Choice, Causality and Fate: A Sufi Perspective

In a recent discussion, someone posted a quote that, in part, dealt with the issue of fate, and the quote cited seemed to suggest that everything already had been written in the book of life. Someone responded to the quote by wondering how choice fit into the matter.  This latter individual also alluded to the problem of how having to reconcile the idea of choice with the notion that God’s foreknowledge of outcomes would seem to negate the possibility of choice.

There are a number of ways of critically reflecting on the foregoing discussion. First, I remember reading a story about Bobby Fischer, the former world chess champion, who indicated how there was one point in his career when after a given match began, Fischer could see his way to the conclusion of the game, but as Fischer got older, he indicated that he only could see the unfolding of the game up to a couple of moves prior to its endpoint. 

With respect to the earlier part of his career – when he could see the course of a game to its conclusion -- was Fischer saying that his foreknowledge took away the free choices of his opponent? I don’t believe so.

In effect, he was saying that it didn’t matter what his opponent did in the way of this or that move. Fischer understood the tactical lines of the whole game and how that line of play would unfold over time. His opponent was free to choose his or her moves in any way the individual cared to, but those moves would not affect the outcome of the game.

Similarly – but in a much more complicated, richer, and subtle manner – God’s understanding of the game of life is such that Divinity knows the outcome of each of the simultaneous matches (trillions, or more, of them) even as people are free to make whatever choices they like with respect to their journey through life. People’s choices will not alter the overall character of how the game of life unfolds.

Under the foregoing circumstances, choice becomes a matter of trying to understand the tactical and strategic lines of play in the game of life. One can work with those lines of play or one can proceed in opposition to those lines of play, but however one decides to choose, those choices will not alter the nature of the game or its outcome.

If one alters the character of one’s play by the choices one makes, one can affect one’s standing at the end of the game – both for good and ill. – because God is not in competition with us and prefers win-win situations rather than zero-sum games in which there is only one winner. However, irrespective of the choices we make, the overall character of the game won’t change.

There is another way of thinking about how determinate forces and the issue of choice might operate together amicably. More specifically, ‘rizq’ is an Arabic word that some people have translated in terms of the notion of fate.

However, the idea being given expression through ‘rizq’ has more to do with the properties, gifts, events, people, and circumstances which one has been given by God to work with in life. This is somewhat similar to the way in which the pieces on a chessboard -- along with the properties of the board on which the game is played, as well as the features of the place where chess games are played -- are the things with which a chess player has to work.

Rizq is like an attractor basin in chaos theory. On the one hand, the non-linear character of the attractor basin ensures that the overall structure of the formation will be retained across time amidst the various forces of existence (and this accounts for the aspects of one’s life that will not change), while on the other hand, the non-linear dynamics of an attractor basin also permit an array of micro-departures or degrees of freedom to exist in conjunction with the basic properties of the attractor basin that describe one’s life.  

Chaos theory talks about such dual properties in terms of self-similarity rather than self-sameness. Although the overall character of the attractor basin is recognizable despite differences in the way things are manifested from point to point within the attractor basin, the outcome at any given instant is – at least for human beings -- difficult, if not impossible, to predict because of the degrees of freedom which are inherent in an otherwise determinate system.

These degrees of freedom have to do with the choices we make concerning the elements of rizq through which one journeys during the course of one’s lived existence on this plane of existence. One might not be able to alter the general character of one’s existential attractor basin as a function of the choices one makes, but one can have control over how we interact with, or respond to, the forces that form and run through the attractor basin that gives expression to the events of our lives … and this is what one will be held accountable for – the way one responds to the ebb and flow of life.

Or, to take another analogy, life is like those bridge tournaments in which the various contestants who have entered such a tournament play the same preordained hands (i.e., hands that already have been dealt prior to the tournament) at different tables. What matters is not the nature of the hand one draws at any given table, but, rather, what matters is how the hand is played. 

Sufis use the term ‘ayn al-thabita’ to allude to the fixed potential that marks the character of anyone’s rizq and through which the Names and Attributes of God shine to bring forth the manifestations that constitute the prism of one’s life. However, as indicated above, within that fixed potential are the degrees of freedom that give expression to the gift of free choice – but not free will (which is why one requires, and prays for, tawfiq, or enabling assistance, from Allah).

God has an intimate, detailed understanding of the dynamics of any given attractor basin (i.e., person’s life), as well as a detailed understanding of the nature of the dynamics that result from the interplay of billions of such attractor basins (i.e., humanity considered collectively). Divinity can see how the character of our choices amidst the forces inherent in those attractor basins will play out over time, and this sort of understanding does not undermine a person’s freedom to choose how to proceed from moment to moment.

When a parent has an intimate understanding of his or her child, the parent knows what that child is likely to do in any given set of circumstances. That knowledge does not cause a child to choose in this or that way, rather the parent’s knowledge reflects the manner in which the child does, in fact, go about making choices … and so it is with God’s knowledge of the choices we will make in life.  

Does the foregoing mean that, for example, prayer does not work? I don’t believe so since the decision to pray or not to pray is a choice one makes.

Prayer operates within the context of the forces at work in the existential attractor basin that describes our lives. Prayer, itself, is one of those forces, and the decision of whether, or not, to pray is one of the choices a person can make.

Amidst the non-linear properties of a chaotic attractor basin, there are degrees of freedom with respect to the how the flow of events can transpire at any given point within such attractor basin dynamics. Those degrees of freedom will not affect the overall character of how the attractor basin will operate across time, but such degrees of freedom are capable of impacting and altering – within limits -- what takes place at certain points within the generally fixed character of the attractor basin dynamics considered as a whole.

Choosing to pray places one in a position to potentially affect what takes place at a given point within the overall dynamics of attractor basin activity. Whether things will be altered in some way depends on the One Who is in charge of those dynamics, and, since, as indicated previously, there are degrees of freedom within the dynamics of any given attractor basin, then alterations can be introduced into the dynamics without actually changing the fixed features of overall attractor basin dynamics. 

In other words, prayers can be answered even if the answering of those prayers will not alter the fixed features of the general dynamics of life. Reinhold Niebuhr once uttered a prayer that sought assistance from God: to understand the things that can be changed, as well as to learn to accept the things that cannot be changed and, finally, to develop the wisdom needed to appreciate the difference between the two possibilities.

------------

At this point in the discussion, someone voiced some objections to what was being outlined. The individual indicated that it seemed irrational to suppose that there could be uncaused phenomena like choice. This person went on to describe how science is rooted in, and cannot operate, without the assumption that every effect must have a cause, and, therefore, there must be something else which caused choice to occur – whether this ‘something else’ was God or physical/material events.

I responded to the foregoing objections in the following manner. First, I suggested that the notions of rationality and irrationality are often a function of what we believe we understand about the nature of reality. As one’s understanding changes, so too, do one’s ideas about what the terms such as: ‘rational’ or ‘irrational’, give expression to, and this is quite independent of whether such an understanding is actually correct. 

A person’s perspective concerning causality tends to be colored, shaped and oriented by the conceptual framework through which she or he engages the issue of causality. Before 1900, scientists had a very mechanistic notion of causality that formed the heart of classical mechanics. After 1900, beginning with the work of Max Planck, the concept of causality was turned upside down to such an extent that Richard Feynman once advised a young physicists who was trying to understand what was transpiring in the quantum world to not bother with understanding quantum dynamics because no one understands what is going on … just do the calculations. 

Einstein was certain that there were hidden variables in quantum mechanics, but none of his gedanken or ‘thought’ experiments was capable of winning the day and proving the existence of such hidden variables.  Then, along came the phenomenon of quantum entanglement – something that has been experimentally verified in a variety of ways through extremely sophisticated experimental set-ups – and the notion of causality became even more elusive because while quantum entanglement might go some way toward vindicating Einstein’s position on the matter of hidden variable, his ideas also take a hit because the phenomenon of quantum entanglement seems to suggest that something is being communicated in a superluminal manner – that is, faster than the speed of light which is a verboten (forbidden) possibility in modern science – and, consequently, one’s understanding of how reality works as far as cause and effect are concerned become somewhat unstable, blurred and amorphous.

Or, consider the so-called Higgs boson issue (which Leon Lederman misleadingly and problematically dubbed the ‘God particle’). Everyone at CERN in Europe, as well as in many other parts of the world, were excited a number of months ago when the analysis of evidence gathered in 2012 seemed to indicate that the boson had been found. The reason for the excitement is that the Higgs boson has long been considered to be a telltale sign of a field process through which mass was believed to arise.

However, no one has, yet, talked about what properties a particle must have in order for it to be able to interact with the Higgs field – after all, there mass-less particles do exist and, therefore, do not appear to interact with such a field. In short, it takes two to tango, and the presence of a Higgs field is not enough to account for mass since the particle that derives mass through such a field must have certain properties to be receptive to the influences of that kind of field.  

So, what happens to causality under such circumstances? The Higgs field must have certain properties, and a particle must have certain properties in order for mass to arise (at least, this is what the standard model proclaims), so, what actually causes mass when the dynamic interaction of two entities are required to generate mass.?

I had a professor (Morton White) many years ago who talked about the issue of causality. He gave a much simpler example than the Higgs field. He talked about the lighting of a match.

Some might want to point to the force of striking a match as that which causes the match to light. However, if there is not sufficient oxygen, or if the match is not made with the right proportions of sulfur and phosphorus, or if the match is damp, or if the striking surface is not sufficiently irregular, or if the handle of the match is not strong enough, or if there is a stiff wind blowing, or if the person did not use sufficient force, then, the match will not light.

So, where is causality in the foregoing scenario? There is a complex dynamic in which a variety of variables have to work in consort with one another under the right set of circumstances in order for something to happen. 

Choice is also a complex dynamic. When the set of potentials inherent in ayn al-thabita (the fixed potential of a human being) combines with the ‘Fields’ generated by the Divine Names and Attributes that are encountered by our fixed potential on this plane of existence, then like the lighting of a match, the possibility of choice is put into play but not as a function of any simple set of mechanistic notions of cause and effect. To use the words of modern science, choice arises as a field phenomenon that is a function of interacting potentials.  

In fact, one can conjecture that the capacity to choose is inherent in the array of possibilities that constitute the potential of one’s ayn al-thabita. When that potential is activated, we become able to make uncaused choices within certain parameters of possibility which engage the Fields of Being and generate a dynamic within the context of the attractor basins that help give expression to lived life.

From the Sufi/Islamic point of view, God is, of course, the first cause without cause. Rationalists and scientists, naturally, find this sort of idea to be ‘irrational’, but here we all are and, yet, scientists (cosmologists, evolutionists, and neurobiologists) do not have any tenable ideas with respect to how the laws of the universe, or the origins of the universe, or the origins of life, or the origins of consciousness, or the origins of reason, or language, or creativity came into being (and this claim could be backed up but it would take too much space).

It seems irrational to me for so many scientists and rationalists to proclaim that there cannot possibly be an uncaused cause when there is so much that they don’t know about the nature of reality. Moreover, and perhaps more germane to the current discussion, the issue of causality – as indicated earlier -- is not really all that straightforward an issue.

In the Qur’an we are told that God says to a thing “kun” and it becomes.  What is the nature of the ‘thing’ to which God gives the command of ‘kun’?

What the foregoing means or how the dynamics of such causality works or what the structural character of that sort of causality entails is a mystery.  Consequently, whether, or not, choice is a phenomenon that could – within limits – be uncaused remains an open issue.

Certainly, if God is the One Who gave ayn al-thabita its possibilities, then, God caused that potential to be what it is with the characteristics that it has. Nonetheless, there is nothing in all of this indicating that one of the dimensions of such a potential couldn’t be the capacity to choose freely … the capacity might be caused, but the character of what has been caused operates in its own fashion without any further input from Divinity … like a person who is hired by Someone to do work and who is, then, authorized to be his or her own person with respect to subsequent decision-making.

Are we the ‘seeker’ or are we the ‘sought’? Maybe like the issue of causality, it is not a matter of either-or logic … maybe both statements are true. In other words, just as we are simultaneously both caused and free, so too, we are the seekers of Divinity while, simultaneously, God is seeking us as a function of the potentials which have been placed in us and are either are, or are not, realized depending on the nature of the dynamic of seeking and being sought … and the choices we make within that dynamic.

If a quantum entity can be both a wave and a particle, then, why can’t a human being be both caused and free? Given that physicists have not let their ignorance about how wave-particle duality is possible stop their explorations into the mysteries of the physical world, then why should any person let her or his ignorance concerning who and what a human being is stop him or her exploring the mysteries of the spiritual world.

Scientists and rationalists like to refer to spiritual exploration as being quixotic and rife with irrationalities. And, while, undoubtedly, there are many theological discussions which, admittedly, are steeped in such irrationalities, nevertheless, perhaps, scientists and rationalists should take a look in the mirror at their own quixotic meanderings with respect to trying – and utterly failing – to explain the origin of almost anything of importance (e.g., the universe, the physical constants, life, consciousness, intelligence, reason, creativity, language, morality, or the mystical). Theories are plentiful with respect to such issues, but truths are few and far between.

Shari'ah: A Muslim's Declaration of Independence - Part 6

The Qur’an

Many people want to treat the ayats of the Qur’an as an absolute list of injunctions which serve as rules for life that must be applied by everyone in the same way – which usually means ‘their’ way – with respect to the contingencies of life. In addition, all too many believe they have a God-given right to police the manner in which others go about pursuing shari‘ah.

There are, of course, certain themes in the Qur’an which are absolute and, as such, do not change. For example: There is only one God, and Muhammad is a messenger and Prophet of God; the Qur’an is a Book of truth; there is a purpose to life; all of life involves a struggle of choosing between good and evil; human beings will be held accountable for what they do and do not do; purifying oneself plays an integral role in an individual’s spiritual journey; acquiring, and acting in accordance with, character traits such as humility, equitability, patience, forbearance, forgiveness, generosity, integrity, honesty, gratitude, love, friendship, compassion, dependence on God, courage, sincerity, and steadfastness are essential tools for not only dealing with the difficulties of life but assisting one in one’s search for truth, justice, essential identity, and the realization of one’s unique spiritual capacity; faith is not only a condition which constitutes more than an exercise of blind belief but actually gives expression, if God wishes, to an array of modalities of understanding, insight, and wisdom concerning the nature of existence; empirical observation and reflecting or contemplating on what one observes is something which God encourages rather than discourages; one’s intention should always be to serve God in whatever one does; one should seek to oppress neither others nor oneself; daily prayers, the fast of Ramazan, the payment of zakat, and the observance of the rites of Hajj all have the capacity to assist one to make progress along the spiritual path.

All of the foregoing is entailed by the process of shari‘ah. Nevertheless, there is not just one way to engage such challenges – nor is there anything in the Qur’an which indicates that one must either reduce the possible ways of engaging shari‘ah to what has been decided by, say, the five major madhhabs (i.e., schools of jurisprudence) or that one must necessarily insist that shari ah should be construed in terms of a legal system, or that one is entitled to impose one’s understanding of shari‘ah onto other people … even if there may be a majority of people in a community who wish to oppress and compel others in such a manner.

The Qur’an is not a collective revelation but an individual event. This is true not only with respect to the life of the Prophet, but this is also true in the life of anyone who seeks to engage the Qur’an in a sincere manner … even though, from time to time in the Qur’an, individuals are being referred to collectively -- both generally [O humankind] or in particular circumstances [O Ye who believe].

It is individual fitra – that is, one’s primordial spiritual capacity -- which responds to Divine disclosure. We come to understand our duties of care with respect to all of Creation through our relationship with God. It is through our individual commitment to God that we are prepared to acknowledge the right which other aspects of Creation have over us, as well as the rights which we have over other facets of Creation.

Divine guidance is directed toward helping individuals to engage life as best they can and to apply such guidance to their individual lives as best they can. Forbidding the evil and encouraging the good are part of the discourse of community for, as the Qur’an indicates, one should “enjoin the good and forbid the evil, and bear patiently that which befalls you; surely these acts require courage.” [Qur’an, 31: 17]

However, these actions of forbidding evil and encouraging good carry no authorization which justifies a person seeking to enforce onto others one’s expectations concerning evil and the good with respect to how such people will conduct themselves in relation to matters of Deen. If this were not so, the Qur’an would not be indicating in the same context that forbidding evil and encouraging good must be pursued through patience and courage.

Forbidding the evil and encouraging the good must be done in accordance with an adab through which one uses kindness, respect, wisdom, and a beautiful form of communication that is alluded to in the Qur’an when speaking about such matters with others – namely, “Call to the way of your Lord with wisdom and goodly exhortation, and have disputations with them in the best manner.” [Qur’an, 16.125]

Moreover, when one comes to discover that such communications are not welcome, then, one should say peace and leave those individuals alone. As the Qur’an indicates:

“So turn away from them and say, Peace, for they shall soon come to know.” [Qur’an, 43:89]

“And the servants of the Beneficent God are they who walk on the earth in humbleness, and when the ignorant address them, they say: Peace.” [Qur’an, 25:63]

In asserting that Sacred Law and shari‘ah primarily involve an individual struggle and not a collective one – although it is an individual struggle which has implications for the collective -- I am seeking to encourage the good. In claiming that Sacred Law and shari‘ah should not be forcibly imposed on people I am seeking to forbid the evil.

“And (as for) those who follow the right direction, He increases them in guidance and gives them their guarding (against evil). [Qur’an, 47:17]

The words of Allah are the forms which issue forth from Kun and give rise to the manifest and the unmanifest. The hukm – that is, the governing principle of a given facet of reality – of such words is the authority of the truth of meaning which is being given expression through the names or linguistic forms of the Qur’an.

Authority for anything can only be given via the truth. One must grasp the truth to grab hold of the hukm or authority or governing principle of a given portion of text or word of the Qur’an.

Truth cannot come through human interpretation. Truth can only come through an understanding which is granted by Divine Generosity. As the Qur’an indicates:

“We raise by grades whom We will, and over every lord of knowledge, there is one more knowing.” [Qur’an, 12: 76]

“We shall show them Our signs upon the horizons and in themselves, until it is clear to them that God is the Real [Qur’an, 41:53]

“The Real has come, and the unreal has vanished away. Lo! Falsehood is ever bound to vanish.” [17:81]

When human beings seek to interpret the Qur’an, human conceptual constructs are being imposed upon Divine guidance. As long as human interference is present, then, the unreal will not vanish away.

To interpret the Qur’an is to interfere with the process through which God discloses the Divine signs upon the horizons and within us. It is the Real which banishes falsehood, not the interpretive efforts of human beings.

It is God Who raises by degrees and grades of knowledge. This process of being raised is not done through the process of interpretation but through the act of sincerely listening to that which God is communicating to humankind.

The hukm or the governing authority of a given truth or reality influences the heart through the qualities of that truth and not through the need for compulsion or force. This is why there is ‘no compulsion in Deen’ because there is no need for compulsion when the heart is attracted by truth, and when the heart is not so attracted, no amount of compulsion can bring such a heart to an understanding of the truth.

Linguistic forms of Arabic are not the bearers of meaning, but, rather, they are portals through which Divine meanings may enter one’s life. Linguistic forms constitute the structural character of the portal that gives expression to part of the Divine meaning which encompasses but extends beyond the portal through which one initially accesses that Ocean of Truth lying beneath the linguistic surface. In short, Quranic words are portals to a non-linguistic wisdom which, if God wishes, informs a person’s understanding of the linguistic form that serves as a covering for the portal.

“The Faithful Spirit has descended with it upon your heart that you may be of the warners … in plain Arabic language.” [Qur’an, 26:193-194]

The warnings inherent in the Qur’an are in plain Arabic language, but much more descends on the heart than just warnings. As the Qur’an informs us:

“O humankind! There has come to you a direction from your Lord, and a healing for the diseases in the hearts, and a guidance, and a mercy for the Believers.” [Qur’an, 10:57]

The Qur’an means ‘that which is recited’. The word: ‘Qur’an’ is an active verb.

The Word of God is recited by God to the heart of the receptive individual, and, as an active verb, that recitation gives expression, if God wishes, to a process of acting on the heart of the individual. The recitation of the Qur’an is a process of mediating between the receptive heart and the Author of such communications.

As an active verb, the Qur’an speaks to us now. The Qur’an is not a book of the past but, rather, it is a form of communication which is taking place in the present.

The Qur’an is perpetually new in its descent upon the receptive heart, but for those who are not properly receptive, then, their hearts are made to engage the Qur’an in a distorted manner that filters the Divine communications through the biases of unbelief and conceptual or ideological and theological idol-making – that is, through the filters of that which hides the truth which is shining forth. This is the nature of unbelief … to hide the truth, and this is what a reciter of the Qur’an does whose heart is not receptive with his or her whole being with respect to what is being communicated by God through the Qur’an.

In this respect, the Qur’an states: “What? Is the person whose heart Allah has opened to Islam, so that such an individual is in a light from his Lord, like the hard-hearted? Nay, woe to those whose hearts are hard against the remembrance of Allah, those are in clear error.” [Qur’an, 39:22]

God indicated that the heart of His believing servant does contain Him. This descent of the truth of God’s Word into the heart of the believing servant is at the heart of nuzul or descent, for God is truth, and that which resonates with the truth when it has descended and is present, does contain God to whatever extent that truth has been realized.

The Qur’an continually brings new, better understandings and knowledge to the heart of the sincere believer without annulling any of the truths which have been brought to the hearts of believers previously. Moreover, all such meanings, knowledge, and truth have been inscribed from the beginning within the infinite plenitude of the Word.

Each believing heart has a different structural capacity – or fitra -- for hearing the Qur’an’s Ocean of Truth. The Truth of God’s Word does not change – indeed, “The Words of God do not change [la tabdila fi kalimati Llah]” [Qur’an, 10:64]. Nonetheless, the unchanging truth is engaged by different capacities which leads to an array of understandings which give expression to various dimensions and facets of that unchanging Word – all of which are true to precisely the extent to which those understandings give expression to such truth.

The Qur’an says: “And do not make haste with the Qur’an before its revelation is made complete to you and say: O my Lord! increase me in knowledge.” [Qur’an, 20:114]

One is being counseled to not make haste or to not be in a hurry with the Qur’an. One must exercise patience, diligence, sincerity, and have taqwa, or piety, concerning the process of laying oneself bare to be able to be open to what is being communicated through the Qur’an. One must allow oneself to marinate in the juices of Divine communications before their meanings will be made complete to one – that is, before understanding will descend from God to the heart of the individual.

The true reciter of the Qur’an is Allah. Consequently, the individual must wait for God’s recitation to enter one’s heart in the form of understanding and knowledge.

One cannot force this issue through compulsion. Moreover, no power of reflection, in and of itself, is capable of grasping truth.

Truth must be bestowed through a Divine recitation to the heart. One recites to provide an opportunity for the Reciter – that is, God -- to communicate through the Divine recitation in a manner which will move and influence one’s heart.

The knowledge must come from God and not from interpretation. When we interpret God’s communications, we actually leave the truth and/or hide that truth in the meanderings of one’s own meanings.

The Qur’an says: “And who is more unjust than he who forges a lie against Allah or gives the lie to His communications; surely the unjust will not be successful? [Qur’an, 6:21]. To interpret the Qur’an is, in effect, to forge a lie with respect to the Word of God.

In a sense, there is something like a spiritual vibration which is set up between the recited word of God and the internal faculties of the individual. When an individual is receptive to being guided – that is, when the individual has taqwa or piety -- then, God willing, there is an entrainment process which occurs wherein the faculties of the individual are shaped and colored by the resonances of Divine guidance, and the resulting condition is a species of knowledge which comes from Allah. In this regard, the Qur’an states:

“O humankind. We have created you from a male and a female and made you tribes and peoples so that you may know each other; surely, the most honorable among you with Allah is the one who has taqwa.” [Qur’an, 49:13] –

that is, the one who is most careful with respect to one’s Deen or relationship with Divinity.

All tajalli – that is, all flashes, disclosures, or manifestations of truth -- arise from encounters with the Word of God. The two books of the Word of God – i.e., revelation -- are the Qur’an and Creation or Nature. The individual must seek to open himself or herself up to the truth being manifested through both … for this is what revelation is – the disclosure and manifestation of truth.

The spiritual capacity of the individual must be freed from all biases and sources of distortion in order to be open to the delineation of truth which shines through Nature and the Qur’an. Indeed:

“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)

The Qur’an and Nature/Creation are barazikh. Barazikh is the plural of barzakh which refers to any juncture that simultaneously separates and joins two things – in this case, Divinity and humanity.

Considered from another direction, manzil is an Arabic term which, literally speaking, refers to a place where one gets off. In the current context, a manzil is the place through which God descends, via the Qur’an, toward the individual such that the Divine communication, in a sense, gets off at the point of human engagement.

The letters, words, phrases, sentences, verses, and chapters of the Qur’an are all manzil. They are the portals or stations through which Divine communication descends to the individual.

In addition, the heart of the individual is also a manzil or place of descent for Divine revelation. Indeed,

“Wa huwa ma’akum aynama kuntum. (And He is with you wherever you are.” [57:4]

When the individual’s faculties of understanding are purified, then, according to the individual’s capacity and the Grace of God [who gives by degrees], what is grasped is an understanding of truth on a certain level and not an interpretation of that truth. In other words, such understanding is a truth limited by individual capacity, degree of purity, and God’s Grace. There is a resonance which is present between the individual’s purified faculties and the truth – a resonance which is not present in the usual sense of understanding concerning someone’s rational interpretation of something.

If the Qur’an does not descend upon the heart, then, it descends no further than the throat. To comply with the Sacred Law or Truth – which is the purpose and task of shari‘ah -- is to submit to the truth of things according to one’s purified capacity to understand such truth as this is communicated through the Word of God … whether this is in the form of the Qur’an or Nature/Creation.

As such, Sacred Law is not a matter of judicial rulings, pronouncements, and/or the compulsory imposition of such rulings and pronouncements on other human beings. Rather, Sacred Law is about the Truth, and Deen is the way prescribed for allowing human beings – each according to her or his capacity and the degree of God’s Grace -- to approach, engage, and come to understand the nature of such Sacred Law as it is manifested in any given set of circumstances.

Truth, of whatever kind and on whatever level, is the Sacred Law giving expression to the order, nature, and potential of Creation. In the Qur’an each article, verb, particle, word, or phrase constitutes individual portals of truth which manifest, if God wishes, tajalli -- flashes or expressions of truth – to the individual. This is why letters, phrases, and parts of sentences in the Qur’an communicate guidance not only in and of themselves but, as well, in the context of the verses and surahs in which they appear.

The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) who is the paradigm of human perfection [uswa hasana], was described by his wife, ‘Ayesha [may Allah be pleased with her] as having a nature which was the Qur’an. To reflect [in understanding, action, and character] the Qur’an according to one’s spiritual capacity is to submit to the Sacred Law.

The realized fitra is that primordial spiritual capacity upon which the Qur’an has descended and through which God has made truth manifest according to the capacity of an individual’s fitra and God’s Grace. The realized fitra recites the Qur’an in the form of applying the communications from God to the circumstances of life and, in doing so, gives expression to the Sacred Law. This is the qirat, or mode of Quranic recitation, which is most pleasing to God.

“Most surely it is an honored Qur’an, in a book that is protected. None shall touch it save the purified ones. (Qur’an, 56:77-79)

The Qur’an gives expression to the truths which are capable, God willing, of assisting the sincere seeker to recover the internal order or sacred law governing spiritual identity, capacity, and purpose with which human beings have lost contact … and with which we no longer resonate. The Qur’an is intended as a means of guidance to assistance human beings to reclaim an understanding of our original status as God’s Creation and all that this entails.

The Qur’an applauds “those who are constant at their prayers” [Qur’an, 70:23], but these prayers are not just the five daily prayers. Rather, true prayer or remembrance is the constant state of immersion in God’s presence, and, more importantly, there needs to be a realization that the prayers do not belong to the individual but, rather, are acts of God which are being manifested through the individual as a locus of manifestation.

“Lo! Ritual worship preserves one from lewdness and iniquity, and verily, remembrance of Allah is more important. [Qur’an, 29:45]

Problems associated with any of the foregoing tend to arise from two sources. The first problem involves the condition of al-ghafla [forgetting, distraction, or inattention]. This condition or state refers to the inclination of human beings to lose focus with respect to our relationship with Divinity. For example, Surah 20, verse 115 of the Qur’an indicates that Adam “forgot” the pact which had been made with God – a forgetfulness which alludes and resonates with the Quranic ayat in which the spirits are asked: “Alastu bi Rabikkum – “Am I not your Lord?” And the spirits answered: “Yes, we testify” [Qarbala]. [Qur’an, 7:172]

The second source of problems which may arise in conjunction with the process of seeking to realize one’s essential and primordial spiritual nature is entailed by the idea of al-isti‘jal – that is, haste. As the Qur’an indicates:

“And man prays for evil as he ought to pray for good, and man is ever hasty.” [Qur’an, 17:11]

‘Ubuda is a spiritual station through which perfect expression is given to the Sacred Law according to the capacity of an individual’s God-given fitra. The true servant, or ‘abd of God, is one who experiences a knowing awareness that the character of truth which is being manifested through that station of servanthood or locus of manifestation belongs wholly to God and not to the individual.

He who knows himself knows his Lord – man ‘arafa nafsahu ‘arafa rabbahu. Such knowledge discloses the condition of ‘ubuda in which there is the realization that a‘yan thabita – the fixed form of one’s created nature -- is no more than a locus of manifestation for giving expression to Divine realities in accordance with the God-given capacities and limitations of such fixed forms.

Each of us has always been what we are in terms of the possibilities which are encompassed by our fitra or primordial spiritual capacity. However we have not always realized the nature of the truth concerning the modality of our potential for giving expression to such Sacred Law and all that this Sacred Law entails.

The Qur’an is a source of guidance which, if God wishes, assists an individual to struggle toward the full, active realization of the Sacred Law which is inherent in the essence of every human being. The Qur’an maps out the nature, principles, warnings, possibilities, understandings, wisdom, insights, limits, and adab of the shari‘ah, or spiritual journey, through which one struggles and strives for realization of the Sacred Law, and as such, the Qur’an – and, therefore, shari‘ah -- is an expression of the Sacred Law.

The Sacred Law gives expression to the Qur’an which, in turn, delineates the nature of the way through which human beings may, if God wishes, come to realize the nature of truth to varying degrees. This process of shari‘ah leads back, if God wishes, to a condition of spiritual realization concerning the manner in which the Sacred Law gives expression to all truths under appropriate circumstances – including:

“O people, you are the poor toward God, and God is the Independent, the Praiseworthy.” [Qur’an, 35:15] …

******************

The tradition of tafsir deals extensively with what is known in Arabic as asbab al-nuzul [the circumstances or occasions through which revelation emerged]. It is supposed by some that without reference to this context of revelation, then, most of the verses of the Qur’an would be susceptible to any and all forms of interpretation.

However, the occasion surrounding the emergence of a given instance of revelation only serves as the locus of manifestation for such instances of revelation. Therefore, one must distinguish between the locus of manifestation and that which is manifested through that locus.

However, to make revelation a function of the circumstances of revelation would be inappropriate. If one reduces the former [that is, what is manifested] to the latter [that is, the locus of manifestation], then, the locus of manifestation tends to become that which determines, restricts, shapes, and orients revelation. Approaching things in this manner seeks to assign a greater role to the lesser reality while relegating the greater Truth to becoming a servant of, and irrevocably limited by, a lesser realm of being.

Is there a relationship between the locus of manifestation [i.e., historical circumstances] and that which is manifested [i.e., revelation]? Yes, sometimes – but not necessarily always – there is a resonance between the two, and certainly, there are aspects of that locus of manifestation [i.e., the circumstances through which revelation is manifested] which are illuminated by the light of guidance which is being given expression through those circumstances. Nonetheless, the lights of guidance have their own reality, and once manifested, those lights communicate truths beyond that which is being illuminated with respect to any particular locus of manifestation or immediate set of historical circumstances.

Contrary to the worries of some individuals – worries which were alluded to earlier -- not just any understanding of revelation becomes appropriate if one leaves aside the particulars of the historical context through which a given instance of revelation arose. The task of the individual is not to interpret the Qur’an, but, rather, one should be struggling to open oneself to objectively receive what God is seeking to communicate to one through revelation.

If one permits God to teach or guide one through revelation – which is, after all, the whole point of revelation – then one understands the truth according to one’s capacity, and, as such, there is no interpretation. What occurs, if one proceeds in this fashion, is an understanding or insight which comes from the light of revelation and is limited only by one’s current spiritual condition, along with one’s ultimate spiritual capacity, and, most importantly, by the degree to which God chooses to disclose aspects of that truth to the individual.

One does not have to use the historical context through which revelation emerges to place limits on the possible meanings of the Qur’an. Divinity is the One Who infuses the Qur’an with its meanings and, therefore, limits of appropriateness or degrees of freedom.

Some of these degrees of freedom are imposed by Divinity in terms of the extent to which Grace is conferred on a person during an individual’s engagement of the Qur’an, and vice versa. Some of these limits of appropriateness or degrees of freedom are introduced through the spiritual condition and the spiritual capacity of the individual.

Consequently, when the Qur’an is sincerely engaged, one cannot place just any meaning one wishes onto the Qur’an, and this remains true irrespective of whether, or not, one understands the historical circumstances surrounding the occasion of revelation. Understanding is a function of the truth – whether written large or small – and there are dimensions of all revelation which extend beyond the historical occasion of revelation.

In fact, I think that expecting people to learn the entire history of the occasions surrounding revelation in order to be able to understand revelation is somewhat impractical. God is communicating the nature of Sacred Law to each human being through the Qur’an, and such nature has meanings that may be considered independently of the occasions of revelation.

Obviously, a person’s understanding might be deepened and complemented through knowledge of the historical circumstances which are transpiring at the time of revelation. However, the scope of any given instance of revelation is not restricted to the particulars which are occurring when such revelation issues forth.

Moreover, oftentimes, the closest that some commentators are able to “place” certain revelations is in terms of whether a given revelation took place during the Meccan period or during the Medinan period. I am not certain how such a general placing of the occasion of descent of revelation can necessarily inform one about “the” necessary meanings of the revelation … although some of the meanings of such revelation may address various aspects of such historical circumstances.

There were many, many things that were happening during the general period of time through which the Qur’an was made manifest … politically, legally, culturally, socially, individually, and among different communities. Consequently, why should one select just one small facet of such events and proclaim that those circumstances should have the predominant controlling authority with respect to meanings and truths in relation to the nature of Quranic guidance?

Even in those instances where a given revelation can be historically placed in a precise manner with respect to what was historically transpiring at the time during which a given instance of revelation descended on the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), the meaning of such guidance cannot be circumscribed by those historical events. The created particular [that is, historical circumstance] cannot circumscribe or exhaust the significance of the uncreated universal [that is, Divine Guidance].

The Qur’an says: “What is with you comes to an end, but what is with God remains.” [16:96]

*********************

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.
****************