I’ve sometimes wondered why the word wudu’ is not translated as baptism in English. One of the meanings of baptism is to perform ablutions, which is what wudu’ is, but not only is wudu’ a condition for valid salat, but it is actually a means of forgiveness.

The Wikipedia article on baptism from a Christian context notes:

Scholars of various denominations point to two passages in the New Testament as indicating that the word was used also for something much less than the total immersion of the person. Luke 11:38 recounts that, when Jesus ate at a Pharisee’s house, “the Pharisee was astonished to see that he did not first wash (literally, “be baptized” or “baptize himself”) before dinner.” Those who point to this passage say that the Pharisee will not have expected Jesus to immerse himself fully before having a meal and that his surprise will have been at Jesus’ omission of the customary ritual washing of the hands. By Jewish tradition this washing of the hands before a meal is performed by pouring water over them, not by dipping the hands in water. The other New Testament passage pointed to is Mark 7:3–4a: “The Pharisees … do not eat unless they wash (the ordinary word for washing) their hands thoroughly, observing the tradition of the elders; and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they wash themselves (literally, “baptize themselves”)”.

Jewish law has a ritual immersion called a mikvah, similar to a ghusl, which grants ritual purity, for example after menstruation.

In Judaism, Christianity and Islam the practice of immersion in water upon conversion is practiced. Although only Christianity limits baptism to the conversion process, where is symbolises cleansing and purity from sins. Different Christian denominations practice different baptismal rituals and give different meanings to the practice.

For Muslims, wudu’ (and ghusl) when properly performed with a pure intention, not only prepares a person for acts of worship such as prayer, but in itself is a means of forgiveness that God grants to us. The blessed Prophet, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him said:

Anyone who does wudu’, and does it well, and then does the prayer, will be forgiven everything that he does between then and the time when he prays the next prayer.

and

The Muslim (or the believer) does wudu’ and as he washes his face every wrong action he has seen with his eyes leaves with the water (or the last drop of water). As he washes his hands every wrong action he has done with his hands leaves with the water (or the last drop of water). And as he washes his feet every wrong action his feet have walked to leaves with the water (or the last drop of water) so that he comes away purified of wrong actions.

My teacher of sacred law reminded us that we should examine ourselves, if we are feeling lazy or sad or some such state, then we should get up and perform wudu’ and our lives will be transformed by this simple act!

Subhanallah, we have the opportunity and blessing to undergo this baptism each and every day.

I’m studying Maliki fiqh at Sunnipath at the moment - the Maliki school of sacred law being my adopted madhhab - and I’m amazed at how much I don’t know (stop laughing!) For example, in the Maliki school, one’s ritual purity isn’t broken by touching somebody else’s excrement or urine (why would you do this? If you’re a mum and changing a baby’s nappy; if you’re a carer and helping someone else go to the bathroom etc.) it’s only if you pass it from your own body that your state of purity is broken.  Of course you have to wash off the filth, but I had always thought you have to go and do wudu’ afterwards.  Subhanallah, I have so much to learn *sigh*.

Barney Leith, who is a Baha’i, has a post up tangentially related to how the Western media is misreporting that Turkey is trying to “reform Islam.” He has a diagramme that attempts to show the sources of Islamic sacred law, but as there were a few errors (Prophet Muhammad is not the source of the Qur’an; fiqh is not a source of shari’a; hadith and akhbar are the same category of material; the Ja’fari (Shi’i) school of law got left out etc.) I thought I’d take a stab at it:

It’s not perfect, but I am trying to get across that shari`a is a concept: it is sacred law; the divine will for how we lead our lives; and that fiqh is how human beings understand shari`a. Consequently, for us shari`a does not need reform, we need reforming so that we can better live the shari`a.

As I mentioned in my comments to Barney, when I began learning about what Muslims think about Islam, I realised how different it was to how Baha’is think about Islam.  For Muslims, the shari`a is life-giving and life-affirming. Sure, there are plenty of Muslims who are not living up to what God asks of them, but that is not due to the lack or fault of God, but due to the lack and fault of ourselves n’audhubillah.

Shari`a is also inherently flexible. When Imam al-Shafi’i, the progenitor of one of the greatest schools of sacred law, moved from Baghdad to Egypt, his interpretations changed because he recognised that he was living in a different community and context than previously. It was not that shari`a had changed, but that Imam al-Shafi’i understood it and interpreted it according to the relevant context.

For those of us living in non-Muslim majority countries like Australia - having a will is vital as Australian law differs from Islamic inheritance law.

Fascinating breakdown of marriage laws as understood in Malaysia in comparison to precedents elsewhere in the Muslim world, although I disagree that their definition of ‘best practice’ in regards to polygyny is Tunisia where it is illegal.  Polygyny as an institution is not inherently abusive to women, even if it commonly is, in the same way that monogamy is not inherently inoffensive. It very much depends on the taqwa of the individuals involved.  I once heard a saying–and I haven’t verified it, so it may not be sound–that the Prophet said only the very pious and the very bad marry more than one wife.

The question each woman has to ask herself is - which category does your hubby fall into?

I think this is where Sisters in Islam (and I have much respect for them, so I don’t want to diss them too much) and other feminist groups fall into trouble. It is one thing to argue that there needs to be stricter attention paid to protecting the rights and interests of vulnerable members of society i.e. women (hoorayy absolutely, very Islamic sentiment) and another to take on the hegemonic cultural view of the West that all polygyny is bad: after all it was a sunnah of our Prophet to marry polgynously, as it was for a time his sunnah to marry monogamously. 

And for those who say ‘you can’t talk, you’re not in a polygynous marriage’, I have friends who are. Strangely enough for a Westerner - quite a few.  And whilst they don’t all confess to me the ins and outs of their marriages, there are as far as I can tell (like my monogamously married friends) good marriages, bad marriages and everything in between.

Plus, maybe there is some definition of mut’ah being used here that I am unaware of, but don’t they mean mahr?  Mut’ah is the temporary marriage that is permissible within Shi’i jurisprudence.

[Update: I stand corrected, mut’a also appears to mean conciliatory gift in the Shafi’i school]