Abstract
This chapter thinks through the “rhizomes” of radical theology at the base of the Islamic traditions themselves—in this case, the Qur’an—suggesting that radical theological gestures are inherent in Islam. Doing so suggests openings that challenge both static interpretations of Islam as well as certain forms of radical theology. These are briefly explored by relating the radicality found in the Qur’an and certain thinkers from within the Islamic traditions to various thinkers from within the radical theology traditions.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
My understanding of “radical” is rooted in the idea of “getting to the root”; however, I prefer “getting to the rhizome.” Following Deleuze and Guattari , I believe that rhizome is a better metaphor for the structure of the intrinsic relationality of Reality that denies neither its unity nor its multiplicity. Conversely, some radical theologians have suggested that “radical” means “digging up the root.” In response, I retort that radical theology exposes that what we once thought was a root has always been a rhizome. See Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari , A Thousand Plateaus, trans. B. Massumi (Minneapolis: U Minnesota P, 1987).
- 2.
In my references to the Qur’an, I follow the convention of surah (chapter): ayah (verse). For some this may seem a controversial claim given the various ways the relationship between the prophet Muhammad and the Qur’an has been interpreted within the multitude of Muslim traditions. I’ve attempted to capture this complexity in the structure of this sentence. For an excellent discussion of these differences and complexities, see the introduction to Muhammad Ali Amir-Moezzi’s The Silent Qur’an and the Speaking Qur’an, trans. Eric Ormsby (New York: Columbia University Press, 2015).
- 3.
An interesting track for further research would be to look at Mansur al-Hallaj, Rabia of Basra, other early Sufis, the early Shi’i Imams, and so on, and their radical approaches to Islam. To wit, al-Hallaj’s statement, ana‘l-Haqq—I am Reality—and his subsequent brutal execution for theological heresy/political radicalism, along with his presumed writing, would make an interesting case study of radical theological possibilities very early in Islamic history. This was perhaps begun, with reference to al-Hllaj, by Seth ‘Abd al-Hakeem Carney in “Twilight of the Idols?” pg. 16. See later in this text for full reference.
- 4.
Henry Corbin, Alone with the Alone, trans. R. Manheim (Princeton: Princeton UP, 1998), 200–207; William Chittick, The Sufi Path of Knowledge (Albany: SUNY P, 1989), 96–112.
- 5.
All translations from the Qur’an are my own.
A common problem for anyone trying to work with the Qur’an in English is the lack of a satisfactory translation. Hence, like many, I have used my own very limited knowledge of Arabic to try to render versions of Qur’anic ayah that move closer to how I read and understand the Qur’an. However, to ensure that I am not completely outside of the realms of tradition or possibility, I have consulted the following translations and commentaries: Ahmed Ali, Al-Qur’an: A Contemporary Translation (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001); Maulana Muhammad Ali, The Holy Qur’an with English Translation and Commentary (Dublin: Ahmadiyya AnjumanIsha’at Islam Lahore, 2002); Laleh Bakhtiar, The Sublime Qur’an (Chicago: Kazi, 2007); A. Nooruddeen Durkee, The Tajwidi Qur’an (Charlottesville, VA: An-Noor, 2004); “10 Surprising Facts to Know Before Reading the Qur’an,” Ismailgnosis.com, online (accessed 31. Jan. 2018), http://ismailignosis.com/2016/09/14/10-surprising-facts-to-know-before-reading-the-quran/; Seyyed Hussein Nasr et al., The Study Qur’an: A New Translation and Commentary (San Francisco: Harper One, 2015); Michael Sells, Approaching the Qur’an: The Early Revelations (Ashland: White Cloud, 2007). I am also deeply indebted, in particular, to the translations of the Qur’an made by Scott Siraj al-Haqq Kugle across his various work. I am similarly indebted to the translations of Farid Esack and Amina Wadud made in their works. The texts of these scholars are referenced later in this text.
- 6.
The Arabic hu, here translated as “Their,” is a pronoun typically translated as “he.” However, given the Qur’anic insistence on God’s lack of gender, and the simple fact that hu was, like the English he, traditionally the “catch-all” pronoun, I have chosen to translate hu using the evolving English neutral Their. I take this liberty, in part, because it is justified in the Qur’an itself, where “royal we” is frequently used. However, in terms of my overall argument, the unity of Allah is informed by all of Their infinite and constantly proliferating Names, and the equality of those names (7:180, 17:110). Hence “Their” can also be understood to contain an expression, in Catherine Keller’s phrase, of the plurisingularity of Allah’s unity.
- 7.
“Connection” translates salah, the word used to indicate formal prayer in Islam, but which carries a wider meaning than what is indicated by the English word prayer.
- 8.
It is difficult to place a specific note for this claim, as the entirety of the Qur’an can be understood as arguing for a wholistic view of life wherein din and politics cannot really be understood as distinct categories. This is part of the importance, as well, of the Qur’anic insistence on the equality of all dins and their communities.
- 9.
Other possible pertinent translations of samad include self-sufficient, refuge, sought after.
- 10.
For an explanation of Tanzil, see “Revelation Order,” Tanzil.net, online (accessed 31 Jan. 2018). http://tanzil.net/docs/revelation_order.
- 11.
“Relational plurality” is, contextually, similar to the fact that I, for example, can be named “partner,” “father,” “friend,” “son,” “theologian,” “philosopher,” “poet,” “coffee drinker,” etc. based on my various relationships in the world, without violating my “unity.” And, conversely, whatever I am in my “unity” not only is informed by my relationships as named by these terms but also informs the relationships so named. Hence, “relational plurality” is not a violation of a notion of “unity,” but a definition of it.
- 12.
Deleuze and Guattari, 20.
- 13.
As-Salaam (Peace), al-Adl (Justice), and al-Wadud (Love) are Names of God in the Qur’an. And given the instability and dynamism relative to the Names of God, the notions of peace, justice, and love under examination are not static, but instead must be understood in terms of the dynamic balance of optimal disequilibrium that comes from necessarily living on such a proverbial slippery slope while refusing the craven retreat to the safety and stability of the peak or the abyss. That said, neither actually exist in this world anyway—it is all ‘slippery slope.’ As aptly described by Nietzsche , the peak and the abyss are fantasies we concoct to put ourselves at ease; the delusional nature of doing so gives rise to our madnesses.
- 14.
The Qur’an is peppered with eschatological statements, for example: See these mountains you think are solid, they fly like the clouds; the work of Allah who perfects all things. They know what you do (27:88).
- 15.
John Caputo, The Weakness of God (Bloomington, IN: Indiana UP, 2006), The Insistence of God (Bloomington, IN: Indiana UP, 2013), and The Folly of God (Salem, OR: Polebridge, 2015).
- 16.
Catherine Keller, Cloud of the Impossible (New York: Columbia UP, 2014); Michael Sells, The Mystical Languages of Unsaying (Chicago: U Chicago P, 1994); and SajjadRizvi, Mulla Sadra and Metaphysics (London: Routledge, 2013).
- 17.
Roland Faber, The Becoming of God (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2017).
- 18.
Mary-Jane Rubenstein, Worlds Without End (New York: Columbia UP, 2014).
- 19.
Thomas Altizer and William Hamilton, Radical Theology and the Death of God (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1966); Mark Taylor, After God (Chicago: U Chicago P, 2009).
- 20.
For an excellent discussion of this concept, see Corbin (pp. 95–200) and Chittick (pp. 333–355).
- 21.
“Shariah” is another concept that is generally fundamentally misunderstood. For an excellent discussion see Rumee Ahmed’s Sharia Compliant: A User’s Guide to Hacking Islamic Law (Redwood City: Stanford University Press 2018). Also pertinent in this context is Eric Winkle’s Islam and the Living Law: The Ibn al-’Arabi Approach (Oxford: Oxford University Press 1996).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Miller, J. (2018). Islam. In: Rodkey, C., Miller, J. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Radical Theology. Radical Theologies and Philosophies. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96595-6_42
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96595-6_42
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-96594-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-96595-6
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)