Editorial

As this issue goes to press, the Muslim world is reeling from a number of
events: President Bush has reversed decades of American foreign policy to
come out in favor of Israel’s annexation of huge swaths of the West Bank;
Israel continues to murder top Hamas leaders in Palestine; in Afghanistan,
Karzai is having trouble administering a country that is slipping back to the
pre-Taliban war-lord era, and violence continues to escalate in an increas-
ingly destabilized Iraq. Bush’s insistence that the so-called “war on terror”
is for the sake of freedom rings increasingly hollow, and the United States,
under his administration, appears to be a major catalyst for instability rather
than stability in the world. When I think of Bush and his team, I cannot help
but recall the Qur’anic verse that says: “When it is said to them: ‘Make not
mischief on the earth,’ they say: ‘We are only ones that put things right.’ Of
a surety, they are the ones who make mischief, but they realize (it) not”
(2:11-12).

The Bush administration’s responses to the tragic carnage of 9/11 has
unleashed mayhem in the Muslim world that is reminiscent not of the
twentieth century, but of the nineteenth, in which the European powers
attempted to colonize the Middle East, Africa, and Asia. Thus, Salem’s
article, in a finely nuanced analysis of Jamal al-Din al-Afghani’s and
Rashid Rida’s responses to European colonialism, has reverberations in
today’s climate. Salem’s main argument is that al-Afghani and Rida
advanced similar political programs on three different levels: fighting
colonialism, establishing modern Islamic states, and calling for itjihad in
the interpretation and implementation of Islamic law. It is hard not to see
the Muslim world’s present condition reflected in their struggles nearly a
century ago, and thus to feel a special relevance in studying the lives and
works of these two influential nineteenth-century figures. What were the
issues they reflected upon? What were their conclusions, observations, and
suggestions? What worked and did not work for them? Salem’s article is
very instructive in this regard.

One of the thorniest issues al-Afghani and Rida attempted to address
was the relationship and compatibility between a modern nation-state and
an Islamic state. To what extent were these complementary or contradic-



tory concepts and realities? Al-Afghani and Rida addressed themselves to
a debate that still remains unresolved within the Muslim community, as
Hosen’s paper on constitutionalism reminds us. He argues for the idea that
the Shari`ah is compatible with the concept of constitutionalism. Outlining
nine arguments put forth by both secularists and certain groups of practic-
ing Muslims as to why Islam is incompatible with constitutionalism, he
then demonstrates how these points are misplaced. His main point is that
itjihad is a legal tool that allows jurists to adapt Islamic law to different
times and places, while remaining within the fold of the Shari`ah’s status
as derived from the divine revelation. He argues that such itjihad enables
jurists and other Islamic scholars and religious figures to conceive of the
Qur’an and the Sunnah as the basis of a constitutional framework for
developing a modern democratic and Islamic state. The very fact that
Hosen must make this case demonstrates that Muslims still have to find
their way in a world shaped by western concepts of nationhood and
modernity. 

Nevin Reda’s paper on women in the mosque is part of the same dis-
course about Islam’s compatibility with modernity. While western femi-
nists still struggle with patriarchal aspects of western culture, women’s
equality is conceptually accepted as part of the meaning of “modernity.”
The cultural practices of women’s exclusion from masajid the world over
leaves Islam open to the charge of not treating Muslim women equally
(by not giving them the same access to sacred space as is given to men).
Muslim feminists have turned their attention to the changing status of
Muslim women historically, and, in so doing, have discovered something
rather surprising: Many entrenched practices in relation to women have
their basis in later developments in the Muslim world, not in the practices
of the first Muslim community. 

An example of this is women’s relationship to prayer in the masjid,
for many masajid across the Muslim world, including North America,
prohibit or discourage women from attending the prayer. However, Reda
finds that this practice began during the caliphate of `Umar (raa) (634-
44). Using a meticulous methodology that examines both the textual and
material sources, Reda demonstrates that during Prophet Muhammad’s
(pbuh) time, Muslim women had full access to the masjid and were not
blocked off from the congregation by curtains, walls, or other barriers. In
other words, they were full participants in the life of the masjid. Reda pre-
sents her well-grounded historical analysis in hopes that this knowledge
will reverse cultural customs that discourage women from attending

ii The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 21:2



prayers at the masjid, and thus being excluded from the center of Muslim
community life. 

Samory Rashid’s paper is also concerned with the importance of his-
torical accuracy and its relationship to shaping contemporary discourse.
Rashid offers a provocative challenge to theorists of Islam in the United
States who argue that the Islam of the African slaves died out and had to
await new waves of immigrants during the mid-twentieth century to
reestablish Islam in this country. Rashid’s argument is that the Islam of the
African slaves went underground and survived in black communities that
were closed to outsiders due to official American policies of racial segre-
gation. Thus, this aspect of Islam is unknown and undocumented, except to
blacks themselves. Given that African Americans possibly comprise up to
42 percent of all American Muslims, historical accuracy concerning their
relationship to Islam, as well as the United States’ relationship to Islam, is
important. His paper requires other scholars of Islam in the United States to
be cognizant and aware of his argument whenever they make claims about
the Muslim community’s relationship to the United States, and to build on
it while conducting research in the future.

This issue of AJISS inaugurates a new section, which we are calling
“Forum.” Building on the occasional inclusion of pieces under the title
“Reflections” in past issues, “Forum” seeks to be a space for reflection,
dialogue, and debate between the readers of AJISS. The essays will be
shorter and on any topic chosen by the author. This will not be a peer-
reviewed section of the journal, although we expect the essays to be acad-
emically informed. Mohammad Nejatullah Siddiqi’s piece on “Muslims
and Violence” is our first essay in this section. He analyzes the Qur’an’s
position on violence and then issues a call for Muslims to shun violence
and move toward a politics of transparency, democratic culture, and ethi-
cal relationships with humanity at large. Only in this way, he asserts, will
humanity be able to devise the realistic and just strategies needed to solve
such global problems as poverty. Would that Muslims who preach and
encourage violence as a solution to the Muslim world’s ills take heed of
Dr. Siddiqi’s call.

Katherine Bullock

Editorial iii



AMSS 33rd ad

iv The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 21:2