veiled4allah: how the mentally ill are treated

pumpkinaa said:

Total comments: 11

i love nyc!

Jonathan Edelstein said:

Total comments: 91

Most states' mental health laws are more enlightened than New York's. The New York Mental Hygiene Law hasn't really been revised since the 1970s, and much of the present code is left over from the original 1927 (I think) statute. It's about due for another overhaul, but the law revision fever of the 1960s and 1970s doesn't exist anymore.

Great blog, BTW. I'll add a link to it from mine.

Al-Munaqabah said:

Total comments: 996

Thanks for visiting Jonathan, and thanks for linking me. I took a look at your blog. While I'm sure that the two of us would disagree quite frequently, I found your posts to be thoughtful and informative. I've added you to my blogroll.

Jonathan Edelstein said:

Total comments: 91

That we will disagree is natural. Over the years, though - a phrase I'm probably not entitled to use at the age of 31 - I've found that I learn more from those who disagree with me than those who simply validate my points of view.

BTW, this is off-topic for the thread, but have you read Asma Hasan's book about Islam in America, and, if so, what do you think of it? I commented on certain parts of the book (where she discusses possible analogies and differences between Islam and Reform Judaism) on my blog about a week ago, but I haven't had a chance to find out what other American Muslims think of her ideas.

Al-Munaqabah said:

Total comments: 996

You're right there is much to be learned from those with whom we differ as long as both sides are willing to respect each others' differences.

I haven't read the book by Asma Gull Hasan but I did find your blog entry on it (which is here for those who wish to check it out).

I think that you are quite right about the similarities between Judaism and Islam. In fact, I am struck sometimes by how much alike these two religions are. That makes it particularly sad what is happening right now in the Middle East.

I was recently described elsewhere as being theologically orthodox but politically moderate and I think this is pretty accurate. The passage that you quoted from Asma Gull Hasan seems to imagine Muslims giving up on various of their practices in order to assimilate. I would not be in favor of that. What I would like to see is Muslims who practice Islam fully being able to work together with those who practice other religions fully and those who practice none. I also think that this is possible and one of my aims is to explore how it can be done.

P.S. Speaking of similarities between Judaism and Islam, I took the Beliefnet "what's your religion" quiz and the two closest matches were Islam and Orthodox Judaism.

Jonathan Edelstein said:

Total comments: 91

Re the similarity of Judaism and Islam: A (Jewish) friend of mine once lived in Malaysia for several years, and his Muslim neighbors told him that all he had to do to be Muslim was to accept Mohammed (pbuh) as Prophet. I got the same feeling when I lived in an Arab neighborhood in Yonkers and, later, when I worked for the city and had the office next door to a Sunni Muslim - I was continually impressed by the similarities in belief, values and practice.

Re the Middle East: The conflict there, I think, is not so much about religion as it is about nationalism and land - and part of the reason it's so intractable is that both sides are right. I think nearly all Jews, both American and Israeli, will agree that the Palestinians have a case and that a Palestinian state should exist free of occupation. Polls consistently show large majorities of Jews agreeing to this proposition. Unfortunately, there isn't enough trust between the parties at the present time to accomplish this. (The "Sharon = Hitler" and "Israel is an apartheid state" rhetoric doesn't help either - the Palestinians do have a case, and I hope that they are soon able to live in dignity, but Israel isn't Nazi Germany or South Africa. Desmond Tutu ought to know better.)

Re Islam and modernism: I think the choice facing American Muslims is much like that American Jews have faced for two generations. There are three basic alternatives - (1) reject modernity completely, (2) reject shariah completely, and (3) follow shariah but adapt the customs that have grown up around it. Law cannot change, but custom can; I think this is part of what you were pointing out when you emphasized that the court in the Amina Lawal case based its decision on tribal custom rather than true shariah. It may be possible, without rejecting shariah, to combine it with modern life like the Jordanian iftar parties in the Wall Street Journal article (and like the Modern Orthodox movement within Judaism). I think it may be possible for Muslims to adapt to modernity on this basis, and also for more traditional Muslims to work together with members of other religions - this is a choice that will probably be made on an individual basis.

I took that religion quiz too, BTW. My top choice was Unitarian Universalism, followed by Reform Judaism; Islam and Orthodox Judaism were fifth and sixth respectively. I'm not planning to convert from Conservative Judaism, though.

Al-Munaqabah said:

Total comments: 996

I noticed that Conservative Judaism didn't show up as an option on the quiz, which is weird. Reform Judaism and Sikhism were two other top responses for me though they were significantly behind Islam and Orthodox Judaism.

My personal preference is to follow the Shari'a but change the customs around it. I feel that the Shari'a is more flexible and less harsh than most people (including many Muslims) seem to think it. The Amina Lawal thing is just an example.

As to Israel/Palestine, I more or less agree with you, although I'm sure I have a rather more negative opinion of Israel than you do. Israel does have a long way to go to equal the wrong of other regimes, no question, but there shouldn't be any need or reason to draw the comparison at all, and to me there are some reasons, in Israel's laws regarding and treatment of its Arab citizens, and in the brutality of the Occupation.

I really don't know what the solution is for Israel and Palestine. I used to be much more optimistic but this last year has made me wonder if there is any solution at all that the people in power are willing to work towards.

Jonathan Edelstein said:

Total comments: 91

I think the reason Conservative Judaism was left out may be that many people have a hard time thinking of it as a "real" religion. The joke often told about Conservative Jews is that the rabbis are Orthodox but the congregations are Reform. I may be one of the few outside the Jewish Theological Seminary (the Conservative seminary) who actually considers Conservative Judaism a complete theology rather than a compromise between Orthodox and Reform. I'll have to write about the Conservative/Masorti movement on my blog one of these days - there are many misconceptions about it.

The three-part distinction I mentioned in my previous reply is actually similar to the division between Reform, Conservative and Orthodox Judaism. Reform Judaism does not recognize halacha (the Jewish equivalent of shariah) as binding. Conservative and Orthodox Judaism both recognize halacha as binding (although there are differences in interpretation), but they differ in their attitude toward minhag (custom). Conservative Judaism does not give custom any authoritative force, while Orthodox Judaism does - the amount of authority varies between the ultra-Orthodox and the Modern Orthodox, but all consider custom a source of authority to some degree. I think that what might develop in the United States is not so much a "Reform Islam" as a "Conservative Islam," which recognizes shariah but is not bound by custom. That seems to be, more or less, what you're talking about.

We may disagree less on Israel and Palestine than you think. I agree that Arab Israelis (a term I prefer to Israeli Arabs, because it emphasizes that they too are Israeli) are often mistreated. You may have some misconceptions about the treatment of Arab Israeli citizens, though - for instance, the land bill described in the Ha'aretz article on your clipboard was withdrawn after the Israeli Attorney General, the President of Israel and numerous members of Knesset condemned it as racist. Currently, religious, racial or ethnic discrimination in sales of land or home sites is forbidden in Israel according to the decision of the Israeli Supreme Court in the Qa'dan/Katzir case. Arabs have also won other important court battles in Israel since 1990, including the right to sit on land-use commissions.

There really aren't very many areas in which Arab Israelis face official discrimination, although there is plenty of social prejudice and unofficial discrimination. Their social position probably compares best to that of African-Americans rather than blacks in apartheid South Africa. I believe that Israel should be a "state of its citizens," which is why I support the Shinui party, but it's a lot closer to being that right now than you think it is.

I also agree with you that the occupation should end. Most Jews, and most Israelis, agree with that - it's only a few crazy settlers who don't. The problem is doing so as part of a peace agreement that will ensure the security of Israel as well as the dignity of the Palestinians. By now, everybody knows, more or less, what a fair solution will look like, but there isn't enough mutual trust to get there. I've also lost a great deal of optimism in the past two years, but, curiously enough, I've been regaining it lately - there are signs of growing moderation among both Israelis and Palestinians, and Amram Mitzna is a refreshing political figure who has a long history of treating Arabs with respect. There's always hope.

Al-Munaqabah said:

Total comments: 996

You know, anybody who comes to the comments section looking for a discussion about the mentally ill is going to get a big surprise to read about Israel-Palestine instead! It's weird how these discussions get going.

Speaking of weird, I can kind of see your point about why Conservative Judaism wasn't include, but I still think it must have been an error or oversight on their part because I think they should leave those sorts of distinctions for Jews to debate among themselves and just provide it as an option. Who knows how I would have scored against that branch. Probably not as highly as I scored on Orthodox Judaism but presumably between it and Reform Judaism.

I'm not sure that the analogy between Islam and Judaism can be taken as far as the question of codification of custom. That isn't really a way that Muslims generally approach it, at least not that I have seen. If in place of custom you said "rulings of the scholars of past centuries" then it might work (or maybe this is what you meant).

Broadly speaking, there are three movements in Islam today, modernist, traditionalist/conservative, and "fundamentalist" (I don't like the use of that label because it implies things I don't necessarily mean, but it'll do for a brief discussion). The traditionalists place a great deal of importance on abiding by the consensus that has developed among the scholars of Islam over many centuries. The modernists and the fundamentalists both feel that Muslims need to go back to the roots of the religion. Modernists tend to see this as a vehicle for liberalizing reform while fundamentalists instead tend to be very strict. I see a lot of similarities here with Christianity, where Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox are the traditionalists, liberal Protestants are the modernists, and evangelical Protestants are the fundamentalists. I'm not sure how well Judaism fits into this model.

I've written an essay about various trends and movements in the Muslim world here. Feel free to share your criticism and comments, everybody else does!

There's also been an interesting discussion about some of these aspects at unmedia, in the "Wahhabism is the Reformation?" post.

Re Israel and Palestine, I feel that probably many if not most ordinary Israelis and Palestinians would like to make peace but I am less and less sure that their leadership and the radical groups on both sides will let them. I think that's where my pessimism has come from. A lot of Muslims don't realize there are Israelis who speak up for peace and against the Occupation, but I see these articles being published on the web quite frequently. In fact, I just posted one to the Clipboard this morning, an editorial by Gideon Levy that I found very powerful and moving.

Jonathan Edelstein said:

Total comments: 91

Conversations tend to drift a long way before they end. The good ones do, anyway.

I think, on reflection, that Conservative Judaism wasn't on the quiz because there wasn't room to include every religion. Imagine if every Christian denomination had been included! The authors of the quiz probably wanted to include one "traditional" and one "modern" branch of Judaism, just for reference. I think it's much stranger that they didn't differentiate between Sunni and Shi'a Islam.

When I referred to "custom" as a source of law in Judaism, I was referring to opinions of scholars, but only in part. Both halacha and shariah, as I understand them, are common-law systems, with the Torah/Koran as the "constitution," the Talmud/hadiths as statute law, and rabbinical responsa/opinions of scholars and judges as case law. (Yes, I know it's a very imprecise analogy - for one thing, it isn't possible to amend the Torah or Koran. Still.) The denominations of Judaism differ as to how much weight to give rabbinical responsa - Orthodox (and especially ultra-Orthodox) Jews often give them controllng force, Conservatives consider them advisory at most, and the Reform movement generally ignores them.

My reference to "custom," though, also included the Orthodox concept of minhag, which, freely interpreted, basically means "the way things are done." A custom or tradition that continues for a certain amount of time becomes minhag and is then a source of law. For instance, the fact that Sephardic Jews eat rice on Passover while Ashkenazic Jews don't is based on a difference in minhag, not in legal interpretation. I'm not sure if there's any equivalent in Islam, but the Conservative Jewish movement generally rejects the idea that minhag is binding.

I like your division of Islam into three movements. In Judaism, the "fundamentalists" (a term I also don't like, because different sects emphasize different fundamentals) and traditionalists are much closer together. The last really radical fundamentalist movement we had - Hasidism - began in the 18th century, about the same time as Wahhabism. Jewish fundamentalists now tend to be very concerned with preserving tradition.

I saw the Unmedia post you refer to, and I'll comment on your essay when I have time. As far as Israel and Palestine, the leadership and radical groups are a big problem, but I think lack of mutual trust is a bigger one. Many Israelis want a Palestinian state but don't believe that it would be safe for Israel, while many Palestinians want to make peace with Israel but believe that Israel can't be trusted to end the occupation. The key is convincing each side of the other's good faith, and there have been welcome signs of moderation and compromise recently among both Israelis and Palestinians.

Take care, and congratulations again on your 4.0 (in case you're wondering, I graduated college with a 2.97, but my sister got a 3.97.)

Al-Munaqabah said:

Total comments: 996

The analogy to common law is interesting. I think you're right that the opinions of the scholars (the term "fatwa" is used in Arabic; no, it doesn't mean "death sentence" just "opinion") are definitely similar to case law in that they are decisions made how to apply the fixed law to a particular situation and circumstance. The analogy of the Torah and Quran to a constitution and the Talmud and Sunna (which is preserved in the hadiths) to statutory law probably shouldn't be taken too literally, though!

The idea of minhag that you mentioned I think is similar in someways to what's called in Arabic urf or local custom. This does play a role when the scholars make their opinions how to interpret the Shari'a. For instance, if a man and a woman have not stipulated a certain amount to be paid to the woman as dower, the amount of the dower will be determined based on what is customary in that area for women of her social status. I am not really familiar with this aspect of Islamic jurisprudence and I also don't know enough about minhag to make any kind of comparison.

BTW, there's an Arabic word minhaj which means "methodology" or "way of doing things". We say that each school of thought applies a different minhaj in interpreting the law. I wonder if the word is at all related to minhag.

I'll be away on vacation through New Year's Day but I hope you'll come on by after that so we can continue our discussion. I have really enjoyed it. This is an example to me of how much we can learn from each other if we are willing to show mutual respect and to listen. And feel free to leave comments on any of my posts, or any of the pages elsewhere on my website. I'll respond to them when I get back, God willing.

Jonathan Edelstein said:

Total comments: 91

The Jewish concept of minhag is actually very similar to minhaj (I'm constantly amazed at how similar the Hebrew and Arabic languages are), but it also includes much of what you describe as urf. (And yes, I know that a fatwa is a ruling - I've consulted cyberfatwa on occasion.)

I've also enjoyed this conversation a great deal, and I'll continue to be a frequent visitor. Given your legal interests, you may also enjoy this article about Orthodox Jewish women studying law.

All comments are copyright their authors

RSS feed of comments on this entry

Finished reading and posting comments? Return to veiled4allah