Posted on by Mark Movsesian · 1 Comment

Until My Dying Day, Sir

John McGinnis passes along this delightful old recording of an 18th Century ballad about a pliable priest, The Vicar of Bray. Some of you, particularly readers in the UK, may already know the song. It concerns an Anglican clergyman who manages to survive the shifting religious commitments of the Stuart and Hanoverian dynasties by remaining loyal to one, overarching principle: keeping his job.

Under James II, for example, the vicar is a committed Catholic:

When royal James possessed the Crown, and popery came in fashion,
The penal laws I hooted down, and read the Declaration.
The Church of Rome, I found, did fit full well my constitution
And I had been a Jesuit, but for the Revolution.

He switches allegiance after the Glorious Revolution, though, to become a Protestant; then an arch, High Church Tory under Queen Anne; then he switches again under George I:

When George in pudding time came o’er, and moderate men looked big, sir 
My principles I changed once more, and I became a Whig, sir
And thus preferment I procured from our new Faith’s Defender,
And almost every day abjured the Pope and the Pretender.

 And there he plans to stay—for now:

The illustrious House of Hanover and Protestant succession
To these I do allegiance swear – while they can hold possession.
For in my faith and loyalty I never more will falter,
And George my lawful king shall be – until the times do alter.

 No matter what, the refrain declares,

And this is law, that I’ll maintain,
Until my dying day, Sir,
That whatsoever king may reign,
Still I’ll be the Vicar of Bray, Sir.

The vicar of the song was apparently a real person. In a lovely essay, A Good Word for the Vicar of Bray, George Orwell wrote of seeing a yew tree he had planted in a Berkshire churchyard–more of this in a bit. Down the centuries, the vicar has been a byword for opportunism and lack of scruple, especially religious scruple. Perhaps the American Framers knew his song, which illustrates well the corruption of established churches. Not that lack of scruple is unique to clergy in established churches. I’ve heard that even professors can act like careerists on occasion.

Now that time has passed, I wonder if we shouldn’t lighten up on the vicar. Aren’t his tergiversations somewhat forgivable? Sure, you can see him as a hypocrite. But on another view, he’s a charming rogue, a man who uses his wits to navigate what he recognizes to be silly, but quite dangerous, quarrels. After all, who today takes seriously the controversies of the Stuarts? Only historians still get most of the song’s references. Wasn’t the vicar wise to avoid strong positions on matters that ultimately counted for little? One might even see him as an ecumenist, someone willing to compromise on doubtful points to maintain harmony in the church.

It’s a stretch to see the vicar as a sympathetic figure, I know. But, as Orwell pointed out, the vicar did inspire a comic song that still entertains after centuries, and he did plant that tree in the Berkshire churchyard, which gave rest to generations of tired souls. Surely those things count for something. Indeed, Orwell reflected,

It might not be a bad idea, every time you commit an antisocial act, to make a note of it in your diary, and then, at the appropriate season, push an acorn into the ground. And, if even one in twenty of them came to maturity, you might do quite a lot of harm in your lifetime, and still, like the Vicar of Bray, end up as a public benefactor after all.

It’s winter here in New York just now. Come spring, I’m going to start planting trees.

Posted on by

Feener, “Shari’a and Social Engineering: The Implementation of Islamic Law in Contemporary Aceh, Indonesia”

Last month, Oxford published Shari’a and Social Engineering: The 9780199678846_140Implementation of Islamic Law in Contemporary Aceh, Indonesia, by R. Michael Feener (National University of Singapore). The publisher’s description follows.

This book seeks to open new lines of discussion about how Islamic law is viewed as a potential tool for programs of social transformation in contemporary Muslim society. It does this through a critical examination of the workings of the state shari’a system as it was designed and implemented at the turn of the twenty-first century in Aceh, Indonesia. While the empirical details of these discussions are unique, this particular case presents a remarkable site for investigating the broader issue of the impact of instrumentalist, future-oriented visions of Islamic law on modern Muslim calls for the state implementation of Islamic law. In post-tsunami/post-conflict Aceh, the idea of shari’a as an exercise in social engineering was amplified through resonance with an increasingly pervasive rhetoric of ‘total reconstruction’.

Based upon extensive fieldwork as well as critical readings of a wide range of archival materials, official documents, and local publications this work focuses on the institutions and actors involved with this contemporary project for the state implementation of Islamic law. The individual chapters are structured to deal with the major components of this system to critically examine how these institutions have taken shape and how they work. It also shows how the overall system was informed not only by aspects of late twentieth-century da’wa discourses of Islamic reform, but also modern trends in sociological jurisprudence and the impact of global models of disaster relief, reconstruction, and development. All of these streams of influence have contributed significantly to shaping the ways in which the architects and agents of the state shari’a system have attempted to use Islamic legislation and legal institutions as tools to steer society in particular desired directions.

Posted on by

Chaudhry, “Domestic Violence and the Islamic Tradition”

Last month, Oxford published Domestic Violence and the Islamic Tradition, by 9780199640164_140Ayesha S. Chaudhry (University of British Columbia). The publisher’s description follows.

This book examines the challenges and resources that the Islamic tradition offers to Muslim scholars who seek to address this dilemma. This is achieved through extensive study of the intellectual history of a Qur’anic verse that has become especially contentious in the modern period: Chapter 4, Verse 34 (Q. 4:34) which can be read to permit the physical disciplining of disobedient wives at the hands of their husbands.

Though this verse has been used by historical and contemporary Muslim scholars in multiple ways to justify the right of husbands to physically discipline their wives, progressive and reformist Muslim scholars and activists offer alternative and non-violent readings of the verse. The diverse and divergent interpretations of Q. 4:34 showcases the pivotal role of the reader in shaping the meaning and implications of scriptural texts.

This book investigates the sophisticated and creative interpretive approaches to Q. 4:34, tracing the intellectual history of Muslim scholarship on this verse from the ninth century to the present day. Ayesha S. Chaudhry examines the spirited and diverse, and at times contradictory, readings of this verse to reveal how Muslims relate to their inherited tradition and the Qur’anic text.