to our existence (amin.)
04/20/07 at 3:14 pm
Salamaat Dr. Wadud,
Thank you for your beautiful and thoughtful comment. I like your ending that choosing poverty is indeed worthier and more noble than “the fame and fortune that comes from the new commodification of Islam and gender”.
May God bless you in your endeavors and may He help us come closer to embracing the meaning of “engaged surrender.”
04/22/07 at 8:00 am
“Morning has broken
like the first morning
Blackbird has spoken
like the first bird
Praise for the singing
Praise for the morning
Praise for them springing
Fresh from the world…”
–Yosuf Islam (when he was known as Cat Stevens)
My dear, esteemed Maliha, Bless you! I’m afraid that “It’s [not only curious and] interesting that [I didn’t] consider that a free, intelligent, God-blessed creature can choose to believe [more thoroughly than I do] and that [doing so] doesn’t/shouldn’t take anything away from their freedom or intelligence or God-blessedness,” but it was also just wrong, wrong, wrong, and I’m humbly chastened and embarrassed to have expressed that unloving, ungenerous opinion.
I apologize, not only to you personally, but to all who believe differently from me and choose to follow paths different from mine.
A Yahweh is a Jehovah is a Father Above is a God is an Allah is a Youie, whatever His/Her/Its name.
04/22/07 at 8:41 am
And thank you for recognizing me publicly as “Moristotle”….
04/22/07 at 11:51 am
Freedom, to me, would mean: freedom of choice and thought, economic and financial freedom, freedom from subjugation and any form of dicatated way(s). But then, in all my wanderings, I have noticed and realised that – those who claim to be the most free are actually the least free; be it women who feel ‘liberated’ or ‘thinkers’ and ‘philospohers’ who think that they are the most knowledgeable and thus the most free; or the afluent and rich who blieve they are the least ‘chained’. In fact, no one is trully free or liberated as each and every one of us is dependant on one thing or another (some are simply dependant on the notion of ‘freedom’ and ‘being free’).
And how can any of us claim to be trully free when millions, billions – of others continue to live in ’shackles’ and suffer and live in misery? That aside: I can not think of any other thing that can give one as much freedom as Islam can – in its original form. Not a changed, or revised Islam.
04/24/07 at 10:58 pm
Beautifully written! This essay is something I’m going to have to read over, and explore.
04/25/07 at 12:52 pm
Salamaat,
Barsawad: couldn’t a person be free even when constrained by economic/political/societal pressures? I was thinking of slaves and how some of them were able to transcend their circumstances and continue struggling with their spirits intact.
UbercoolMuslimah: thank you and welcome to my blog
05/1/07 at 12:04 am
[...] know you know about Sister Maliha over at Lightness of Being and her wonderful post on Ms. Manji. Yeah, Manji, milk it for all you [...]
05/4/07 at 11:52 am
Mlaiha – yes, a person can be free even with the most defficult contrains. If one can build one’s mind to be free under adverse or defficult conditions, then one can be free. But then, such can only happen with a strong, pure, spiritual kind of mind.