Week 3 Reading Response

          In Amina Wadud’s “What’s in the Name?,” she emphasizes the importance of critically analyzing the semantics of fundamental Qur’anic themes in order “to attain social justice for all Muslims.” Wadud breaks down many words and principles central to the Qur’an, simultaneously advocating for the inclusion of women’s interpretations of Islamic theory and practice—something that generally has been excluded. Her analysis challenges the historical tendency of “exclusively male control over who determines what ‘Islam’ means.” Wadud explains how, as with any ambiguous text, the vagueness of certain Qur’anic principles leaves them available for manipulation (whether intentional or not). “Confusion arises when multiple meanings are used in the absence of clear definitions,” which has resulted in gender injustice and abuse of the word “Islam.” It is not Islam itself that has led to gender disparity or social injustice within the Muslim community; rather, it is mankind that limits the understanding of Islam; more specifically, it is those in the community that are arrogant enough to believe they can determine Islamic legitimacy. Because of such transgressors, Wadud explains, Western media has equated “what Muslims do” with “Islam,” allowing for its popularized sale of Islam as abusive and in need of being destructed.

          Purposefully drawing from female-inclusive readings, Wadud attempts to challenge Western media’s view on Islam and redefine/clarify certain concepts. For example, instead of using the commonly-taught definition of Islam as “submission to God’s will,” she defines Islam as “engaged surrender.” She differentiates the two by saying how “submission” suggests an involuntary, coerced act, where as “engaged surrender” implies human agency. Continuing this conversation on agency and Islam as a voluntary, fully-conscious choice, Wadud develops (what she calls) the tawhidic paradigm: oneness under Allah, where one’s self and Allah are ultimately inseparable. Such oneness is achieved through engaged surrender (“Islam”), balance and harmony (“tawhid”), and relational reciprocity between I, Thou, and Allah (two humans and the Creator).

          Wadud reiterates this idea of “relational reciprocity” in order to reject the patriarchal malpractices of Islam. She explains how I and Thou are not only equal but are “one within the oneness of Allah”—meaning this oneness requires BOTH of their agency and voluntary surrender, rendering BOTH of their servitude as EQUALLY valuable and integral. Reciprocity refers again to the harmony between two humans, while relational refers to the gender roles given in the fixed system of Islamic practice. This is to say that men and women are equal in Islam and that their roles are equally valuable, despite the fact that more power/privilege has habitually been given to men because of this misinterpretation of value. Women’s roles should not be de-legitimized or seen as inferior when they are equally necessary to tawhid. Wadud concludes by suggesting that social justice for Muslims can progress once the community understands that power does not exist as “power over” another person, but rather as “power with” another—that dismantling the gender disparity will not disempower men, but will unite and validate each moral agent as a whole.