Various religious scholars, theologians, and mullahs want shari‘ah to cover commercial/economic, penal, real estate, contract, tort, inheritance, family, tax, government, and international law. However, none of these considerations – however important they may be under certain circumstances -- is the purpose of shari‘ah.
Naturally, to the extent that individuals realize the purpose of shari‘ah, then, the water drunk at the end of the road that is followed during the process of observing shari‘ah – both as a spiritual means and as a goal -- will have ramifications for all of the foregoing legal considerations. This is true with respect to the modes of equitability, as well as the quality of the character traits, through which people engage one another in their respective dealings. This also is true with respect to the manner in which a person who has responsibility for helping to arbitrate and mediate conflicts within a community is able to bring spiritual wisdom or insight to bear to assist people to come to harmonious solutions to such conflicts.
Nonetheless, shari‘ah is only for the individual. It is the individual’s path to truth, to reality, to the realization of fitra and essential identity, and, as such, shari‘ah is not a group path or legal journey … although, as indicated above, the realization of truth which, God willing, takes place, during the journey of shari‘ah does have ramifications for both group/social/community and juridical issues … but not in the sense which is usually believed to be the case.
Shari ‘ah cannot be forcibly imposed on anyone, nor can compulsory measures be used to impose such matters on others. Shari‘ah cannot be legislated, and when counsel is sought with respect to shari‘ah, one is not obligated to follow that counsel unless one’s heart resonates with what is being said or unless one’s heart resonates with the one who is offering the counsel, and, therefore, one has faith in the counsel being offered and provided that the counsel being offered does not induce one to impose that counsel on others or oppress others through such counsel.
Shari‘ah cannot be used as basis for institutional government of any kind. On the other hand, the fruits of pursuing and applying shari‘ah can benefit the manner through which public space is regulated.
The Prophet and the subsequent caliphs ruled in accordance with the truth to which shari‘ah opened them up. Nonetheless, their manner of regulating public space was not shari‘ah, per se.
During those early times, people who were not Muslim were not compelled to become Muslim or to act in accordance with Muslim spiritual traditions. Moreover, this absence of compulsion with respect to non-Muslims is the clearest indication possible that shari‘ah was neither compulsory, nor was it being imposed on communities, nor was it an integral part of the regulation of public space.
Rather, a public space or commons was being established through which people would have freedom of choice, as well as freedom from oppression, together with the promise of justice so that the opportunity to pursue shari‘ah in a peaceful manner would be available to everyone. Whatever laws were constructed with respect to commercial, penal, real estate, contract, tort, inheritance, family, and international issues were intended to serve no other purpose than to help establish a public space that was relatively peaceful, harmonious, and free from oppression of any kind and through which people would each, individually, have the opportunity to pursue [or not pursue] shari‘ah according to her or his individual choices.
Consequently, none of the foregoing sorts of laws concerning the regulation of public space carry any binding authority except to the extent that these arrangements give such substantial, demonstrable expression to principles of truth and justice that the people in the community are witnesses to the obvious benefit of those laws with respect to the manner in which they serve the public interest. Moreover, the public interest is served when an environment is created that is relatively free from oppression and injustice, as well as which gives people an array of degrees of freedom through which the members of that community may become committed to a rigorous seeking of truth and justice in all matters.
In the Qur’an, one finds the following guidance:
“No soul shall have imposed on it a duty but to the extent of its capacity.” [Qur’an, 2:233]
And again:
“We do not impose on any soul a duty except to the extent of its ability.” [Qur’an, 6:152]
And, again:
“And we do not lay on any soul a burden except to the extent of its ability. [Qur’an, 23:62]
And again:
“We do not impose on any soul a duty except to the extent of its ability.” [Qur’an, 7:42]
And, finally:
“Allah does not impose upon any soul a duty but to the extent of its ability; for it is (the benefit of) what it has earned and upon it (the evil of) what it has wrought: Our Lord! do not punish us if we forget or make a mistake; Our Lord! do not lay on us a burden as Thou did lay on those before us; Our Lord do not impose upon us that which we have not the strength to bear; and pardon us and grant us protection and have mercy on us; Thou art our Patron, so help us against the unbelieving people. [Qur’an, 2:286]
On five different occasions, the Qur’an confirms that Allah does not impose any burdens, duties, or obligations on an individual which are beyond the ability or capacity of a person. God knows what the capacity or ability of any given individual is, and Divinity does not exceed the limits inherent in those capacities.
As we, God willing, acquire more knowledge and come to gain a deeper understanding concerning our relationship with Allah, then, the nature of our spiritual status changes. As a result, there is more for which we can be held accountable as a function of such growth in understanding and knowledge, but this is a Divine accountability and not a human accountability as far as matters of Deen are concerned.
When human beings seek to impose shari‘ah – however construed – on others, such individuals are arrogating to themselves the status of Lordship. They are not only seeking to usurp God’s relationship with the individual, but they also are claiming – without any evidence -- that they know what the spiritual capacity of a given individual is.
In the process, limits are being transgressed. Allah sees the spiritual condition of human beings and knows what the limits of their capacities are, but theologians, jurists, imams, rulers, or legislators do not enjoy such a privileged position, and, therefore, they lack the knowledge and insight which would permit them to possess the wisdom to know what an individual’s God-determined limits are and act accordingly.
The Prophet was said to have spoken with people according to the level of understanding of the latter. Unfortunately, for the most part, the theologians and religious scholars of today tend to speak with people according to the level of understanding of the one who is doing the speaking – that is, the theologian or religious scholar – and, as such, lack all insight into the capacities, abilities, and levels of understanding of those being addressed.
The Prophet Muhammad is reported to have said: “What I have commanded you to do, perform it to the extent that you are able and refrain from what I have forbidden you to do.” [Bukhari, i‘tisam, 6; Muslim, fada’il, 130]
Here, again, there is an indication that shari‘ah is not a function of compulsion, nor is shari‘ah a matter of one size fitting all. The Prophet is alluding to the existence of differences in abilities and circumstances of various individuals, and those who are being addressed are being encouraged to comply with what has been said in accordance with what they are able to do rather than in accordance with what someone else – say a theologian, religious scholar, or the like -- expects such people to do.
“Each one does according to his rule of conduct, and thy Lord is best aware of the one whose way is right.” [Qur’an, 17: 84]
*******************
There is a Hadith Qudsi which says:
“I am according to the impression that My worshipper has of Me [that is, God] so let the impression of Me be Good.” [Bukhari, tawhid, 15]
Theologians, imams, muftis, and jurists often rule in accordance with their own opinions about God. As a result, they tend to be inclined to impose on others that which is in accordance with their impression of God.
Apparently, the impression which all too many Muslim theologians, jurists, muftis, and religious scholars seem to have of God is that Allah is: petty, small-minded, vindictive, unforgiving, intolerant, cruel, punitive, arbitrary, mean-spirited, lacking in wisdom, oppressive, and in desperate need of obedience. Such a poor impression seems to be the case because these sorts of qualities often are reflected in their fatwas, pronouncements, rulings, and writings concerning the illicit attempts of these sorts of individuals to impose shari‘ah on others, and one presumes that they are acting in accordance with what their impression of God indicates is expected of them by God.
The word ‘qadi’ often is translated as ‘judge’. However, such a translation really doesn’t properly reflect the actual role that a qadi should have.
A qadi – in its original sense and usage -- refers to one who helps settle or decide an affair (‘qada’). Nevertheless, this process of settling an affair is not a matter of imposing a judgment on the various parties to the affair under consideration.
A qadi is not trying to impose a perspective which is external to either the particulars of the situation being explored or the individuals who are seeking a just resolution to that situation. Rather, the task of, and challenge facing, a qadi is one of trying to assist individuals to navigate among an array of spiritual possibilities and work their collective way toward a destination which will be a harmonious solution for everyone involved – without necessarily knowing, in any predetermined manner, what the nature of such a destination will be or what that destination might look like at the beginning of the journey.
As such, a qadi is more of a resource person, facilitator, and a communicator than she or he is a judge of matters. The parties to a given conflict are helped by a qadi to explore the nature of that conflict in terms of its history, perceptions concerning that history, the nature of community and/or family, different needs of the parties to the conflict or affair, various character traits, the abilities of the individuals involved, and ideas concerning the nature of justice.
A qadi encourages the participants to address and discuss issues in such a way that the participants are the ones who learn how to struggle their way toward arriving at an understanding concerning how their affair or situation might best be resolved. The qadi guides this exploratory discussion in accordance with a principle voiced by the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) – namely, “la darar wa la dirar”, which in today’s parlance might be translated as ‘do no harm’.
****************
In the Qur’an one finds the following ayat:
“And it does not beseem the believers that they should go forth all together; why should not then a company from every party from among them go forth they may apply themselves to obtain understanding of deen, and that they may warn their people when they come back to them that they may be cautious. [Qur’an 9:122]
Fiqh is related to the word: tafaqquh which means understanding and, in the context of the foregoing Quranic ayat, the understanding which is being sought concerns the nature of Deen.
Furthermore, such understanding is not something which is to be imposed on people. Rather, the previous Quranic ayat says that those who seek such understanding are to use the knowledge which is obtained in order to “warn their people” so that those people “may be cautious” concerning matters of Deen.
In addition, the Qur’an indicates:
“We have revealed [anzallna] to you al-zikr [The Qur’an] so that you may explain to people what has been brought down [nuzila] to them; and that they may reflect.” [Qur’an, 16:44]
Sharia‘ah is not necessarily a matter of telling people what to do – although this may be so in some instances. Instead, the Qur’an indicates that people are having things explained to them concerning the nature of revelation or remembrance, and, then, those individuals are being asked to reflect on that which is being explicated so that they may take what is being said and have it inform their own shari‘ah or journey/struggle toward the truth.
The process of understanding Deen – tafaqquh fil-din – requires one to struggle toward becoming open or receptive to the hukm of Deen – that is, its governing principle, reality, or truth – in any given set of circumstances. Hakim is one of the Divine Names and refers to the One Who determines the property of a given aspect of reality, and, therefore, the individual is seeking to become open to the nature of the truth or reality which Allah, through the agency of being Hakim, establishes as the governing authority or principle or reality of something in a given set of circumstances.
In this context, one often hears the term Usul al-fiqh. Fiqh, as already indicated, refers to the process of struggling to reach an understanding concerning the nature of the hukm or governing reality of Deen within various circumstances, and the term usul refers to the sources or principles one needs to understand in order to be in a position to be able to counsel or warn others with respect to the nature of Deen.
The principles and sources which are to be understood are all contained in the Qur’an. After all, God has “neglected nothing in the Book.” [Qur’an, 6:38]
Fiqh is the process of engaging the Qur’an for purposes of struggling toward the truth with respect to revelation or guidance. Fiqh is a search for right understanding, right belief, right character, right action, and right balance in the pursuit of doing justice to the truth or hukm of individual lived circumstances.
Each novel situation presents the practitioner of fiqh with possibilities and choices in relation to selecting that which may be right, good, just, and/or appropriate behavior to pursue with respect to that which, God willing, might be of most spiritual benefit to an individual or individuals in a given context. Fiqh is the process of seeking to come to an appropriate understanding of the hukm – or reality and governing principle or authority -- for a given set of circumstances, and, then, using that understanding to establish what are appropriate ways for proceeding through or conducting oneself in such circumstances.
A qadi seeks to induce the parties to a conflict to engage in the process of fiqh concerning the affair or conflict or issue which brought the various parties. Collectively, those individuals seek to struggle, with the assistance of the qadi, toward arriving at an understanding of the hukm – that is, the governing principle or reality – which has authority in the matter at hand.
For many, there is a sense in which life takes on the appearance of a judicial proceeding. For example, Muslims believe there is to be a Day of Judgment. We are further informed that what we do, and do not do, will be used as evidence -- both in support of, as well as being counted against, us -- and that our hands, feet, and other bodily members will give testimony concerning various matters on the Day of Judgment. Muslims also believe that punishments and rewards are associated with the manner in which evidence and judgment intersect with one another. Muslims further believe that a record of everything one does in life is being maintained and that each of us will carry such a record in either our right hand in front of us or our left hand behind us on the Day of Judgment.
Given considerations like the foregoing, when shari‘ah and Sacred Law are mentioned together, many people are inclined to jump to the conclusion that Sacred Law and shari‘ah must be matters which give expression to legal injunctions. Nevertheless, one can stipulate to the truth of ideas involving: the Day of Judgment, evidence, testimony, a real-time record, punishment, or reward, and, yet, still maintain that the Sacred Law and shari‘ah are not, ultimately, about judicial proceedings but, rather, are about truth, knowledge, understanding, spiritual realization, essential identity, and the process of purification which is necessary to, God willing, put a person in the position of being receptive to whatever God may wish to disclose to that individual concerning the nature of Sacred Law and the process of shari‘ah.
Life consists of a series of opportunities through which to purify ourselves. For example, the Qur’an says:
That person prospers who purifies oneself, invokes the name of one’s Lord, and prays.”
[Qur’an, 87: 14].
And, again:
But those will prosper who purify (tazakka) themselves and glorify the Name of their Guardian Lord and lift their hearts in prayer. [Qur’an, 87: 14-15]
And, again:
“Those who spend their wealth for increase in self-purification and Have in their minds no favor from anyone for which a reward is expected in return, but only the desire to seek for the Countenance of their Lord Most High.” [Qur’an, 92:18-20].
This last ayat in particular indicates that the purpose of purification is linked only to a “desire to seek for the Countenace of their Lord Most high” – without any thought of reward. This theme is echoed in another verse of the Qur’an:
“Say: Surely, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and death are all for Allah, the Lord of the worlds. [Qur’an, 6:162]
Or consider the following verses from Surah Shams [The Sun]:
In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful.
I swear by the sun and its brilliance,
And the moon when it follows the sun,
And the day when it shows it,
And the night when it draws a veil over it,
And the heaven and Him Who made it,
And the earth and Him Who extended it,
And the soul and Him Who made it perfect,
Then He inspired it to understand what is right and wrong for it;
He will indeed be successful who purifies it,
And he will indeed fail who corrupts it. [Qur’an, 91:1-10]
According to my shaykh, the rhetorical style of the Qur’an is such that whenever God wishes to draw attention to the importance of some given point, theme, or issue, oaths are used to introduce such a point, theme, or issue. The more oaths there are which occur prior the matter in question, the more important is the issue to which our attention is being directed.
Nowhere else in the Qur’an does one find as many oaths piled upon oaths as one does with respect to the opening verses of Surah Shams. To what is our attention being drawn and what is so important? – the process of purification.
What does purification lead to if God wishes? Purification leads to taqwa.
And, why is taqwa important? Because the one who is in a condition of taqwa is the one who, God willing, shall be taught knowledge and discernment by God.
“Be Godfearing [have taqwa], and God will teach you [Qur’an, 2:282]
In other words, be careful with respect to one’s relationship with Allah. Understand that such a relationship is rooted in the hallowed, sacred ground of Being and that one must seek to gain insight into that ground, and if one exercises due diligence in these respects, then, God willing, one will be taught knowledge by God.
“If you are godfearing (have taqwa), He will give you discernment [furqanan].” [Qur’an, 8:29]
The process of developing an appropriate awareness and respect for the sacredness of Divine presence is a work or ‘amal . This struggle is a form of remembrance or zikr.
With respect to what is one to be given discernment or about what is one to be taught? One is to be taught about, and given discrimination concerning, the nature of Sacred Law and the process of shari‘ah.
One of the prayers of the Qur’an is”
“O my Lord, increase me in knowledge.” [Qur’an, 20: 114]
One is seeking knowledge of the truth concerning the nature of the Sacred Laws governing the Created Universe and one’s place in it. One is seeking knowledge about the nature of shari‘ah and how that process both leads to, as well as is an expression of, the Sacred Law. One is striving toward an understanding of the hukm which governs, and has authority over, this or that aspect of being – including one’s own essential identity and spiritual capacity.
The five pillars and zikr [both in their role as basic, fundamental expressions of shari‘ah that are intended to be accessible to all, as well as in conjunction with their role as supererogatory extensions of those basic fundamentals] are ways, God willing, of striving toward taqwa. The five pillars and zikr are processes of purification which, God willing, helps rid one of everything which can serve as a source of distraction, distortion, bias, and corruption concerning our achieving a state of receptivity – that is, taqwa – with respect to the real teachings of spirituality involving the Sacred Laws of the Created Universe.
The five pillars are not the end of matters, but are, rather, the beginning of a process that is intended to lead one to the place of drinking the water or knowledge which, God willing, renders one receptive to the hukm of God’s Word or revelation. Nonetheless, there are many gradations of knowledge and understanding concerning such matters.
The five pillars and zikr which are practiced by a Muslim are engaged through a different understanding than are the five pillars and zikr which are observed by a Momin or Mohsin. The five pillars and zikr of the one who is a condition of taqwa is different from those who are not in such a spiritual condition. The five pillars and zikr of an ‘abd of Allah is different from the five pillars and zikr of someone who is not an ‘abd of Allah.
“Whoever submits one’s whole self to Allah and is a doer of good has indeed grasped the most trustworthy handhold.” [Qur’an, 31:22]
And, as well:
“O Humankind! Surely you are toiling towards the Lord, painfully toiling, but you shall meet Him … you shall surely travel from stage to stage.” [Qur’an, 84: 6, 9]
*********************
Today, and for many centuries now, all too many Muslim religious scholars, theologians, imams, mullahs, and so on have sought to make the process of coming to a proper understanding of the nature of Sacred Law and shari‘ah an unnecessarily complex, convoluted, and a most difficult and contentious journey. According to such individuals, one must become familiar with some 1400 years worth of various people’s religious fatwas and theological meanderings, and/or one must become an apprentice with respect to some given madhhab or school of jurisprudence, and/or one must undertake to learn so many thousands of hadiths, and so on, before one can be said to be in a position to properly understand the nature of Sacred Law and shari‘ah.
However, the Qur’an says:
Allah does not desire to put on you any difficulty, but He wishes to purify you and that He may complete His favor on you, so that you may be grateful [Qur’an 5:6] -- ma yaridu Allahu li-ajala alaykum min haraj.
Shari‘ah is not a matter of intellectualized, rationalistic, or politicized engagements of the Qur’an. Shari‘ah is a process of purification entailing activities such as prayer, fasting, charitableness, pilgrimage, remembrance, service, worship, and the acquisition of character traits such as: gratitude, repentance, tolerance, perseverance, integrity, honesty, humility, nobility, forgiveness, patience, compassion, love, generosity, kindness, and so on – all of which will assist one to pursue shari’ah’s journey toward taqwa and, in turn -- if God wishes –to real, essential knowledge concerning both the nature of shari‘ah and the Sacred Law governing Created existence.
One pursues these activities as best one’s circumstances permit and according to one’s capacity to do so. To demand that more than this be done or to demand that people pursue this in accordance with someone’s theological interpretation of matters is to impose an oppressive difficulty on people, and, yet, this is precisely what all too many Muslim theologians, mullahs, and religious scholars would do when they claim that people must be made to act in accordance with those people’s arbitrary ideas concerning the nature of shari‘ah and the Sacred Law.
“And God wishes for you that which is easy, not what is difficult.” [Qur’an, 2:185]
That which is easy is not necessarily that which is without struggle. Rather, that which is easy is that which falls within one’s capacity to accomplish if one makes efforts in this regard and if God supports such efforts.
Through the process of purification, God is seeking to assist us to simplify our lives. In other words, God is wishing for us to have ease – at least as much as this is possible in this life – rather than difficulty.
When everything we do is distorted, filtered, framed, and corrupted by our biases, delusions, and false understandings, life becomes very difficult – much more difficult than it has to be. However, through the process of purification – that is, through the journey of shari‘ah -- one begins, God willing, to not only shed all the unnecessary conceptual and emotional baggage which we impose upon ourselves through our biases and false understanding concerning the nature of reality and ourselves, but, as well, one is brought to a station of taqwa where one is taught the kind of knowledge and discrimination by God which helps ease us through the ups and downs of lived existence.
********************
Showing posts with label Bukhari. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bukhari. Show all posts
Monday, August 18, 2008
Shari'ah: A Muslim's Declaration of Independence - Part 10
During the time of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) there were occasions – and, in fact, these were not many in number -- in which rigorous penalties were applied in conjunction with the commission of certain crimes. There were a number of reasons for this – reasons which are no longer necessarily applicable to present circumstances.
First, the law of retribution was already the acknowledged and accepted way of doing things among the Arabs even before the emergence of Islam in Arabia. The revelation of the Qur’an indicated that such a law could continue to be exercised, but, at the same time, people were reminded that forgiving such transgressions would be better for the believers and pointed out, as well, that this same principle of forbearance also had been in place among the Jewish people. Thus, in the Qur’an, one finds:
“We have ordained [in the Torah] that a life [should be taken] for a life, an eye for an eye, a nose for a nose, an ear for an ear, a tooth for a tooth, and wounds [are to be punished] by qisas [exact retribution or retaliation]. But if someone remits exact retaliation by way of charity, that will be an act of atonement for that person. Whoever fails to exercise discernment in accordance with what God has revealed shall be of the unfair ones. [Qur’an, 5:45]
One of the recurrent themes of the Qur’an was to guide individuals toward constructively reforming the way in which they engaged themselves as well as one another. These reforms often were introduced over a period of time in relation to, among other things, prayer, fasting, alcohol, slavery, and the treatment of women.
The principle of retribution continued to be permitted not because such a policy was necessarily the best way of dealing with various situations but, rather, because many Arabs in those days would neither have tolerated nor understood any approach to such issues that departed very much from their usual customs in these matters. At the same time, the Qur’an sought to induce people to begin to reflect on issues like retribution by emphasizing the importance of qualities such as forgiveness, tolerance, humility, patience, love, preferring others to oneself, generosity, justice, compassion, mercy, being charitable, and so on. Thus, one finds in the Qur’an verses such as the following:
“Take to forgiveness and enjoin good and turn aside from the ignorant.” [Qur’an, 7:199]
Another factor involved with permitting certain harsh punitive measures to be applied during the lifetime of the Prophet concerned the right of individuals to ask for ‘purification through punishment’. More specifically, there were people who came to the Prophet and confessed sins with which harsh penalties were associated such as theft, fornication, and adultery, and they confessed such sins not because anyone had evidence to prove that those individuals had committed transgressions but because the individuals in question believed in the idea that if one pays for a given sin in this world, one will not be held accountable for that sin on the Day of Judgment – the slate is wiped clean in that respect, and one has been purified.
The Prophet did not encourage people to come to him and confess their sins. In fact, he indicated that people should, instead, sincerely repent before God with respect to their sins and to seek God’s forgiveness in those matters.
However, the Prophet also made it clear to the community that if people did come to him and confess their sins, then – as a Prophet who had a responsibility to maintain equitability within the community -- he would become obligated to take steps which might lead to certain punitive measures being applied to the case – measures which were associated with the commission of such transgressions. Nonetheless, some people – several of whom are talked about in the Hadith literature – did approach the Prophet with a clear understanding of what was being set in motion through their confessing of some transgression, but these individuals wished to avail themselves of the principle of ‘purification by punishment’ because they wanted the certainty that such a sin would not be held against them on the Day of Judgment.
One case which is related through the hadiths concerns a woman who came to the Prophet wishing to confess to adultery. The Prophet responded in a manner which suggested that he did not wish to hear what the woman had to say in this regard.
The woman kept insisting on confessing her sin to the Prophet in order to be able to undergo a process of purification through receiving the indicated punishment which would wipe her slate clean with respect to such a transgression. Finally, the Prophet informed her that the penalty for such a transgression was death, and she accepted this.
The Prophet said that the woman might be pregnant, and, therefore, she should permit the child to be born. He informed her that when the infant was born, she should return to him for purposes of carrying out the punishment.
After the child was born, the woman returned to the Prophet seeking to have the penalty enforced. The Prophet indicated that the woman should suckle the child and that when the period of suckling came to an end, she should return to him so that the indicated penalty might be exercised.
Several years later, the woman returned to the Prophet and indicated that the period of suckling the child was now complete. She wanted to proceed with the process of purification by punishment.
The woman was executed, and the Prophet led the funeral prayers. Someone objected to his leading of the prayers for such a woman, and the Prophet is reported to have said that the woman was innocent at the time of the prayers as she had been on the day she was born.
Notwithstanding the foregoing considerations, there is a very substantial difference between, on the other hand, enforcing a penalty because the recipient desires this out of his or her own free choice and, on the other hand, seeking to enforce such a penalty because one believes one has a God-given duty to impose such penalties on others independently of whether, or not, an individual agrees to become subject to an application of the principle of ‘purification by punishment’. Furthermore, today, there is no one among us who is a Prophet, nor is there anyone among us who necessarily has the God-given authority or the obligation [although there are many who have illegitimately arrogated to themselves such an authority and an obligation] to apply the punitive sanctions which are indicated in the Qur’an concerning certain transgressions involving acts of, for instance, theft, fornication, or adultery.
The timeframe when such measures were necessary or appropriate has passed. There are alternative ways of dealing with such transgressions – ways which are entirely consonant with other teachings of the Qur’an concerning the importance of forgiveness, compassion, mercy, patience, tolerance, love, humility, generosity, nobility, and the like.
Indeed, there is nothing in the Qur’an which stipulates that when one has a choice between two alternative ways of handling a situation, then one must necessarily choose the more rigorous or more punitive means of dealing with such a matter. In addition, there are a great many spiritual principles distributed throughout the Qur’an which strongly indicate that, where possible and practical, one should be inclined toward treating others with forgiveness, compassion, mercy, patience, tolerance, and generosity rather than through rigor or harshness.
The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) encouraged people to take responsibility for pursuing their own form of striving with respect to the truth. He is reported to have said:
“Do not ask me questions as long as I leave you alone.” [Bukhari, i‘tisam, 2; Muslim, hajj, 411]
The Prophet was, in effect, telling people: if I leave you alone, then, you should leave me alone. In other words, if the Prophet did not give people some particular guidance or direction, then, people should not seek to bother the Prophet by asking questions about how to proceed in life or with respect to how to pursue Islam.
The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is also reported to have said that one should:
“Seek the guidance of your heart (istaftii qalbaka: ask for the fatwa), whatever opinion others may give.”
This process of seeking the guidance of one’s heart is not a matter of following whatever whims, passions, or desires that may arise in consciousness. Rather, the process of seeking the guidance of one’s heart is to exercise ijtihad – to strive for the truth of a matter by purifying oneself so that one might enter a condition – namely, taqwa – through which, God willing, one might be opened to the truth or to the hukm – that is, the governing authority or reality of something – so that one can act rightly.
By listening intently to one’s heart and asking for a fatwa – or guidance – one was seeking to hear the resonance of truth with the Words of God. Indeed, as the Qur’an indicates:
And who is better than Allah to make judgments for a people who are sure.” [Qur’an, 5:50]
In seeking the guidance of one’s heart, one is seeking Divine assistance. If one has taqwa, then, God willing, the guidance one seeks from one’s heart will reflect the truth or reality of a matter which God wishes one to understand.
Furthermore, in conjunction with this process of seeking the counsel or guidance or fatwa from one’s heart, one should be careful concerning the sort of things for which one seeks an answer. The Qur’an indicates:
“Do not ask Us about those things that, if they were shown [or declared to you] could bring you wrong [or trouble you]” [Qur’an, 5:101]
The Qur’an also stipulates:
“O Prophet, why do you declare illicit what God has made licit, simply to give satisfaction to your wives.” [Qur’an, 66:1]
One might ask another question which has resonance with the foregoing – namely, why should one be inclined to declare as illicit that which God has made licit – by remaining silent on a matter -- simply to give satisfaction to theologians, mullahs, religious scholars, and the like?
Some have proposed that a principle to keep in mind when approaching the guidance of the Qur’an is not to fill in the gaps and spaces which God has left in the Qur’an as degrees of freedom for human beings. Whatever is not specifically prohibited in the Qur’an is considered to be licit unless a compelling case from the Qur’an itself can be given which demonstrates why such degrees of freedom should not be permitted.
Through the use of qiyas or analogical reasoning, many religious scholars and theologians have sought to argue that, for example, because one thing is like something else, and since the latter may have been prohibited by God, then, the former must also be considered as prohibited. By approaching things in this manner, they have sought to introduce prohibitions where none actually existed in the Qur’an.
For example, some individuals have sought to argue that because the flesh of pigs has been prohibited to Muslims [as well as Jews and Christians] as a food, and because some footballs are made from pig skin or because some forms of suede shoes have been made from pig skin, then, one may not touch those balls or wear such shoes.
Yet, the Qur’an is silent about both matters. People are reading their own ideas into the guidance of the Qur’an.
In order to arrive at such conclusions, those individuals may have exercised ijtihad. However, by means of such reasoning and striving, they have not necessarily captured the hukm of a matter – that is, the principle which governs a particular aspect of reality.
In this respect, the Qur’an states:
“He granteth wisdom to whom He pleaseth; and he to whom wisdom is granted receiveth indeed a benefit overflowing; but none will grasp the message but men of understanding.” (2:269)
Not everyone who exercises ijtihad necessarily does so through a God-granted wisdom. And, truly, only those who have been graced with such wisdom will understand that this is so. Moreover:
“Each one does according to his rule of conduct, and thy Lord is best aware of the one whose way is right.” [Qur’an, 17: 84]
Ijtihad is not the creation of something new in the way of guidance. Rather, ijtihad is a process of struggling toward trying to discover [according to one’s capacity to do so and the Grace which God bestows] the nature of the original hukm concerning the principles which already govern the truth or the reality of a matter and which are being expressed through the two books of revelation – the Qur’an and Nature (considered in its entirety).
A sincere mujtahid does not seek to make discernments except in accordance with, and as expression of, what Allah shows that individual through her or his exercise of ijtihad. As the Qur’an attests:
“True believers are only those who have faith in Allah and His messenger and have left doubt behind and who strive hard in Allah’s cause with their possessions and their lives. They are the ones who are sincere. (49: 15)
Supposedly, at least according to some religious scholars and theologians, the gates of ijtihad [striving, strenuousness] became closed after the 9th century A.D. Evidently, these individuals were of the opinion that what they referred to as Islamic law [but, in reality, this was nothing more than laws made by Muslims] had matured sufficiently enough that individual attempts to understand the limitless depths of the Qur’an and sunna had been exhausted.
The Qur’an states:
“And if all the trees in the earth were pens, and the sea, with seven more seas to help it were ink, the words of Allah could not be exhausted.” [Qur’an, 31:27]
The Prophet is reported to have said: “Truly, the Qur’an has an outward and an inward dimension, and the latter has its own inward dimension, and so on, up to seven dimensions.”
In light of the foregoing guidance of the Qur’an, as well as in light of the aforementioned understanding of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) concerning the depths of the Qur’an, I cannot think of anything more arrogant than for someone to try to claim that the doors to ijtihad were closed in the 9th or 10th century.
The truth of this matter is that certain individuals sought to close the door to ijtihad in order to establish a politically expedient compromise between two groups of individuals. On the one hand, there were the rulers who wanted the authority and legitimacy of what would be treated as established and unalterable law to be placed at their disposal so that they might exploit such law to do as they saw fit. The other party to the politically expedient compromise were from among the ulema who wanted a fiqh – that is, a mode of engaging the Qur’an and the sunna of the Prophet -- over which they would have control and which, in addition, would ensure that they had a position of status in the community where their “expertise” and authority would be sought out by others. Both sides to this compromise made a deal which would give the respective sides power, status, and control at the expense of doing justice to the either the community or the reality of Quranic guidance.
The aforementioned ulema reduced fiqh down to a set number of issues [some say these are 589 in number]. Each madhhab, or school of jurisprudence, developed its own theological positions relative to these set number of issues.
Furthermore, the leaders of these various schools issued pronouncements indicating that one would be able to switch from one school to another. In addition, and this is where the idea of closing the doors of ijtihad came in, no one was permitted to open up any of these codified positions to the exercise of ijtihad.
The true location of hukm [determinative authority] is with Allah, and the location of such a hukm does not rest with some given school of jurisprudence nor with the rational intellect considered in isolation from other spiritual faculties of the individual. When one does not know what the nature of the hukm or reality is with respect to some given matter, then, one must rely on Allah, and such true and sincere reliance requires that one ‘become like the corpse in the hands of the one who washes it’ -- that is, a true ‘abd or servant or bondsman of God – and one moves in whatever direction the Hands of God move one. This is the real essence of ijtihad.
******************
Why do human beings believe they have the authority or responsibility to hold other human beings accountable for what is, clearly, according to the Qur’an, obligations or duties of care which one has to God? God is the One Who has ordained such duties of care, and God is the One Who will judge such matters, and God is the One Who will hold people accountable for their deeds and misdeeds in this respect on the Day of Judgment, and God has not asked people – other than the Prophets – to assume responsibility for, or to take authority of, such matters. So, why do Muslim theologians, imams, muftis, mullahs, and leaders believe that it is their duty to police the Deen of others and make sure that it conforms to their own individual likes and dislikes?
According to some modern-day, self-proclaimed mujtahids, they represent the members of the community in the matter of determining what constitutes the nature of one’s spiritual duties of care to God. They believe that when the mujtahids of a certain school of law reach a consensus concerning some given facet of what the members of that school consider to be shari‘ah, then, from an epistemological perspective, such an agreement gives expression to an understanding that is just as certain as anything from the Qur’an or sunna. Furthermore, they believe they have the right to impose their views on others.
However, as indicated previously in this essay, there is not necessarily any evidence – other than self-invested claims – that such individuals actually have been appointed by God or the Prophet to either determine what the spiritual path should be for others or that such mujtahids have been granted the authority by either God or the Prophet to impose upon others whatever judgments at which they may arrive during the course of their deliberations concerning the Qur’an and sunna. Nor is there necessarily any evidence – other than the self-serving circularity of their own belief – that the agreements these so-called mujtahids reach should be considered to have the same level of authority or authenticity as either the Qur’an or sunna, and, in fact, there is not necessarily any evidence – other than the mutually reinforcing opinions of the parties to the agreement – that the participants have even arrived at a correct understanding of things.
Anyone who strives or struggles to ascertain the nature of shari‘ah is performing ijtihad and, therefore, is a mujtahid. Nonetheless, the fact that one is a mujtahid or is referred to as a mujtahid does not inherently compel others to accept the proclamations of such individuals as anything more than their understanding of a given issue, problem, or idea.
There are mujtahids who truly understand the nature of shari‘ah, and one would be well-advised to consider what they have to say about things and to reflect on such matters with due diligence. On the other hand, there also are mujtahids who truly do not understand the nature of shari‘ah, and one would be well-advised to stay as far away as possible from these latter sort of individuals.
The problem, of course, is one of knowing who is which kind of mujtahid. Everyone makes a choice concerning who they will listen to or go to for counsel with respect to spiritual matters, and much may be decided by the nature of one’s choice in this regard.
Choose correctly and one has, God willing, good spiritual counsel. Choose incorrectly and one has, may Allah have mercy on us, bad spiritual counsel.
For far too long, the Muslim world has been making a lot of bad choices with respect to the sort of spiritual counsel to which they have been willing to listen and to which they have opened themselves. We see the problematic ramifications of such choices almost everywhere in the Muslim world.
One of the problematic areas being alluded to above has been the insistence of all too many self-promoting mujtahids that sharia‘ah is a legal system which is to be imposed on a community. Shari‘ah is not a legal system, and it should not be imposed on anyone.
Shari‘ah is the spiritual journey of an individual who seeks to arrive at the truth concerning the nature of one’s relationship with God. Shari‘ah is the process of seeking to discover the nature of one’s essential identity. Shari‘ah gives expression to a person’s striving to realize, God willing, the full spiritual potential of fitra – one’s primordial spiritual capacity. Shari‘ah is a way to honor one’s duties of care to oneself, to others, to creation, and to God.
“And (as for) those who disbelieve, their deeds are like the mirage in a desert, which the thirsty man deems to be water until when he comes to it he finds it to be naught, and there he finds Allah, so He pays back to him his reckoning in full, and Allah is quick in reckoning.” [Qur’an, 24:39]
Human beings are inclined to search – through ijtihad -- for that which they believe will satisfy their spiritual thirst. One who searches is in a condition of unbelief because the truth or reality of things remains hidden from them at that point – that is, after all, why they are engaged in a process of seeking.
When, after striving and struggling, one comes to the understanding that everything for which one has been searching in order to satisfy one’s spiritual thirst is a mirage, then, this is the time when, God willing, the realization comes to the individual that Allah is the only One Who is capable of satisfying one’s need or longing or desire. Everything else is a mirage – including one’s reasoning and the various schools of jurisprudence.
The individual who, by the Grace of Allah, comes to such an understanding or realization finds Allah waiting for her or him, and God is ready to respond to that individual in accordance with the nature of the realization which has been reached. If one submits to the reality of one’s need for God, God is quick in reckoning concerning such a realization and guides the individual in their striving or ijtihad, but if one persists in turning away from God’s presence, then, too, God is quick in responding to such a spiritual condition and the individual is maintained in a state of disbelief.
*******************
In the Qur’an, one reads:
“He it is Who has revealed the Book to you; some of the verses are decisive, they are the basis of the book, and others are allegorical; then in those whose hearts there is perversity, they follow the part of it which is allegorical, seeking to mislead and seeking to give it [their own] interpretation, but none knows the interpretation except Allah, and those who are firmly rooted in knowledge say: We believe in it, it is from our Lord; and none do mind except those having understanding. [Qur’an, 3:7]
In Surah 3, verse 7, one finds a slightly different wording of the same principles that are being expressed through the foregoing verse of the Qur’an:
“He [that is, God] it is Who hath revealed unto thee (Muhammad) the Scripture wherein are clear revelations -- They are the substance of the Book--and others (which are) allegorical. But those in whose hearts is doubt pursue, forsooth, that which is allegorical seeking (to cause) dissension by seeking to explain it. None knows its explanation save Allah. And those who are of sound instruction say: We believe therein; the whole is from our Lord; but only men of understanding really heed.”
Which are the decisive verses and which are the allegorical verses? Understanding and guidance come from Allah. They do not come from theologians and mullahs or books of fiqh that may be inclined to place their own interpretations onto the Qur’an.
Only Allah knows the correct determination of such matters, and the people of knowledge or understanding are the ones whom God has taken by the hand and guided them through the hazards of the spiritual journey. These people of knowledge accept all of the Qur’an as revelation, and they pursue shari‘ah so that they may be led to the water of knowledge and be permitted to drink according to God’s blessings and according to their present spiritual condition and ultimate spiritual capacity.
Shari‘ah is a way [that is, the struggle toward self-purification], and a result [namely, the truth made manifest to the individual]. Neither the way nor the result can be imposed from without as many advocates of this or that school of jurisprudence or madhhab would have Muslims believe to be true, but, rather, one must become engaged in a life-long process of ijtihad through which one strives for the manner of discernment which will permit one, God willing, to distinguish between, on the one hand, the substance and basis of the Qur’an, and, on the other hand, that which is allegorical in the Qur’an.
Both the substance and allegorical dimensions of the Qur’an constitute guidance. However, when, as a result of problematic facets in one’s process of ijtihad, one confuses the allegorical with the substance of the Qur’an, then, as God warns, one may be carried in the direction of misguidance, and, this, unfortunately, is what has happened across the last 1300 years, or so, in all too many instances with respect to various individuals and their respective schools of jurisprudence.
“And know that this is My path, the right one, therefore follow it, and follow not other ways, for they will lead you away from His way; this He has enjoined you with that you may guard against it.” [Qur’an, 6:153]
*********************
First, the law of retribution was already the acknowledged and accepted way of doing things among the Arabs even before the emergence of Islam in Arabia. The revelation of the Qur’an indicated that such a law could continue to be exercised, but, at the same time, people were reminded that forgiving such transgressions would be better for the believers and pointed out, as well, that this same principle of forbearance also had been in place among the Jewish people. Thus, in the Qur’an, one finds:
“We have ordained [in the Torah] that a life [should be taken] for a life, an eye for an eye, a nose for a nose, an ear for an ear, a tooth for a tooth, and wounds [are to be punished] by qisas [exact retribution or retaliation]. But if someone remits exact retaliation by way of charity, that will be an act of atonement for that person. Whoever fails to exercise discernment in accordance with what God has revealed shall be of the unfair ones. [Qur’an, 5:45]
One of the recurrent themes of the Qur’an was to guide individuals toward constructively reforming the way in which they engaged themselves as well as one another. These reforms often were introduced over a period of time in relation to, among other things, prayer, fasting, alcohol, slavery, and the treatment of women.
The principle of retribution continued to be permitted not because such a policy was necessarily the best way of dealing with various situations but, rather, because many Arabs in those days would neither have tolerated nor understood any approach to such issues that departed very much from their usual customs in these matters. At the same time, the Qur’an sought to induce people to begin to reflect on issues like retribution by emphasizing the importance of qualities such as forgiveness, tolerance, humility, patience, love, preferring others to oneself, generosity, justice, compassion, mercy, being charitable, and so on. Thus, one finds in the Qur’an verses such as the following:
“Take to forgiveness and enjoin good and turn aside from the ignorant.” [Qur’an, 7:199]
Another factor involved with permitting certain harsh punitive measures to be applied during the lifetime of the Prophet concerned the right of individuals to ask for ‘purification through punishment’. More specifically, there were people who came to the Prophet and confessed sins with which harsh penalties were associated such as theft, fornication, and adultery, and they confessed such sins not because anyone had evidence to prove that those individuals had committed transgressions but because the individuals in question believed in the idea that if one pays for a given sin in this world, one will not be held accountable for that sin on the Day of Judgment – the slate is wiped clean in that respect, and one has been purified.
The Prophet did not encourage people to come to him and confess their sins. In fact, he indicated that people should, instead, sincerely repent before God with respect to their sins and to seek God’s forgiveness in those matters.
However, the Prophet also made it clear to the community that if people did come to him and confess their sins, then – as a Prophet who had a responsibility to maintain equitability within the community -- he would become obligated to take steps which might lead to certain punitive measures being applied to the case – measures which were associated with the commission of such transgressions. Nonetheless, some people – several of whom are talked about in the Hadith literature – did approach the Prophet with a clear understanding of what was being set in motion through their confessing of some transgression, but these individuals wished to avail themselves of the principle of ‘purification by punishment’ because they wanted the certainty that such a sin would not be held against them on the Day of Judgment.
One case which is related through the hadiths concerns a woman who came to the Prophet wishing to confess to adultery. The Prophet responded in a manner which suggested that he did not wish to hear what the woman had to say in this regard.
The woman kept insisting on confessing her sin to the Prophet in order to be able to undergo a process of purification through receiving the indicated punishment which would wipe her slate clean with respect to such a transgression. Finally, the Prophet informed her that the penalty for such a transgression was death, and she accepted this.
The Prophet said that the woman might be pregnant, and, therefore, she should permit the child to be born. He informed her that when the infant was born, she should return to him for purposes of carrying out the punishment.
After the child was born, the woman returned to the Prophet seeking to have the penalty enforced. The Prophet indicated that the woman should suckle the child and that when the period of suckling came to an end, she should return to him so that the indicated penalty might be exercised.
Several years later, the woman returned to the Prophet and indicated that the period of suckling the child was now complete. She wanted to proceed with the process of purification by punishment.
The woman was executed, and the Prophet led the funeral prayers. Someone objected to his leading of the prayers for such a woman, and the Prophet is reported to have said that the woman was innocent at the time of the prayers as she had been on the day she was born.
Notwithstanding the foregoing considerations, there is a very substantial difference between, on the other hand, enforcing a penalty because the recipient desires this out of his or her own free choice and, on the other hand, seeking to enforce such a penalty because one believes one has a God-given duty to impose such penalties on others independently of whether, or not, an individual agrees to become subject to an application of the principle of ‘purification by punishment’. Furthermore, today, there is no one among us who is a Prophet, nor is there anyone among us who necessarily has the God-given authority or the obligation [although there are many who have illegitimately arrogated to themselves such an authority and an obligation] to apply the punitive sanctions which are indicated in the Qur’an concerning certain transgressions involving acts of, for instance, theft, fornication, or adultery.
The timeframe when such measures were necessary or appropriate has passed. There are alternative ways of dealing with such transgressions – ways which are entirely consonant with other teachings of the Qur’an concerning the importance of forgiveness, compassion, mercy, patience, tolerance, love, humility, generosity, nobility, and the like.
Indeed, there is nothing in the Qur’an which stipulates that when one has a choice between two alternative ways of handling a situation, then one must necessarily choose the more rigorous or more punitive means of dealing with such a matter. In addition, there are a great many spiritual principles distributed throughout the Qur’an which strongly indicate that, where possible and practical, one should be inclined toward treating others with forgiveness, compassion, mercy, patience, tolerance, and generosity rather than through rigor or harshness.
The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) encouraged people to take responsibility for pursuing their own form of striving with respect to the truth. He is reported to have said:
“Do not ask me questions as long as I leave you alone.” [Bukhari, i‘tisam, 2; Muslim, hajj, 411]
The Prophet was, in effect, telling people: if I leave you alone, then, you should leave me alone. In other words, if the Prophet did not give people some particular guidance or direction, then, people should not seek to bother the Prophet by asking questions about how to proceed in life or with respect to how to pursue Islam.
The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is also reported to have said that one should:
“Seek the guidance of your heart (istaftii qalbaka: ask for the fatwa), whatever opinion others may give.”
This process of seeking the guidance of one’s heart is not a matter of following whatever whims, passions, or desires that may arise in consciousness. Rather, the process of seeking the guidance of one’s heart is to exercise ijtihad – to strive for the truth of a matter by purifying oneself so that one might enter a condition – namely, taqwa – through which, God willing, one might be opened to the truth or to the hukm – that is, the governing authority or reality of something – so that one can act rightly.
By listening intently to one’s heart and asking for a fatwa – or guidance – one was seeking to hear the resonance of truth with the Words of God. Indeed, as the Qur’an indicates:
And who is better than Allah to make judgments for a people who are sure.” [Qur’an, 5:50]
In seeking the guidance of one’s heart, one is seeking Divine assistance. If one has taqwa, then, God willing, the guidance one seeks from one’s heart will reflect the truth or reality of a matter which God wishes one to understand.
Furthermore, in conjunction with this process of seeking the counsel or guidance or fatwa from one’s heart, one should be careful concerning the sort of things for which one seeks an answer. The Qur’an indicates:
“Do not ask Us about those things that, if they were shown [or declared to you] could bring you wrong [or trouble you]” [Qur’an, 5:101]
The Qur’an also stipulates:
“O Prophet, why do you declare illicit what God has made licit, simply to give satisfaction to your wives.” [Qur’an, 66:1]
One might ask another question which has resonance with the foregoing – namely, why should one be inclined to declare as illicit that which God has made licit – by remaining silent on a matter -- simply to give satisfaction to theologians, mullahs, religious scholars, and the like?
Some have proposed that a principle to keep in mind when approaching the guidance of the Qur’an is not to fill in the gaps and spaces which God has left in the Qur’an as degrees of freedom for human beings. Whatever is not specifically prohibited in the Qur’an is considered to be licit unless a compelling case from the Qur’an itself can be given which demonstrates why such degrees of freedom should not be permitted.
Through the use of qiyas or analogical reasoning, many religious scholars and theologians have sought to argue that, for example, because one thing is like something else, and since the latter may have been prohibited by God, then, the former must also be considered as prohibited. By approaching things in this manner, they have sought to introduce prohibitions where none actually existed in the Qur’an.
For example, some individuals have sought to argue that because the flesh of pigs has been prohibited to Muslims [as well as Jews and Christians] as a food, and because some footballs are made from pig skin or because some forms of suede shoes have been made from pig skin, then, one may not touch those balls or wear such shoes.
Yet, the Qur’an is silent about both matters. People are reading their own ideas into the guidance of the Qur’an.
In order to arrive at such conclusions, those individuals may have exercised ijtihad. However, by means of such reasoning and striving, they have not necessarily captured the hukm of a matter – that is, the principle which governs a particular aspect of reality.
In this respect, the Qur’an states:
“He granteth wisdom to whom He pleaseth; and he to whom wisdom is granted receiveth indeed a benefit overflowing; but none will grasp the message but men of understanding.” (2:269)
Not everyone who exercises ijtihad necessarily does so through a God-granted wisdom. And, truly, only those who have been graced with such wisdom will understand that this is so. Moreover:
“Each one does according to his rule of conduct, and thy Lord is best aware of the one whose way is right.” [Qur’an, 17: 84]
Ijtihad is not the creation of something new in the way of guidance. Rather, ijtihad is a process of struggling toward trying to discover [according to one’s capacity to do so and the Grace which God bestows] the nature of the original hukm concerning the principles which already govern the truth or the reality of a matter and which are being expressed through the two books of revelation – the Qur’an and Nature (considered in its entirety).
A sincere mujtahid does not seek to make discernments except in accordance with, and as expression of, what Allah shows that individual through her or his exercise of ijtihad. As the Qur’an attests:
“True believers are only those who have faith in Allah and His messenger and have left doubt behind and who strive hard in Allah’s cause with their possessions and their lives. They are the ones who are sincere. (49: 15)
Supposedly, at least according to some religious scholars and theologians, the gates of ijtihad [striving, strenuousness] became closed after the 9th century A.D. Evidently, these individuals were of the opinion that what they referred to as Islamic law [but, in reality, this was nothing more than laws made by Muslims] had matured sufficiently enough that individual attempts to understand the limitless depths of the Qur’an and sunna had been exhausted.
The Qur’an states:
“And if all the trees in the earth were pens, and the sea, with seven more seas to help it were ink, the words of Allah could not be exhausted.” [Qur’an, 31:27]
The Prophet is reported to have said: “Truly, the Qur’an has an outward and an inward dimension, and the latter has its own inward dimension, and so on, up to seven dimensions.”
In light of the foregoing guidance of the Qur’an, as well as in light of the aforementioned understanding of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) concerning the depths of the Qur’an, I cannot think of anything more arrogant than for someone to try to claim that the doors to ijtihad were closed in the 9th or 10th century.
The truth of this matter is that certain individuals sought to close the door to ijtihad in order to establish a politically expedient compromise between two groups of individuals. On the one hand, there were the rulers who wanted the authority and legitimacy of what would be treated as established and unalterable law to be placed at their disposal so that they might exploit such law to do as they saw fit. The other party to the politically expedient compromise were from among the ulema who wanted a fiqh – that is, a mode of engaging the Qur’an and the sunna of the Prophet -- over which they would have control and which, in addition, would ensure that they had a position of status in the community where their “expertise” and authority would be sought out by others. Both sides to this compromise made a deal which would give the respective sides power, status, and control at the expense of doing justice to the either the community or the reality of Quranic guidance.
The aforementioned ulema reduced fiqh down to a set number of issues [some say these are 589 in number]. Each madhhab, or school of jurisprudence, developed its own theological positions relative to these set number of issues.
Furthermore, the leaders of these various schools issued pronouncements indicating that one would be able to switch from one school to another. In addition, and this is where the idea of closing the doors of ijtihad came in, no one was permitted to open up any of these codified positions to the exercise of ijtihad.
The true location of hukm [determinative authority] is with Allah, and the location of such a hukm does not rest with some given school of jurisprudence nor with the rational intellect considered in isolation from other spiritual faculties of the individual. When one does not know what the nature of the hukm or reality is with respect to some given matter, then, one must rely on Allah, and such true and sincere reliance requires that one ‘become like the corpse in the hands of the one who washes it’ -- that is, a true ‘abd or servant or bondsman of God – and one moves in whatever direction the Hands of God move one. This is the real essence of ijtihad.
******************
Why do human beings believe they have the authority or responsibility to hold other human beings accountable for what is, clearly, according to the Qur’an, obligations or duties of care which one has to God? God is the One Who has ordained such duties of care, and God is the One Who will judge such matters, and God is the One Who will hold people accountable for their deeds and misdeeds in this respect on the Day of Judgment, and God has not asked people – other than the Prophets – to assume responsibility for, or to take authority of, such matters. So, why do Muslim theologians, imams, muftis, mullahs, and leaders believe that it is their duty to police the Deen of others and make sure that it conforms to their own individual likes and dislikes?
According to some modern-day, self-proclaimed mujtahids, they represent the members of the community in the matter of determining what constitutes the nature of one’s spiritual duties of care to God. They believe that when the mujtahids of a certain school of law reach a consensus concerning some given facet of what the members of that school consider to be shari‘ah, then, from an epistemological perspective, such an agreement gives expression to an understanding that is just as certain as anything from the Qur’an or sunna. Furthermore, they believe they have the right to impose their views on others.
However, as indicated previously in this essay, there is not necessarily any evidence – other than self-invested claims – that such individuals actually have been appointed by God or the Prophet to either determine what the spiritual path should be for others or that such mujtahids have been granted the authority by either God or the Prophet to impose upon others whatever judgments at which they may arrive during the course of their deliberations concerning the Qur’an and sunna. Nor is there necessarily any evidence – other than the self-serving circularity of their own belief – that the agreements these so-called mujtahids reach should be considered to have the same level of authority or authenticity as either the Qur’an or sunna, and, in fact, there is not necessarily any evidence – other than the mutually reinforcing opinions of the parties to the agreement – that the participants have even arrived at a correct understanding of things.
Anyone who strives or struggles to ascertain the nature of shari‘ah is performing ijtihad and, therefore, is a mujtahid. Nonetheless, the fact that one is a mujtahid or is referred to as a mujtahid does not inherently compel others to accept the proclamations of such individuals as anything more than their understanding of a given issue, problem, or idea.
There are mujtahids who truly understand the nature of shari‘ah, and one would be well-advised to consider what they have to say about things and to reflect on such matters with due diligence. On the other hand, there also are mujtahids who truly do not understand the nature of shari‘ah, and one would be well-advised to stay as far away as possible from these latter sort of individuals.
The problem, of course, is one of knowing who is which kind of mujtahid. Everyone makes a choice concerning who they will listen to or go to for counsel with respect to spiritual matters, and much may be decided by the nature of one’s choice in this regard.
Choose correctly and one has, God willing, good spiritual counsel. Choose incorrectly and one has, may Allah have mercy on us, bad spiritual counsel.
For far too long, the Muslim world has been making a lot of bad choices with respect to the sort of spiritual counsel to which they have been willing to listen and to which they have opened themselves. We see the problematic ramifications of such choices almost everywhere in the Muslim world.
One of the problematic areas being alluded to above has been the insistence of all too many self-promoting mujtahids that sharia‘ah is a legal system which is to be imposed on a community. Shari‘ah is not a legal system, and it should not be imposed on anyone.
Shari‘ah is the spiritual journey of an individual who seeks to arrive at the truth concerning the nature of one’s relationship with God. Shari‘ah is the process of seeking to discover the nature of one’s essential identity. Shari‘ah gives expression to a person’s striving to realize, God willing, the full spiritual potential of fitra – one’s primordial spiritual capacity. Shari‘ah is a way to honor one’s duties of care to oneself, to others, to creation, and to God.
“And (as for) those who disbelieve, their deeds are like the mirage in a desert, which the thirsty man deems to be water until when he comes to it he finds it to be naught, and there he finds Allah, so He pays back to him his reckoning in full, and Allah is quick in reckoning.” [Qur’an, 24:39]
Human beings are inclined to search – through ijtihad -- for that which they believe will satisfy their spiritual thirst. One who searches is in a condition of unbelief because the truth or reality of things remains hidden from them at that point – that is, after all, why they are engaged in a process of seeking.
When, after striving and struggling, one comes to the understanding that everything for which one has been searching in order to satisfy one’s spiritual thirst is a mirage, then, this is the time when, God willing, the realization comes to the individual that Allah is the only One Who is capable of satisfying one’s need or longing or desire. Everything else is a mirage – including one’s reasoning and the various schools of jurisprudence.
The individual who, by the Grace of Allah, comes to such an understanding or realization finds Allah waiting for her or him, and God is ready to respond to that individual in accordance with the nature of the realization which has been reached. If one submits to the reality of one’s need for God, God is quick in reckoning concerning such a realization and guides the individual in their striving or ijtihad, but if one persists in turning away from God’s presence, then, too, God is quick in responding to such a spiritual condition and the individual is maintained in a state of disbelief.
*******************
In the Qur’an, one reads:
“He it is Who has revealed the Book to you; some of the verses are decisive, they are the basis of the book, and others are allegorical; then in those whose hearts there is perversity, they follow the part of it which is allegorical, seeking to mislead and seeking to give it [their own] interpretation, but none knows the interpretation except Allah, and those who are firmly rooted in knowledge say: We believe in it, it is from our Lord; and none do mind except those having understanding. [Qur’an, 3:7]
In Surah 3, verse 7, one finds a slightly different wording of the same principles that are being expressed through the foregoing verse of the Qur’an:
“He [that is, God] it is Who hath revealed unto thee (Muhammad) the Scripture wherein are clear revelations -- They are the substance of the Book--and others (which are) allegorical. But those in whose hearts is doubt pursue, forsooth, that which is allegorical seeking (to cause) dissension by seeking to explain it. None knows its explanation save Allah. And those who are of sound instruction say: We believe therein; the whole is from our Lord; but only men of understanding really heed.”
Which are the decisive verses and which are the allegorical verses? Understanding and guidance come from Allah. They do not come from theologians and mullahs or books of fiqh that may be inclined to place their own interpretations onto the Qur’an.
Only Allah knows the correct determination of such matters, and the people of knowledge or understanding are the ones whom God has taken by the hand and guided them through the hazards of the spiritual journey. These people of knowledge accept all of the Qur’an as revelation, and they pursue shari‘ah so that they may be led to the water of knowledge and be permitted to drink according to God’s blessings and according to their present spiritual condition and ultimate spiritual capacity.
Shari‘ah is a way [that is, the struggle toward self-purification], and a result [namely, the truth made manifest to the individual]. Neither the way nor the result can be imposed from without as many advocates of this or that school of jurisprudence or madhhab would have Muslims believe to be true, but, rather, one must become engaged in a life-long process of ijtihad through which one strives for the manner of discernment which will permit one, God willing, to distinguish between, on the one hand, the substance and basis of the Qur’an, and, on the other hand, that which is allegorical in the Qur’an.
Both the substance and allegorical dimensions of the Qur’an constitute guidance. However, when, as a result of problematic facets in one’s process of ijtihad, one confuses the allegorical with the substance of the Qur’an, then, as God warns, one may be carried in the direction of misguidance, and, this, unfortunately, is what has happened across the last 1300 years, or so, in all too many instances with respect to various individuals and their respective schools of jurisprudence.
“And know that this is My path, the right one, therefore follow it, and follow not other ways, for they will lead you away from His way; this He has enjoined you with that you may guard against it.” [Qur’an, 6:153]
*********************
Shari'ah: A Muslim's Declaration of Independence - Part 11
The Concept of Naskh
The principle of naskh or abrogation is recognized, in one form or another, by many religious scholars and theologians. Allegedly, this principle refers to the manner in which certain later manifestations of revelation are believed to nullify or overrule certain earlier instances of revelation.
Some people cite the following Quranic ayat in support of this approach to the Qur’an:
“Whatever communications we abrogate or cause to be forgotten, we bring one better than it or like it. Do you not know that Allah has power over all things?” [Qur’an, 2:106]
However, an assumption is being made concerning the precise identity of the communications to which God is referring in the foregoing verse.
For example, let us suppose that a people of an earlier time were given a revelation, and, then, over time, this revelation was forgotten by the people to whom it was given. Let us further suppose that God in his mercy then sent another revelation to replace the previous guidance.
According to the Quranic ayat noted earlier, the second revelation may be better than the first revelation in certain ways, or it may be like the revelation which had been sent previously. If the second revelation is better than the first in certain ways, only God knows what these ways are, and if the second revelation is like the first revelation, again, only God knows the nature of the likeness between the two.
Furthermore, in neither instance can one assume that anything in the first revelation has been replaced or nullified by aspects of the second revelation. The second revelation may be better than the first revelation because something has been added rather than taken away. Or, if the second revelation is like the first revelation, then, we are dealing with variations on certain themes rather than one revelation nullifying another.
So, even in the case where a second revelation wholly replaces a previous revelation in accordance with the foregoing scenario, one cannot assume that anything has been nullified in conjunction with the first revelation. Rather, the first revelation was forgotten, and, therefore, God sent another reminder to the people in question and, thereby, provided those people with, yet, another opportunity to be guided toward realizing life’s purpose.
Another Quranic ayat which sometimes is cited by those who believe that abrogation is a working principle inherent in the Qur’an is the following verse:
“And when We change one communication for another, and Allah knows best what He reveals, they say: You are only a forger. Nay, most of them do not know.” [Qur’an, 16. 101]
As is true with respect to the earlier Quranic ayat – namely, 2:106 – concerning the issue of God’s replacing of one Divine communication by another, people who understand this ayat in terms of the idea of abrogation or the nullification of an earlier Divine communications are making certain assumptions in relation to such an understanding. The fulcrum which leverages the guidance of the verse is this: “God knows best what he reveals” and the other side of this principle is that “most of them do not know”.
In what way is God changing one communication with respect to another such communication? Unless God discloses the nature of such a change, then, clearly, one is only guessing concerning such matters.
Does change necessarily give expression to a principle of abrogation? No, it doesn’t. There may be an array of changes which complement, supplement, enrich, or modify a given communication without abrogating or nullifying that which came previously.
Among those who accept the principle of naskh or abrogation, there are those who wish to argue that within one and the same revelation – for instance, the Qur’an -- later portions of the Divine communications which make up the contents of such a revelation are believed to nullify or abrogate certain earlier expressions of the Divine communications which are part of the same Book of Divine guidance. As an example of what such people have in mind, consider the following Quranic verses:
In 2:219 one finds: “They ask you [Muhammad] about wine and gambling. Say: In both there is sin and utility for people.”
In 4:43, one finds:
“O ye who believe, do not come to pray when you are in a state of intoxication, till you know what you utter.”
In 5:90 one finds:
“O ye who believe? Intoxicants and games of chance and sacrificing to stones set up and divining by arrows are only an uncleanness, the work of Shaitan; shun it therefore, that you may be successful.”
Those who accept the idea of abrogation as a working principle maintain that the last of the three ayats given expression here nullifies the first two verses of the Qur’an that have been listed. In other words, Ayat 2:219 indicates that there are both bad features as well as beneficial features which are associated with the consumption of wine or participation in gambling, but nothing is specifically said about abstaining from drinking wine or gambling.
One might note, however, that even in the case of 2:219, there is an indication that there are problems inherent in such activities. Perhaps, a reflective mind and heart might begin to consider what those problems were and what implications, if any, they carried with respect to how one went about living one’s life.
Ayat 4:43 informs people that one should not engage in prayers when one is in an intoxicated state – that one should know and be aware of what one is saying while one offers prayers. Despite this cautionary note, nothing is specifically said about abstaining from the consumption of intoxicants.
On the other hand, as was true in the case of verse 2:219 discussed earlier, there is a subtle hint given in Ayat 4:43 for those who might wish to reflect on the matter. More specifically, all of life is intended to be a matter of worship – indeed:
“And to your Lord turn all of your attention.” [Qur’an, 94:8]
And, as well:
“Whoever submits one’s whole self to Allah and is a doer of good has grasped the most trustworthy handhold.” [Qur’an, 31:22]
So, although there is no specific prohibitions in Ayat 4:43 about either consuming intoxicants or becoming intoxicated, and although the guidance is ostensibly only about staying away from prayers when one is in an intoxicated state, nonetheless, there is more to think about in conjunction with that verse than that to which one’s attention is being drawn with respect to the specific caution that is being given expression through the ayat in question. For example, among other possibilities, one might ask oneself the following: If one’s goal is God, and if one considers all of life a matter of worship, then, is it not the case that whenever one is intoxicated, there is a sense in which one is engaging the issue of worship in an intoxicated state?
Does this mean that one must refrain from the consumption of intoxicants? As far as verses 4:43 and 2:219 are concerned, no, it doesn’t. Does this mean that one must not become intoxicated? As far as verses 4:43 and 2:219 are concerned, no, it doesn’t.
Ayat 90 of Surah 5 indicates that if one wishes to be successful spiritually, then, consuming intoxicants and participating in games of chance should be avoided all together. Has anything really changed among 5:90, 4:43, and 2:219?
The difference is that what has been implicit in both 4:43 and 2:219 has now been made explicit. More specifically, if one wishes to, God willing, achieve spiritual success, then, one should refrain from consuming intoxicants and participating in games of chance.
The imperative mood of this directive in 5:90 is intended to influence the behavior of those who will listen to such guidance. The grammatical constructions in verses 4:43 and 2:219 are also intended to influence those whose hearts are receptive to what is being said.
In each of the three verses, warnings, cautions, and guidance are given. In two of the three verses one is being informed about the relationship between, on the one hand, intoxicants and gambling, and, on the other hand, what may be in one’s best interests with respect to living life, while in the other verse one is being informed about the relationship between the condition of intoxication and its potential effect on the quality and propriety of one’s prayers.
Can one choose to drink and gamble? Yes, one can because none of the three ayats nullifies or abrogates one’s freedom to accept or reject guidance.
However, if one is at all concerned about pursuing the actual purpose of life and, God willing, becoming spiritually successful in that pursuit, then, in all three of the foregoing ayats one is being guided in similar ways. Nothing has been abrogated or nullified.
The implicit has been made explicit. Something which already was present in the earlier two verses has been made manifest.
Another example of what is considered to be an instance of naksh or abrogation involves the issues of bequeaths, inheritance, and debt. In 2:180 of the Qur’an, one finds:
“Bequest is prescribed for you when death approaches one of you, if he leaves behind wealth for parents and near relatives, according to usage, a duty incumbent on those who guard against evil.”
In addition, Surah 4, verses 11-12, contains a detailed set of specific parameters laid out for distributing inheritance in conjunction with whatever debts and bequeaths may have been made previously. Indications are given that debts and bequeaths need to be given priority – although there is an allusion to the idea that one needs to take into consideration the possibility of harm which may arise out of the paying of a debt. In addition, a large set of permutations are set forth in these verses concerning possible scenarios of what should be done according to who survives a deceased individual.
Some jurists have come to the conclusion that verses 11-12 of Surah 4 abrogate or nullify the guidance of 2:180. This is especially so since some of these jurists site a hadith based on a solitary report attributed to the Prophet which indicates that there should be “no bequest in favor of an heir.”
Taking the last point first – namely, the idea that the Prophet is reported to have said that there should be no bequest in favor of an heir – if one believes in the relevance of taking into account what the Prophet says, then, the Prophet also has said that he wanted all collections of his sayings destroyed so that no one would possibly confuse or conflate what he said with God’s decrees. Consequently, while I believe that what the Prophet told people directly is important to those individuals being directly addressed, I believe the Prophet also placed a limit on the potential sphere of applicability of such sayings when he also indicated that collections of his sayings should be destroyed.
Secondly, when the Prophet said what he is reported to have said concerning the idea that there should be “no bequest in favor of an heir”, do we know whether, or not, the Prophet was addressing a particular individual or a group of individuals with the intention that what is reported to have been said by the Prophet concerning the issue of bequests and heirs – if it actually was said by the Prophet – was intended to serve as counsel for the person or persons who were being addressed and no one else? The answer is: ‘No, we don’t know what the intention of the Prophet was in this respect.’!
Is it possible that the Prophet may have meant that no single heir should be favored or be given priority over other heirs in the matter of bequests or that heirs should not be given preference to others in the matter of bequeaths? Possibly, but, once again, we really have no way of determining the intention with which the Prophet said what he is reported to have said concerning bequeaths and heirs.
Furthermore, whatever the Prophet may have meant with respect to the indicated solitary report, the Prophet also indicated – via his directive to have collections of Hadith destroyed -- that the context of applicability of what he may have said in this respect should remain with those who lived in his times and who were part of the Muslim community at that time. Otherwise, the Prophet would not have ordered that collections of his Hadith should be destroyed, thereby, limiting the sphere of applicability of what he said to those whom he directly addressed and who had committed such counsel to memory.
Beyond the foregoing considerations, I’m not sure there really is any conflict between the verses cited in relation to Surah 2 and Surah 4. The first verse [2:180] indicates that one should make plans for distributing one’s wealth as the time of death approaches, and that verse also indicates that leaving behind wealth for parents and near relatives is an important thing to do. However, the wealth which is to be left behind for parents and near kin need not be in the form of bequeaths.
Another consideration in the foregoing is that not every permutation concerning the possible combinations of heirs who might survive a deceased individual is listed in verses 11-12. So, how should one handle those cases which fall outside the boundaries which are indicated? -- maybe in accordance with the provisions of 2:180 in the Qur’an -- that is, to distribute one’s wealth in as equitable a manner as one is capable of doing.
Or maybe the reason for the existence of two instances of Quranic guidance [i.e., 2:180 and 4:11-12] concerning the issue of distributing wealth in the case of actual or approaching death is to provide people with options concerning these issues. These options are the parameters which help define the limits which God is establishing with respect to justice and equitability.
On the other hand, however one goes about the process of distributing one’s wealth and whichever option one chooses in dealing with this manner, the underlying counsel is that one should distribute one’s wealth in an equitable manner. One way – but not necessarily the only way -- of satisfying the issue of equitability is in conjunction with the method outlined in Surah 4, verses 11 and 12.
Thirdly, Muslims are enjoined by the Qur’an to be equitable. Since there may be additional issues of fairness, need, and differing contingent circumstances which should be taken into consideration with respect to dealing equitably with heirs, bequeaths, debt, and any possible harm which may arise out of such interacting variables in a particular set of circumstances, one may feel the need to bring such additional considerations of equitability to bear on these matters in order that the greatest quality and quantity of justice possible be done with respect to all affected parties.
The specific provisions outlined in Surah 4, verses 11-12 may be guidance for the individuals who lived in and around the times of the Prophet Muhammad. Those specific provisions may have been intended to serve the particular circumstances of Arabian society at that time, but when historical, cultural, and other contingencies change over time, then, one acts in accordance with the essential default principle concerning the importance of distributing wealth which is inherent in both Quranic excerpts -- 2:180 and 4:11-12 – although each of these sections deals with the same underlying issue from different directions and in relation to different contingencies.
Finally, irrespective of whatever specific decisions which may be reached by an individual as she or he seeks to comply with what that person believes to be true and just with respect to matters involving bequeaths, heirs, debt, possible harms, and equitability, nevertheless, these matters are, for the most part, not the purview of a government’s regulation of public space unless the manner of distribution chosen by individuals has a substantial potential for leading to the oppression of some by others. Indeed, the accumulation of wealth in the hands of the few inevitably does lead to the oppression of others, and, perhaps, this is one of the reasons why God indicates to humankind, through the Qur’an, that the distribution of wealth has a potentially central role to play in helping to place obstacles of equitability in the way of the sort of accumulation of wealth that all too frequently tends, in time, to lead to oppression of one kind or another.
I believe the foregoing considerations tend to shape the basic operating principles in such matters except, as noted, when the potential for the emergence of oppression is demonstrable as the result of some person’s decision to distribute wealth in a certain, possibly problematic manner. Even in the event of such potential for oppression, a preferred manner for handling such problems may be through mediation among various parties rather than through legal pronouncements or injunctions which are forcibly imposed on people.
However, such considerations notwithstanding, how a person handles these matters is, generally speaking, between the individual and God. God is the One Who will hold a person accountable for either fulfilling or not fulfilling the requirements of shari‘ah – not governments or religious jurists and courts or imams.
A third example mentioned by some as an expression of the principle of abrogation which, supposedly, is at work in the Qur’an is said to concern the issue of Qibla or the direction of prayer. For instance, in 2:144, one finds:
“…so we shall surely turn you to a qiblah which you shall like, turn, then, your face to the Sacred Mosque, and wherever you are, turn your face towards it…”
The foregoing guidance doesn’t really constitute an abrogation, per se, of anything. At the very most, it constitutes a slight modification of the way in which something already established is to be done.
More specifically prior to the foregoing revelation, Muslims sought to worship God through, among other possibilities, the act of prayer. After the revelation, Muslims still sought to worship God through, among other possibilities, the act of prayer.
Changing the direction of Qibla did not alter anything of an essential nature with respect to the basics of Islam. An external feature of the form of worship was modified.
Prior to the night journey and mi’raj of the Prophet, prayers did not have any specific external form. During the Prophet’s ascension, one of the gifts given to the Prophet, specifically, and to Muslims, in general, was the external form of the prayer.
This new form of worship did not alter or nullify any aspect of the essence of what is involved in prayer. As the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is reported to have said:
“Prayer is the sacrifice whereby every believer comes closer to Allah.”
Every instance of prayer is an exercise in sacrificing the interests of one nafs in order to remember God, and through such a sacrifice, one becomes purified so that one may enter a condition of taqwa through which, God willing, one may be brought closer to the reality of things through whatever truths God may disclose to the individual.
Similarly, in the case of the change in the external direction of Qibla, none of this altered the internal direction of Qibla which has always been to God. Indeed, the true Sacred Mosque is the purified heart of every believer, and one concentrates on the external form in order that one may be guided to remember that the external is but a reflection of the metaphysical realities within us. The true Qibla is the realization that:
“Wheresoever you turn, there is the Face of God.” [2:115]
As well as:
Wa huwa ma’akum aynama kuntum (And He is with you wherever you are [57:4]
In reality, what has occurred with respect to the issue of the change in Qibla is not a nullification of a prior Divine communication, but, rather Muslims were being informed that a timeframe of appropriateness had come to an end or had passed by with respect to the activity of prayer. That is, the external form of an activity – namely praying -- which had been entirely appropriate for Muslims to observe before the revelation concerning a change in the direction of Qibla was being modified and, as a result, the previous external form was no longer the appropriate external form through which to observe prayers.
The principle involved in the foregoing is not that of nullifying or overturning what previously had been sent. The principle is that everything has a context of appropriateness, and this principle is operative throughout the Qur’an.
In short, the revelation concerning the change in Qibla gives expression to an important principle involving the nature of Quranic guidance. What is appropriate is not a function of that which is unchanging with respect to understanding, but, rather, what is appropriate is a function of taking into consideration the manner in which guidance changes as a function of contingencies.
Attention is being directed to the importance of context. Attention is being directed to the importance of the manner in which the criteria of appropriateness changes with the nature of contingent factors and forces which surround historical and existential circumstances.
Just as, in some cases, subsequent revelation may alter one’s understanding of past verses or changes how one understands or engages spiritual practice, so, too, different God-granted insights into one and the same verse may change over time in a way that informs faith and practice and affects the manner in which one engages or understands other verses of the Qur’an in a manner that is different from what previously had been the case. This is how faith, knowledge, and wisdom increase – not through nullification, per se, but through the supplementing, complementing, modification, and enriching of one’s previous understanding concerning Divine guidance.
There is some indication that several of the Companions understood things in the foregoing sense. For instance, consider the following cases.
Despite the specific guidance of 9:60 in the Qur’an which stipulates who is to be a recipient of state funds – an ayat which includes the idea that winning over the hearts of certain people for the Muslim community is to included among such uses -- and although the Prophet, himself, always directed a share of the state funds toward such a purpose [namely, winning over the hearts of certain people for the benefit of the Muslim community], nonetheless, Hazrat ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) refused to direct a portion of community funds to such a purpose. He argued that during the time of the Prophet, Muslims were weak and in need of such support, but those times had passed, and the community no longer was in need of such assistance, and, therefore, the guidance inherent in 9:60 was, in the indicated sense, no longer relevant to the Muslim community – although this could change again, depending on contingent circumstances.
Hazrat ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) wasn’t abrogating or nullifying verse 60 of Surah 9. Rather, he was taking into consideration the appropriateness of the context or timeframe for the application of a given facet of guidance.
On another occasion, during the conquests of Mesopotamia and Syria, Hazrat ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) did not observe the requirements of 59:6-10 in the Qur’an which governed the distribution of ghana’im [booty or spoils of war]. Instead, he indicated that the state was more in need of such resources than individuals were, and if this were not done, then the Muslim armies in various territories could not be equipped or maintained.
Here, again, a decision was made that required one to compare the character of contingent circumstances in relation to specific provisions of the Qur’an which, superficially, may have been thought to govern such matters. The task faced by Hazrat ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) was to determine whether, or not, the character of the latter actually addressed the character of the former.
Apparently, Hazrat ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) decided that the nature of the hukm of the historical circumstances and contingencies with which the Muslim community was faced at that time was different from the nature of the hukm inherent in the guidance of Surah 59, verses 6-10. In doing this, he was not abrogating or nullifying this aspect of the Qur’an, but, instead, he was seeking to determine the conditions of appropriateness for applying one facet of Quranic guidance rather than some other aspect of such guidance.
Along these same lines, consider the following excerpt from Bukhari which is narrated by Nafi’:
“During the affliction of Ibn Az-Zubair [which took place after the Prophet had passed away], two men came to Ibn 'Umar and said, "The people are lost, and you are the son of 'Umar and a companion of the Prophet, so what stops you from coming out and joining the conflict?" He said, "What stops me is that Allah has prohibited the shedding of my brother’s blood."
They both said, "Didn't Allah say, 'And fight then until there is no more affliction?’
Ibn ‘Umar said "We fought until there was no more affliction and so that worship would be for Allah Alone, while you want to fight until there is affliction and until the worship becomes for other than Allah." (Volume 6, Book 60, Number 40)
Once again, the foregoing tradition brings home the point that the task facing human beings is not just a matter of looking in the Qur’an and applying whatever one likes. One must try to understand the hukm – that is, the reality or governing principle – of both the situation in which one is involved, as well as strive to discover that hukm of the Qur’an which best serves the hukm of life’s circumstances.
This is an expression of ijtihad. This is not an expression of naksh or abrogation.
The issue of trying to struggle toward establishing what is an appropriate frame of reference for tying together certain existential contingencies with various facets of Quranic guidance is a theme which occurs again and again throughout the Qur’an. There are times and circumstances when it is appropriate to apply certain facets of guidance, and there are times and circumstances when it is not appropriate to apply such aspects of guidance.
Everything is about discernment and doing what is appropriate at the right time, and in the right way, and for the right length of time, and with the right intention before some other principle becomes more appropriate for one to pursue as circumstances change. Context and the nature of the contingency of events which come together and give that context the structural character it has is of fundamental importance. It is the context which calls out for relief from Quranic guidance and, therefore, it is, in a sense, the context which establishes the conditions which must be satisfied through the appropriate application of Divine guidance.
If one understands a situation, then, one also understands what one is looking for in the way of spiritual relief. By opening oneself up – in the unbiased manner of taqwa -- to the Divine Word, then, God willing, the solution to that context is given through what is most resonant in the one doing ijtihad in relation to a given situation.
The times for fasting, hajj, prayer, wuzu, zakat, and so on are all to be observed from within a given timeframe of appropriateness. When a given timeframe of appropriateness has passed, then certain guidance is no longer necessarily applicable.
For example, the Qur’an indicates that:
“Worship at fixed times has been enjoined on the believers.” [Qur’an, 4:103]
When the timeframe for a particular instance of worship has passed, then, one moves on to what is appropriate with respect to the changed timeframe. The ritual fast only occurs during the month of Ramadan, and when that timeframe has passed, then, the ritual fast cannot be observed -- although there are provisions for making up what may have been missed due to, say, travel or ill-health or for expiating the transgression of intentionally not fasting during the indicated timeframe. Hajj only occurs within a fixed timeframe, and when that period has passed, the rituals of Hajj are no longer operable – although one still can perform the lesser pilgrimage. The times for saying the five daily prayers exist within a fixed timeframe, and when that window of opportunity passes, then, one has missed the prayer – although one can offer prayers at a later time in the hope that such offerings will be accepted by God in exchange for the fixed prayers that were missed.
Appropriateness changes with circumstances, contexts, peoples, and contingencies. Therefore, the timeframes for the conditions of appropriateness pass into and out of existence. This is not to say that everything is relative or that there are no boundaries of propriety, because there are such boundaries, and God is continually warning people in the Qur’an not to transgress due boundaries. For example:
But whoever seeks to go beyond that, these are they who exceed the limits; [Qur’an, 23:7]
However, there is no principle of naksh or abrogation which is operative in the Qur’an. What is operative is a principle of appropriateness in which as the hukm or reality of circumstances change, then, one must go in search of the appropriate Quranic hukm to address and reflect such changes.
****************
The principle of naskh or abrogation is recognized, in one form or another, by many religious scholars and theologians. Allegedly, this principle refers to the manner in which certain later manifestations of revelation are believed to nullify or overrule certain earlier instances of revelation.
Some people cite the following Quranic ayat in support of this approach to the Qur’an:
“Whatever communications we abrogate or cause to be forgotten, we bring one better than it or like it. Do you not know that Allah has power over all things?” [Qur’an, 2:106]
However, an assumption is being made concerning the precise identity of the communications to which God is referring in the foregoing verse.
For example, let us suppose that a people of an earlier time were given a revelation, and, then, over time, this revelation was forgotten by the people to whom it was given. Let us further suppose that God in his mercy then sent another revelation to replace the previous guidance.
According to the Quranic ayat noted earlier, the second revelation may be better than the first revelation in certain ways, or it may be like the revelation which had been sent previously. If the second revelation is better than the first in certain ways, only God knows what these ways are, and if the second revelation is like the first revelation, again, only God knows the nature of the likeness between the two.
Furthermore, in neither instance can one assume that anything in the first revelation has been replaced or nullified by aspects of the second revelation. The second revelation may be better than the first revelation because something has been added rather than taken away. Or, if the second revelation is like the first revelation, then, we are dealing with variations on certain themes rather than one revelation nullifying another.
So, even in the case where a second revelation wholly replaces a previous revelation in accordance with the foregoing scenario, one cannot assume that anything has been nullified in conjunction with the first revelation. Rather, the first revelation was forgotten, and, therefore, God sent another reminder to the people in question and, thereby, provided those people with, yet, another opportunity to be guided toward realizing life’s purpose.
Another Quranic ayat which sometimes is cited by those who believe that abrogation is a working principle inherent in the Qur’an is the following verse:
“And when We change one communication for another, and Allah knows best what He reveals, they say: You are only a forger. Nay, most of them do not know.” [Qur’an, 16. 101]
As is true with respect to the earlier Quranic ayat – namely, 2:106 – concerning the issue of God’s replacing of one Divine communication by another, people who understand this ayat in terms of the idea of abrogation or the nullification of an earlier Divine communications are making certain assumptions in relation to such an understanding. The fulcrum which leverages the guidance of the verse is this: “God knows best what he reveals” and the other side of this principle is that “most of them do not know”.
In what way is God changing one communication with respect to another such communication? Unless God discloses the nature of such a change, then, clearly, one is only guessing concerning such matters.
Does change necessarily give expression to a principle of abrogation? No, it doesn’t. There may be an array of changes which complement, supplement, enrich, or modify a given communication without abrogating or nullifying that which came previously.
Among those who accept the principle of naskh or abrogation, there are those who wish to argue that within one and the same revelation – for instance, the Qur’an -- later portions of the Divine communications which make up the contents of such a revelation are believed to nullify or abrogate certain earlier expressions of the Divine communications which are part of the same Book of Divine guidance. As an example of what such people have in mind, consider the following Quranic verses:
In 2:219 one finds: “They ask you [Muhammad] about wine and gambling. Say: In both there is sin and utility for people.”
In 4:43, one finds:
“O ye who believe, do not come to pray when you are in a state of intoxication, till you know what you utter.”
In 5:90 one finds:
“O ye who believe? Intoxicants and games of chance and sacrificing to stones set up and divining by arrows are only an uncleanness, the work of Shaitan; shun it therefore, that you may be successful.”
Those who accept the idea of abrogation as a working principle maintain that the last of the three ayats given expression here nullifies the first two verses of the Qur’an that have been listed. In other words, Ayat 2:219 indicates that there are both bad features as well as beneficial features which are associated with the consumption of wine or participation in gambling, but nothing is specifically said about abstaining from drinking wine or gambling.
One might note, however, that even in the case of 2:219, there is an indication that there are problems inherent in such activities. Perhaps, a reflective mind and heart might begin to consider what those problems were and what implications, if any, they carried with respect to how one went about living one’s life.
Ayat 4:43 informs people that one should not engage in prayers when one is in an intoxicated state – that one should know and be aware of what one is saying while one offers prayers. Despite this cautionary note, nothing is specifically said about abstaining from the consumption of intoxicants.
On the other hand, as was true in the case of verse 2:219 discussed earlier, there is a subtle hint given in Ayat 4:43 for those who might wish to reflect on the matter. More specifically, all of life is intended to be a matter of worship – indeed:
“And to your Lord turn all of your attention.” [Qur’an, 94:8]
And, as well:
“Whoever submits one’s whole self to Allah and is a doer of good has grasped the most trustworthy handhold.” [Qur’an, 31:22]
So, although there is no specific prohibitions in Ayat 4:43 about either consuming intoxicants or becoming intoxicated, and although the guidance is ostensibly only about staying away from prayers when one is in an intoxicated state, nonetheless, there is more to think about in conjunction with that verse than that to which one’s attention is being drawn with respect to the specific caution that is being given expression through the ayat in question. For example, among other possibilities, one might ask oneself the following: If one’s goal is God, and if one considers all of life a matter of worship, then, is it not the case that whenever one is intoxicated, there is a sense in which one is engaging the issue of worship in an intoxicated state?
Does this mean that one must refrain from the consumption of intoxicants? As far as verses 4:43 and 2:219 are concerned, no, it doesn’t. Does this mean that one must not become intoxicated? As far as verses 4:43 and 2:219 are concerned, no, it doesn’t.
Ayat 90 of Surah 5 indicates that if one wishes to be successful spiritually, then, consuming intoxicants and participating in games of chance should be avoided all together. Has anything really changed among 5:90, 4:43, and 2:219?
The difference is that what has been implicit in both 4:43 and 2:219 has now been made explicit. More specifically, if one wishes to, God willing, achieve spiritual success, then, one should refrain from consuming intoxicants and participating in games of chance.
The imperative mood of this directive in 5:90 is intended to influence the behavior of those who will listen to such guidance. The grammatical constructions in verses 4:43 and 2:219 are also intended to influence those whose hearts are receptive to what is being said.
In each of the three verses, warnings, cautions, and guidance are given. In two of the three verses one is being informed about the relationship between, on the one hand, intoxicants and gambling, and, on the other hand, what may be in one’s best interests with respect to living life, while in the other verse one is being informed about the relationship between the condition of intoxication and its potential effect on the quality and propriety of one’s prayers.
Can one choose to drink and gamble? Yes, one can because none of the three ayats nullifies or abrogates one’s freedom to accept or reject guidance.
However, if one is at all concerned about pursuing the actual purpose of life and, God willing, becoming spiritually successful in that pursuit, then, in all three of the foregoing ayats one is being guided in similar ways. Nothing has been abrogated or nullified.
The implicit has been made explicit. Something which already was present in the earlier two verses has been made manifest.
Another example of what is considered to be an instance of naksh or abrogation involves the issues of bequeaths, inheritance, and debt. In 2:180 of the Qur’an, one finds:
“Bequest is prescribed for you when death approaches one of you, if he leaves behind wealth for parents and near relatives, according to usage, a duty incumbent on those who guard against evil.”
In addition, Surah 4, verses 11-12, contains a detailed set of specific parameters laid out for distributing inheritance in conjunction with whatever debts and bequeaths may have been made previously. Indications are given that debts and bequeaths need to be given priority – although there is an allusion to the idea that one needs to take into consideration the possibility of harm which may arise out of the paying of a debt. In addition, a large set of permutations are set forth in these verses concerning possible scenarios of what should be done according to who survives a deceased individual.
Some jurists have come to the conclusion that verses 11-12 of Surah 4 abrogate or nullify the guidance of 2:180. This is especially so since some of these jurists site a hadith based on a solitary report attributed to the Prophet which indicates that there should be “no bequest in favor of an heir.”
Taking the last point first – namely, the idea that the Prophet is reported to have said that there should be no bequest in favor of an heir – if one believes in the relevance of taking into account what the Prophet says, then, the Prophet also has said that he wanted all collections of his sayings destroyed so that no one would possibly confuse or conflate what he said with God’s decrees. Consequently, while I believe that what the Prophet told people directly is important to those individuals being directly addressed, I believe the Prophet also placed a limit on the potential sphere of applicability of such sayings when he also indicated that collections of his sayings should be destroyed.
Secondly, when the Prophet said what he is reported to have said concerning the idea that there should be “no bequest in favor of an heir”, do we know whether, or not, the Prophet was addressing a particular individual or a group of individuals with the intention that what is reported to have been said by the Prophet concerning the issue of bequests and heirs – if it actually was said by the Prophet – was intended to serve as counsel for the person or persons who were being addressed and no one else? The answer is: ‘No, we don’t know what the intention of the Prophet was in this respect.’!
Is it possible that the Prophet may have meant that no single heir should be favored or be given priority over other heirs in the matter of bequests or that heirs should not be given preference to others in the matter of bequeaths? Possibly, but, once again, we really have no way of determining the intention with which the Prophet said what he is reported to have said concerning bequeaths and heirs.
Furthermore, whatever the Prophet may have meant with respect to the indicated solitary report, the Prophet also indicated – via his directive to have collections of Hadith destroyed -- that the context of applicability of what he may have said in this respect should remain with those who lived in his times and who were part of the Muslim community at that time. Otherwise, the Prophet would not have ordered that collections of his Hadith should be destroyed, thereby, limiting the sphere of applicability of what he said to those whom he directly addressed and who had committed such counsel to memory.
Beyond the foregoing considerations, I’m not sure there really is any conflict between the verses cited in relation to Surah 2 and Surah 4. The first verse [2:180] indicates that one should make plans for distributing one’s wealth as the time of death approaches, and that verse also indicates that leaving behind wealth for parents and near relatives is an important thing to do. However, the wealth which is to be left behind for parents and near kin need not be in the form of bequeaths.
Another consideration in the foregoing is that not every permutation concerning the possible combinations of heirs who might survive a deceased individual is listed in verses 11-12. So, how should one handle those cases which fall outside the boundaries which are indicated? -- maybe in accordance with the provisions of 2:180 in the Qur’an -- that is, to distribute one’s wealth in as equitable a manner as one is capable of doing.
Or maybe the reason for the existence of two instances of Quranic guidance [i.e., 2:180 and 4:11-12] concerning the issue of distributing wealth in the case of actual or approaching death is to provide people with options concerning these issues. These options are the parameters which help define the limits which God is establishing with respect to justice and equitability.
On the other hand, however one goes about the process of distributing one’s wealth and whichever option one chooses in dealing with this manner, the underlying counsel is that one should distribute one’s wealth in an equitable manner. One way – but not necessarily the only way -- of satisfying the issue of equitability is in conjunction with the method outlined in Surah 4, verses 11 and 12.
Thirdly, Muslims are enjoined by the Qur’an to be equitable. Since there may be additional issues of fairness, need, and differing contingent circumstances which should be taken into consideration with respect to dealing equitably with heirs, bequeaths, debt, and any possible harm which may arise out of such interacting variables in a particular set of circumstances, one may feel the need to bring such additional considerations of equitability to bear on these matters in order that the greatest quality and quantity of justice possible be done with respect to all affected parties.
The specific provisions outlined in Surah 4, verses 11-12 may be guidance for the individuals who lived in and around the times of the Prophet Muhammad. Those specific provisions may have been intended to serve the particular circumstances of Arabian society at that time, but when historical, cultural, and other contingencies change over time, then, one acts in accordance with the essential default principle concerning the importance of distributing wealth which is inherent in both Quranic excerpts -- 2:180 and 4:11-12 – although each of these sections deals with the same underlying issue from different directions and in relation to different contingencies.
Finally, irrespective of whatever specific decisions which may be reached by an individual as she or he seeks to comply with what that person believes to be true and just with respect to matters involving bequeaths, heirs, debt, possible harms, and equitability, nevertheless, these matters are, for the most part, not the purview of a government’s regulation of public space unless the manner of distribution chosen by individuals has a substantial potential for leading to the oppression of some by others. Indeed, the accumulation of wealth in the hands of the few inevitably does lead to the oppression of others, and, perhaps, this is one of the reasons why God indicates to humankind, through the Qur’an, that the distribution of wealth has a potentially central role to play in helping to place obstacles of equitability in the way of the sort of accumulation of wealth that all too frequently tends, in time, to lead to oppression of one kind or another.
I believe the foregoing considerations tend to shape the basic operating principles in such matters except, as noted, when the potential for the emergence of oppression is demonstrable as the result of some person’s decision to distribute wealth in a certain, possibly problematic manner. Even in the event of such potential for oppression, a preferred manner for handling such problems may be through mediation among various parties rather than through legal pronouncements or injunctions which are forcibly imposed on people.
However, such considerations notwithstanding, how a person handles these matters is, generally speaking, between the individual and God. God is the One Who will hold a person accountable for either fulfilling or not fulfilling the requirements of shari‘ah – not governments or religious jurists and courts or imams.
A third example mentioned by some as an expression of the principle of abrogation which, supposedly, is at work in the Qur’an is said to concern the issue of Qibla or the direction of prayer. For instance, in 2:144, one finds:
“…so we shall surely turn you to a qiblah which you shall like, turn, then, your face to the Sacred Mosque, and wherever you are, turn your face towards it…”
The foregoing guidance doesn’t really constitute an abrogation, per se, of anything. At the very most, it constitutes a slight modification of the way in which something already established is to be done.
More specifically prior to the foregoing revelation, Muslims sought to worship God through, among other possibilities, the act of prayer. After the revelation, Muslims still sought to worship God through, among other possibilities, the act of prayer.
Changing the direction of Qibla did not alter anything of an essential nature with respect to the basics of Islam. An external feature of the form of worship was modified.
Prior to the night journey and mi’raj of the Prophet, prayers did not have any specific external form. During the Prophet’s ascension, one of the gifts given to the Prophet, specifically, and to Muslims, in general, was the external form of the prayer.
This new form of worship did not alter or nullify any aspect of the essence of what is involved in prayer. As the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is reported to have said:
“Prayer is the sacrifice whereby every believer comes closer to Allah.”
Every instance of prayer is an exercise in sacrificing the interests of one nafs in order to remember God, and through such a sacrifice, one becomes purified so that one may enter a condition of taqwa through which, God willing, one may be brought closer to the reality of things through whatever truths God may disclose to the individual.
Similarly, in the case of the change in the external direction of Qibla, none of this altered the internal direction of Qibla which has always been to God. Indeed, the true Sacred Mosque is the purified heart of every believer, and one concentrates on the external form in order that one may be guided to remember that the external is but a reflection of the metaphysical realities within us. The true Qibla is the realization that:
“Wheresoever you turn, there is the Face of God.” [2:115]
As well as:
Wa huwa ma’akum aynama kuntum (And He is with you wherever you are [57:4]
In reality, what has occurred with respect to the issue of the change in Qibla is not a nullification of a prior Divine communication, but, rather Muslims were being informed that a timeframe of appropriateness had come to an end or had passed by with respect to the activity of prayer. That is, the external form of an activity – namely praying -- which had been entirely appropriate for Muslims to observe before the revelation concerning a change in the direction of Qibla was being modified and, as a result, the previous external form was no longer the appropriate external form through which to observe prayers.
The principle involved in the foregoing is not that of nullifying or overturning what previously had been sent. The principle is that everything has a context of appropriateness, and this principle is operative throughout the Qur’an.
In short, the revelation concerning the change in Qibla gives expression to an important principle involving the nature of Quranic guidance. What is appropriate is not a function of that which is unchanging with respect to understanding, but, rather, what is appropriate is a function of taking into consideration the manner in which guidance changes as a function of contingencies.
Attention is being directed to the importance of context. Attention is being directed to the importance of the manner in which the criteria of appropriateness changes with the nature of contingent factors and forces which surround historical and existential circumstances.
Just as, in some cases, subsequent revelation may alter one’s understanding of past verses or changes how one understands or engages spiritual practice, so, too, different God-granted insights into one and the same verse may change over time in a way that informs faith and practice and affects the manner in which one engages or understands other verses of the Qur’an in a manner that is different from what previously had been the case. This is how faith, knowledge, and wisdom increase – not through nullification, per se, but through the supplementing, complementing, modification, and enriching of one’s previous understanding concerning Divine guidance.
There is some indication that several of the Companions understood things in the foregoing sense. For instance, consider the following cases.
Despite the specific guidance of 9:60 in the Qur’an which stipulates who is to be a recipient of state funds – an ayat which includes the idea that winning over the hearts of certain people for the Muslim community is to included among such uses -- and although the Prophet, himself, always directed a share of the state funds toward such a purpose [namely, winning over the hearts of certain people for the benefit of the Muslim community], nonetheless, Hazrat ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) refused to direct a portion of community funds to such a purpose. He argued that during the time of the Prophet, Muslims were weak and in need of such support, but those times had passed, and the community no longer was in need of such assistance, and, therefore, the guidance inherent in 9:60 was, in the indicated sense, no longer relevant to the Muslim community – although this could change again, depending on contingent circumstances.
Hazrat ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) wasn’t abrogating or nullifying verse 60 of Surah 9. Rather, he was taking into consideration the appropriateness of the context or timeframe for the application of a given facet of guidance.
On another occasion, during the conquests of Mesopotamia and Syria, Hazrat ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) did not observe the requirements of 59:6-10 in the Qur’an which governed the distribution of ghana’im [booty or spoils of war]. Instead, he indicated that the state was more in need of such resources than individuals were, and if this were not done, then the Muslim armies in various territories could not be equipped or maintained.
Here, again, a decision was made that required one to compare the character of contingent circumstances in relation to specific provisions of the Qur’an which, superficially, may have been thought to govern such matters. The task faced by Hazrat ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) was to determine whether, or not, the character of the latter actually addressed the character of the former.
Apparently, Hazrat ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) decided that the nature of the hukm of the historical circumstances and contingencies with which the Muslim community was faced at that time was different from the nature of the hukm inherent in the guidance of Surah 59, verses 6-10. In doing this, he was not abrogating or nullifying this aspect of the Qur’an, but, instead, he was seeking to determine the conditions of appropriateness for applying one facet of Quranic guidance rather than some other aspect of such guidance.
Along these same lines, consider the following excerpt from Bukhari which is narrated by Nafi’:
“During the affliction of Ibn Az-Zubair [which took place after the Prophet had passed away], two men came to Ibn 'Umar and said, "The people are lost, and you are the son of 'Umar and a companion of the Prophet, so what stops you from coming out and joining the conflict?" He said, "What stops me is that Allah has prohibited the shedding of my brother’s blood."
They both said, "Didn't Allah say, 'And fight then until there is no more affliction?’
Ibn ‘Umar said "We fought until there was no more affliction and so that worship would be for Allah Alone, while you want to fight until there is affliction and until the worship becomes for other than Allah." (Volume 6, Book 60, Number 40)
Once again, the foregoing tradition brings home the point that the task facing human beings is not just a matter of looking in the Qur’an and applying whatever one likes. One must try to understand the hukm – that is, the reality or governing principle – of both the situation in which one is involved, as well as strive to discover that hukm of the Qur’an which best serves the hukm of life’s circumstances.
This is an expression of ijtihad. This is not an expression of naksh or abrogation.
The issue of trying to struggle toward establishing what is an appropriate frame of reference for tying together certain existential contingencies with various facets of Quranic guidance is a theme which occurs again and again throughout the Qur’an. There are times and circumstances when it is appropriate to apply certain facets of guidance, and there are times and circumstances when it is not appropriate to apply such aspects of guidance.
Everything is about discernment and doing what is appropriate at the right time, and in the right way, and for the right length of time, and with the right intention before some other principle becomes more appropriate for one to pursue as circumstances change. Context and the nature of the contingency of events which come together and give that context the structural character it has is of fundamental importance. It is the context which calls out for relief from Quranic guidance and, therefore, it is, in a sense, the context which establishes the conditions which must be satisfied through the appropriate application of Divine guidance.
If one understands a situation, then, one also understands what one is looking for in the way of spiritual relief. By opening oneself up – in the unbiased manner of taqwa -- to the Divine Word, then, God willing, the solution to that context is given through what is most resonant in the one doing ijtihad in relation to a given situation.
The times for fasting, hajj, prayer, wuzu, zakat, and so on are all to be observed from within a given timeframe of appropriateness. When a given timeframe of appropriateness has passed, then certain guidance is no longer necessarily applicable.
For example, the Qur’an indicates that:
“Worship at fixed times has been enjoined on the believers.” [Qur’an, 4:103]
When the timeframe for a particular instance of worship has passed, then, one moves on to what is appropriate with respect to the changed timeframe. The ritual fast only occurs during the month of Ramadan, and when that timeframe has passed, then, the ritual fast cannot be observed -- although there are provisions for making up what may have been missed due to, say, travel or ill-health or for expiating the transgression of intentionally not fasting during the indicated timeframe. Hajj only occurs within a fixed timeframe, and when that period has passed, the rituals of Hajj are no longer operable – although one still can perform the lesser pilgrimage. The times for saying the five daily prayers exist within a fixed timeframe, and when that window of opportunity passes, then, one has missed the prayer – although one can offer prayers at a later time in the hope that such offerings will be accepted by God in exchange for the fixed prayers that were missed.
Appropriateness changes with circumstances, contexts, peoples, and contingencies. Therefore, the timeframes for the conditions of appropriateness pass into and out of existence. This is not to say that everything is relative or that there are no boundaries of propriety, because there are such boundaries, and God is continually warning people in the Qur’an not to transgress due boundaries. For example:
But whoever seeks to go beyond that, these are they who exceed the limits; [Qur’an, 23:7]
However, there is no principle of naksh or abrogation which is operative in the Qur’an. What is operative is a principle of appropriateness in which as the hukm or reality of circumstances change, then, one must go in search of the appropriate Quranic hukm to address and reflect such changes.
****************
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)