Some General Issues Surrounding Shari‘ah and Fiqh
As far as I have been able to determine, the Qur’an mentions the term shari‘ah just once.
In Surah 45, verse 18 one finds:
“O Prophet, We have put you on the Right Way (Shari‘ah) concerning the religion, so follow it, and do not yield to the desires of ignorant people;”
In Arabic, the noun shari‘ah refers to a place where animals would come for purposes of being able to drink water. The related verb shar’a involves the act of ‘taking a drink’. By extension, both the noun and the verb forms allude to a path, road or way which leads to the place where one may take a drink.
There is another word, shari’, which is derived from the same root as the two previous words. This word refers to a lawgiver, legislator, or one who determines the law, but it also can refer to a street, path, or way.
If one combines the foregoing possibilities, one arrives at something along the following lines. Shari‘ah is a way, path, or road which leads to a place at which one may drink that which has come from the One who has established the principles governing the individual, the way, the journey along the way, the process of drinking, and what awaits the individual at journey’s end.
A lawgiver need not be one who passes legal injunctions. A lawgiver might be the one who organizes a situation so that it operates according to the possibilities which have been built into a given situation. As such, a lawgiver is one who establishes the degrees of freedom within which such a set of circumstances may unfold over time.
Gravity, electromagnetism, the weak force, and the strong force establish the degrees of freedom which appear to be involved in the way the physical world is manifested under a variety of circumstances. The regularities to which these four physical forces give expression are described in terms of laws, but these are laws concerning the nature of the ordered character of the physical realm … they are not legal injunctions.
One needs to take such regularities into consideration when seeking to pursue various possibilities, but each of the forces contains degrees of freedom which permit people to engage them in various ways. Scientists probe what is possible in this sense, and new technologies often emerge from such exploration – technologies which seek to take advantage of the properties and qualities of such regularities – hopefully, for purposes that are to the benefit of all humankind.
The same is true in the realm of spirituality. There are a variety of non-physical forces which act on, and through, human beings. These forces give expression to an array of regularities and degrees of freedom which permeate and envelop lived, spiritual existence.
Shari‘ah is a process of probing what is possible within the spiritual realm in order to be able to discover that which may assist an individual to come to an understanding of the properties and qualities to which the realm of spirituality gives expression and which might be utilized for human benefit. Just as scientific explorations of the physical world may, God willing, lead to many ways -- within certain limits -- for engaging physical regularities, so, too, a rigorous exploration of the spiritual world may lead to many ways – within certain limits – for engaging spiritual regularities and from which, God willing, human beings may derive benefit.
Some individuals distinguish two realms when it comes to the order of the created universe. On the one hand, there is that which is encompassed by what is referred to as: amr takwini -- which alludes to the manner in which truth or reality is given expression through the realm of existent things. In this realm, the truth and reality of what is cannot be other than what it is.
When God says:
“I have not created human beings nor jinn except that they may worship Me.” [Qur’an, 51:56-57],
this is an expression of the truth and reality of one of the dimensions of existence to which amr takwini gives expression. As such, this truth remains a reality irrespective of whether, or not, human beings and jinn seek to realize their God-given potential to worship Divinity.
Another expression of the truth or reality of amr takwini is alluded to in the following ayat of the Qur’an. “The seven heavens and the earth and all that is therein praise God and there is nothing that does not glorify God in praise, but you do not understand its manner of praise.” [Qur’an, 17:44]
All of created reality glorifies God, and this remains so irrespective of whether, or not, we are aware of this or understand that such is the case.
In fact, the whole of the Qur’an is an expression of amr takwini. Indeed, “Allah speaks the truth and guides to the way.” [Qur’an, 33:4], and the way to which Allah guides those who are fortunate enough to be open to this process is that which leads to realizing the truth which is manifested through the Words which God has spoken in the form of Divine books of revelation, such as the Qur’an, or in the form of the essential realities of created existence.
The realm of amr takwini cannot be other than it is. “The Words of God do not change [la tabdila fi kalimati Llah]” [Qur’an, 10:64]
In contrast to amr takwini, there is another Arabic term which is used by some commentators, and this is known as amr taklifi. This involves the normative realm of things, and, in fact, this realm gives expression to the manner in which people choose to acknowledge or accept the truth and realities of amr takwini, or that realm gives expression to the manner in which people choose to reject – in part or whole -- the truths and realities of amr takwini.
Shari‘ah is an expression of amr takwini which has the capacity, God willing, to guide individuals in relation to the problems of spiritual navigation which characterize the realm of amr taklifi. However, having said this, one should not suppose that shari‘ah is incumbent on anyone or that anyone can be compelled to submit to shari‘ah.
There is no path to the truth except through truth. As such, shari‘ah is a methodological set of truths which are capable, if God wishes, of leading an individual to the realization of the larger Truth of which shari‘ah – in its sense as a path or way -- is but one expression.
The aforementioned set of truths cannot be reduced down to any one way of approaching the truth. At the same time, the degrees of freedom which are inherent in the nature of shari‘ah are all in compliance with the Quranic guidance which stipulates:
“Go into the houses by their doors and be careful with respect to Allah, that you may be successful.” [Qur’an, 2:189]
To whatever extent an individual is able, by the Grace of Allah, to discover, adhere to, and apply the realities inherent in shari‘ah, then, to that extent is such an individual able to struggle toward realizing the truths of amr takwini. To whatever extent an individual chooses to reject and/or not apply the realities inherent in shari‘ah, then, to that extent will the person be kept distant, if God so wishes, from the truths and realities of amr takwini.
Some people tend to confuse the unalterable nature of the truths inherent in the methodology of shari‘ah with the realm in which choices are made and proceed to try to argue that one is under compulsion to follow a given path of shari‘ah. When this sort of confusion occurs, people are conflating the unalterable character of shari‘ah – which is an expression of amr takwini -- with the spiritual tasks and challenges of the normative realm – which is an expression of amr taklifi – and, thereby, such people are seeking to claim that normative issues are of an unalterable and mandatory nature, as well – which is why they seek to make shari‘ah compulsory.
The compulsory force which is being read into the imperative mood in certain ayats of the Qur’an often are confusing the metaphysical realities which are being alluded to through such ayats with the issue of normative choice with which God has endowed to all human beings. In other words, the Divine ordering or determining of the Created universe gives expression to the ontological order of things and cannot be other than it is [it has been ordained as such … it is the truth of things], and this remains so irrespective of what human beings do or say. Nevertheless, human beings are entirely free to acknowledge, or to not acknowledge, such truths and realities.
When God says that the nature of some aspect of Created existence is such and such, then, human beings are being told something about the nature of amr takwini which is entirely independent of our understanding concerning such things. When God encourages or warns or urges or seeks to persuade human beings to pay attention to such realities, this is not an order, but, rather, this gives expression to guidance concerning a path which, if God wishes, may carry one to understanding the way things are.
There is a difference between a Divine decree or determination or order which gives expression to the truth of reality – i.e., what reality is irrespective of what humans say or do – and a Divine encouragement/urging to do that which is in one’s best interests but which can still be resisted by a human being. The latter is a normative issue, and, therefore, it is not compulsory [i.e., it is a matter of choice], whereas the former is metaphysical and sufficient no matter what human beings may think, say, or do about the way reality is.
A person does not have to believe in gravity in order for gravity to govern what that person can and cannot do. This will remain so irrespective of whether, or not, the individual likes this aspect of the way things are and irrespective of whether, or not, the individual accepts the idea of gravity as being an expression of the truth of things.
Recognizing that shari‘ah is the way to truth because it is an expression of the truth is one thing. Claiming that, therefore, people can and should be compelled to obey shari‘ah is an entirely different matter and, as indicated previously, confuses the ontological realm with the normative realm.
All sin is a dysfunctional expression of the normative realm – that is, the choices we make -- concerning our engagement of the ontological realm – that is, the way things are. Sin interferes with the process of working toward, or realizing, or coming to an understanding of the reality of things. Sin is problematic because of the manner in which it distorts, biases, and camouflages the nature of truth, and the path to truth, and our grasp of the truth.
“Evil is the likeness of the people who reject Our communications and are unjust to their own souls.” [Qur’an 7:177]
The communications being referred to in the foregoing ayat are not just the Divine revelations which have been sent to humankind. The communications being referred to allude to whatever words of God that may be issued through the command of “Kun” – that is, be or become – to which the Created universe gives expression.
Sin is a transgression against the Sacred Order of the Created universe in a manner which is similar to instances in which violations of the law of gravity constitute transgressions against the Sacred Order of the Created Universe. There are boundaries of transgression which have been set up as the natural order of things, and if one crosses those boundaries, then, there are problematic ramifications arising out of such transgressions.
When one fails to observe the boundaries of transgression associated with gravity, then, problematic ramifications of a physical nature arise. When one fails to observe the boundaries of transgression associated with human potential and identity, then, problematic ramifications of a moral, spiritual, and epistemological nature arise as we become deaf, dumb and blind to the truth of things.
Sin is whatever gets in the way of our understanding the true reality of Being. Sin is whatever gets in the way of our ability to access certain dimensions of truth. Sin is whatever gets in the way of our doing justice to creation (including ourselves), and sin is whatever gets in the way of our doing proper service to the purpose of Creation.
Sin leaves its imprint and influence upon us, just as ignoring the law of gravity can leave its imprint and influence upon us. Ignoring these physical and spiritual principles can lead to deadly consequences.
Sin affects our capacity to understand truth or to realize our spiritual potential and our essential identity, or to develop the stations of character which all serve as supports to the basic struggle and striving to grasp the truth of things … to grasp the sacred order and principles of the Universe. This is the Sacred Law toward which the Qur’an is seeking to draw our attention.
Only about 500 [600 according to some scholars] of the 6,219 verses of the Qur’an have what is said to be a ‘legal’ element to them. Most of these 500-600 verses involve various aspects of different rituals of worship -- involving wuzu, prayer and times of prayer, zakat, Hajj, fasting, and dietary restrictions. When one subtracts these ayats involving guidance concerning rituals of worship from the aforementioned set of 500-600 verses, one is left with approximately 80 verses which involve other issues such as: contracts, marriage, divorce, inheritance, the giving of testimony, adultery, fornication, the use of alcohol, and forms of punishment.
If we leave aside the vast majority of the aforementioned 500-600 Quranic verses that concern rituals of worship and just focus on the 80, or so, verses which involve matters other than the basic pillars of Islam, one needs to ask several fundamental questions. For example, what evidence is there in the Qur’an which demonstrates that the 80 verses in question must take priority over the many other forms of spiritual guidance which are given in the Qur’an? Or, approached from a slightly different direction, what evidence is there in the Qur’an that any of these 80 verses cannot be modulated in various ways as a function of applying the many verses of the Qur’an – which are far more than 80 in number -- that deal with matters of: love, forgiveness, patience, humility, nobility, kindness, generosity, compassion, tolerance, sincerity, respect for others, peace, harmony, wisdom, reconciliation, gratitude, and the like? Or, approached from a still different juncture, what evidence is there in the Qur’an which demonstrates that many of the specific indications being expressed through the 80 verses in question were necessarily intended for all people, in all circumstances, across all times rather than constituting specific guidance for the people who lived in the time of the Prophet?
When God addresses people in the Qur’an with phrases such as: “O ye who believe”, how do we know what the referent of “ye” is? Does it refer to just the believers in the times of the Prophet, or does it refer to all believers in all times and circumstances, and how does one know which is the case?
Moreover, given the physical absence of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) in today’s world, even if one were to know which of the foregoing possibilities is true, does anyone today really have the spiritual authority to impose such directives on other human beings? How does one go about demonstrating the grounds of such alleged authority?
The spiritual authority of the Prophet in such matters is one thing. The spiritual authority of non-Prophets in such matters may be quite another issue – in fact, with respect to the latter sort of scenario, such authority may be non-existent.
Or, let’s ask another question. If one wishes to treat the aforementioned 80 verses as legal injunctions which are to be forcibly imposed on human beings, then, why should one not treat as legal injunctions -- which also should be forcibly imposed upon people -- all of the Quranic directives concerning patience, love, forgiveness, tolerance, gratitude, humility, and so on? In other words, even if, for purposes of discussion, one were to entertain the idea that there might be aspects of Deen which people are to be forcibly compelled to obey – something which I believe the Qur’an clearly prohibits – why are only certain dimensions of Quranic guidance to be compulsory?
The Qur’an gives great emphasis to the importance of developing qualities of character. In fact, the Qur’an gives far more attention to the issue of character than it directs toward matters of theft, adultery, and drunkenness.
So, should one be every bit as punitive with respect to people’s failure to display qualities of, for example, kindness, love, gratitude, humility, forgiveness, and tolerance in the same manner as many aspects of the Muslim community wish to do with respect to moral failings which lead to drunkenness, adultery, or theft? And, if not, then, why not -- given that the entire Qur’an gives expression to guidance?
Unfortunately, I suspect there are all too many individuals in all too many Muslim communities who might find such an approach to things very enticing so that not only would one, for instance, be able to beat men if they don’t have a beard – even though nowhere in the Qur’an is such guidance given – but such a perspective might also lead to punishing people, in some way, for not pursuing Islam in accordance with the manner in which such self-appointed experts believed that others should behave.
If someone is not kind enough, then beat them. If someone is not tolerant enough, then give them 50 lashes. If someone is not forgiving enough, then stone them.
Of course, one may want to be careful about that for which one wishes. After all, if one pursued the foregoing form of logic, then, one might have to beat the beaters because they were not being sufficiently kind. One might also have to consider giving 50 lashes to the ones administering the lashes because they were not sufficiently tolerant toward the ones they were lashing. Moreover, one might have to think about stoning the stoners because they were not being sufficiently forgiving of the ones whom they were stoning.
If someone wears fingernail polish or lipstick, or if someone does not wear hijab, then, many theologian, religious scholars, and mullahs want to punish such people. Yet, nowhere in the Qur’an does one find any authority or justification – other than that which is invented and, then, imposed onto a Qur’an which is silent concerning these matters -- to punish people in such a fashion with respect to these kinds of issues.
One should not construe the questions being raised in the foregoing as being tantamount to advocating some form of libertine approach to society in which people are to be free, with impunity, to be able to do whatever they like. Rather, the questions which are being raised have to do with the very complex problem of what are the permissible ways, or degrees of freedom, through which one might engage the guidance of the Qur’an.
What degrees of freedom does the Qur’an permit? Who gets to decide this, and what is the justification for doing things in one way rather than another?
What is entailed by the issue of Deen and what is entailed by the regulation of public space or the commons? Are the two necessarily the same? Is shari‘ah primarily a matter of Deen, or is shari‘ah intended to regulate public space so that everyone must go about the pursuit of shari‘ah in precisely the same way?
Do matters such as theft, adultery, and abuse of alcohol carry problematic ramifications for society? Yes, they do.
Does the Qur’an specify what may be done in conjunction with such behavior? Yes, in the case of theft and adultery but not in the case of alcohol consumption.
Is one obligated to follow the specific punishments which are indicated in the Qur’an for theft and adultery? Not necessarily, since there may be other approaches to such issues which could be developed using principles of guidance that not only are communicated through the Qur’an but which tend to permeate the vast majority of Quranic teachings.
During his lifetime, the Prophet observed certain principles and made certain kinds of judgment in relation to the guidance communicated through the Qur’an. However, do we necessarily know that if the Prophet were physically amongst us today that he would continue to do things in precisely the same way as was done more than 1400 years ago, or would the Prophet – due to changes in circumstances, conditions, capacities, peoples, and times – choose to give expression to the guidance of the Qur’an through different ways of seeking to resolve issues?
The Prophet was given authority by God to judge various occurrences and events which took place in the surrounding community if he were called upon to do so.
“Surely we have revealed the Book to you with the truth that you might discern between people by means of that which Allah has taught you [or has you see] and be not an advocate on behalf of the treacherous.” [Qur’an, 4:105]
However, one is making a rather substantial inferential jump to suppose that such authority has been delegated to anyone in the Muslim communities of today.
Furthermore, people may be confusing two different issues. On the one hand, the Prophet has a role which, among other things, involved communicating and explicating the nature of shari‘ah. On the other hand, the Prophet had a role which involved certain responsibilities – including the authorization of punishment -- concerning the regulation of public space in a particular set of historical circumstances.
The latter responsibilities – that is, the regulation of public space -- do not necessarily have anything to do with the former responsibilities – that is, the delineation of shari‘ah. Yet, many people assume that the regulation of public space and the pursuit of shari‘ah are one and the same or that the regulation of public space is but a subset of, or entailed by, shari‘ah.
I do not believe the regulation of public space is an expression of shari‘ah. I do not believe that the regulation of public space is a subset of shari‘ah.
By pursuing shari‘ah in a sincere fashion, one may, if God wishes, develop the sort of character traits – such as honesty, patience, forbearance, kindness, integrity, compassion, and so on – as well as spiritual understandings which may enhance the quality of what transpires in public space and could constructively shape what occurs in that public space or commons. However, the regulation of public space is tied to Divine guidance in a totally different way than the manner in which shari‘ah is tied to Divine guidance [and there will be more said on this issue in the last section of this essay.]
One should not infer from the foregoing that what is being proposed here is that nothing should be done when problems and conflicts arise in the public space. Instead, what is being suggested is that there are serious questions surrounding the claim of any person in today’s world which indicates that he or she has been delegated the authority – either by God or the Prophet – with respect to the imposition of certain kinds of punishments in relation to various kinds of problematic behavior.
Why roughly 80 Quranic verses have come to totally dominate, color, and orient the understanding of so many Muslims with respect to how one should engage and approach the totality of Quranic guidance concerning the regulation of public space is an interesting question. There are likely to be many forces – historical, cultural, social, gender-related, philosophical, theological, and political – that are at work and which have helped to bring about the present state of affairs.
Unfortunately, the bottom line in all of this is that shari‘ah has been made into a public issue when, in fact, it is a private matter. Spirituality has all too frequently been subordinated to systems of theology, power struggles, and what can only be described as a pathological desire to control and, thereby, oppress, the lives of other human beings. With only a few exceptions -- limited mostly to the Prophets and, possibly, a few others -- there ought not to be any system of leadership which seeks to have influence over, or to make impositions upon, the spiritual lives of human beings.
In fact, the prophets, themselves, did not seek to control the spiritual lives of anyone. Instead, they gave the good news, and they conveyed the warnings:
“And We do not send emissaries but as announcers of good news and givers of warning, then whoever believes and acts aright, they shall have no fear, nor shall they grieve.” [Qur’an, 6:48]
Guidance is not a set of legal injunctions which must be obeyed. Guidance is not a demand for obedience but is an attempt to draw one’s attention to a path which travels through, toward, and by means of truth, justice, identity and purpose.
Spirituality has become legalized in the sense that it has been reduced to being a function of legal dogmas and rules which tend to oppress spirituality rather than serve as a means of realizing and unleashing the rich potential of spirituality. Spirituality has been made a matter of obedience when, in truth, spirituality is entirely at the opposite end of the spectrum from matters of obedience.
Spirituality is about honoring – through realizing and fulfilling – the amana or trust which has been bequeathed to human beings. Spirituality is not intended to be a process through which one cedes one’s moral or intellectual authority to others.
Spirituality is about coming to understand what it means to be a servant of God. Spirituality is about becoming one who creatively serves the responsibilities of being God’s Khalifa on earth and, by doing so, gives expression to worship in everything one does.
It is not possible to realize the amana or trust through obedience to authority. Doing things in accordance with obedience to authority removes the active and dynamic element of personal responsibility, commitment, and on-going intellectual and moral choice which is necessary for the struggle entailed by spirituality.
The intention with which one pursues spirituality should not be to satisfy authority, qua authority, but should be directed toward seeking, according to one’s capacity to do so, the truth concerning oneself and one’s relationship with Being and to do justice in accordance with that truth. The inclination to obedience, qua obedience, is an expression of a person’s desire to get out from underneath the burden of having to constantly be engaged in the spiritual journey in which one travels, God willing, from: what is less true and less just, to: what is more true and more just.
Sincere spirituality requires one to stand alone before God and strive to affirm [through understanding and action] the nature of one’s relationship with God – ‘Am I not your Lord?’ – in every facet of life. This affirmation is not done out of, or through, obedience but is, rather, an expression of one’s understanding concerning the way things are with respect to the natural order of the Created universe and one’s place in that universe.
In the Qur’an, one finds the following:
“No soul can believe except by the Will of Allah, and He will place doubt/obscurity on those who will not understand. (Qur’an, 10:100)
According to one sense of the foregoing Quranic ayat, those who choose to not believe in the truth will have doubt or obscurity placed upon them. This is one of the possible consequences which may follow from such a choice … but God knows best.
However, one might also want to give some consideration to another possible sense which may resonate with the foregoing verse of the Qur’an. More specifically, if one fails to understand that “no soul can believe except by the Will of Allah” and, as a result, one seeks to compel people to believe in, and conform to, a certain theological or religious perspective, then, one runs the risk that doubt and obscurity about many matters concerning spirituality may be placed on the one who insists on compelling the obedience of others concerning matters of Deen.
Understanding shari‘ah is rooted in direct knowledge. Understanding is not rooted in the imposition of external directives.
As the saying goes – ‘to those who understand, no explanation is necessary, and for those without understanding, no explanation will suffice.’ One can allude to the nature of shari‘ah, but the only proper way to understand this sacred realm is through direct experience … to have God take one by the hand and lead one to the place where one may drink, God willing, from the waters of Truth.
“So, they found one of our abds [abdan min ibadina] on whom We had bestowed a Mercy from Us, and We taught him knowledge from Our presence [ladunna]” [Qur’an, [18:65]
The hukm – that is, the governing authority and principles or reality – of shari‘ah is with Allah. The hukm of shari‘ah does not reside with aql or intellect or the manner in which the public sphere is regulated.
In fact, the way in which the public space is regulated could be totally corrupt or oppressive or embroiled in turmoil. Nevertheless, none of what goes on in the public space can prevent an individual, God willing, from pursuing and, if God wishes, even realizing the truth of shari‘ah – although, certainly, what takes place in the public space can place difficulties and obstacles in the way of the person who wishes to seek the hukm of shari‘ah.
What goes on in the realm of public space can problematically or constructively affect an individual’s pursuit of shari‘ah, and, in addition, the extent to which an individual sincerely pursues shari‘ah can constructively or problematically affect what goes on in the public space. However, the pursuit of shari‘ah entails activities which are entirely independent of the sort of activities which are entailed by the regulation of public space.
Divine guidance provides insights concerning both the activities of shari‘ah as well as the activities of regulating public space. Moreover, there are degrees of freedom inherent in the Divine guidance which permit both shari‘ah and the regulating of public space to be approached and engaged in a variety of ways even as certain principles are kept constant.
*******************
Showing posts with label ayat. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ayat. Show all posts
Monday, August 18, 2008
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)