Choice

I found it really interesting that both Hajja Faiza and Umm Faris used the same reasoning to defend their teachings of Islam. The women came from very different backgrounds, but still followed the same logic when defending their teachings. How does this methodology come about for two women with such different backgrounds? Where do they learn it?

I also thought it was interesting the way Hajj Faiza discussed choice as being permissible only among issues that were not strict commands, and only among the certain opinions prescribed by one of the four schools of thought. Her commentary that it didn't matter whether the choice was supported by the majority or not, as long as it was within one of the four schools, seemed rather contemporary and radical to me. I tend to think of doctrine as a very rigid set of rules, but her allowance for a little bit of wiggle-room in the doctrine was very profound. However, it was tempered by the fact that some commands were non-negotiable, and the ones that allowed for choice only allowed it within parameters. This blend of the freedom to choice amongst a set of restrictions is very interesting to me. It seems to be a sharp, and perhaps even seemingly-contradictory, blend of two ideas. However, perhaps it is the freedom to choose, even if the options are limited, that help participants to take ownership of their own faith. This brings up an interesting concept that transcends many, if not all, religions. For something as broad and all-encompassing as organized religion, what are the various ways in which people make their religion "their own"? How can they turn the macro and turn it into the micro?