After reading the brief
autobiographical excerpt from Zaynab al-Ghazali, I want you to think
about and answer ONE (you can address more, but don't feel obligated to
do so) of the following questions:
1.
Al-Ghazali seems to have conflicting ideas of women's role in Islamic
society. At one point she says "...in Islamic society it is a grave
error to speak of the liberation of women"(377), and at other times she
seems to be quite stern and unyielding in speaking to her husband (cf.
pp. 386-7). How can she hold both positions?
2. What do you think al-Ghazali means when she talks of "complete incorporation" on page 380?
3.
"Muslims only carry arms in order to spread peace" (378). How is this
possible? [hint: think of the spread of the Umma and the Shariah in
early Islam]
4. From reading this short excerpt, what
do you think al-Ghazali's and the Muslim Brotherhood's ideal
religio-political reality would be? What does she mean when she writes
"...Islam is both religion and state..."(389)? Would the existence of
individual states like Egypt or Iraq or Jordan cease to exist in the
ideal religio-political reality of al-Ghazali and the MB?
REMEMBER:
No anonymous posts - please post under your first name and last
initial. Refrain from using internet short hand (no 'lol' or 'u,' etc.).
You do not have to create a completely new comment as your
participation; you may respond to someone else's comment as your
contribution and participation, BUT be courteous to other posters. No
personal or ad hominem attacks
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3. "Muslims only carry arms in order to spread peace" (378). How is this possible? [hint: think of the spread of the Umma and the Shariah in early Islam]
ReplyDeleteI do not think this is possible at all. I feel that this statement contradicts itself, stating that weapons and violence are peacemakers. In what world do we see people using weapons as “spreading peace”? Yes, some countries might see it in their point of view as a good tool, but as outsiders looking in on these nations, we see that these weapons are doing the exact opposite of “spreading peace”. The Sharia does impose peace and limitations on the Muslim people, none of that will ever go into effect unless people actually follow the rules. There are better ways to spread and enforce both the Umma and the Sharia than using violence and weaponry. This quote implies that if the people choose not to follow the Sharia law, they will be forced to, and where there are weapons and extreme violence involved, peace cannot happen. By holding a gun or a blunt object in one’s hand, peace can never be spread, making this quote have no sense to it.
Al-Ghazali can have conflicting ideas of women's roles in islamic society because she is a woman who wants to have equal rights as all human beings do, but doesn't want to go against her religion and the islamic society that she grew up knowing. By her saying, "...in Islamic society it is a grave error to speak of the liberation of women" (p. 377) does not mean she agrees with it. Or even if she does, it does not mean that she cannot make mistakes from time to time be "quite stern and unyielding in talking to her husband". Also, it is possible that she doesn't realize that she is doing it. She knows what her role is in Islamic society and yet she can talk to her husband with a stern voice...maybe not all islamic women are not as devoted to the fact that women are not allowed to have that many rights as men. I know I wouldn't be, so they take what they can get away with in a sense. Women's role in islamic society is definitely conflicting because especially today with women being just as equal to men outside of the Islamic society, within it is still the same as it was.
ReplyDelete3. "Muslims only carry arms in order to spread peace" (378). This statement is very bold and, like Kaleigh, I think that it contradicts itself. How can peace be achieved through violence? How can one justify their violent actions by saying that they will instill peace? Peace and violence are polar opposites. Al-Ghazali follows this assertion with: "We want to purify the world of unbelief, atheism, oppression, and persecution..." (378). I do not think that violence is the tool that should be used to purify the world, especially since violent acts themselves can be seen as oppression and persecution. In addition, I do not think that Muslim nations are succeeding in their goal of national peace, which is due to the extreme amount of violence present.
ReplyDeleteHowever, if one considers the principle jihad, meaning "struggle" or "holy war" maybe it can explain what Al-Ghazali means by her statement. Jihad can refer to a Muslim's struggle against any evil or things forbidden by the Sharia that prevents him or her from honoring Allah. Socially, jihad refers to the preservation of the order Allah willed for the world, which he communicated through the Qur'an and is enforced through Sharia. Some Muslims believe that the expansion of Islam is part of Allah's divine will, which can be achieved through armed struggle. Although the Sharia and the Qur'an may allow fighting to defend one's religion, I feel that it is possible for this to be misinterpreted, which has caused Islam to gain a reputation as a violent religion. Overall, although Muslims may believe that weapons and violence instill peace, I believe that forced peace is not peace at all. True peace cannot be present in the midst of violence.
1) I do not believe al-Ghazali has conflicting opinions on a woman's role in society. In the section where she says, "...in Islamic society it is a grave error to speak of the liberation of women"(377), she is saying that Islam already provides women all of the freedom they need. At the end of that passage, she states, "The Muslim woman must study Islam so she will know that it os Islam that has given her all her rights" (377). The fact that she can be stern with her husband does not conflict with her earlier statement. She emphasized the acceptance of women in speaking their opinions. She says that, "Islam does not forbid women to actively participate in public life. It does not prevent her from working, entering into politics, and expressing her opinion, or from being anything..." (378). She herself emphasizes this by being an active participant in her community.
ReplyDeleteWhen she says that it is a grave error to speak of the liberation of women, I think she means that there truly is no need for women to be liberated because they are free. She states that, “It [Islam] gave women everything—freedom, economic rights, political rights, social rights, public and private rights.” Islam gives women rights that they have nowhere else, and as a result, she believes that Islam in reality has given women freedom and in no way has kept them restrained. All of the other religions do take away rights from women, but not Islam. In regards to her husband, she speaks to him with authority when she knows that he is violating her rights. Before marrying, her husband agreed to not ask her about her religious duties. He was breaking the agreement and she took the action that the situation required. This instance proves that a devoted Islamic woman does have “say” in her home and life.
ReplyDeleteThe statement that "Muslims only carry arms in order to spread peace" (378) seems like like a oxymoron, but it is not. It holds in it the concepts used in the spread of early Islam, and even to the Battle of Badr. The use of warfare and violence for protection of the Umma and the succesful spread of Islam. Muslims see spreading their religion and spreading peace as interchangeable, and this is their only use for carrying arms. In the same way that Muhammad was also a political leader, he did not rule out the concept of war because he realized it would be necessary to defend the early Umma, the Muslims now recognize that the possibility of violence is something that cannot be ignored. They do not intend to injure anyone for the sake of doing so, they only "carry arms" in order to spread, or protect their religion successfully. They realize that without arms, their religion could never have been sustained.
ReplyDelete3. “Muslims only carry arms in order to spread peace” (378)
ReplyDeleteLike others who have commendted before me, I beileve that this statement is quite contradictory. Carrying arms does not seem to spread peace, but instead brings the idea of war. People who carry arms generally seem to be the ones who start wars, not bring a sense of peace and safety to a region.
However, after more thought, I can understand where Muslims are coming from. Carrying arms does not always mean that one is going to begin fighting instead of trying to bring peace. If Muslims were carrying arms, other would be much less inclined to begin fighting witht hem. In other words, other people won’t attack Muslims out of fear of their arms, thus leading to fewer wars. To me, however, this would spread more fear than peace. If Muslims told others to convert (while they were brandishing arms), the other people would convert, but not because they could feel the peace radiating from the Muslims. Instead, they would do so to avoid the consequences. Thus, the arms do not prevent peace, but they do not support it either.
Lastly, I think that this question, given at this time, is quite relevant. Recently, more laws concerning the right to carry arms have been passed, with people being both angry and happy. One reason that more laws have been passed is, in some people’s views, to enable peace. This is a completely different approach than that of what the Muslims use. It is interesting to see how different societies deal with the right to carry arms and how that affects the spreading of peace in their respective regions.
I find if hard to believe the statement: "Muslims only carry arms in order to spread peace." I find this difficult to believe because it is very contradicting. Arms refers to guns, and when I think of guns I am reminded of death, and war. I do not think of peace. I recognize that in some situations guns are necessary for protection. However, even when they are being used for protection, that is not the same as bring peace. Any peace being brought upon by killing is not true peace; it can easily be taken away by anyone else with a gun. That is why I don't believe that peace can be won over through violence. Anything that is won through violence is won by force, and peace does not come from force. A state of peace is found in a place without force, threats, and fear. The sentence the follows after is, "We want to purify the world of disbelief , atheism, oppression, and persecution..." This statement is also contradicting. It says they want to purify the world of oppression; however it also says it wants to purify atheism. Atheism is a choice in belief, and every individual has the right to that belief. Therefore, they are saying that they want to oppress those who are atheist and want to stop oppression. Those two things can not be archived together because they are very contradicting. Also, referring to the earlier statement, I do not believe that either can be achieved by means of carrying arms.
ReplyDelete#1. I think the text highlights how Westerners view Islam differently from those practicing it. Zaynab al-Ghazali doesn't discuss how her rights are not equal to her husband, but only how all people have a different, but equal role in the eyes of God. As she discusses, the role of women is to raise and educate the children, particularly the boys, who will go on to be the rulers of the Islam state. If a woman has fulfilled her duties, then she may enter the public life. Although I don't agree with her explanation of gender roles in Islam, I think that her key point is that before the eyes of God, each gender is equal, and therefore each role has equal importance. Therefore, both genders can find liberation. She is emphasizing that in other religions/cultures, by putting an emphasis on the role of one particular gender, they creating the barriers themselves. In addition, when Zaynab al-Ghazali argues with her husband, she isn't trying to gain the same rights as him, or even thinking about that. Her main focus is to serve God and Islam, her greatest cause.
ReplyDeleteZaynab al-Ghazali is trying to say that the women of Islamic faith are free, and it is very inaccurate to say other wise. Most people is the West struggle with the beliefs and principles Muslims have towards women. However, it is because they may not fully understand the religion and the purpose for said beliefs and principles. For example, the head scarf, or hijab, some Islamic women are usually required to wear causes mixed reactions. Some believe that it is degrading to women and sexist because men do not have to wear them and women should not have to be secluded from the public. According to Muslims, the hijab is a symbol of modesty and morality. It is worn to protect women from advances from men. Also, Muslims believe everyone is equal in the eyes if God.
ReplyDeleteQuestion #1
ReplyDeleteI think that it is "a grave error to speak of liberation of women" in Islamic society because that implies that Islamic women aren't free to begin with. According to the Koran, women are equal to men, because both men and women are equal in the eyes of Allah. It is normal, in theory, for Zaynab to be stern with her husband if they are considered equal in the eyes of God.
However, Western culture and some Muslims get distracted by the definition of what a women's role in Islamic society truly is. It is a woman's duty to run the household and to raise up her husband and children, much like a Jewish mother. Zaynab states that, "...women must be well educated, cultured, knowing of the Qur'an and Sunna, knowing world politics" (378). The women must be well educated so they can pass on the knowledge to their husbands and sons, who are working for the change as well. Knowledge is freedom, therefore the women of Islam are not in need of liberation.
3. "We Muslims only carry arms in order spread peace." When I initially evaluated this statement, I could not make sense of it. Like my classmates noted, the statement seems to contradict itself, for "carrying arms" and "spreading peace" appear to be complete opposites. How can one use guns, among other weapons, to promote peace? It simply does not seem possible. However, I think that we as a society sometimes make quick judgements about this without taking a look at society as a whole. How are wars fought? With weapons and violence. Why are wars fought? To end conflicts, thus, to promote peace. So, does it not make sense that Muslims carry arms to end their conflicts and struggles, their jihad? It is a practice that all societies practice, but Muslims just might state the truth more bluntly. This being said, I do not agree with individual Muslims taking matters into their own hands. If Muslims are to carry arms, I believe that a set group of people, a unit, should be the ones to do so. There must still be order, because without order but with individual agendas, chaos will arise, and that is when there will be utter violence.
ReplyDelete1. I think that when she says "...in Islamic society it is a grave error to speak of the liberation of women"(377), it's indicating that since women have so much freedom and rights, such as economic, social, public, political, and private rights they already have everything they could want compared to other religions. Islamic women have so much more freedom than women practicing other religions. When she is talking to her husband, I think she is just making sure that he respects her religious path that she decided to take. She realized that it was time for her to follow her goals because he broke the agreement he made to her when they were first married. It shows us how much power women actually have in Islam and how much freedom they women are given.
ReplyDelete2. When Zaynab al-Ghazali talks of “complete incorporation” (380) I think she means that the Muslim Women’s Association that she is head of and which she founded, she calls it “the newborn” (380), will become part of a larger group called the Muslim brotherhood movement. This would mean losing the name and independence of her group, which she decides is the right thing to do because the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, Al-Bann, is stronger and more effective in “spreading the truth” (380) than she is.
ReplyDelete3. I find that at first glance, the statement, "Muslims only carry arms in order to spread peace" is contradictory to itself. Arms, most likely meaning guns and other firearms, are often portrayed as tools of death war; not instruments of peace. How can one bring peace while wielding tools of death and destruction? Granted, guns and weapons can be used as a form of self defense, but they are never peaceful forms of self defense. At the end of the day, someone will always get hurt, intentional or not. Arms strike fear and uncertainty into the minds of those who are being defended against, rather than the peaceful image the Muslims want us to have when thinking about their religion and way of life.
ReplyDeleteWhile I have to agree with Joosje on the fact that without arms, Islam would not have been protected and therefore not spread as it had been, there were, and still are ways to convert people peacefully and willingly. Weapons are not necessary to the continuation of a belief. Strong, defined guidelines, traditions, and peaceful ways can be more than enough to entice people into adopting a new belief, not violence and intimidation.
I think this statement very interesting, because it can have multiple interpretations. Yes, on first sight, it seems like the statement makes no sense, as weapons are used to create violence, and not peace. Yet sometimes, the only way to keep the peace is to use arms. Problems cannot always be resolved in peaceful measures, however much we want them to. I also found it very interesting how Joosje mentioned that Muslims used arms to maintain the spread of Islam, and for Muslims that is equivalent to keeping peace. The spread of Islam spread rapidly due to warfare, so the statement "Muslims only carry arms in order to spread peace" is a large part of the history of Islam. In addition, it also occurred to me how much throughout history Christians have used arms to "maintain the peace", for example during the Crusades, or during various Inquisitions.
ReplyDeleteQuestion 3
ReplyDeleteLike both Alex's stated, on a glance the statement "Muslims only carry arms to spread peace" seems like a complete oxymoron. However, after learning some Muslim values, one can begin to understand this statement a little more. One of most important values that can clarify this statement is jihad, pertaining to the religious duty of Muslims to stop all evil in the world. However, some people believe that evil also includes anyone who is not Muslim, which causes a great conflict. I on the other hand do not agree that Muslims should carry arms, let alone any person of any religion. Unfortunately, there are always tragedies when common people are allowed to posses arms. Recently there have been a few school shootings in the US causing great grief, which is just a small example of the disasters happening everyday around the world due to mass gun possession. On the other hand, I can see why people could believe this, since violence is how Islam was originally spread by victories in several battles.Therefore, followers of Mohammed and the Islam religion, could be lead to believe that this is the right way to spread a religion since it worked back in the 7th century.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI do find Zaynab al-Ghazali’s ideas to be a bit conflicting, but I think she is able to hold both positions because although she does not believe that women need to be liberated or have more rights because Islam gives women all the rights that they need she does believe that women can be part of society and should be educated. In a way though, I find that she is fulfilling more of her duty to Islam then to the Muslim ideas of the duty that a wife needs to fulfill to her husband. I feel this way because when al-Ghazali is talking about helping women to better understand the Qur’an, Sunna, and the workings of Islam in order to raise their sons in a way that will help him to “rebuild a Islamic nation”, and other similar instances when she talks about her work and how it helps Islam. Another thing is that I feel that by creating the Muslim Women’s Association she felt that she was helping to keep Islam strong and was devoting herself to Allah. In her mind, though, I think al-Ghazali does not believe that she is going against any of her duties to her husband. She even says this when talking about her involvement with the Muslim Brotherhood; “my work in these activities did not prevent me from fulfilling the duties of my mission in the general headquarters of the Muslim Women’s Association or cause me to neglect my family duties.” At the same time, a feel this is a bit conflicting with what she says in the next paragraph because she then talks about the conversation she and her husband had because she says that he agreed before that they married that he would not interfere with her work for Islam. She goes on to say something along the lines to her husband, that you can control me in everything but my work, but at the same time it seems like her work was an all consuming thing, and was pretty much all that she did. In a way, I feel that she is similar to a nun (of course not her radical belief and doings) in the way that she is almost married to the cause. It is like she had two marriages (not including her first one), one to her husband, and the other to the cause, both of which she has duties to fulfill. Al-Ghazali even says when talking about herself to her husband, “ …a man who wants to marry a women who gave herself to the struggle in the path of God to establish the Islamic state when she was eighteen years old.”
ReplyDelete3."Muslims only carry arms in order to spread peace" (378). I think Zaynab is trying to say that Muslims should spread the order they believe Islam creates, using force if necessary. This relates back to the beginning of Islam, when they had to conquer Mecca and the whole Arabian peninsula. However, I do not completely agree with her. First, the struggle after the founding of Islam was in a completely different historical context. Then, the tribes were constantly at war. Now, on the other hand, it is obvious that the Middle East is a lot more violent than most other areas of the world, and that there are many other solutions to establish peace apart from war, that were not suited to the ancient world. Furthermore, I believe that peace should be protected, if necessary, but starting wars definitely does not promote peace. I feel like the problem with this quote is that it implies that she believes that they should force peace and order on others whether they want it or not.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jessica that weapons are a reminder of violence and have become a symbol of wars and death etc. I do not think that it is right to say that arms spread peace because they only cause chaos and anger. Although Alex P's point that weapons are used in wars and wars should eventually lead to peace, it is still very dangerous to have individuals who are carrying arms. For me, the key word in this was "only". This is because although their religion might preach against violence, everyone must commit some sort of act of violence against another person. If a person happens to be carrying an arm, they might be pressured or tempted to use it, so I believe that it is not possible to ONLY carry arms to spread peace.
ReplyDelete3. “Muslims only carry arms in order to spread peace”, I believe, directly correlates to the Second Amendment in the Constitution of the United States of America, which is “The right to bear arms”. In current events lately, there has been a lot of controversy of the validity of the Second Amendment—although no one is necessarily trying to contradict the amendment, the Obama administration, led by Joe Biden, is looking to limit it’s meaning, in the form of no military assault weapons and no armed school officials. However, let’s be real—the second amendment was written in a time when throwing bullets was faster and more harmful than actually shooting them—as was the jihad spirit and Shariah in early Islam. I strongly disagree with the promotion of guns or armed weapons in Islam, because nothing about weapons strikes me as “peaceful”. A defense arm may be a different story, but assault weapons surely will not bring peace in any shape or form, even if it is for the spirit of the jihad and for the growth of the umma.
ReplyDelete3. While I can understand the theoretical logic behind the statement “Muslims only carry arms in order to spread peace”, the practical use of it is questionable. I think this statement was truer in the early spread of Islam, as Muslims brought political and social order to the places they conquered. However, in our modern society, it seems that in an effort to spread peace, this philosophy disrupts it. Everybody has a different understanding of what “peace” truly means. For the Muslims, peace is achieved by means of the spirit of the jihad. However, as times have changed and centralized political organization is more widespread, these efforts may face more opposition from already functioning political organizations. Personally, I believe that peace can only be achieved by genuine understanding and compromise, which is impossible with the use of weapons.
ReplyDelete1. While Zaynab al-Ghazali may seem to have contradictory views on the rights of women, depending on how one looks at it they can be seen as harmonious views. She says that all the liberation women need if given to them by Islam. Because of this it may seem strange for her to stand up to her husband when he questions her religious work. However, she reminds him Islam is more important to her than anything including her marriage to him. This makes sense, because without Islam she would not have the freedoms granted to her by it.
ReplyDelete1. Although Al-Ghazali's ideas seem to contradict each other, in reality, they do not. Al-Ghazali only states that, "It is a grave error to speak of the liberation of women" (377). However, she explains that women must learn that Islam grants equality. Therefore, it is a mistake to speak of liberation, because freedom is already present; it just has to be understood and found. Thus, this justifies the way she talks with her husband. Also, she tells her husband that she has devoted herself to the call of Allah more than to her marriage. This shows that she is dedicating her life to Islam in a way that she can embrace and understand the rights that it gives to her.
ReplyDelete3. Some Muslims spread peace via warfare by using whatever means it takes, which often includes violence, to spread their faith. Ideally, some believe that this will bring peace to the world, and end oppression, because all Muslims are equal in the eyes of Allah.
3. I agree with many of my classmates, that the statement “Muslims only carry arms in order to spread peace” contradicts itself. How could one promote peace with an instrument always associated with violence? One of the principle concepts of Islam is ‘jihad’ and it emphasizes the idea of struggling or fighting a war to promote the faith. However, I do not understand how a faith, which focuses on love and peace, could justify warfare. Although, I believe Muslims have the right intentions in trying to spread peace through Islam, using military force to promote it defeats the purpose.
ReplyDelete