The AMI Podcast

Join Dr Muhammed Reza Tajri and special guest Dr Shabana Mir, Associate Professor at the American Islamic College, for an insightful discussion on the challenges faced by Muslim American women on college campuses and Muslim women across the West. Drawing from Dr Mir's acclaimed book, 'Muslim American Women on Campus,' this conversation delves into themes of surveillance, cultural identity, Western perceptions, and the layered significance of the hijab. Discover how young Muslim women navigate and assert their identities, resist stereotypes, and find resilience in a complex socio-political landscape. Tune in for an enlightening exploration of identity, agency, and strength in the modern world.

Among the various Muslim communities that were articulating their doctrinal positions in the early Islamic centuries, one in particular was known derisively as the Ghulat ('extremists'). This was owing to their specific interpretation of Islam, which included an 'extreme' devotion to the Shi'i Imams and the family of the Prophet, and controversial religious ideas, such as the transmigration of souls into other human or sub-human forms. Widely active in Iraq in the 8th and 9th centuries, the Ghulat developed a complex worldview and produced a rich religious literature. Until now, understanding of this community has mainly relied on sources produced outside of the group, which are inaccurate or polemical in nature. This book looks at newly recovered primary texts in order to study the Ghulat first hand. Mushegh Asatryan examines the development of the Ghulat writings, situating the community within a broader historical context and offering a comprehensive survey of their distinctive cosmology. Through his detailed analysis, the book offers insight into the formation of one of the earliest religious traditions in Islamic history and the nature of the community in which texts were produced and circulated.

Divorcing Traditions is an ethnography of Islamic legal expertise and practices in India, a secular state in which Muslims are a significant minority and where Islamic judgments are not legally binding. Katherine Lemons argues that an analysis of divorce in accordance with Islamic strictures is critical to the understanding of Indian secularism. Lemons analyzes four marital dispute adjudication forums run by Muslim jurists or lay Muslims to show that religious law does not muddle the categories of religion and law but generates them. Drawing on ethnographic and archival research conducted in these four institutions-NGO-run women's arbitration centers (mahila panchayats); sharia courts (dar ul-qazas); a Muslim jurist's authoritative legal opinions (fatwas); and the practice of what a Muslim legal expert (mufti) calls "spiritual healing"-Divorcing Traditions shows how secularism is an ongoing project that seeks to establish and maintain an appropriate relationship between religion and politics. A secular state is always secularizing. And yet, as Lemons demonstrates, the state is not the only arbiter of the relationship between religion and law: religious legal forums help to constitute the categories of private and public, religious and secular upon which secularism relies. In the end, because Muslim legal expertise and practice are central to the Indian legal system and because Muslim divorce's contested legal status marks a crisis of the secular distinction between religion and law, Muslim divorce, argues Lemons, is a key site for understanding Indian secularism.

This second volume in the series focuses on a critical and contentious theme: Women in the Qurʾan and traditional Qurʾanic commentaries. It comprises analysis of the female subject in the Qurʾan, annotated translations of Qurʾanic commentaries spanning twelve centuries, interviews of contemporary Muslim scholars and extensive introductory materials, which frame the work throughout and render these technically complex materials accessible to the reader. On Women begins with a critical introduction to the study of women and gender in the genre of Qurʾanic commentaries. A unique prolegomenon then follows key Qurʾanic terms in a chronological sequence, showing how the Qurʾan's world view on women developed from the earliest Meccan revelations, when women were addressed only implicitly as a part of households or in the course of anti-pagan polemic, to the period of the final revelations in Medina, when women were addressed directly as pious and social subjects. The remainder of the volume translates, critically annotates, and analyses interpretations of six select Qurʾanic verses on women. These verses, chosen because of their relevance to women's lived experience, speak of the creation of humankind beginning with a single soul (Q. 4:1); the exemplary figure of Mary, the mother of Jesus (Q. 3:35-6); women's status in marriage (Q. 4:34); women's legal testimony and hence legal capacity (Q. 2:282); and 'veiling' as it relates to Qurʾanic norms of modesty (Q. 24:31). While highlighting variation, continuity, and plurality in the genre of Qurʾanic commentaries, Volume II goes beyond medieval interpretive paradigms to include perspectives marginalised by that tradition, such as the voices of women themselves.

On Wednesday 11th September 2024, AMI’s Dept. for Studies in Comparative Religion was privileged to host University of Birmingham’s Dr. Sophia Butt, to lead a research seminar entitled “Securitising Muslim School Children”. The presentation, which centred on UK-based research, asked critical questions about the UK government’s ‘deradicalisation’ initiatives and how they were administered to schoolchildren. The presentation critically evaluated the theoretical basis, adequacy and application of questionnaires that were targeted at schoolchildren, as well as the lack of transparency involved with the initiative and the islamophobic underpinnings its consequences had. Some of the research questions relied on theories of cognitive development from western scholars, like Jean Piaget, implying that government questionnaire, trialled without parental consent, was inappropriate considering the children’s underdeveloped psyche, and did not yield accurate or ethically defensible results. Research on this theme has a growing significance considering geopolitical tensions around the Middle East, and political scrutiny of Muslim responses in the UK.

On Wednesday, 4th September 2024, the Department for Islamic Legal Studies at the Al-Mahdi Institute (AMI) hosted a research seminar by Dr. Rafisah Mat Radzi (Universiti Sains Malaysia & AMI) on the topic of Islamic fintech innovations, focusing specifically on Shariah-compliant e-wallet transactions in Malaysia. The seminar was a highly informative session, providing valuable insights into the future of Islamic fintech and the practical steps needed to ensure Shariah compliance in digital finance. Dr. Mat Radzi’s presentation delved into the rising prominence of e-wallets in Malaysia’s financial landscape and the need for clear Shariah guidelines within the Islamic finance industry to address this growing trend. Highlighting a gap in Shariah-compliant frameworks for e-wallets, she examined existing practices in both Indonesia and Malaysia, and proposed a framework grounded in Shariah principles that could be adopted by service providers and regulatory authorities alike. Drawing from a wealth of primary research, including insights from Shariah advisors in the banking sector, Dr. Mat Radzi provided an in-depth analysis of the Shariah issues concerning e-money transactions. Her findings underscored the need for further alignment between fintech innovations and Islamic jurisprudence, ensuring that digital payment systems uphold the ethical and legal standards required by Shariah. The seminar concluded with a dynamic discussion among attendees, who engaged Dr. Mat Radzi on the challenges and opportunities in establishing a compliant framework for e-wallets. Her research, backed by international and national funding, showcased her expertise in Islamic finance, particularly in areas such as sukuk, crowdfunding, and Shariah-compliant financial products.

The Centre for Intra-Muslim Studies (CIMS) presents its inaugural Urdu podcast episode, examining the critical question: "Is there Distortion (Taḥrīf) in the Qurʾan?." The discussion, hosted by Syed Arman Kazmi, features distinguished scholars from both Sunni and Shia traditions: Dr Muhammad Khalid, Mufti Muhammad Farooq Alvi, and Syed Muhammad Haider Naqvi, who offer a nuanced exploration of Quranic textual history and its preservation. Some of the key topics discussed include: Defining Taḥrīf and its various forms Historical narratives of Quranic compilation Critical examination of various traditions related to Taḥrīf Scholarly perspectives on Quranic preservation

This third podcast in the series by the Center for Intra-Muslim Studies (CIMS) features Dr Muhammed Reza Tajri and a panel of scholars discussing how to address abuse in Muslim communities. The panel discuss the complexities of balancing the need to confront abuse with concerns about fueling Islamophobia. They explore various forms of abuse, such as spiritual and sexual abuse, and the power dynamics that contribute to them. The discussion highlights the importance of implementing safeguards, developing community-based justice systems, and exploring restorative justice approaches. The panelists also stress the need for accountability among religious leaders and suggest practical steps for communities to prevent abuse. The Centre for Intra-Muslim Studies (CIMS) was established in 2015 to bring together Muslims from across the denominational spectrum to critically discuss ideas pertaining to Islamic theology, history, and contemporary issues affecting Muslims.

Whether or not non-Muslims are subject to Sharīʿa responsibilities has been treated in various contexts in works of uṣul al-fiqh and fiqh. Across schools of thought the prevalent view has been that non-Muslim are indeed subject to sharia responsibilities before God. This position is endorsed by Imāmī Shīʿa legal theorists such as Sharīf alMurtaḍā (d. 436/1044), Shaykh al-Ṭūsī (d. 460/1067), and ʿAllāma al-Ḥillī (d. 460/1067). Each of these considered the question within the context of the linguistic discussions of uṣul al-fiqh framed within enquiries regarding the scope of the imperative. Does the imperative include the non-Muslim and the slave as it includes the Muslim and the free person? This paper will examine how this position has been nuanced by some modern Shīʿī Uṣūlī’s, in response to an Akhbārī rejections of the prevalent view, by distinguishing between universal moral responsibilities applicable to all and particular Sharīʿa addresses only incumbent upon believers. The paper will further point to some contemporary implications of this distinction for our understanding of the nature and practice of Sharīʿa in plural contexts.

The main question addressed in this paper is: “Can jurists rely on moral judgments to disregard or qualify scriptural evidence?” The standard answer to this question among later uṣūlī scholars is yes, provided that the moral judgment in question is “conclusive”. Otherwise, the scriptural evidence will retain its validity. In applying this principle to particular cases, such as child marriage, jurists working within this paradigm split into two groups: a minority who claim that the moral judgment in question is certain, and accordingly modify or set aside the conflicting scriptural evidence; and a majority who believe that the moral judgment in question is not certain, and consequently resolve the conflict in favour of scriptural evidence. Regarding the level of justification one can legitimately claim for moral judgments, the second group are correct in most cases. Therefore, granting the dominant paradigm, the path of moral reforms in jurisprudence is effectively closed. However, one can ask whether such a stringent condition as certainty for the permissibility of using moral judgments in jurisprudential arguments is rationally defensible. In this paper, I try to show that such a condition is indefensible, and hence the dominant paradigm lacks rational credibility. Based on the alternative paradigm that I propose and defend, the conflict we face here is of an epistemological and hermeneutical nature. Thus, the appropriate solution to this conflict is to weigh the evidence we have in favour of moral judgments against conflicting scriptural evidence and prioritise the stronger, i.e., the evidence with a higher probability of being true. Within this paradigm, for moral judgments to take precedence over opposing scriptural evidence, it is sufficient that the moral judgment has stronger rational support by virtue of being more probable than the conflicting scriptural evidence. This paradigm provides a rational basis for moral reforms in jurisprudence.