Yousif al-Khoei's comments on my thoughts on the Channel 4 documentary are welcome. There are, however, two points that arise from his intervention that I feel compelled to disagree with.
Just because "the bulk of classical theology", both sunni and shia, supports the issue of "imams as intercessors" does not mean that the position (a) is not against the word and spirit of the Qur'an and (b) is not wrong. My problem with classical theology is that a large portion of it was socially constructed decades after the death of the Prophet Muhammad to justify certain positions and support certain individuals. For example, the idea that the imams, who are supposed to be human beings, are totally innocent, I
find just too difficult to swallow. A great deal of Muslim theology, I believe, needs to be rethought; and we might as well begin with the question of imams and intercession.
Yousif says that "whether intercession or the existence of an organised scholarly class is Qur'anic or not is not for you or us to determine, but they are realities on the ground". I am afraid they are for us to determine - the vast majority of Muslims, the regular readers and interpreters of the Qur'an. Are we, the ordinary Muslims, nothing but empty vessels into which anything can be poured and who are required to accept whatever is offered by this priestly class without questions? Does not the Qur'an insist that individuals should do their own thinking, make the effort to think things out for themselves? Moreover, just because it is a reality does not mean we are duty bound to accept it. Poverty is a reality, injustice is a reality, oppression is a reality - are we not required, as Muslims, to stand up to such realities? I agree that the existence of a priestly class in Muslim societies is a reality - but I do not see it as a praiseworthy reality. Rather, it is something we need to stand up against - and change.
Bloggers have made some very useful suggestions this week. Shamim's questions about sharia law are very pertinent and I intend to tackle them next week. You are absolutely right DavidB2 "gay sex should get a look-in somewhere"; and I plan to give it due attention. So here's a timetable for what I intend to do during the coming weeks:
Monday September 8: Sharia
Monday September 15: Evolution
Monday September 22 Homosexuality
Monday September 29: Gender and the veil
Monday October 6: Art and music
I would really appreciate it if commentators could now post specific questions on these topics for me to address.
Thoughts on Blogging the Qur'an? Email us at blogging.the.quran@guardian.co.uk or post a comment below. All comments are moderated in advance but we will try to publish as many as possible.
Ramadan Mubarak to all - Muslims and non-Muslims alike!
Each week, writer, broadcaster and cultural critic Ziauddin Sardar will blog a different verse or theme of the Qur'an. Guardian columnist Madeleine Bunting will help frame the debate. For more about the project and the authors, 
Comments
Comments are now closed on this entry.
Zia why not dedicate a blog to the issue of Hadith as it is an issue which has cropped up repeatedly. A blog which explains what it is, how it has been used and the Muslim position with regards to Hadith and the Sunna?
I think before this project is over, we should give Solo another opportunity to discuss the Hadith.
A few random thoughts....
1) The personality of the prophet because I'm stuck between the Islamic view (or one version of it) that he's almost perfect or that he was a man who plotted his way from meakness at Makka to a much more aggressive persona at Medina or perhaps my own view that he was a man who became increasingly compromised by his situation as Islam grew.
2) The authenticity of the Qur'an - it seems to me that any transmission of a revelation would neccessitate interpretation. Add to that the sketchy details of it's development through Abu Bakr and finally Uthman's "ripping up and starting" again how much do you believe is authentic and does it matter?
3) The Five Pillars - I'm bemused by the five pillars. They seem to be almost a masonic list of club membership rather than scriptural advice such as the ten commandments. I don't comprehend the first pillar at all.
4) Fitnah and how it impacted upon Sharia, Hadith and the five pillars
5) Mutazili and why they becmae a cropper and how that impacted upon the development of Islam.
6) The Islamic empire - Mughal and Ottoman
7) The impact of the Mongols on Islam
I could go on forever to be honest Islam is a fascinating subject albeit that the subject at hand is the Qur'an. But I'm always looking for reasons as to how we arrived here and I suppose all the above are part of the journey.
>(a) is not against the word and spirit of the Qur'an and (b) is not wrong.
I've read Sunni hadith which say "every believer can intercede for 40 people on the day of judgement", and a child can intercede for it's parents. Ayat al Kursi (the verse of the Throne, 2:255) mentions intercession (noone can intercede with Him *except with His permission*.) This is not against the spirit of the quran or hadith.
>My problem with classical theology is that a large portion of it was socially constructed decades after the death of the Prophet
That is true for Sunnism. Sunnism came into existence about 200 years after the death of the Prophet. Shiism was always there, from the beginning, in fact the Prophet mentioned "the Shias of Ali" in some hadith (e.g. 'Ali, you and you shias are the successful ones.') No hadith by the Prophet ever refers to the "ahlul sunna wal jamaat." Most people however, take the default stance that Sunnism is the aboriginal sect, and Shiism is a revolt against it. That is not true, you have to do some historical back-extrapolation to connect Sunnism to the Sahaba, and the general Muslims of the Khilafat's time.
>Are we, the ordinary Muslims, nothing but empty vessels into which anything can be poured and who are required to accept whatever is offered by this priestly class without questions?
It's not a caste, and they are not priests. But just as scientists do their thing, and we learn from them but they do not take our opinions seriously...unless we join them in doing research, the Imams taught other people and had their own sources of learning (handed down from father to son) but they did not learn from anyone who was their student.
But historically the source of religious knowledge has always centered around the Imams. The first school in Madina to teach theology was established by Muhammad ibn Ali, Imam Hussains grandson...before that there was nothing. He trained several thousand religious scholars, and they trained all of the 4 Sunni Imams. So who is the student, and where did they get their knowledge from? In fact it's probably fair to say that Sunnism, like Ismailism and most other sects of Islam, are offshoots of Shiaism.
Imam Abu Hanifa once said "If I had not served hadrat Imam Jafar Sadiq for two years, I would have been quite unaware of everything." That position is what you are having trouble accepting. The Imams simply outclassed everybody else in the Muslim world. Most people of that time knew this quite well. In fact, all the machinations of the Ummayads and all the posturing of the Abbasids were aimed at proving that *they* were more worthy of some small portion of the respect that the people genuinely had for the Hashemites.
I can see Sufism popping up in most of those categories somewhere, but to narrow down my gay sex theme, it would be interesting to consider the homoerotic content of both ghazals and the Divan literature of the Ottoman empire; also the remarkable story of Abu Nuwas, first as a brilliant breaker of taboos in a sensual Caliphal court, then as a classic fictional character. Relating these to the Qur'an, to what extent have literature, music etc. demonstrated an "opiate of the masses" attitude among the upper classes of the Islamic world?
Ooh, and I see that I'm on common ground with solo in suspecting that the Prophet was "increasingly compromised by his situation as Islam grew". Cool !
Ah yes I forgot Bidah..!
"But just as scientists do their thing, and we learn from them but they do not take our opinions seriously...unless we join them in doing research, the Imams taught other people and had their own sources of learning (handed down from father to son) but they did not learn from anyone who was their student."
I think scientific research is too different from religious research to compare the two. You can't set up studies and run tests on religious texts to prove this thing or another.
But more importantly, I find it very hard to believe that any honest teacher, imam or otherwise, would ever say they "did not learn" anything from their students. There are always new ways of looking at things and always some new facet you may not have thought about. I believe this kind of thinking discourages students from asking questions, questioning items they have some doubt about, or offering up new points of view. After all, if there's nothing new to learn other than what the teacher says, why bother opening your mouth?
Oops, now on to my intended comment. :)
In reference to the "Gender and Veiling" topic, could you include some discussion on veiling as a cultural feature, and also veiling and headcoverings in Christianity and Judaism? All three came from the same area, and all three have and/or had, some sort of veiling.
I mentioned this because I've noticed that a lot of non-Muslems complain about Muslem women having to cover their heads, but they forget that there are Christian groups in the States (like the Amish) that expect their women to wear some something on their heads. Then there's the Jewish male "headcovering" and when I visited a synogogue as a middle school student, they forced me to cover my head too!
(I'm about to move to the Middle East, and covering up my head sounds awfully tempting, only because dark hair+hot sun do NOT mix...)
asheran: I see another "straw man" there- you turned Zia's "priestly class" (section of society exercising priestly functions) into "priests caste" (genetically-linked group within society, who are priests). Islam does not have the latter, but it does have the former.
Evolution
[32:7] He is the One who perfected everything He created, and started the creation of the human from clay.
[32:8] Then He continued his reproduction through a certain lowly liquid.
Could you comment on the above verses in the Qur'an please. Is the translation correct as regards our creation coming from 'clay' or is this it more likely that this is the word that best represents what is being described? i.e. a sticky substance, a bit like clay
Also have you read Michael Tellingers book entitled, 'Slave Species of God'. Which eludes to the fact that we where created, as slaves for the 'God' or Gods, this seems to fit very nicely within the Qur'anic version of our evolution. And Michael used the Qur'an extensively when resourcing his work.
Could we please also have a section on fatwas, who can give them, are they important, do we have to listen? As far as I understand it the founders of the four schools/madhhabs, never wanted their fatwas to be generalised or even written down, because they were given to a specific person, with a specific story and problem, at a specific time and place. Basically I believe that if I don't have question, nobody should give me an answer. For example my daughter knows that Allah wants her to be a musician; she resents the self-appointed quoters of hadith and fatwas that try to tell her what she is doing is wrong. When has this idea started, that people can just meddle in the lives of others quoting a hadith or a fatwa?