The Issue of Ijtihad
Mu‘adh ibn Jabal was dispatched by the Prophet to govern Yemen. Before ibn Jabal left for Yemen, the Prophet asked him about the nature of the method through which ibn Jabal would govern. Ibn Jabal replied: ‘In accordance with God’s Book.’ Ibn Jabal was then asked by the Prophet that if the former could not find what he needed in God’s Book, how would ibn Jabal proceed. Ibn Jabal responded with: ‘Then, according to the sunna of God’s Prophet.’ The Prophet then asked what ibn Jabal would do if the latter could not find what he requires in the sunna of the Prophet. Ibn Jabal replied that he would exercise ijtihad.” The Messenger of God indicated that he was happy with the answers which ibn Jabal had given to each of the Prophet’s queries.
Some people have tried to construe the meaning of ijtihad as involving legal reasoning in some form. However, ijtihad – which comes from the same root as ‘jihad’ – refers to a process of personal striving or struggling to assert the truth of a matter.
The Qur’an says:
And strive hard in the way of Allah, such a striving as is due to Him;” [Qur’an, 22:78]
All of life requires one to exercise ijtihad. All of life requires one to strive for the truth.
Among other things, God has given each of us a capacity for seeking truth. To use such a capacity for anything other than striving for the truth is to strive in a manner which is less than what is due to God.
Reason might be one tool entailed by such an exercise. Nonetheless, there are other faculties and capabilities within the individual [e.g., heart, sirr, kafi, spirit] which also may be employed during the process of ijtihad.
Furthermore, whatever the nature of the faculties and methods which may be employed during the process of ijtihad, one is not necessarily seeking a legally enforceable solution to the question, issue, or problem at hand through such a process. This is especially so with respect to matters of shari‘ah -- which is an individual, spiritual task and not something which should be imposed collectively or through compulsion.
To govern is to oversee the regulation of public space so that that space is free of oppression, injustice, and tumult. Governance is not about the enforcement of shari‘ah, but, rather, governance is about the regulating of the ‘commons’, so to speak, so that individuals are free to pursue, or not, the issue of shari‘ah.
Presumably, if ibn Jabal was looking to the Qur’an, the sunna, and the exercise of ijtihad in order to find solutions to problems of governance, one should not necessarily assume that he was trying to discover various facets of shari‘ah which could be imposed on people. Rather, ibn Jabal may have been trying to discover those principles of justice, equitability, tolerance, truth, wisdom, and so on which will permit a community to exist in relative peace and harmony, free from oppression, so that the members of that community might individually tend to the responsibilities which revolve about and permeate the issue of free will in a manner which does not oppress others. As the Qur’an indicates:
“O ye who believe! Be upright for Allah, bearers of witness with justice, and let not hatred of a people incite or seduce you to not act equitably; act equitably, that is nearer to piety (taqwa) , and be careful with respect to Allah, surely Allah is aware of what you do.” [Qur’an, 5:8]
Ibn Jabal (may Allah be pleased with him) was seeking to be “upright for Allah”. He was seeking to be one of the “bearers of witness with justice”. He was seeking to “act equitably”. He was seeking to struggle toward a condition of taqwa. He was seeking to “be careful with respect to Allah”.
Notwithstanding the foregoing considerations, and without prejudice to either the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) or ibn Jabal (may Allah be pleased with him), there is a great deal of ambiguity in the interchange between the two as related in the foregoing Hadith. For example, one might ask: What does it mean to find what one needs in the Qur’an? Or, what is meant by the idea of finding what one seeks in the sunna of the Prophet? What is actually entailed by the process of exercising ijtihad?
There is no one answer which can be given to any of the foregoing questions. Much depends on the spiritual capabilities and condition of the individual doing the needing, seeking, and striving in relation to, respectively, the Qur’an, the sunna, and ijtihad. Much also depends on the nature of the problem which one is attempting to resolve or the kind of question one is trying to answer.
The truth of the matter is that many people read about the account involving the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and ibn Jabal (may Allah be pleased with him), and such individuals tend to impose their own ideas onto the exchange. For example, because ibn Jabal was being sent off to Yeman to govern, there are those who suppose that the practice of ijtihad can only be performed by someone who has been given the authority to govern. Then, again, there are others who understand the interchange between the Prophet and ibn Jabal to mean that only someone who has been given the authority to make legal pronouncements is permitted to exercise ijtihad, and, then, such commentators often proceed to put forth a list of qualifications which such a person must have in order to be permitted to exercise ‘legitimate’ ijtihad.
There is an underlying logic inherent in the perspective of those who seek to restrict ijtihad to only certain kinds of individuals with certain kinds of qualifications. The nature of that logic goes somewhat along the following lines: The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was sending ibn Jabal (may Allah be pleased with him) to govern the people of Yemen; the Prophet was only showing approval concerning the exercise of ijtihad in the case of someone whom he had authorized to fulfill a specific task of governance; therefore, the Prophet would only approve ijtihad in someone whom he had authorized to accept such a responsibility.
The foregoing kind of logic is nothing more than presumptions which are being read into the conversation in question. In point of fact, there is nothing in the interchange between the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and ibn Jabal (may Allah be pleased with him) to which one can point that authoritatively and decisively demonstrates the necessity of concluding that only people who govern or only people who promulgate laws or only those with specific qualifications have the right to exercise ijtihad.
Above and beyond the foregoing sorts of difficulties, there are two other kinds of presumption inherent in the sort of logic which seeks to place limits on those who might exercise ijtihad. On the one hand, there is a presumption that those who exercise ijtihad today -- and, therefore, those who are referred to as mujtahids -- have been authorized by the Prophet to do so, and this is, at best, a very dubious presumption. On the other hand, there is another presumption present in the foregoing sort of logic which arrogates to itself the right to forcibly impose upon others the “fruits” from someone’s exercise of ijtihad which is, once again and at best, an extremely dubious presumption.
We are each governors of our own being. We each have been given the capacity to consult the Qur’an, the sunna, and, when appropriate, to exercise ijtihad as we strive to find our way to truth, justice, essential identity, and our primordial spiritual capacity.
In fact, one might argue that every engagement of the Qur’an and sunna is an exercise of ijtihad. Each individual strives and struggles to purify herself or himself in order that one may be led, God willing, to a spiritual condition which allows one to drink in what is necessary to have ears with which to hear and eyes with which to see the true nature of what God is disclosing to us through the Qur’an and the example of the Prophet.
Having said the foregoing, one should not suppose I believe there are no differences in the quality, depth, insight, wisdom, balance, or appropriateness as one moves from one exercise of ijtihad to the next exercise of ijtihad among different individuals. The Qur’an states:
“Are they equal – those who know and those who do not know? Only those of understanding are mindful.” [Qur’an, 39:9]
In this regard, there are some mujtahids who truly do know what they are talking about with respect to matters of shari‘ah, truth, and justice, just as there are all too many mujtahids who do not know what they are talking about when it comes to matters of shari‘ah, truth, and justice. Nevertheless, whether someone who engages in ijtihad knows what he or she is doing, or whether someone who engages in ijtihad does not know what she or he is doing, neither individual has the right nor authority to forcibly impose their understanding upon others when it comes to matters of shari‘ah.
If one wishes to think of shari‘ah as Divine Law, then, as previously indicated, one should understand the idea of law in such a context as being an expression of the way the universe spiritually operates rather than as being an expression of a legal system. No one has to impose the law of gravity on anyone since most of us become aware of the existence and nature of gravity through life experience, and, as a result, we begin to factor in our understanding of this law of nature with respect to our daily lives concerning what may be practical and what may be problematic when it comes to matters which are affected or influenced by the force of gravity.
When one runs afoul of the law of gravity, one is not being punished for a legal transgression. Rather, one is suffering the consequences of failing to exercise due diligence in one’s life with respect to the law of gravity.
Similarly, when one runs afoul of the principles inherent in shari‘ah, and, then, if things begin to become problematic in one’s life as a result of such transgressions, one is not being punished. Instead, as is the case in relation to the law of gravity, by failing to exercise due diligence with respect to shari‘ah, problematic ramifications may begin to become manifest in one’s life. This is just the way the universe is set up to operate unless God intervenes and interrupts the normal sequence of events.
The truth of the matter is – and as the Qur’an has indicated in a number of verses – difficulty, problems and trials come into the lives of everyone – whether they are believers or non-believers. Thus, the Qur’an notes:
“And we test you by evil and by good by way of trial.” [21:35]
Or, again:
“Do they not see that they are tried once or twice in every year, yet they do not turn nor do they take heed.” [9:126]
And, finally:
“And surely We shall test you with some fear and hunger and loss of wealth and lives and crops;” [Qur’an, 2:155]
Pursuing shari‘ah in a sincere fashion can assist one to cope with such problems, and when one turns away from that spiritual journey, one is actually placing oneself at a disadvantage when it comes to dealing with the rain which must fall into the life of everyone, and this is another natural law of the universe. Indeed, the following Quranic ayat alludes to those who properly understand this natural laws of the universe:
“But give glad tidings to the steadfast – who say when misfortune strikes them: Surely, to Allah we belong and to Allah is our returning.” [Qur’an, 2:156]
Furthermore, just as no one has to impose a penalty beyond what happens naturally when one transgresses the due limits of the force of gravity, so, too, with certain exceptions (to be noted shortly) no one has to impose a penalty beyond what happens naturally when one transgresses the due limits of shari‘ah. If one does not say one’s prayers, or if one does not fast during the month of Ramadan, or if one is financially and physically able to do so but does not go on Hajj, or if one fails to give zakat, or if one fails to act in accordance with the reality that God exists and that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was given a Book of Divine revelation, or if one does not seek to acquire the noble character traits [such as forgiveness, tolerance, patience, gratitude, humility, steadfastness, love, generosity, and the like] which are part of what is sought by pursuing shari‘ah, then, one will have to deal with the problematic ramifications of such negligence in one’s day-to-day life.
Only when such ramifications spill over into the lives of others and, as a result, an individual’s negligence of shari‘ah leads to that individual pursuing courses of action that abuse, exploit, injure, or oppress others does the community have a right to step in and seek to restore harmony, peace, justice, and balance within the community. Such intercession is directed toward protecting the right of people in a community to be able to have the opportunity to make choices concerning shari‘ah – either toward it or away from it -- which are free from interference by others. These corrective efforts of the community are not directed at forcing some given transgressing individual to follow shari‘ah but, rather, is directed toward honoring the rights of individuals to have the opportunity to be free of oppression from others.
After such corrective measures are taken – and these measures need not be punitive and could involve attempts to mediate and reconcile individuals as a means of restoring balance and harmony in the community – if the individual who originally had introduced oppression into the lives of other people wishes to continue to choose to live life in opposition to the principles of shari‘ah, then, the person should be free to do so as long as such a life does not transgress further against the rights of others to be free of any tendencies toward oppression that may arise out of such choices. However, just as someone who does not wish to follow shari‘ah has no right to oppress others in the community, then the following is also true: those who wish to follow shari‘ah have no right to oppress others in the community in terms of the way the former wish to pursue shari‘ah.
Oppression is not about whether someone has transgressed this or that legal injunction. Oppression occurs when someone interferes with, or seeks to undermine and diminish, the sort of right with respect to which there is virtually universal consensus [and irrespective of whether someone believes in God or does not believe in God] – the right to be free to choose the course of one’s life. The responsibility which accompanies this right is a duty of care to others in the community – a responsibility which stipulates that however one exercises one’s basic right to choose, such choices cannot spill over and adversely affect the right of others to make similar free choices in their own lives.
Legal laws do not have to be transgressed in order to know that oppression exists in a family, community, or nation. All one needs to look at is whether there are imbalances and inequities among individuals in their respective abilities to effectively exercise the most basic of rights among human beings – that of free choice.
Freedom to choose is one of the most basic natural laws of the universe. When that natural principle is transgressed against, the result is oppression, irrespective of whether, or not, any legal rules have been broken.
In fact, in all too many societies, the legal laws which exist are intended to oppress people while simultaneously sanctioning the right of certain favored individuals under the law to oppress others with impunity. Indeed, in many Muslim nations and communities where certain laws are enforced which are referred to as shari‘ah -- but, in truth, are not shari‘ah – the legal structure of those communities and nations is set up in such a way so as to give government and religious authorities the right to impose what is called shari‘ah on people and thereby oppress them and, in the process, transgress against the freedom to choose which God has given to all human beings -- whether they believe, or they do not believe, in Divinity.
Just as air, water, and food are intended for all to use irrespective of whether, or not, they are believers in God, so, too, the right to choose is a basic entitlement of all human beings. In fact, at the very heart of shari‘ah is the right to freely choose among alternatives, and when legal injunctions which are referred to as shari‘ah are imposed on people, the very essence of shari‘ah is violated.
Those who are, by the Grace of God, good at exercising ijtihad – that is, those who are spiritually insightful, truly knowledgeable [as opposed to just being filled with information], as well as wise mujtahids [i.e., practitioners of ijtihad] perform an important service for those who are seeking counsel concerning the pursuit of shari‘ah. Nonetheless, that service is limited to offering counsel and nothing more, and, furthermore, no one has the right to take such counsel and use it to justify attempts to compel other human beings to live in accord with that counsel. To do so totally misses, if not distorts, the meaning and purpose of both being a mujtahid as well as pursuing shari‘ah.
The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is reported to have said: “When the qadi judges and does ijtihad and hits the mark, he has ten rewards; and when he does ijtihad and errs, he has one or two rewards.”
The Prophet is indicating in the foregoing that the exercising of an intention to seek truth and justice is rewarded in and of itself, even if it turns out that one who is exercising such an intention pursues a path which does not give expression to either truth or justice. Moreover, the foregoing also seems to indicate fairly clearly that ijtihad is the process of struggling for the truth of a matter, while being correct or in error concerning the results of that process is quite another matter altogether.
However, one should not assume that the Prophet was indicating in the previous Hadith that making errors concerning the exercise of ijtihad is okay and without consequences or that one has the right to impose such erroneous judgments on others. This latter point is especially relevant with respect to those individuals who have not been authorized by either God or the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) to exercise ijtihad on behalf of a community – as opposed to exercising ijtihad in conjunction with respect to oneself … something which we all have been given the capacity and responsibility to do.
To make judgments as a mujtahid is not a matter of imposing shari‘ah on others. Rather, to make judgments as a mujtahid is to strive toward assisting members of a community to identify those tools of truth and principles of justice which might be useful resources to apply, like salve on a wound, to help alleviate the pain and difficulties which have ensued from some manner of disturbance in the peaceful fabric of a community so that harmony and balance may be restored through a peaceful reconciliation of differences and conflicts.
*****************
Monday, August 18, 2008
Shari'ah: A Muslim's Declaration of Independence - Part 10
During the time of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) there were occasions – and, in fact, these were not many in number -- in which rigorous penalties were applied in conjunction with the commission of certain crimes. There were a number of reasons for this – reasons which are no longer necessarily applicable to present circumstances.
First, the law of retribution was already the acknowledged and accepted way of doing things among the Arabs even before the emergence of Islam in Arabia. The revelation of the Qur’an indicated that such a law could continue to be exercised, but, at the same time, people were reminded that forgiving such transgressions would be better for the believers and pointed out, as well, that this same principle of forbearance also had been in place among the Jewish people. Thus, in the Qur’an, one finds:
“We have ordained [in the Torah] that a life [should be taken] for a life, an eye for an eye, a nose for a nose, an ear for an ear, a tooth for a tooth, and wounds [are to be punished] by qisas [exact retribution or retaliation]. But if someone remits exact retaliation by way of charity, that will be an act of atonement for that person. Whoever fails to exercise discernment in accordance with what God has revealed shall be of the unfair ones. [Qur’an, 5:45]
One of the recurrent themes of the Qur’an was to guide individuals toward constructively reforming the way in which they engaged themselves as well as one another. These reforms often were introduced over a period of time in relation to, among other things, prayer, fasting, alcohol, slavery, and the treatment of women.
The principle of retribution continued to be permitted not because such a policy was necessarily the best way of dealing with various situations but, rather, because many Arabs in those days would neither have tolerated nor understood any approach to such issues that departed very much from their usual customs in these matters. At the same time, the Qur’an sought to induce people to begin to reflect on issues like retribution by emphasizing the importance of qualities such as forgiveness, tolerance, humility, patience, love, preferring others to oneself, generosity, justice, compassion, mercy, being charitable, and so on. Thus, one finds in the Qur’an verses such as the following:
“Take to forgiveness and enjoin good and turn aside from the ignorant.” [Qur’an, 7:199]
Another factor involved with permitting certain harsh punitive measures to be applied during the lifetime of the Prophet concerned the right of individuals to ask for ‘purification through punishment’. More specifically, there were people who came to the Prophet and confessed sins with which harsh penalties were associated such as theft, fornication, and adultery, and they confessed such sins not because anyone had evidence to prove that those individuals had committed transgressions but because the individuals in question believed in the idea that if one pays for a given sin in this world, one will not be held accountable for that sin on the Day of Judgment – the slate is wiped clean in that respect, and one has been purified.
The Prophet did not encourage people to come to him and confess their sins. In fact, he indicated that people should, instead, sincerely repent before God with respect to their sins and to seek God’s forgiveness in those matters.
However, the Prophet also made it clear to the community that if people did come to him and confess their sins, then – as a Prophet who had a responsibility to maintain equitability within the community -- he would become obligated to take steps which might lead to certain punitive measures being applied to the case – measures which were associated with the commission of such transgressions. Nonetheless, some people – several of whom are talked about in the Hadith literature – did approach the Prophet with a clear understanding of what was being set in motion through their confessing of some transgression, but these individuals wished to avail themselves of the principle of ‘purification by punishment’ because they wanted the certainty that such a sin would not be held against them on the Day of Judgment.
One case which is related through the hadiths concerns a woman who came to the Prophet wishing to confess to adultery. The Prophet responded in a manner which suggested that he did not wish to hear what the woman had to say in this regard.
The woman kept insisting on confessing her sin to the Prophet in order to be able to undergo a process of purification through receiving the indicated punishment which would wipe her slate clean with respect to such a transgression. Finally, the Prophet informed her that the penalty for such a transgression was death, and she accepted this.
The Prophet said that the woman might be pregnant, and, therefore, she should permit the child to be born. He informed her that when the infant was born, she should return to him for purposes of carrying out the punishment.
After the child was born, the woman returned to the Prophet seeking to have the penalty enforced. The Prophet indicated that the woman should suckle the child and that when the period of suckling came to an end, she should return to him so that the indicated penalty might be exercised.
Several years later, the woman returned to the Prophet and indicated that the period of suckling the child was now complete. She wanted to proceed with the process of purification by punishment.
The woman was executed, and the Prophet led the funeral prayers. Someone objected to his leading of the prayers for such a woman, and the Prophet is reported to have said that the woman was innocent at the time of the prayers as she had been on the day she was born.
Notwithstanding the foregoing considerations, there is a very substantial difference between, on the other hand, enforcing a penalty because the recipient desires this out of his or her own free choice and, on the other hand, seeking to enforce such a penalty because one believes one has a God-given duty to impose such penalties on others independently of whether, or not, an individual agrees to become subject to an application of the principle of ‘purification by punishment’. Furthermore, today, there is no one among us who is a Prophet, nor is there anyone among us who necessarily has the God-given authority or the obligation [although there are many who have illegitimately arrogated to themselves such an authority and an obligation] to apply the punitive sanctions which are indicated in the Qur’an concerning certain transgressions involving acts of, for instance, theft, fornication, or adultery.
The timeframe when such measures were necessary or appropriate has passed. There are alternative ways of dealing with such transgressions – ways which are entirely consonant with other teachings of the Qur’an concerning the importance of forgiveness, compassion, mercy, patience, tolerance, love, humility, generosity, nobility, and the like.
Indeed, there is nothing in the Qur’an which stipulates that when one has a choice between two alternative ways of handling a situation, then one must necessarily choose the more rigorous or more punitive means of dealing with such a matter. In addition, there are a great many spiritual principles distributed throughout the Qur’an which strongly indicate that, where possible and practical, one should be inclined toward treating others with forgiveness, compassion, mercy, patience, tolerance, and generosity rather than through rigor or harshness.
The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) encouraged people to take responsibility for pursuing their own form of striving with respect to the truth. He is reported to have said:
“Do not ask me questions as long as I leave you alone.” [Bukhari, i‘tisam, 2; Muslim, hajj, 411]
The Prophet was, in effect, telling people: if I leave you alone, then, you should leave me alone. In other words, if the Prophet did not give people some particular guidance or direction, then, people should not seek to bother the Prophet by asking questions about how to proceed in life or with respect to how to pursue Islam.
The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is also reported to have said that one should:
“Seek the guidance of your heart (istaftii qalbaka: ask for the fatwa), whatever opinion others may give.”
This process of seeking the guidance of one’s heart is not a matter of following whatever whims, passions, or desires that may arise in consciousness. Rather, the process of seeking the guidance of one’s heart is to exercise ijtihad – to strive for the truth of a matter by purifying oneself so that one might enter a condition – namely, taqwa – through which, God willing, one might be opened to the truth or to the hukm – that is, the governing authority or reality of something – so that one can act rightly.
By listening intently to one’s heart and asking for a fatwa – or guidance – one was seeking to hear the resonance of truth with the Words of God. Indeed, as the Qur’an indicates:
And who is better than Allah to make judgments for a people who are sure.” [Qur’an, 5:50]
In seeking the guidance of one’s heart, one is seeking Divine assistance. If one has taqwa, then, God willing, the guidance one seeks from one’s heart will reflect the truth or reality of a matter which God wishes one to understand.
Furthermore, in conjunction with this process of seeking the counsel or guidance or fatwa from one’s heart, one should be careful concerning the sort of things for which one seeks an answer. The Qur’an indicates:
“Do not ask Us about those things that, if they were shown [or declared to you] could bring you wrong [or trouble you]” [Qur’an, 5:101]
The Qur’an also stipulates:
“O Prophet, why do you declare illicit what God has made licit, simply to give satisfaction to your wives.” [Qur’an, 66:1]
One might ask another question which has resonance with the foregoing – namely, why should one be inclined to declare as illicit that which God has made licit – by remaining silent on a matter -- simply to give satisfaction to theologians, mullahs, religious scholars, and the like?
Some have proposed that a principle to keep in mind when approaching the guidance of the Qur’an is not to fill in the gaps and spaces which God has left in the Qur’an as degrees of freedom for human beings. Whatever is not specifically prohibited in the Qur’an is considered to be licit unless a compelling case from the Qur’an itself can be given which demonstrates why such degrees of freedom should not be permitted.
Through the use of qiyas or analogical reasoning, many religious scholars and theologians have sought to argue that, for example, because one thing is like something else, and since the latter may have been prohibited by God, then, the former must also be considered as prohibited. By approaching things in this manner, they have sought to introduce prohibitions where none actually existed in the Qur’an.
For example, some individuals have sought to argue that because the flesh of pigs has been prohibited to Muslims [as well as Jews and Christians] as a food, and because some footballs are made from pig skin or because some forms of suede shoes have been made from pig skin, then, one may not touch those balls or wear such shoes.
Yet, the Qur’an is silent about both matters. People are reading their own ideas into the guidance of the Qur’an.
In order to arrive at such conclusions, those individuals may have exercised ijtihad. However, by means of such reasoning and striving, they have not necessarily captured the hukm of a matter – that is, the principle which governs a particular aspect of reality.
In this respect, the Qur’an states:
“He granteth wisdom to whom He pleaseth; and he to whom wisdom is granted receiveth indeed a benefit overflowing; but none will grasp the message but men of understanding.” (2:269)
Not everyone who exercises ijtihad necessarily does so through a God-granted wisdom. And, truly, only those who have been graced with such wisdom will understand that this is so. Moreover:
“Each one does according to his rule of conduct, and thy Lord is best aware of the one whose way is right.” [Qur’an, 17: 84]
Ijtihad is not the creation of something new in the way of guidance. Rather, ijtihad is a process of struggling toward trying to discover [according to one’s capacity to do so and the Grace which God bestows] the nature of the original hukm concerning the principles which already govern the truth or the reality of a matter and which are being expressed through the two books of revelation – the Qur’an and Nature (considered in its entirety).
A sincere mujtahid does not seek to make discernments except in accordance with, and as expression of, what Allah shows that individual through her or his exercise of ijtihad. As the Qur’an attests:
“True believers are only those who have faith in Allah and His messenger and have left doubt behind and who strive hard in Allah’s cause with their possessions and their lives. They are the ones who are sincere. (49: 15)
Supposedly, at least according to some religious scholars and theologians, the gates of ijtihad [striving, strenuousness] became closed after the 9th century A.D. Evidently, these individuals were of the opinion that what they referred to as Islamic law [but, in reality, this was nothing more than laws made by Muslims] had matured sufficiently enough that individual attempts to understand the limitless depths of the Qur’an and sunna had been exhausted.
The Qur’an states:
“And if all the trees in the earth were pens, and the sea, with seven more seas to help it were ink, the words of Allah could not be exhausted.” [Qur’an, 31:27]
The Prophet is reported to have said: “Truly, the Qur’an has an outward and an inward dimension, and the latter has its own inward dimension, and so on, up to seven dimensions.”
In light of the foregoing guidance of the Qur’an, as well as in light of the aforementioned understanding of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) concerning the depths of the Qur’an, I cannot think of anything more arrogant than for someone to try to claim that the doors to ijtihad were closed in the 9th or 10th century.
The truth of this matter is that certain individuals sought to close the door to ijtihad in order to establish a politically expedient compromise between two groups of individuals. On the one hand, there were the rulers who wanted the authority and legitimacy of what would be treated as established and unalterable law to be placed at their disposal so that they might exploit such law to do as they saw fit. The other party to the politically expedient compromise were from among the ulema who wanted a fiqh – that is, a mode of engaging the Qur’an and the sunna of the Prophet -- over which they would have control and which, in addition, would ensure that they had a position of status in the community where their “expertise” and authority would be sought out by others. Both sides to this compromise made a deal which would give the respective sides power, status, and control at the expense of doing justice to the either the community or the reality of Quranic guidance.
The aforementioned ulema reduced fiqh down to a set number of issues [some say these are 589 in number]. Each madhhab, or school of jurisprudence, developed its own theological positions relative to these set number of issues.
Furthermore, the leaders of these various schools issued pronouncements indicating that one would be able to switch from one school to another. In addition, and this is where the idea of closing the doors of ijtihad came in, no one was permitted to open up any of these codified positions to the exercise of ijtihad.
The true location of hukm [determinative authority] is with Allah, and the location of such a hukm does not rest with some given school of jurisprudence nor with the rational intellect considered in isolation from other spiritual faculties of the individual. When one does not know what the nature of the hukm or reality is with respect to some given matter, then, one must rely on Allah, and such true and sincere reliance requires that one ‘become like the corpse in the hands of the one who washes it’ -- that is, a true ‘abd or servant or bondsman of God – and one moves in whatever direction the Hands of God move one. This is the real essence of ijtihad.
******************
Why do human beings believe they have the authority or responsibility to hold other human beings accountable for what is, clearly, according to the Qur’an, obligations or duties of care which one has to God? God is the One Who has ordained such duties of care, and God is the One Who will judge such matters, and God is the One Who will hold people accountable for their deeds and misdeeds in this respect on the Day of Judgment, and God has not asked people – other than the Prophets – to assume responsibility for, or to take authority of, such matters. So, why do Muslim theologians, imams, muftis, mullahs, and leaders believe that it is their duty to police the Deen of others and make sure that it conforms to their own individual likes and dislikes?
According to some modern-day, self-proclaimed mujtahids, they represent the members of the community in the matter of determining what constitutes the nature of one’s spiritual duties of care to God. They believe that when the mujtahids of a certain school of law reach a consensus concerning some given facet of what the members of that school consider to be shari‘ah, then, from an epistemological perspective, such an agreement gives expression to an understanding that is just as certain as anything from the Qur’an or sunna. Furthermore, they believe they have the right to impose their views on others.
However, as indicated previously in this essay, there is not necessarily any evidence – other than self-invested claims – that such individuals actually have been appointed by God or the Prophet to either determine what the spiritual path should be for others or that such mujtahids have been granted the authority by either God or the Prophet to impose upon others whatever judgments at which they may arrive during the course of their deliberations concerning the Qur’an and sunna. Nor is there necessarily any evidence – other than the self-serving circularity of their own belief – that the agreements these so-called mujtahids reach should be considered to have the same level of authority or authenticity as either the Qur’an or sunna, and, in fact, there is not necessarily any evidence – other than the mutually reinforcing opinions of the parties to the agreement – that the participants have even arrived at a correct understanding of things.
Anyone who strives or struggles to ascertain the nature of shari‘ah is performing ijtihad and, therefore, is a mujtahid. Nonetheless, the fact that one is a mujtahid or is referred to as a mujtahid does not inherently compel others to accept the proclamations of such individuals as anything more than their understanding of a given issue, problem, or idea.
There are mujtahids who truly understand the nature of shari‘ah, and one would be well-advised to consider what they have to say about things and to reflect on such matters with due diligence. On the other hand, there also are mujtahids who truly do not understand the nature of shari‘ah, and one would be well-advised to stay as far away as possible from these latter sort of individuals.
The problem, of course, is one of knowing who is which kind of mujtahid. Everyone makes a choice concerning who they will listen to or go to for counsel with respect to spiritual matters, and much may be decided by the nature of one’s choice in this regard.
Choose correctly and one has, God willing, good spiritual counsel. Choose incorrectly and one has, may Allah have mercy on us, bad spiritual counsel.
For far too long, the Muslim world has been making a lot of bad choices with respect to the sort of spiritual counsel to which they have been willing to listen and to which they have opened themselves. We see the problematic ramifications of such choices almost everywhere in the Muslim world.
One of the problematic areas being alluded to above has been the insistence of all too many self-promoting mujtahids that sharia‘ah is a legal system which is to be imposed on a community. Shari‘ah is not a legal system, and it should not be imposed on anyone.
Shari‘ah is the spiritual journey of an individual who seeks to arrive at the truth concerning the nature of one’s relationship with God. Shari‘ah is the process of seeking to discover the nature of one’s essential identity. Shari‘ah gives expression to a person’s striving to realize, God willing, the full spiritual potential of fitra – one’s primordial spiritual capacity. Shari‘ah is a way to honor one’s duties of care to oneself, to others, to creation, and to God.
“And (as for) those who disbelieve, their deeds are like the mirage in a desert, which the thirsty man deems to be water until when he comes to it he finds it to be naught, and there he finds Allah, so He pays back to him his reckoning in full, and Allah is quick in reckoning.” [Qur’an, 24:39]
Human beings are inclined to search – through ijtihad -- for that which they believe will satisfy their spiritual thirst. One who searches is in a condition of unbelief because the truth or reality of things remains hidden from them at that point – that is, after all, why they are engaged in a process of seeking.
When, after striving and struggling, one comes to the understanding that everything for which one has been searching in order to satisfy one’s spiritual thirst is a mirage, then, this is the time when, God willing, the realization comes to the individual that Allah is the only One Who is capable of satisfying one’s need or longing or desire. Everything else is a mirage – including one’s reasoning and the various schools of jurisprudence.
The individual who, by the Grace of Allah, comes to such an understanding or realization finds Allah waiting for her or him, and God is ready to respond to that individual in accordance with the nature of the realization which has been reached. If one submits to the reality of one’s need for God, God is quick in reckoning concerning such a realization and guides the individual in their striving or ijtihad, but if one persists in turning away from God’s presence, then, too, God is quick in responding to such a spiritual condition and the individual is maintained in a state of disbelief.
*******************
In the Qur’an, one reads:
“He it is Who has revealed the Book to you; some of the verses are decisive, they are the basis of the book, and others are allegorical; then in those whose hearts there is perversity, they follow the part of it which is allegorical, seeking to mislead and seeking to give it [their own] interpretation, but none knows the interpretation except Allah, and those who are firmly rooted in knowledge say: We believe in it, it is from our Lord; and none do mind except those having understanding. [Qur’an, 3:7]
In Surah 3, verse 7, one finds a slightly different wording of the same principles that are being expressed through the foregoing verse of the Qur’an:
“He [that is, God] it is Who hath revealed unto thee (Muhammad) the Scripture wherein are clear revelations -- They are the substance of the Book--and others (which are) allegorical. But those in whose hearts is doubt pursue, forsooth, that which is allegorical seeking (to cause) dissension by seeking to explain it. None knows its explanation save Allah. And those who are of sound instruction say: We believe therein; the whole is from our Lord; but only men of understanding really heed.”
Which are the decisive verses and which are the allegorical verses? Understanding and guidance come from Allah. They do not come from theologians and mullahs or books of fiqh that may be inclined to place their own interpretations onto the Qur’an.
Only Allah knows the correct determination of such matters, and the people of knowledge or understanding are the ones whom God has taken by the hand and guided them through the hazards of the spiritual journey. These people of knowledge accept all of the Qur’an as revelation, and they pursue shari‘ah so that they may be led to the water of knowledge and be permitted to drink according to God’s blessings and according to their present spiritual condition and ultimate spiritual capacity.
Shari‘ah is a way [that is, the struggle toward self-purification], and a result [namely, the truth made manifest to the individual]. Neither the way nor the result can be imposed from without as many advocates of this or that school of jurisprudence or madhhab would have Muslims believe to be true, but, rather, one must become engaged in a life-long process of ijtihad through which one strives for the manner of discernment which will permit one, God willing, to distinguish between, on the one hand, the substance and basis of the Qur’an, and, on the other hand, that which is allegorical in the Qur’an.
Both the substance and allegorical dimensions of the Qur’an constitute guidance. However, when, as a result of problematic facets in one’s process of ijtihad, one confuses the allegorical with the substance of the Qur’an, then, as God warns, one may be carried in the direction of misguidance, and, this, unfortunately, is what has happened across the last 1300 years, or so, in all too many instances with respect to various individuals and their respective schools of jurisprudence.
“And know that this is My path, the right one, therefore follow it, and follow not other ways, for they will lead you away from His way; this He has enjoined you with that you may guard against it.” [Qur’an, 6:153]
*********************
First, the law of retribution was already the acknowledged and accepted way of doing things among the Arabs even before the emergence of Islam in Arabia. The revelation of the Qur’an indicated that such a law could continue to be exercised, but, at the same time, people were reminded that forgiving such transgressions would be better for the believers and pointed out, as well, that this same principle of forbearance also had been in place among the Jewish people. Thus, in the Qur’an, one finds:
“We have ordained [in the Torah] that a life [should be taken] for a life, an eye for an eye, a nose for a nose, an ear for an ear, a tooth for a tooth, and wounds [are to be punished] by qisas [exact retribution or retaliation]. But if someone remits exact retaliation by way of charity, that will be an act of atonement for that person. Whoever fails to exercise discernment in accordance with what God has revealed shall be of the unfair ones. [Qur’an, 5:45]
One of the recurrent themes of the Qur’an was to guide individuals toward constructively reforming the way in which they engaged themselves as well as one another. These reforms often were introduced over a period of time in relation to, among other things, prayer, fasting, alcohol, slavery, and the treatment of women.
The principle of retribution continued to be permitted not because such a policy was necessarily the best way of dealing with various situations but, rather, because many Arabs in those days would neither have tolerated nor understood any approach to such issues that departed very much from their usual customs in these matters. At the same time, the Qur’an sought to induce people to begin to reflect on issues like retribution by emphasizing the importance of qualities such as forgiveness, tolerance, humility, patience, love, preferring others to oneself, generosity, justice, compassion, mercy, being charitable, and so on. Thus, one finds in the Qur’an verses such as the following:
“Take to forgiveness and enjoin good and turn aside from the ignorant.” [Qur’an, 7:199]
Another factor involved with permitting certain harsh punitive measures to be applied during the lifetime of the Prophet concerned the right of individuals to ask for ‘purification through punishment’. More specifically, there were people who came to the Prophet and confessed sins with which harsh penalties were associated such as theft, fornication, and adultery, and they confessed such sins not because anyone had evidence to prove that those individuals had committed transgressions but because the individuals in question believed in the idea that if one pays for a given sin in this world, one will not be held accountable for that sin on the Day of Judgment – the slate is wiped clean in that respect, and one has been purified.
The Prophet did not encourage people to come to him and confess their sins. In fact, he indicated that people should, instead, sincerely repent before God with respect to their sins and to seek God’s forgiveness in those matters.
However, the Prophet also made it clear to the community that if people did come to him and confess their sins, then – as a Prophet who had a responsibility to maintain equitability within the community -- he would become obligated to take steps which might lead to certain punitive measures being applied to the case – measures which were associated with the commission of such transgressions. Nonetheless, some people – several of whom are talked about in the Hadith literature – did approach the Prophet with a clear understanding of what was being set in motion through their confessing of some transgression, but these individuals wished to avail themselves of the principle of ‘purification by punishment’ because they wanted the certainty that such a sin would not be held against them on the Day of Judgment.
One case which is related through the hadiths concerns a woman who came to the Prophet wishing to confess to adultery. The Prophet responded in a manner which suggested that he did not wish to hear what the woman had to say in this regard.
The woman kept insisting on confessing her sin to the Prophet in order to be able to undergo a process of purification through receiving the indicated punishment which would wipe her slate clean with respect to such a transgression. Finally, the Prophet informed her that the penalty for such a transgression was death, and she accepted this.
The Prophet said that the woman might be pregnant, and, therefore, she should permit the child to be born. He informed her that when the infant was born, she should return to him for purposes of carrying out the punishment.
After the child was born, the woman returned to the Prophet seeking to have the penalty enforced. The Prophet indicated that the woman should suckle the child and that when the period of suckling came to an end, she should return to him so that the indicated penalty might be exercised.
Several years later, the woman returned to the Prophet and indicated that the period of suckling the child was now complete. She wanted to proceed with the process of purification by punishment.
The woman was executed, and the Prophet led the funeral prayers. Someone objected to his leading of the prayers for such a woman, and the Prophet is reported to have said that the woman was innocent at the time of the prayers as she had been on the day she was born.
Notwithstanding the foregoing considerations, there is a very substantial difference between, on the other hand, enforcing a penalty because the recipient desires this out of his or her own free choice and, on the other hand, seeking to enforce such a penalty because one believes one has a God-given duty to impose such penalties on others independently of whether, or not, an individual agrees to become subject to an application of the principle of ‘purification by punishment’. Furthermore, today, there is no one among us who is a Prophet, nor is there anyone among us who necessarily has the God-given authority or the obligation [although there are many who have illegitimately arrogated to themselves such an authority and an obligation] to apply the punitive sanctions which are indicated in the Qur’an concerning certain transgressions involving acts of, for instance, theft, fornication, or adultery.
The timeframe when such measures were necessary or appropriate has passed. There are alternative ways of dealing with such transgressions – ways which are entirely consonant with other teachings of the Qur’an concerning the importance of forgiveness, compassion, mercy, patience, tolerance, love, humility, generosity, nobility, and the like.
Indeed, there is nothing in the Qur’an which stipulates that when one has a choice between two alternative ways of handling a situation, then one must necessarily choose the more rigorous or more punitive means of dealing with such a matter. In addition, there are a great many spiritual principles distributed throughout the Qur’an which strongly indicate that, where possible and practical, one should be inclined toward treating others with forgiveness, compassion, mercy, patience, tolerance, and generosity rather than through rigor or harshness.
The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) encouraged people to take responsibility for pursuing their own form of striving with respect to the truth. He is reported to have said:
“Do not ask me questions as long as I leave you alone.” [Bukhari, i‘tisam, 2; Muslim, hajj, 411]
The Prophet was, in effect, telling people: if I leave you alone, then, you should leave me alone. In other words, if the Prophet did not give people some particular guidance or direction, then, people should not seek to bother the Prophet by asking questions about how to proceed in life or with respect to how to pursue Islam.
The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is also reported to have said that one should:
“Seek the guidance of your heart (istaftii qalbaka: ask for the fatwa), whatever opinion others may give.”
This process of seeking the guidance of one’s heart is not a matter of following whatever whims, passions, or desires that may arise in consciousness. Rather, the process of seeking the guidance of one’s heart is to exercise ijtihad – to strive for the truth of a matter by purifying oneself so that one might enter a condition – namely, taqwa – through which, God willing, one might be opened to the truth or to the hukm – that is, the governing authority or reality of something – so that one can act rightly.
By listening intently to one’s heart and asking for a fatwa – or guidance – one was seeking to hear the resonance of truth with the Words of God. Indeed, as the Qur’an indicates:
And who is better than Allah to make judgments for a people who are sure.” [Qur’an, 5:50]
In seeking the guidance of one’s heart, one is seeking Divine assistance. If one has taqwa, then, God willing, the guidance one seeks from one’s heart will reflect the truth or reality of a matter which God wishes one to understand.
Furthermore, in conjunction with this process of seeking the counsel or guidance or fatwa from one’s heart, one should be careful concerning the sort of things for which one seeks an answer. The Qur’an indicates:
“Do not ask Us about those things that, if they were shown [or declared to you] could bring you wrong [or trouble you]” [Qur’an, 5:101]
The Qur’an also stipulates:
“O Prophet, why do you declare illicit what God has made licit, simply to give satisfaction to your wives.” [Qur’an, 66:1]
One might ask another question which has resonance with the foregoing – namely, why should one be inclined to declare as illicit that which God has made licit – by remaining silent on a matter -- simply to give satisfaction to theologians, mullahs, religious scholars, and the like?
Some have proposed that a principle to keep in mind when approaching the guidance of the Qur’an is not to fill in the gaps and spaces which God has left in the Qur’an as degrees of freedom for human beings. Whatever is not specifically prohibited in the Qur’an is considered to be licit unless a compelling case from the Qur’an itself can be given which demonstrates why such degrees of freedom should not be permitted.
Through the use of qiyas or analogical reasoning, many religious scholars and theologians have sought to argue that, for example, because one thing is like something else, and since the latter may have been prohibited by God, then, the former must also be considered as prohibited. By approaching things in this manner, they have sought to introduce prohibitions where none actually existed in the Qur’an.
For example, some individuals have sought to argue that because the flesh of pigs has been prohibited to Muslims [as well as Jews and Christians] as a food, and because some footballs are made from pig skin or because some forms of suede shoes have been made from pig skin, then, one may not touch those balls or wear such shoes.
Yet, the Qur’an is silent about both matters. People are reading their own ideas into the guidance of the Qur’an.
In order to arrive at such conclusions, those individuals may have exercised ijtihad. However, by means of such reasoning and striving, they have not necessarily captured the hukm of a matter – that is, the principle which governs a particular aspect of reality.
In this respect, the Qur’an states:
“He granteth wisdom to whom He pleaseth; and he to whom wisdom is granted receiveth indeed a benefit overflowing; but none will grasp the message but men of understanding.” (2:269)
Not everyone who exercises ijtihad necessarily does so through a God-granted wisdom. And, truly, only those who have been graced with such wisdom will understand that this is so. Moreover:
“Each one does according to his rule of conduct, and thy Lord is best aware of the one whose way is right.” [Qur’an, 17: 84]
Ijtihad is not the creation of something new in the way of guidance. Rather, ijtihad is a process of struggling toward trying to discover [according to one’s capacity to do so and the Grace which God bestows] the nature of the original hukm concerning the principles which already govern the truth or the reality of a matter and which are being expressed through the two books of revelation – the Qur’an and Nature (considered in its entirety).
A sincere mujtahid does not seek to make discernments except in accordance with, and as expression of, what Allah shows that individual through her or his exercise of ijtihad. As the Qur’an attests:
“True believers are only those who have faith in Allah and His messenger and have left doubt behind and who strive hard in Allah’s cause with their possessions and their lives. They are the ones who are sincere. (49: 15)
Supposedly, at least according to some religious scholars and theologians, the gates of ijtihad [striving, strenuousness] became closed after the 9th century A.D. Evidently, these individuals were of the opinion that what they referred to as Islamic law [but, in reality, this was nothing more than laws made by Muslims] had matured sufficiently enough that individual attempts to understand the limitless depths of the Qur’an and sunna had been exhausted.
The Qur’an states:
“And if all the trees in the earth were pens, and the sea, with seven more seas to help it were ink, the words of Allah could not be exhausted.” [Qur’an, 31:27]
The Prophet is reported to have said: “Truly, the Qur’an has an outward and an inward dimension, and the latter has its own inward dimension, and so on, up to seven dimensions.”
In light of the foregoing guidance of the Qur’an, as well as in light of the aforementioned understanding of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) concerning the depths of the Qur’an, I cannot think of anything more arrogant than for someone to try to claim that the doors to ijtihad were closed in the 9th or 10th century.
The truth of this matter is that certain individuals sought to close the door to ijtihad in order to establish a politically expedient compromise between two groups of individuals. On the one hand, there were the rulers who wanted the authority and legitimacy of what would be treated as established and unalterable law to be placed at their disposal so that they might exploit such law to do as they saw fit. The other party to the politically expedient compromise were from among the ulema who wanted a fiqh – that is, a mode of engaging the Qur’an and the sunna of the Prophet -- over which they would have control and which, in addition, would ensure that they had a position of status in the community where their “expertise” and authority would be sought out by others. Both sides to this compromise made a deal which would give the respective sides power, status, and control at the expense of doing justice to the either the community or the reality of Quranic guidance.
The aforementioned ulema reduced fiqh down to a set number of issues [some say these are 589 in number]. Each madhhab, or school of jurisprudence, developed its own theological positions relative to these set number of issues.
Furthermore, the leaders of these various schools issued pronouncements indicating that one would be able to switch from one school to another. In addition, and this is where the idea of closing the doors of ijtihad came in, no one was permitted to open up any of these codified positions to the exercise of ijtihad.
The true location of hukm [determinative authority] is with Allah, and the location of such a hukm does not rest with some given school of jurisprudence nor with the rational intellect considered in isolation from other spiritual faculties of the individual. When one does not know what the nature of the hukm or reality is with respect to some given matter, then, one must rely on Allah, and such true and sincere reliance requires that one ‘become like the corpse in the hands of the one who washes it’ -- that is, a true ‘abd or servant or bondsman of God – and one moves in whatever direction the Hands of God move one. This is the real essence of ijtihad.
******************
Why do human beings believe they have the authority or responsibility to hold other human beings accountable for what is, clearly, according to the Qur’an, obligations or duties of care which one has to God? God is the One Who has ordained such duties of care, and God is the One Who will judge such matters, and God is the One Who will hold people accountable for their deeds and misdeeds in this respect on the Day of Judgment, and God has not asked people – other than the Prophets – to assume responsibility for, or to take authority of, such matters. So, why do Muslim theologians, imams, muftis, mullahs, and leaders believe that it is their duty to police the Deen of others and make sure that it conforms to their own individual likes and dislikes?
According to some modern-day, self-proclaimed mujtahids, they represent the members of the community in the matter of determining what constitutes the nature of one’s spiritual duties of care to God. They believe that when the mujtahids of a certain school of law reach a consensus concerning some given facet of what the members of that school consider to be shari‘ah, then, from an epistemological perspective, such an agreement gives expression to an understanding that is just as certain as anything from the Qur’an or sunna. Furthermore, they believe they have the right to impose their views on others.
However, as indicated previously in this essay, there is not necessarily any evidence – other than self-invested claims – that such individuals actually have been appointed by God or the Prophet to either determine what the spiritual path should be for others or that such mujtahids have been granted the authority by either God or the Prophet to impose upon others whatever judgments at which they may arrive during the course of their deliberations concerning the Qur’an and sunna. Nor is there necessarily any evidence – other than the self-serving circularity of their own belief – that the agreements these so-called mujtahids reach should be considered to have the same level of authority or authenticity as either the Qur’an or sunna, and, in fact, there is not necessarily any evidence – other than the mutually reinforcing opinions of the parties to the agreement – that the participants have even arrived at a correct understanding of things.
Anyone who strives or struggles to ascertain the nature of shari‘ah is performing ijtihad and, therefore, is a mujtahid. Nonetheless, the fact that one is a mujtahid or is referred to as a mujtahid does not inherently compel others to accept the proclamations of such individuals as anything more than their understanding of a given issue, problem, or idea.
There are mujtahids who truly understand the nature of shari‘ah, and one would be well-advised to consider what they have to say about things and to reflect on such matters with due diligence. On the other hand, there also are mujtahids who truly do not understand the nature of shari‘ah, and one would be well-advised to stay as far away as possible from these latter sort of individuals.
The problem, of course, is one of knowing who is which kind of mujtahid. Everyone makes a choice concerning who they will listen to or go to for counsel with respect to spiritual matters, and much may be decided by the nature of one’s choice in this regard.
Choose correctly and one has, God willing, good spiritual counsel. Choose incorrectly and one has, may Allah have mercy on us, bad spiritual counsel.
For far too long, the Muslim world has been making a lot of bad choices with respect to the sort of spiritual counsel to which they have been willing to listen and to which they have opened themselves. We see the problematic ramifications of such choices almost everywhere in the Muslim world.
One of the problematic areas being alluded to above has been the insistence of all too many self-promoting mujtahids that sharia‘ah is a legal system which is to be imposed on a community. Shari‘ah is not a legal system, and it should not be imposed on anyone.
Shari‘ah is the spiritual journey of an individual who seeks to arrive at the truth concerning the nature of one’s relationship with God. Shari‘ah is the process of seeking to discover the nature of one’s essential identity. Shari‘ah gives expression to a person’s striving to realize, God willing, the full spiritual potential of fitra – one’s primordial spiritual capacity. Shari‘ah is a way to honor one’s duties of care to oneself, to others, to creation, and to God.
“And (as for) those who disbelieve, their deeds are like the mirage in a desert, which the thirsty man deems to be water until when he comes to it he finds it to be naught, and there he finds Allah, so He pays back to him his reckoning in full, and Allah is quick in reckoning.” [Qur’an, 24:39]
Human beings are inclined to search – through ijtihad -- for that which they believe will satisfy their spiritual thirst. One who searches is in a condition of unbelief because the truth or reality of things remains hidden from them at that point – that is, after all, why they are engaged in a process of seeking.
When, after striving and struggling, one comes to the understanding that everything for which one has been searching in order to satisfy one’s spiritual thirst is a mirage, then, this is the time when, God willing, the realization comes to the individual that Allah is the only One Who is capable of satisfying one’s need or longing or desire. Everything else is a mirage – including one’s reasoning and the various schools of jurisprudence.
The individual who, by the Grace of Allah, comes to such an understanding or realization finds Allah waiting for her or him, and God is ready to respond to that individual in accordance with the nature of the realization which has been reached. If one submits to the reality of one’s need for God, God is quick in reckoning concerning such a realization and guides the individual in their striving or ijtihad, but if one persists in turning away from God’s presence, then, too, God is quick in responding to such a spiritual condition and the individual is maintained in a state of disbelief.
*******************
In the Qur’an, one reads:
“He it is Who has revealed the Book to you; some of the verses are decisive, they are the basis of the book, and others are allegorical; then in those whose hearts there is perversity, they follow the part of it which is allegorical, seeking to mislead and seeking to give it [their own] interpretation, but none knows the interpretation except Allah, and those who are firmly rooted in knowledge say: We believe in it, it is from our Lord; and none do mind except those having understanding. [Qur’an, 3:7]
In Surah 3, verse 7, one finds a slightly different wording of the same principles that are being expressed through the foregoing verse of the Qur’an:
“He [that is, God] it is Who hath revealed unto thee (Muhammad) the Scripture wherein are clear revelations -- They are the substance of the Book--and others (which are) allegorical. But those in whose hearts is doubt pursue, forsooth, that which is allegorical seeking (to cause) dissension by seeking to explain it. None knows its explanation save Allah. And those who are of sound instruction say: We believe therein; the whole is from our Lord; but only men of understanding really heed.”
Which are the decisive verses and which are the allegorical verses? Understanding and guidance come from Allah. They do not come from theologians and mullahs or books of fiqh that may be inclined to place their own interpretations onto the Qur’an.
Only Allah knows the correct determination of such matters, and the people of knowledge or understanding are the ones whom God has taken by the hand and guided them through the hazards of the spiritual journey. These people of knowledge accept all of the Qur’an as revelation, and they pursue shari‘ah so that they may be led to the water of knowledge and be permitted to drink according to God’s blessings and according to their present spiritual condition and ultimate spiritual capacity.
Shari‘ah is a way [that is, the struggle toward self-purification], and a result [namely, the truth made manifest to the individual]. Neither the way nor the result can be imposed from without as many advocates of this or that school of jurisprudence or madhhab would have Muslims believe to be true, but, rather, one must become engaged in a life-long process of ijtihad through which one strives for the manner of discernment which will permit one, God willing, to distinguish between, on the one hand, the substance and basis of the Qur’an, and, on the other hand, that which is allegorical in the Qur’an.
Both the substance and allegorical dimensions of the Qur’an constitute guidance. However, when, as a result of problematic facets in one’s process of ijtihad, one confuses the allegorical with the substance of the Qur’an, then, as God warns, one may be carried in the direction of misguidance, and, this, unfortunately, is what has happened across the last 1300 years, or so, in all too many instances with respect to various individuals and their respective schools of jurisprudence.
“And know that this is My path, the right one, therefore follow it, and follow not other ways, for they will lead you away from His way; this He has enjoined you with that you may guard against it.” [Qur’an, 6:153]
*********************
Shari'ah: A Muslim's Declaration of Independence - Part 11
The Concept of Naskh
The principle of naskh or abrogation is recognized, in one form or another, by many religious scholars and theologians. Allegedly, this principle refers to the manner in which certain later manifestations of revelation are believed to nullify or overrule certain earlier instances of revelation.
Some people cite the following Quranic ayat in support of this approach to the Qur’an:
“Whatever communications we abrogate or cause to be forgotten, we bring one better than it or like it. Do you not know that Allah has power over all things?” [Qur’an, 2:106]
However, an assumption is being made concerning the precise identity of the communications to which God is referring in the foregoing verse.
For example, let us suppose that a people of an earlier time were given a revelation, and, then, over time, this revelation was forgotten by the people to whom it was given. Let us further suppose that God in his mercy then sent another revelation to replace the previous guidance.
According to the Quranic ayat noted earlier, the second revelation may be better than the first revelation in certain ways, or it may be like the revelation which had been sent previously. If the second revelation is better than the first in certain ways, only God knows what these ways are, and if the second revelation is like the first revelation, again, only God knows the nature of the likeness between the two.
Furthermore, in neither instance can one assume that anything in the first revelation has been replaced or nullified by aspects of the second revelation. The second revelation may be better than the first revelation because something has been added rather than taken away. Or, if the second revelation is like the first revelation, then, we are dealing with variations on certain themes rather than one revelation nullifying another.
So, even in the case where a second revelation wholly replaces a previous revelation in accordance with the foregoing scenario, one cannot assume that anything has been nullified in conjunction with the first revelation. Rather, the first revelation was forgotten, and, therefore, God sent another reminder to the people in question and, thereby, provided those people with, yet, another opportunity to be guided toward realizing life’s purpose.
Another Quranic ayat which sometimes is cited by those who believe that abrogation is a working principle inherent in the Qur’an is the following verse:
“And when We change one communication for another, and Allah knows best what He reveals, they say: You are only a forger. Nay, most of them do not know.” [Qur’an, 16. 101]
As is true with respect to the earlier Quranic ayat – namely, 2:106 – concerning the issue of God’s replacing of one Divine communication by another, people who understand this ayat in terms of the idea of abrogation or the nullification of an earlier Divine communications are making certain assumptions in relation to such an understanding. The fulcrum which leverages the guidance of the verse is this: “God knows best what he reveals” and the other side of this principle is that “most of them do not know”.
In what way is God changing one communication with respect to another such communication? Unless God discloses the nature of such a change, then, clearly, one is only guessing concerning such matters.
Does change necessarily give expression to a principle of abrogation? No, it doesn’t. There may be an array of changes which complement, supplement, enrich, or modify a given communication without abrogating or nullifying that which came previously.
Among those who accept the principle of naskh or abrogation, there are those who wish to argue that within one and the same revelation – for instance, the Qur’an -- later portions of the Divine communications which make up the contents of such a revelation are believed to nullify or abrogate certain earlier expressions of the Divine communications which are part of the same Book of Divine guidance. As an example of what such people have in mind, consider the following Quranic verses:
In 2:219 one finds: “They ask you [Muhammad] about wine and gambling. Say: In both there is sin and utility for people.”
In 4:43, one finds:
“O ye who believe, do not come to pray when you are in a state of intoxication, till you know what you utter.”
In 5:90 one finds:
“O ye who believe? Intoxicants and games of chance and sacrificing to stones set up and divining by arrows are only an uncleanness, the work of Shaitan; shun it therefore, that you may be successful.”
Those who accept the idea of abrogation as a working principle maintain that the last of the three ayats given expression here nullifies the first two verses of the Qur’an that have been listed. In other words, Ayat 2:219 indicates that there are both bad features as well as beneficial features which are associated with the consumption of wine or participation in gambling, but nothing is specifically said about abstaining from drinking wine or gambling.
One might note, however, that even in the case of 2:219, there is an indication that there are problems inherent in such activities. Perhaps, a reflective mind and heart might begin to consider what those problems were and what implications, if any, they carried with respect to how one went about living one’s life.
Ayat 4:43 informs people that one should not engage in prayers when one is in an intoxicated state – that one should know and be aware of what one is saying while one offers prayers. Despite this cautionary note, nothing is specifically said about abstaining from the consumption of intoxicants.
On the other hand, as was true in the case of verse 2:219 discussed earlier, there is a subtle hint given in Ayat 4:43 for those who might wish to reflect on the matter. More specifically, all of life is intended to be a matter of worship – indeed:
“And to your Lord turn all of your attention.” [Qur’an, 94:8]
And, as well:
“Whoever submits one’s whole self to Allah and is a doer of good has grasped the most trustworthy handhold.” [Qur’an, 31:22]
So, although there is no specific prohibitions in Ayat 4:43 about either consuming intoxicants or becoming intoxicated, and although the guidance is ostensibly only about staying away from prayers when one is in an intoxicated state, nonetheless, there is more to think about in conjunction with that verse than that to which one’s attention is being drawn with respect to the specific caution that is being given expression through the ayat in question. For example, among other possibilities, one might ask oneself the following: If one’s goal is God, and if one considers all of life a matter of worship, then, is it not the case that whenever one is intoxicated, there is a sense in which one is engaging the issue of worship in an intoxicated state?
Does this mean that one must refrain from the consumption of intoxicants? As far as verses 4:43 and 2:219 are concerned, no, it doesn’t. Does this mean that one must not become intoxicated? As far as verses 4:43 and 2:219 are concerned, no, it doesn’t.
Ayat 90 of Surah 5 indicates that if one wishes to be successful spiritually, then, consuming intoxicants and participating in games of chance should be avoided all together. Has anything really changed among 5:90, 4:43, and 2:219?
The difference is that what has been implicit in both 4:43 and 2:219 has now been made explicit. More specifically, if one wishes to, God willing, achieve spiritual success, then, one should refrain from consuming intoxicants and participating in games of chance.
The imperative mood of this directive in 5:90 is intended to influence the behavior of those who will listen to such guidance. The grammatical constructions in verses 4:43 and 2:219 are also intended to influence those whose hearts are receptive to what is being said.
In each of the three verses, warnings, cautions, and guidance are given. In two of the three verses one is being informed about the relationship between, on the one hand, intoxicants and gambling, and, on the other hand, what may be in one’s best interests with respect to living life, while in the other verse one is being informed about the relationship between the condition of intoxication and its potential effect on the quality and propriety of one’s prayers.
Can one choose to drink and gamble? Yes, one can because none of the three ayats nullifies or abrogates one’s freedom to accept or reject guidance.
However, if one is at all concerned about pursuing the actual purpose of life and, God willing, becoming spiritually successful in that pursuit, then, in all three of the foregoing ayats one is being guided in similar ways. Nothing has been abrogated or nullified.
The implicit has been made explicit. Something which already was present in the earlier two verses has been made manifest.
Another example of what is considered to be an instance of naksh or abrogation involves the issues of bequeaths, inheritance, and debt. In 2:180 of the Qur’an, one finds:
“Bequest is prescribed for you when death approaches one of you, if he leaves behind wealth for parents and near relatives, according to usage, a duty incumbent on those who guard against evil.”
In addition, Surah 4, verses 11-12, contains a detailed set of specific parameters laid out for distributing inheritance in conjunction with whatever debts and bequeaths may have been made previously. Indications are given that debts and bequeaths need to be given priority – although there is an allusion to the idea that one needs to take into consideration the possibility of harm which may arise out of the paying of a debt. In addition, a large set of permutations are set forth in these verses concerning possible scenarios of what should be done according to who survives a deceased individual.
Some jurists have come to the conclusion that verses 11-12 of Surah 4 abrogate or nullify the guidance of 2:180. This is especially so since some of these jurists site a hadith based on a solitary report attributed to the Prophet which indicates that there should be “no bequest in favor of an heir.”
Taking the last point first – namely, the idea that the Prophet is reported to have said that there should be no bequest in favor of an heir – if one believes in the relevance of taking into account what the Prophet says, then, the Prophet also has said that he wanted all collections of his sayings destroyed so that no one would possibly confuse or conflate what he said with God’s decrees. Consequently, while I believe that what the Prophet told people directly is important to those individuals being directly addressed, I believe the Prophet also placed a limit on the potential sphere of applicability of such sayings when he also indicated that collections of his sayings should be destroyed.
Secondly, when the Prophet said what he is reported to have said concerning the idea that there should be “no bequest in favor of an heir”, do we know whether, or not, the Prophet was addressing a particular individual or a group of individuals with the intention that what is reported to have been said by the Prophet concerning the issue of bequests and heirs – if it actually was said by the Prophet – was intended to serve as counsel for the person or persons who were being addressed and no one else? The answer is: ‘No, we don’t know what the intention of the Prophet was in this respect.’!
Is it possible that the Prophet may have meant that no single heir should be favored or be given priority over other heirs in the matter of bequests or that heirs should not be given preference to others in the matter of bequeaths? Possibly, but, once again, we really have no way of determining the intention with which the Prophet said what he is reported to have said concerning bequeaths and heirs.
Furthermore, whatever the Prophet may have meant with respect to the indicated solitary report, the Prophet also indicated – via his directive to have collections of Hadith destroyed -- that the context of applicability of what he may have said in this respect should remain with those who lived in his times and who were part of the Muslim community at that time. Otherwise, the Prophet would not have ordered that collections of his Hadith should be destroyed, thereby, limiting the sphere of applicability of what he said to those whom he directly addressed and who had committed such counsel to memory.
Beyond the foregoing considerations, I’m not sure there really is any conflict between the verses cited in relation to Surah 2 and Surah 4. The first verse [2:180] indicates that one should make plans for distributing one’s wealth as the time of death approaches, and that verse also indicates that leaving behind wealth for parents and near relatives is an important thing to do. However, the wealth which is to be left behind for parents and near kin need not be in the form of bequeaths.
Another consideration in the foregoing is that not every permutation concerning the possible combinations of heirs who might survive a deceased individual is listed in verses 11-12. So, how should one handle those cases which fall outside the boundaries which are indicated? -- maybe in accordance with the provisions of 2:180 in the Qur’an -- that is, to distribute one’s wealth in as equitable a manner as one is capable of doing.
Or maybe the reason for the existence of two instances of Quranic guidance [i.e., 2:180 and 4:11-12] concerning the issue of distributing wealth in the case of actual or approaching death is to provide people with options concerning these issues. These options are the parameters which help define the limits which God is establishing with respect to justice and equitability.
On the other hand, however one goes about the process of distributing one’s wealth and whichever option one chooses in dealing with this manner, the underlying counsel is that one should distribute one’s wealth in an equitable manner. One way – but not necessarily the only way -- of satisfying the issue of equitability is in conjunction with the method outlined in Surah 4, verses 11 and 12.
Thirdly, Muslims are enjoined by the Qur’an to be equitable. Since there may be additional issues of fairness, need, and differing contingent circumstances which should be taken into consideration with respect to dealing equitably with heirs, bequeaths, debt, and any possible harm which may arise out of such interacting variables in a particular set of circumstances, one may feel the need to bring such additional considerations of equitability to bear on these matters in order that the greatest quality and quantity of justice possible be done with respect to all affected parties.
The specific provisions outlined in Surah 4, verses 11-12 may be guidance for the individuals who lived in and around the times of the Prophet Muhammad. Those specific provisions may have been intended to serve the particular circumstances of Arabian society at that time, but when historical, cultural, and other contingencies change over time, then, one acts in accordance with the essential default principle concerning the importance of distributing wealth which is inherent in both Quranic excerpts -- 2:180 and 4:11-12 – although each of these sections deals with the same underlying issue from different directions and in relation to different contingencies.
Finally, irrespective of whatever specific decisions which may be reached by an individual as she or he seeks to comply with what that person believes to be true and just with respect to matters involving bequeaths, heirs, debt, possible harms, and equitability, nevertheless, these matters are, for the most part, not the purview of a government’s regulation of public space unless the manner of distribution chosen by individuals has a substantial potential for leading to the oppression of some by others. Indeed, the accumulation of wealth in the hands of the few inevitably does lead to the oppression of others, and, perhaps, this is one of the reasons why God indicates to humankind, through the Qur’an, that the distribution of wealth has a potentially central role to play in helping to place obstacles of equitability in the way of the sort of accumulation of wealth that all too frequently tends, in time, to lead to oppression of one kind or another.
I believe the foregoing considerations tend to shape the basic operating principles in such matters except, as noted, when the potential for the emergence of oppression is demonstrable as the result of some person’s decision to distribute wealth in a certain, possibly problematic manner. Even in the event of such potential for oppression, a preferred manner for handling such problems may be through mediation among various parties rather than through legal pronouncements or injunctions which are forcibly imposed on people.
However, such considerations notwithstanding, how a person handles these matters is, generally speaking, between the individual and God. God is the One Who will hold a person accountable for either fulfilling or not fulfilling the requirements of shari‘ah – not governments or religious jurists and courts or imams.
A third example mentioned by some as an expression of the principle of abrogation which, supposedly, is at work in the Qur’an is said to concern the issue of Qibla or the direction of prayer. For instance, in 2:144, one finds:
“…so we shall surely turn you to a qiblah which you shall like, turn, then, your face to the Sacred Mosque, and wherever you are, turn your face towards it…”
The foregoing guidance doesn’t really constitute an abrogation, per se, of anything. At the very most, it constitutes a slight modification of the way in which something already established is to be done.
More specifically prior to the foregoing revelation, Muslims sought to worship God through, among other possibilities, the act of prayer. After the revelation, Muslims still sought to worship God through, among other possibilities, the act of prayer.
Changing the direction of Qibla did not alter anything of an essential nature with respect to the basics of Islam. An external feature of the form of worship was modified.
Prior to the night journey and mi’raj of the Prophet, prayers did not have any specific external form. During the Prophet’s ascension, one of the gifts given to the Prophet, specifically, and to Muslims, in general, was the external form of the prayer.
This new form of worship did not alter or nullify any aspect of the essence of what is involved in prayer. As the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is reported to have said:
“Prayer is the sacrifice whereby every believer comes closer to Allah.”
Every instance of prayer is an exercise in sacrificing the interests of one nafs in order to remember God, and through such a sacrifice, one becomes purified so that one may enter a condition of taqwa through which, God willing, one may be brought closer to the reality of things through whatever truths God may disclose to the individual.
Similarly, in the case of the change in the external direction of Qibla, none of this altered the internal direction of Qibla which has always been to God. Indeed, the true Sacred Mosque is the purified heart of every believer, and one concentrates on the external form in order that one may be guided to remember that the external is but a reflection of the metaphysical realities within us. The true Qibla is the realization that:
“Wheresoever you turn, there is the Face of God.” [2:115]
As well as:
Wa huwa ma’akum aynama kuntum (And He is with you wherever you are [57:4]
In reality, what has occurred with respect to the issue of the change in Qibla is not a nullification of a prior Divine communication, but, rather Muslims were being informed that a timeframe of appropriateness had come to an end or had passed by with respect to the activity of prayer. That is, the external form of an activity – namely praying -- which had been entirely appropriate for Muslims to observe before the revelation concerning a change in the direction of Qibla was being modified and, as a result, the previous external form was no longer the appropriate external form through which to observe prayers.
The principle involved in the foregoing is not that of nullifying or overturning what previously had been sent. The principle is that everything has a context of appropriateness, and this principle is operative throughout the Qur’an.
In short, the revelation concerning the change in Qibla gives expression to an important principle involving the nature of Quranic guidance. What is appropriate is not a function of that which is unchanging with respect to understanding, but, rather, what is appropriate is a function of taking into consideration the manner in which guidance changes as a function of contingencies.
Attention is being directed to the importance of context. Attention is being directed to the importance of the manner in which the criteria of appropriateness changes with the nature of contingent factors and forces which surround historical and existential circumstances.
Just as, in some cases, subsequent revelation may alter one’s understanding of past verses or changes how one understands or engages spiritual practice, so, too, different God-granted insights into one and the same verse may change over time in a way that informs faith and practice and affects the manner in which one engages or understands other verses of the Qur’an in a manner that is different from what previously had been the case. This is how faith, knowledge, and wisdom increase – not through nullification, per se, but through the supplementing, complementing, modification, and enriching of one’s previous understanding concerning Divine guidance.
There is some indication that several of the Companions understood things in the foregoing sense. For instance, consider the following cases.
Despite the specific guidance of 9:60 in the Qur’an which stipulates who is to be a recipient of state funds – an ayat which includes the idea that winning over the hearts of certain people for the Muslim community is to included among such uses -- and although the Prophet, himself, always directed a share of the state funds toward such a purpose [namely, winning over the hearts of certain people for the benefit of the Muslim community], nonetheless, Hazrat ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) refused to direct a portion of community funds to such a purpose. He argued that during the time of the Prophet, Muslims were weak and in need of such support, but those times had passed, and the community no longer was in need of such assistance, and, therefore, the guidance inherent in 9:60 was, in the indicated sense, no longer relevant to the Muslim community – although this could change again, depending on contingent circumstances.
Hazrat ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) wasn’t abrogating or nullifying verse 60 of Surah 9. Rather, he was taking into consideration the appropriateness of the context or timeframe for the application of a given facet of guidance.
On another occasion, during the conquests of Mesopotamia and Syria, Hazrat ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) did not observe the requirements of 59:6-10 in the Qur’an which governed the distribution of ghana’im [booty or spoils of war]. Instead, he indicated that the state was more in need of such resources than individuals were, and if this were not done, then the Muslim armies in various territories could not be equipped or maintained.
Here, again, a decision was made that required one to compare the character of contingent circumstances in relation to specific provisions of the Qur’an which, superficially, may have been thought to govern such matters. The task faced by Hazrat ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) was to determine whether, or not, the character of the latter actually addressed the character of the former.
Apparently, Hazrat ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) decided that the nature of the hukm of the historical circumstances and contingencies with which the Muslim community was faced at that time was different from the nature of the hukm inherent in the guidance of Surah 59, verses 6-10. In doing this, he was not abrogating or nullifying this aspect of the Qur’an, but, instead, he was seeking to determine the conditions of appropriateness for applying one facet of Quranic guidance rather than some other aspect of such guidance.
Along these same lines, consider the following excerpt from Bukhari which is narrated by Nafi’:
“During the affliction of Ibn Az-Zubair [which took place after the Prophet had passed away], two men came to Ibn 'Umar and said, "The people are lost, and you are the son of 'Umar and a companion of the Prophet, so what stops you from coming out and joining the conflict?" He said, "What stops me is that Allah has prohibited the shedding of my brother’s blood."
They both said, "Didn't Allah say, 'And fight then until there is no more affliction?’
Ibn ‘Umar said "We fought until there was no more affliction and so that worship would be for Allah Alone, while you want to fight until there is affliction and until the worship becomes for other than Allah." (Volume 6, Book 60, Number 40)
Once again, the foregoing tradition brings home the point that the task facing human beings is not just a matter of looking in the Qur’an and applying whatever one likes. One must try to understand the hukm – that is, the reality or governing principle – of both the situation in which one is involved, as well as strive to discover that hukm of the Qur’an which best serves the hukm of life’s circumstances.
This is an expression of ijtihad. This is not an expression of naksh or abrogation.
The issue of trying to struggle toward establishing what is an appropriate frame of reference for tying together certain existential contingencies with various facets of Quranic guidance is a theme which occurs again and again throughout the Qur’an. There are times and circumstances when it is appropriate to apply certain facets of guidance, and there are times and circumstances when it is not appropriate to apply such aspects of guidance.
Everything is about discernment and doing what is appropriate at the right time, and in the right way, and for the right length of time, and with the right intention before some other principle becomes more appropriate for one to pursue as circumstances change. Context and the nature of the contingency of events which come together and give that context the structural character it has is of fundamental importance. It is the context which calls out for relief from Quranic guidance and, therefore, it is, in a sense, the context which establishes the conditions which must be satisfied through the appropriate application of Divine guidance.
If one understands a situation, then, one also understands what one is looking for in the way of spiritual relief. By opening oneself up – in the unbiased manner of taqwa -- to the Divine Word, then, God willing, the solution to that context is given through what is most resonant in the one doing ijtihad in relation to a given situation.
The times for fasting, hajj, prayer, wuzu, zakat, and so on are all to be observed from within a given timeframe of appropriateness. When a given timeframe of appropriateness has passed, then certain guidance is no longer necessarily applicable.
For example, the Qur’an indicates that:
“Worship at fixed times has been enjoined on the believers.” [Qur’an, 4:103]
When the timeframe for a particular instance of worship has passed, then, one moves on to what is appropriate with respect to the changed timeframe. The ritual fast only occurs during the month of Ramadan, and when that timeframe has passed, then, the ritual fast cannot be observed -- although there are provisions for making up what may have been missed due to, say, travel or ill-health or for expiating the transgression of intentionally not fasting during the indicated timeframe. Hajj only occurs within a fixed timeframe, and when that period has passed, the rituals of Hajj are no longer operable – although one still can perform the lesser pilgrimage. The times for saying the five daily prayers exist within a fixed timeframe, and when that window of opportunity passes, then, one has missed the prayer – although one can offer prayers at a later time in the hope that such offerings will be accepted by God in exchange for the fixed prayers that were missed.
Appropriateness changes with circumstances, contexts, peoples, and contingencies. Therefore, the timeframes for the conditions of appropriateness pass into and out of existence. This is not to say that everything is relative or that there are no boundaries of propriety, because there are such boundaries, and God is continually warning people in the Qur’an not to transgress due boundaries. For example:
But whoever seeks to go beyond that, these are they who exceed the limits; [Qur’an, 23:7]
However, there is no principle of naksh or abrogation which is operative in the Qur’an. What is operative is a principle of appropriateness in which as the hukm or reality of circumstances change, then, one must go in search of the appropriate Quranic hukm to address and reflect such changes.
****************
The principle of naskh or abrogation is recognized, in one form or another, by many religious scholars and theologians. Allegedly, this principle refers to the manner in which certain later manifestations of revelation are believed to nullify or overrule certain earlier instances of revelation.
Some people cite the following Quranic ayat in support of this approach to the Qur’an:
“Whatever communications we abrogate or cause to be forgotten, we bring one better than it or like it. Do you not know that Allah has power over all things?” [Qur’an, 2:106]
However, an assumption is being made concerning the precise identity of the communications to which God is referring in the foregoing verse.
For example, let us suppose that a people of an earlier time were given a revelation, and, then, over time, this revelation was forgotten by the people to whom it was given. Let us further suppose that God in his mercy then sent another revelation to replace the previous guidance.
According to the Quranic ayat noted earlier, the second revelation may be better than the first revelation in certain ways, or it may be like the revelation which had been sent previously. If the second revelation is better than the first in certain ways, only God knows what these ways are, and if the second revelation is like the first revelation, again, only God knows the nature of the likeness between the two.
Furthermore, in neither instance can one assume that anything in the first revelation has been replaced or nullified by aspects of the second revelation. The second revelation may be better than the first revelation because something has been added rather than taken away. Or, if the second revelation is like the first revelation, then, we are dealing with variations on certain themes rather than one revelation nullifying another.
So, even in the case where a second revelation wholly replaces a previous revelation in accordance with the foregoing scenario, one cannot assume that anything has been nullified in conjunction with the first revelation. Rather, the first revelation was forgotten, and, therefore, God sent another reminder to the people in question and, thereby, provided those people with, yet, another opportunity to be guided toward realizing life’s purpose.
Another Quranic ayat which sometimes is cited by those who believe that abrogation is a working principle inherent in the Qur’an is the following verse:
“And when We change one communication for another, and Allah knows best what He reveals, they say: You are only a forger. Nay, most of them do not know.” [Qur’an, 16. 101]
As is true with respect to the earlier Quranic ayat – namely, 2:106 – concerning the issue of God’s replacing of one Divine communication by another, people who understand this ayat in terms of the idea of abrogation or the nullification of an earlier Divine communications are making certain assumptions in relation to such an understanding. The fulcrum which leverages the guidance of the verse is this: “God knows best what he reveals” and the other side of this principle is that “most of them do not know”.
In what way is God changing one communication with respect to another such communication? Unless God discloses the nature of such a change, then, clearly, one is only guessing concerning such matters.
Does change necessarily give expression to a principle of abrogation? No, it doesn’t. There may be an array of changes which complement, supplement, enrich, or modify a given communication without abrogating or nullifying that which came previously.
Among those who accept the principle of naskh or abrogation, there are those who wish to argue that within one and the same revelation – for instance, the Qur’an -- later portions of the Divine communications which make up the contents of such a revelation are believed to nullify or abrogate certain earlier expressions of the Divine communications which are part of the same Book of Divine guidance. As an example of what such people have in mind, consider the following Quranic verses:
In 2:219 one finds: “They ask you [Muhammad] about wine and gambling. Say: In both there is sin and utility for people.”
In 4:43, one finds:
“O ye who believe, do not come to pray when you are in a state of intoxication, till you know what you utter.”
In 5:90 one finds:
“O ye who believe? Intoxicants and games of chance and sacrificing to stones set up and divining by arrows are only an uncleanness, the work of Shaitan; shun it therefore, that you may be successful.”
Those who accept the idea of abrogation as a working principle maintain that the last of the three ayats given expression here nullifies the first two verses of the Qur’an that have been listed. In other words, Ayat 2:219 indicates that there are both bad features as well as beneficial features which are associated with the consumption of wine or participation in gambling, but nothing is specifically said about abstaining from drinking wine or gambling.
One might note, however, that even in the case of 2:219, there is an indication that there are problems inherent in such activities. Perhaps, a reflective mind and heart might begin to consider what those problems were and what implications, if any, they carried with respect to how one went about living one’s life.
Ayat 4:43 informs people that one should not engage in prayers when one is in an intoxicated state – that one should know and be aware of what one is saying while one offers prayers. Despite this cautionary note, nothing is specifically said about abstaining from the consumption of intoxicants.
On the other hand, as was true in the case of verse 2:219 discussed earlier, there is a subtle hint given in Ayat 4:43 for those who might wish to reflect on the matter. More specifically, all of life is intended to be a matter of worship – indeed:
“And to your Lord turn all of your attention.” [Qur’an, 94:8]
And, as well:
“Whoever submits one’s whole self to Allah and is a doer of good has grasped the most trustworthy handhold.” [Qur’an, 31:22]
So, although there is no specific prohibitions in Ayat 4:43 about either consuming intoxicants or becoming intoxicated, and although the guidance is ostensibly only about staying away from prayers when one is in an intoxicated state, nonetheless, there is more to think about in conjunction with that verse than that to which one’s attention is being drawn with respect to the specific caution that is being given expression through the ayat in question. For example, among other possibilities, one might ask oneself the following: If one’s goal is God, and if one considers all of life a matter of worship, then, is it not the case that whenever one is intoxicated, there is a sense in which one is engaging the issue of worship in an intoxicated state?
Does this mean that one must refrain from the consumption of intoxicants? As far as verses 4:43 and 2:219 are concerned, no, it doesn’t. Does this mean that one must not become intoxicated? As far as verses 4:43 and 2:219 are concerned, no, it doesn’t.
Ayat 90 of Surah 5 indicates that if one wishes to be successful spiritually, then, consuming intoxicants and participating in games of chance should be avoided all together. Has anything really changed among 5:90, 4:43, and 2:219?
The difference is that what has been implicit in both 4:43 and 2:219 has now been made explicit. More specifically, if one wishes to, God willing, achieve spiritual success, then, one should refrain from consuming intoxicants and participating in games of chance.
The imperative mood of this directive in 5:90 is intended to influence the behavior of those who will listen to such guidance. The grammatical constructions in verses 4:43 and 2:219 are also intended to influence those whose hearts are receptive to what is being said.
In each of the three verses, warnings, cautions, and guidance are given. In two of the three verses one is being informed about the relationship between, on the one hand, intoxicants and gambling, and, on the other hand, what may be in one’s best interests with respect to living life, while in the other verse one is being informed about the relationship between the condition of intoxication and its potential effect on the quality and propriety of one’s prayers.
Can one choose to drink and gamble? Yes, one can because none of the three ayats nullifies or abrogates one’s freedom to accept or reject guidance.
However, if one is at all concerned about pursuing the actual purpose of life and, God willing, becoming spiritually successful in that pursuit, then, in all three of the foregoing ayats one is being guided in similar ways. Nothing has been abrogated or nullified.
The implicit has been made explicit. Something which already was present in the earlier two verses has been made manifest.
Another example of what is considered to be an instance of naksh or abrogation involves the issues of bequeaths, inheritance, and debt. In 2:180 of the Qur’an, one finds:
“Bequest is prescribed for you when death approaches one of you, if he leaves behind wealth for parents and near relatives, according to usage, a duty incumbent on those who guard against evil.”
In addition, Surah 4, verses 11-12, contains a detailed set of specific parameters laid out for distributing inheritance in conjunction with whatever debts and bequeaths may have been made previously. Indications are given that debts and bequeaths need to be given priority – although there is an allusion to the idea that one needs to take into consideration the possibility of harm which may arise out of the paying of a debt. In addition, a large set of permutations are set forth in these verses concerning possible scenarios of what should be done according to who survives a deceased individual.
Some jurists have come to the conclusion that verses 11-12 of Surah 4 abrogate or nullify the guidance of 2:180. This is especially so since some of these jurists site a hadith based on a solitary report attributed to the Prophet which indicates that there should be “no bequest in favor of an heir.”
Taking the last point first – namely, the idea that the Prophet is reported to have said that there should be no bequest in favor of an heir – if one believes in the relevance of taking into account what the Prophet says, then, the Prophet also has said that he wanted all collections of his sayings destroyed so that no one would possibly confuse or conflate what he said with God’s decrees. Consequently, while I believe that what the Prophet told people directly is important to those individuals being directly addressed, I believe the Prophet also placed a limit on the potential sphere of applicability of such sayings when he also indicated that collections of his sayings should be destroyed.
Secondly, when the Prophet said what he is reported to have said concerning the idea that there should be “no bequest in favor of an heir”, do we know whether, or not, the Prophet was addressing a particular individual or a group of individuals with the intention that what is reported to have been said by the Prophet concerning the issue of bequests and heirs – if it actually was said by the Prophet – was intended to serve as counsel for the person or persons who were being addressed and no one else? The answer is: ‘No, we don’t know what the intention of the Prophet was in this respect.’!
Is it possible that the Prophet may have meant that no single heir should be favored or be given priority over other heirs in the matter of bequests or that heirs should not be given preference to others in the matter of bequeaths? Possibly, but, once again, we really have no way of determining the intention with which the Prophet said what he is reported to have said concerning bequeaths and heirs.
Furthermore, whatever the Prophet may have meant with respect to the indicated solitary report, the Prophet also indicated – via his directive to have collections of Hadith destroyed -- that the context of applicability of what he may have said in this respect should remain with those who lived in his times and who were part of the Muslim community at that time. Otherwise, the Prophet would not have ordered that collections of his Hadith should be destroyed, thereby, limiting the sphere of applicability of what he said to those whom he directly addressed and who had committed such counsel to memory.
Beyond the foregoing considerations, I’m not sure there really is any conflict between the verses cited in relation to Surah 2 and Surah 4. The first verse [2:180] indicates that one should make plans for distributing one’s wealth as the time of death approaches, and that verse also indicates that leaving behind wealth for parents and near relatives is an important thing to do. However, the wealth which is to be left behind for parents and near kin need not be in the form of bequeaths.
Another consideration in the foregoing is that not every permutation concerning the possible combinations of heirs who might survive a deceased individual is listed in verses 11-12. So, how should one handle those cases which fall outside the boundaries which are indicated? -- maybe in accordance with the provisions of 2:180 in the Qur’an -- that is, to distribute one’s wealth in as equitable a manner as one is capable of doing.
Or maybe the reason for the existence of two instances of Quranic guidance [i.e., 2:180 and 4:11-12] concerning the issue of distributing wealth in the case of actual or approaching death is to provide people with options concerning these issues. These options are the parameters which help define the limits which God is establishing with respect to justice and equitability.
On the other hand, however one goes about the process of distributing one’s wealth and whichever option one chooses in dealing with this manner, the underlying counsel is that one should distribute one’s wealth in an equitable manner. One way – but not necessarily the only way -- of satisfying the issue of equitability is in conjunction with the method outlined in Surah 4, verses 11 and 12.
Thirdly, Muslims are enjoined by the Qur’an to be equitable. Since there may be additional issues of fairness, need, and differing contingent circumstances which should be taken into consideration with respect to dealing equitably with heirs, bequeaths, debt, and any possible harm which may arise out of such interacting variables in a particular set of circumstances, one may feel the need to bring such additional considerations of equitability to bear on these matters in order that the greatest quality and quantity of justice possible be done with respect to all affected parties.
The specific provisions outlined in Surah 4, verses 11-12 may be guidance for the individuals who lived in and around the times of the Prophet Muhammad. Those specific provisions may have been intended to serve the particular circumstances of Arabian society at that time, but when historical, cultural, and other contingencies change over time, then, one acts in accordance with the essential default principle concerning the importance of distributing wealth which is inherent in both Quranic excerpts -- 2:180 and 4:11-12 – although each of these sections deals with the same underlying issue from different directions and in relation to different contingencies.
Finally, irrespective of whatever specific decisions which may be reached by an individual as she or he seeks to comply with what that person believes to be true and just with respect to matters involving bequeaths, heirs, debt, possible harms, and equitability, nevertheless, these matters are, for the most part, not the purview of a government’s regulation of public space unless the manner of distribution chosen by individuals has a substantial potential for leading to the oppression of some by others. Indeed, the accumulation of wealth in the hands of the few inevitably does lead to the oppression of others, and, perhaps, this is one of the reasons why God indicates to humankind, through the Qur’an, that the distribution of wealth has a potentially central role to play in helping to place obstacles of equitability in the way of the sort of accumulation of wealth that all too frequently tends, in time, to lead to oppression of one kind or another.
I believe the foregoing considerations tend to shape the basic operating principles in such matters except, as noted, when the potential for the emergence of oppression is demonstrable as the result of some person’s decision to distribute wealth in a certain, possibly problematic manner. Even in the event of such potential for oppression, a preferred manner for handling such problems may be through mediation among various parties rather than through legal pronouncements or injunctions which are forcibly imposed on people.
However, such considerations notwithstanding, how a person handles these matters is, generally speaking, between the individual and God. God is the One Who will hold a person accountable for either fulfilling or not fulfilling the requirements of shari‘ah – not governments or religious jurists and courts or imams.
A third example mentioned by some as an expression of the principle of abrogation which, supposedly, is at work in the Qur’an is said to concern the issue of Qibla or the direction of prayer. For instance, in 2:144, one finds:
“…so we shall surely turn you to a qiblah which you shall like, turn, then, your face to the Sacred Mosque, and wherever you are, turn your face towards it…”
The foregoing guidance doesn’t really constitute an abrogation, per se, of anything. At the very most, it constitutes a slight modification of the way in which something already established is to be done.
More specifically prior to the foregoing revelation, Muslims sought to worship God through, among other possibilities, the act of prayer. After the revelation, Muslims still sought to worship God through, among other possibilities, the act of prayer.
Changing the direction of Qibla did not alter anything of an essential nature with respect to the basics of Islam. An external feature of the form of worship was modified.
Prior to the night journey and mi’raj of the Prophet, prayers did not have any specific external form. During the Prophet’s ascension, one of the gifts given to the Prophet, specifically, and to Muslims, in general, was the external form of the prayer.
This new form of worship did not alter or nullify any aspect of the essence of what is involved in prayer. As the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is reported to have said:
“Prayer is the sacrifice whereby every believer comes closer to Allah.”
Every instance of prayer is an exercise in sacrificing the interests of one nafs in order to remember God, and through such a sacrifice, one becomes purified so that one may enter a condition of taqwa through which, God willing, one may be brought closer to the reality of things through whatever truths God may disclose to the individual.
Similarly, in the case of the change in the external direction of Qibla, none of this altered the internal direction of Qibla which has always been to God. Indeed, the true Sacred Mosque is the purified heart of every believer, and one concentrates on the external form in order that one may be guided to remember that the external is but a reflection of the metaphysical realities within us. The true Qibla is the realization that:
“Wheresoever you turn, there is the Face of God.” [2:115]
As well as:
Wa huwa ma’akum aynama kuntum (And He is with you wherever you are [57:4]
In reality, what has occurred with respect to the issue of the change in Qibla is not a nullification of a prior Divine communication, but, rather Muslims were being informed that a timeframe of appropriateness had come to an end or had passed by with respect to the activity of prayer. That is, the external form of an activity – namely praying -- which had been entirely appropriate for Muslims to observe before the revelation concerning a change in the direction of Qibla was being modified and, as a result, the previous external form was no longer the appropriate external form through which to observe prayers.
The principle involved in the foregoing is not that of nullifying or overturning what previously had been sent. The principle is that everything has a context of appropriateness, and this principle is operative throughout the Qur’an.
In short, the revelation concerning the change in Qibla gives expression to an important principle involving the nature of Quranic guidance. What is appropriate is not a function of that which is unchanging with respect to understanding, but, rather, what is appropriate is a function of taking into consideration the manner in which guidance changes as a function of contingencies.
Attention is being directed to the importance of context. Attention is being directed to the importance of the manner in which the criteria of appropriateness changes with the nature of contingent factors and forces which surround historical and existential circumstances.
Just as, in some cases, subsequent revelation may alter one’s understanding of past verses or changes how one understands or engages spiritual practice, so, too, different God-granted insights into one and the same verse may change over time in a way that informs faith and practice and affects the manner in which one engages or understands other verses of the Qur’an in a manner that is different from what previously had been the case. This is how faith, knowledge, and wisdom increase – not through nullification, per se, but through the supplementing, complementing, modification, and enriching of one’s previous understanding concerning Divine guidance.
There is some indication that several of the Companions understood things in the foregoing sense. For instance, consider the following cases.
Despite the specific guidance of 9:60 in the Qur’an which stipulates who is to be a recipient of state funds – an ayat which includes the idea that winning over the hearts of certain people for the Muslim community is to included among such uses -- and although the Prophet, himself, always directed a share of the state funds toward such a purpose [namely, winning over the hearts of certain people for the benefit of the Muslim community], nonetheless, Hazrat ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) refused to direct a portion of community funds to such a purpose. He argued that during the time of the Prophet, Muslims were weak and in need of such support, but those times had passed, and the community no longer was in need of such assistance, and, therefore, the guidance inherent in 9:60 was, in the indicated sense, no longer relevant to the Muslim community – although this could change again, depending on contingent circumstances.
Hazrat ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) wasn’t abrogating or nullifying verse 60 of Surah 9. Rather, he was taking into consideration the appropriateness of the context or timeframe for the application of a given facet of guidance.
On another occasion, during the conquests of Mesopotamia and Syria, Hazrat ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) did not observe the requirements of 59:6-10 in the Qur’an which governed the distribution of ghana’im [booty or spoils of war]. Instead, he indicated that the state was more in need of such resources than individuals were, and if this were not done, then the Muslim armies in various territories could not be equipped or maintained.
Here, again, a decision was made that required one to compare the character of contingent circumstances in relation to specific provisions of the Qur’an which, superficially, may have been thought to govern such matters. The task faced by Hazrat ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) was to determine whether, or not, the character of the latter actually addressed the character of the former.
Apparently, Hazrat ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) decided that the nature of the hukm of the historical circumstances and contingencies with which the Muslim community was faced at that time was different from the nature of the hukm inherent in the guidance of Surah 59, verses 6-10. In doing this, he was not abrogating or nullifying this aspect of the Qur’an, but, instead, he was seeking to determine the conditions of appropriateness for applying one facet of Quranic guidance rather than some other aspect of such guidance.
Along these same lines, consider the following excerpt from Bukhari which is narrated by Nafi’:
“During the affliction of Ibn Az-Zubair [which took place after the Prophet had passed away], two men came to Ibn 'Umar and said, "The people are lost, and you are the son of 'Umar and a companion of the Prophet, so what stops you from coming out and joining the conflict?" He said, "What stops me is that Allah has prohibited the shedding of my brother’s blood."
They both said, "Didn't Allah say, 'And fight then until there is no more affliction?’
Ibn ‘Umar said "We fought until there was no more affliction and so that worship would be for Allah Alone, while you want to fight until there is affliction and until the worship becomes for other than Allah." (Volume 6, Book 60, Number 40)
Once again, the foregoing tradition brings home the point that the task facing human beings is not just a matter of looking in the Qur’an and applying whatever one likes. One must try to understand the hukm – that is, the reality or governing principle – of both the situation in which one is involved, as well as strive to discover that hukm of the Qur’an which best serves the hukm of life’s circumstances.
This is an expression of ijtihad. This is not an expression of naksh or abrogation.
The issue of trying to struggle toward establishing what is an appropriate frame of reference for tying together certain existential contingencies with various facets of Quranic guidance is a theme which occurs again and again throughout the Qur’an. There are times and circumstances when it is appropriate to apply certain facets of guidance, and there are times and circumstances when it is not appropriate to apply such aspects of guidance.
Everything is about discernment and doing what is appropriate at the right time, and in the right way, and for the right length of time, and with the right intention before some other principle becomes more appropriate for one to pursue as circumstances change. Context and the nature of the contingency of events which come together and give that context the structural character it has is of fundamental importance. It is the context which calls out for relief from Quranic guidance and, therefore, it is, in a sense, the context which establishes the conditions which must be satisfied through the appropriate application of Divine guidance.
If one understands a situation, then, one also understands what one is looking for in the way of spiritual relief. By opening oneself up – in the unbiased manner of taqwa -- to the Divine Word, then, God willing, the solution to that context is given through what is most resonant in the one doing ijtihad in relation to a given situation.
The times for fasting, hajj, prayer, wuzu, zakat, and so on are all to be observed from within a given timeframe of appropriateness. When a given timeframe of appropriateness has passed, then certain guidance is no longer necessarily applicable.
For example, the Qur’an indicates that:
“Worship at fixed times has been enjoined on the believers.” [Qur’an, 4:103]
When the timeframe for a particular instance of worship has passed, then, one moves on to what is appropriate with respect to the changed timeframe. The ritual fast only occurs during the month of Ramadan, and when that timeframe has passed, then, the ritual fast cannot be observed -- although there are provisions for making up what may have been missed due to, say, travel or ill-health or for expiating the transgression of intentionally not fasting during the indicated timeframe. Hajj only occurs within a fixed timeframe, and when that period has passed, the rituals of Hajj are no longer operable – although one still can perform the lesser pilgrimage. The times for saying the five daily prayers exist within a fixed timeframe, and when that window of opportunity passes, then, one has missed the prayer – although one can offer prayers at a later time in the hope that such offerings will be accepted by God in exchange for the fixed prayers that were missed.
Appropriateness changes with circumstances, contexts, peoples, and contingencies. Therefore, the timeframes for the conditions of appropriateness pass into and out of existence. This is not to say that everything is relative or that there are no boundaries of propriety, because there are such boundaries, and God is continually warning people in the Qur’an not to transgress due boundaries. For example:
But whoever seeks to go beyond that, these are they who exceed the limits; [Qur’an, 23:7]
However, there is no principle of naksh or abrogation which is operative in the Qur’an. What is operative is a principle of appropriateness in which as the hukm or reality of circumstances change, then, one must go in search of the appropriate Quranic hukm to address and reflect such changes.
****************
Shari'ah: A Muslim's Declaration of Independence - Part 12
A Few Comments Concerning The Issue of Regulating Public Space
There has been a great deal of confusion in the Muslim community swirling among questions about the possible relationship between, on the one hand, what may have been done in the lifetime of the Prophet -- as well as during the lifetimes of the Companions of the Prophet over the course of the reign of the first four caliphs -- in relation to the issue of regulating public space, and, on the other hand, what may be appropriate to do today in relation to the same issue involving the regulation of public space. The root of the term ‘hukumah’ [governance] refers to a process of seeking to assist an oppressor not to oppress, and such assistance includes helping those who would exercise this responsibility – that is, political and religious leaders … i.e., the government itself – to refrain from any inclination existing within such governance to oppress, exploit, or abuse those whom such governance is supposed to be protecting from these very problems.
The Qur’an says:
“And if there had not been Allah’s repelling of some people by others, certainly there would have been torn down cloisters, and churches, and synagogues, and mosques in which Allah’s name is much mentioned; and surely Allah will help the one who helps His cause; most surely Allah is Strong, Mighty. [Qur’an, 22:39-40]
Hukumah or governance is one of the means through which Allah repels the oppression of some people by others. Moreover, it is important to note that God alludes to the right of those who worship in cloisters, churches, synagogues, and mosques to all be free to remember, worship, and invoke the name of God in their own manner.
There is a Hadith which relates the story of Abu ‘l-Husayn, a companion of the Prophet, whose two sons had been converted to Christianity in Medina by two Syrian merchants and then accompanied those merchants back to Syria. When Abu ‘l-Husayn heard of this, he went to the Prophet and sought permission to go after his sons and bring them back – not only to Medina but to Islam. In answer, the Prophet recited the Qur’an: “There is no compulsion in Deen, truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error.”[Qur’an, 2:256] Upon hearing the foregoing, Abu ‘l-Husayn let his sons go their own way.
When Abu Bakr Sidiq (may Allah be pleased with him) was Caliph [died in the 13th year after hijrah and was Caliph from 632 A.D. to 634 A.D.] he sent the Muslim army into Syria. As he did so, he issued the following guidance:
“When you enter the land, kill neither old men, women, nor children. … Establish a covenant with every people and city who receive you peacefully, give them your assurances, and let them live according to their laws.”
The Prophet, as well as the first four caliphs, all made decisions concerning the regulation of the public space, but these decisions were not shari‘ah, per se. As has been pointed out repeatedly during this essay, shari‘ah is an expression of a person’s private spiritual journey in search of reality or the truth concerning human existence and the place of such existence in the scheme of things, whereas the decisions of the Prophet and the first four Caliphs were particularized applications of their understanding of, and insight into, the nature of Divine guidance which had been given to them and were intended to address the circumstances, history, conditions, problems, cultures, capabilities, and issues of those times.
As the Prophet was instructed to say:
“This is my way. I call to God– I and whoever follows me being certain.” [Qur’an, 12:108]
Just as the appropriate times for fasting, pilgrimage, and prayers are to be observed within a certain timeframe, so, too, there may be an appropriate timeframe or contingency-based set of considerations concerning the application of certain other facets of the Qur’an. However, in order to determine the truth of such matters, one needs to call upon Allah – not books of fiqh, jurisprudence, judicial precedent, or legislation.
In the Qur’an, the Jews are told that they should have judged matters in accordance with the guidance which had been given to them …
“And why do they make you – Muhammad – the judge when they have the Taurat wherein is Allah’s judgment?” [Qur’an, 5:43]
The Qur’an also indicates that Christians should be judging matters in accordance with the guidance [Injeel] which had been given to them …
“And the followers of the Injeel should have judged by what Allah revealed in it; and whoever did not judge by what Allah revealed, those are they who are transgressors.” [Qur’an, 5:47].
Moreover, the Prophet is also told in the Qur’an that if the Jews and Christians come to him for purposes of seeking judgment in a matter, then:
“… judge between them or turn aside from them, and if you turn aside from them, they will not harm you in any way; and if you should decide to serve as a judge, then judge between them with equity; surely God loves those who judge equitably.” [Qur’an, 5:42]
The choice of whether, or not, to decide issues which were brought to him by people from the Christian and/or Jewish community was up to the Prophet. He was made keeper over their affairs and, in fact, the Prophet was reminded – as noted in the foregoing commentary – that both the Christian and the Jewish peoples had been given their own means of deciding matters through the Torah of Moses and the Injeel of Jesus (peace be upon him).
The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is no longer with us in a physical form. The Companions are no longer with us in a physical form.
For the most part, we do not have access to the intentions through which the Prophet or the first four caliphs made their decisions and judgments concerning the regulation of public space. If the Prophet were with us now as a physical presence to which we had ready access, one cannot be sure that he necessarily would decide matters today concerning the regulation of public space exactly as he did more than 1400 years ago when circumstances, conditions, history, culture, and needs were very much different than they are today. Yet, there are people today who have arrogated to themselves the presumption that they know what the Prophet would do or how he would decide matters concerning the regulation of public space if he were here with us in the present set of circumstances.
It is reported that a person wanted to place a book written by Imam Malik in the Sacred Mosque. Apparently, the idea behind that individual’s desire was so that people coming to the Sacred Mosque might discover the book, read it, and, God willing, learn something from its contents. When Imam Malik heard about the person’s desire to place one of the Imam’s books in the Sacred Mosque, Imam Malik indicated that he was not in favor of such an action.
Imam Malik is reported to have said: “The companions of the Messenger of Allah disagreed about the branches and dispersed to different countries, and each one is correct.” He further commented: “The people have handed over to them positions, and they heard hadith and they examined reports, and each people takes what was handed over to them, and they yield to Allah with it. So, leave the people alone and what they choose for themselves in every country.”
The Qur’an reminds us that:
“… for every one of you did We appoint a law and a way, and if Allah had wished He would have made you a single people, but that He might try you in what He gave you, therefore strive with one another to hasten to virtuous deeds; to Allah is your return of all, so He will let you know that in which you differed;” [Qur’an, 5:48]
Prior to becoming Caliph, Hazrat Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) said:
"Listen to me, ye people. Those of you who worshipped Muhammad know that he is dead like any other mortal. But those of you who worship the God of Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) know that He is alive and would live forever."
Then he repeated a passage from the Qur’an:
"And Muhammad is no more than an apostle; apostles have already passed away before him; if then he dies or is killed will you turn back upon your heels? And whoever turns back upon his heels, he will by no means do harm to Allah in the least and Allah will reward the grateful.” [Qur’an, 3:144]
Public space should be governed in a way that prevents oppression, exploitation, or abuse of any kind to undermine or interfere with people’s basic right – which is granted by God – to decide the spiritual direction of their path in life. This is a right and a freedom which each human being has so long as whatever acts arise out of such choices do not spill over into the lives of other individuals and, in the process, adversely or problematically affect the latter’s ability to freely chose and act with respect to their own individual course in life.
The public space, or commons, should be governed through principles of justice, equitability, peace, tolerance, integrity, honesty, charitableness, freedom, compassion, balance, harmony, and the sort of mediated settlements which help limit, if not eliminate all together, all forms of oppression, persecution, abuse, and exploitation. A public space governed in accordance with the foregoing qualities will, if God wishes, generate the type of environment which may prove to be most conducive to the exercise of the basic right to choose between good and evil – a responsibility which belongs to each and every human being.
If one looks to the example of the Prophet, the public space of his community was regulated in accordance with all of the foregoing considerations. He did not force people to pursue shari‘ah but, rather, regulated public space in such a way as to provide people with the fullest opportunity to individually pursue shari‘ah as rigorously as the latter individuals were so inclined to do as long as that pursuit did not infringe upon the right of others to do as they were inclined to do with respect to their own individual journey of shari‘ah. Moreover, quite frequently, the Prophet made judgments concerning the regulation of public space which were in accordance with pre-Islamic, customary practices of the Arab or Jewish tribes.
The Qur’an instructed the Prophet to:
“Say: ‘This is the truth from your Lord’, then, whoever wills let him believe, and whoever wills let him disbelieve.” [Qur’an, 18:29]
At another juncture the Qur’an informs the Prophet:
“You shall remind; you are entrusted to remind. You are not a watcher over them.” [Qur’an, 88:21-22]
And, at another point, the Qur’an indicates:
“Say, ‘Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger.’ If they refuse, then, he is responsible for his obligations, and you are responsible for your obligations. If you obey him, you will be guided.” [24:54]
Moreover, the Qur’an states:
“The guiding of them is not thy duty (O Muhammad), but Allah guides whom He will.” [Qur’an 2: 272).
If, according to the Qur’an, the Prophet is not responsible for the guiding of people to God, and if the duty of the Prophet is not to watch over whether, or not, people pursue shari‘ah, and if God is making it clear that it is up to the individual as to whether he or she believes in the truth which has been sent through the Qur’an and that each person has her or his own responsibility with respect to God, then, why do Muslim religious scholars, imams, theologians, mullahs, leaders, and the like all believe they have duties and responsibilities which were not entrusted to the Prophet? And, in the light of the foregoing considerations from the Qur’an, what is the source of their authority for assuming such duties and responsibilities?
Some religious scholars, would-be leaders, and theologians point to the following Quranic ayat as a possible source for what they consider their ‘rightful’ authority over people:
“O believers! Obey Allah, obey the Rasool and those charged with authority among you. Should you have a dispute in anything, refer it to Allah and His Rasool, if you truly believe in Allah and the Last Day. This course of action will be better and more suitable.” (Qur’an 4:59)
When would-be leaders cite the foregoing verse and seek to use it as an authority for expecting, if not demanding, that others should be obedient to the former, those who approach things in this manner are not only making several questionable assumptions, but, as well, such individuals often tend to act contrary to the full text of the guidance. More specifically, an assumption is being made that the sort of ‘authority’ to which the previous Quranic verse alludes is referring to worldly authority as opposed to spiritual authority, and a further assumption is being made that such individuals have been “charged” or given responsibility by God – or the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) -- to exercise authority over other individuals. Furthermore, when disputes arise in the community, then, contrary to the guidance of the Qur’an, such religious and political leaders often do not refer the matter to either Allah or the Prophet, but, instead, attempt to decide the matter according to their own theological likes and dislikes – with the assistance of imams, mullahs, and religious scholars who are loyal to those leaders -- and, then, seek to impose – forcibly, if necessary -- their decisions on others.
The Prophet had a unique position within the Muslim community. Under the Divinely-sanctioned circumstances surrounding such a standing, the public, for the most part, did not wish to place constraints on what the Prophet could and could not do. This would have been antithetical to the nature of his position and the Divine authority in which his position was rooted – something which, after all was said and done, most [but not all] people in the community acknowledged and accepted.
However, there were those who came after the Prophet [and I do not necessarily have the four ‘righteous Caliphs’ in mind here] who enjoyed something very similar to the status of the Prophet within the Muslim community. As a result, those individuals became rulers in a more or less absolute sense without necessarily having that status sanctioned by Divinity, even though, obviously, such rulers were permitted by God to do whatever they did.
The Prophet had appointed no one to succeed him with respect to the regulation of public – as opposed to spiritual – space. On the other hand, the individuals who followed the Prophet as leaders of the community often were supported through the general trust of the public with respect to the presumed character, morality, piety, and good intentions of whoever it was that became ruler.
Once someone was elected to lead the community – and this was usually by a small group of individuals rather than the community as a whole – or in those cases where a current caliph appointed a successor – and this tended to be the case quite frequently because fathers tended to appoint their sons as their successors -- the general public would be required, en masse, to take ba’yt, or an oath of allegiance, with respect to the individual who would be king or sultan. Unfortunately, such a process offered few, if any, avenues through which a person might opt out of that oath or agreement either before or after the oath of allegiance was to be given, nor did that system permit or encourage the general public to play much of a rigorous, active role in determining who would be ruler or whether, or not, there should only be a single leader for the community -- as opposed to some sort of system of self-governance in which shura or consultation was used as the means through which to address the problems which confront a given community in accordance with the Quranic guidance which says:
“And their rule is to take counsel among themselves …” [Qur’an, 42:38]
In addition, apparently, many people forgot what Hazrat Abu Bakr Siddiq (may Allah be pleased with him) said upon becoming Caliph:
“Obey me as long as I obey Allah and His Prophet. When I disobey Him and His Prophet, then obey me not.”
Hazrat Abu Bakr Siddiq (may Allah be pleased with him) was alluding to the right of people to opt out of their oath of allegiance to him – or to any leader. The determining factor was not the identity of the leader, but, rather, the determining factor was whether, or not, such a person was acting in accordance with the guidance of the Qur’an or the example of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).
The belief that there should be just one leader who was either given or assumed authority to do whatever he deemed to be appropriate became corrupted within a fairly short period of time following the passing away of the Prophet. When this sort of corruption was thoroughly entrenched and became institutionally calcified, many people apparently had considerable difficulty grasping the idea that the Qur’an actually served as, among other things, a Bill of Rights that was intended to protect people against oppression, exploitation, or abuse from their political or religious leaders. This sort of difficulty was maintained and perpetuated through the manner in which, on the one hand, the sultans and kings, and, on the other hand, various imams, qadis, muftis, and theological scholars would engage in reciprocal back-scratching among themselves with respect to mutually framing the historical situation in such a way that the majority of the community were induced to believe that both the leaders and their theological accomplices were the proper guardians and representatives of Sacred Law, despite the fact that many of these individuals might not have recognized the nature of Sacred Law or shari‘ah even if the former tripped over the latter.
The regulation of public space is one issue, and the pursuit of shari‘ah is quite another matter and completely independent of how public space is to be regulated. To seek to impose on others, through the public space, one’s own ideas about what the nature of the spiritual journey ought to involve is to engage in a form of spiritual abuse.
When anyone – imam, mufti, theologian, scholar, leader, qadi, mullah – seeks to control the spirituality of another human being, then, that the former individual has transgressed due limits and has entered into the realm of spiritual abuse or exploitation, and, therefore, oppression. As the Qur’an reminds us:
“Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress the limits, for God does not love the transgressors. [Qur’an, 2:190]
“… tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter.”[Qur’an, 2:191]
“And fight them till there is no more oppression, and Deen should only be for Allah, but if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressor.” [Qur’an, 2:193]
The foregoing is not sanctioning leaders to force Deen upon people, but, rather, the foregoing ayat is a reminder to everyone – especially leaders -- that Deen belongs to Allah and should not be interfered with or undermined by anyone. Moreover, when Deen – that is, the process of nurturing and enhancing the relationship of an individual with God, and, indeed, this is the cause of Allah -- is subject to oppression, then people have the right to resist such aggression so long as the form of that resistance does not transgress due limits of propriety, and one of the limits of propriety is that resistance should only be directed toward those who are being oppressive … no one else.
Indeed, as the Qur’an makes clear elsewhere:
“The blame is only against those who oppress human beings with wrong-doing and
insolently transgress beyond bounds through the land defying right and justice.” [Qur’an, 42:42]
The foregoing remains true even when the ones who are doing the oppressing are the very ones – in the form of religious or political leaders – who supposedly have assumed responsibility for protecting the people against such oppression.
Scholarly debates, rigorous research, discussions, informal conversations, symposia, conferences, round-table sessions, formal talks, books, articles, podcasts, television programs, documentaries, educational programs, and so on, are all legitimate venues through which to exchange views, ideas, and various considerations concerning problems, questions, and issues of spirituality. The foregoing are all legitimate venues through which people may consult with one another on such matters – provided there is no compulsion or oppression involved in these activities either with respect to the matter of attending these sort of exchanges or with respect to having to abide by what is said during those sessions.
In this respect, the Qur’an indicates:
“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]
Although the foregoing guidance was specifically addressed to the Prophet, and although the calling others to the way of God is not the responsibility of a non-Prophet, nonetheless, when one engages in discussions with others concerning various issues, problems, and questions affecting the quality of public space, one still can follow the sunna of the Prophet in such matters and, thereby, seek to do so “with wisdom and goodly exhortation, and have disputations with them in the best manner.”
“O ye who believe! Be upright for Allah, bearers of witness with justice, and let not hatred of a people incite or seduce you not to act equitably; act equitably, that is nearer to piety (taqwa) , and be careful with respect to Allah, surely Allah is aware of what you do.” ‘Qur’an, 5:8]
The public space or commons should not be operated in accordance with any philosophy or theology of public policy which imposes economic, legal, political, physical, moral, intellectual, educational, or cultural agendas on the members of the community who inhabit that public space. The sole task of governance is to guard against the emergence of any kind of oppression, exploitation, or abuse which may arise within the community or which threatens such a community from an external source.
Moreover, all members of the community have a duty of care toward themselves and others to contribute to helping those who are entrusted with governance to succeed in their sole task and responsibility concerning the struggle against oppression, along with the close cousins of oppression – namely, exploitation and abuse.
God:
“… made the balance, That you may not be inordinate [exceed limits, or transgress boundaries] in respect of the measure. And keep up the balance with equity and do not make the measure deficient. [Qur’an, 55:7-9]
The balance, the measure, equity, and taqwa are all expressions of truth and justice. They are all expressions of the Sacred Law. They are all expressions of a realized shari‘ah.
Determining the hukm or realities of such truths are challenges to which, God willing, individuals must aspire. They are not challenges which can be imposed on people or with respect to which compulsion is appropriate.
On the other hand, the ones who are entrusted to exercise governance have a duty of care to assist oppressors not to oppress others -- including themselves. Indeed, the Prophet is reported to have said that one should “Assist any person who is oppressed – whether Muslim or non-Muslim.”
The primary forms of oppression, exploitation and abuse come in the form of those actions which are likely to undermine or interfere with an individual’s God-given right to pursue, or not pursue, the realities and truths of Sacred Law and shari‘ah according to the nature of that person’s capacity, circumstances, level of understanding, inclinations, and God’s Grace … so long as the exercise of such choice does not interfere with, or undermine, the right of others to address such issues in their own manner. All other expressions of oppression, exploitation, and abuse are variations on the foregoing theme.
*****************
There has been a great deal of confusion in the Muslim community swirling among questions about the possible relationship between, on the one hand, what may have been done in the lifetime of the Prophet -- as well as during the lifetimes of the Companions of the Prophet over the course of the reign of the first four caliphs -- in relation to the issue of regulating public space, and, on the other hand, what may be appropriate to do today in relation to the same issue involving the regulation of public space. The root of the term ‘hukumah’ [governance] refers to a process of seeking to assist an oppressor not to oppress, and such assistance includes helping those who would exercise this responsibility – that is, political and religious leaders … i.e., the government itself – to refrain from any inclination existing within such governance to oppress, exploit, or abuse those whom such governance is supposed to be protecting from these very problems.
The Qur’an says:
“And if there had not been Allah’s repelling of some people by others, certainly there would have been torn down cloisters, and churches, and synagogues, and mosques in which Allah’s name is much mentioned; and surely Allah will help the one who helps His cause; most surely Allah is Strong, Mighty. [Qur’an, 22:39-40]
Hukumah or governance is one of the means through which Allah repels the oppression of some people by others. Moreover, it is important to note that God alludes to the right of those who worship in cloisters, churches, synagogues, and mosques to all be free to remember, worship, and invoke the name of God in their own manner.
There is a Hadith which relates the story of Abu ‘l-Husayn, a companion of the Prophet, whose two sons had been converted to Christianity in Medina by two Syrian merchants and then accompanied those merchants back to Syria. When Abu ‘l-Husayn heard of this, he went to the Prophet and sought permission to go after his sons and bring them back – not only to Medina but to Islam. In answer, the Prophet recited the Qur’an: “There is no compulsion in Deen, truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error.”[Qur’an, 2:256] Upon hearing the foregoing, Abu ‘l-Husayn let his sons go their own way.
When Abu Bakr Sidiq (may Allah be pleased with him) was Caliph [died in the 13th year after hijrah and was Caliph from 632 A.D. to 634 A.D.] he sent the Muslim army into Syria. As he did so, he issued the following guidance:
“When you enter the land, kill neither old men, women, nor children. … Establish a covenant with every people and city who receive you peacefully, give them your assurances, and let them live according to their laws.”
The Prophet, as well as the first four caliphs, all made decisions concerning the regulation of the public space, but these decisions were not shari‘ah, per se. As has been pointed out repeatedly during this essay, shari‘ah is an expression of a person’s private spiritual journey in search of reality or the truth concerning human existence and the place of such existence in the scheme of things, whereas the decisions of the Prophet and the first four Caliphs were particularized applications of their understanding of, and insight into, the nature of Divine guidance which had been given to them and were intended to address the circumstances, history, conditions, problems, cultures, capabilities, and issues of those times.
As the Prophet was instructed to say:
“This is my way. I call to God– I and whoever follows me being certain.” [Qur’an, 12:108]
Just as the appropriate times for fasting, pilgrimage, and prayers are to be observed within a certain timeframe, so, too, there may be an appropriate timeframe or contingency-based set of considerations concerning the application of certain other facets of the Qur’an. However, in order to determine the truth of such matters, one needs to call upon Allah – not books of fiqh, jurisprudence, judicial precedent, or legislation.
In the Qur’an, the Jews are told that they should have judged matters in accordance with the guidance which had been given to them …
“And why do they make you – Muhammad – the judge when they have the Taurat wherein is Allah’s judgment?” [Qur’an, 5:43]
The Qur’an also indicates that Christians should be judging matters in accordance with the guidance [Injeel] which had been given to them …
“And the followers of the Injeel should have judged by what Allah revealed in it; and whoever did not judge by what Allah revealed, those are they who are transgressors.” [Qur’an, 5:47].
Moreover, the Prophet is also told in the Qur’an that if the Jews and Christians come to him for purposes of seeking judgment in a matter, then:
“… judge between them or turn aside from them, and if you turn aside from them, they will not harm you in any way; and if you should decide to serve as a judge, then judge between them with equity; surely God loves those who judge equitably.” [Qur’an, 5:42]
The choice of whether, or not, to decide issues which were brought to him by people from the Christian and/or Jewish community was up to the Prophet. He was made keeper over their affairs and, in fact, the Prophet was reminded – as noted in the foregoing commentary – that both the Christian and the Jewish peoples had been given their own means of deciding matters through the Torah of Moses and the Injeel of Jesus (peace be upon him).
The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is no longer with us in a physical form. The Companions are no longer with us in a physical form.
For the most part, we do not have access to the intentions through which the Prophet or the first four caliphs made their decisions and judgments concerning the regulation of public space. If the Prophet were with us now as a physical presence to which we had ready access, one cannot be sure that he necessarily would decide matters today concerning the regulation of public space exactly as he did more than 1400 years ago when circumstances, conditions, history, culture, and needs were very much different than they are today. Yet, there are people today who have arrogated to themselves the presumption that they know what the Prophet would do or how he would decide matters concerning the regulation of public space if he were here with us in the present set of circumstances.
It is reported that a person wanted to place a book written by Imam Malik in the Sacred Mosque. Apparently, the idea behind that individual’s desire was so that people coming to the Sacred Mosque might discover the book, read it, and, God willing, learn something from its contents. When Imam Malik heard about the person’s desire to place one of the Imam’s books in the Sacred Mosque, Imam Malik indicated that he was not in favor of such an action.
Imam Malik is reported to have said: “The companions of the Messenger of Allah disagreed about the branches and dispersed to different countries, and each one is correct.” He further commented: “The people have handed over to them positions, and they heard hadith and they examined reports, and each people takes what was handed over to them, and they yield to Allah with it. So, leave the people alone and what they choose for themselves in every country.”
The Qur’an reminds us that:
“… for every one of you did We appoint a law and a way, and if Allah had wished He would have made you a single people, but that He might try you in what He gave you, therefore strive with one another to hasten to virtuous deeds; to Allah is your return of all, so He will let you know that in which you differed;” [Qur’an, 5:48]
Prior to becoming Caliph, Hazrat Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) said:
"Listen to me, ye people. Those of you who worshipped Muhammad know that he is dead like any other mortal. But those of you who worship the God of Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) know that He is alive and would live forever."
Then he repeated a passage from the Qur’an:
"And Muhammad is no more than an apostle; apostles have already passed away before him; if then he dies or is killed will you turn back upon your heels? And whoever turns back upon his heels, he will by no means do harm to Allah in the least and Allah will reward the grateful.” [Qur’an, 3:144]
Public space should be governed in a way that prevents oppression, exploitation, or abuse of any kind to undermine or interfere with people’s basic right – which is granted by God – to decide the spiritual direction of their path in life. This is a right and a freedom which each human being has so long as whatever acts arise out of such choices do not spill over into the lives of other individuals and, in the process, adversely or problematically affect the latter’s ability to freely chose and act with respect to their own individual course in life.
The public space, or commons, should be governed through principles of justice, equitability, peace, tolerance, integrity, honesty, charitableness, freedom, compassion, balance, harmony, and the sort of mediated settlements which help limit, if not eliminate all together, all forms of oppression, persecution, abuse, and exploitation. A public space governed in accordance with the foregoing qualities will, if God wishes, generate the type of environment which may prove to be most conducive to the exercise of the basic right to choose between good and evil – a responsibility which belongs to each and every human being.
If one looks to the example of the Prophet, the public space of his community was regulated in accordance with all of the foregoing considerations. He did not force people to pursue shari‘ah but, rather, regulated public space in such a way as to provide people with the fullest opportunity to individually pursue shari‘ah as rigorously as the latter individuals were so inclined to do as long as that pursuit did not infringe upon the right of others to do as they were inclined to do with respect to their own individual journey of shari‘ah. Moreover, quite frequently, the Prophet made judgments concerning the regulation of public space which were in accordance with pre-Islamic, customary practices of the Arab or Jewish tribes.
The Qur’an instructed the Prophet to:
“Say: ‘This is the truth from your Lord’, then, whoever wills let him believe, and whoever wills let him disbelieve.” [Qur’an, 18:29]
At another juncture the Qur’an informs the Prophet:
“You shall remind; you are entrusted to remind. You are not a watcher over them.” [Qur’an, 88:21-22]
And, at another point, the Qur’an indicates:
“Say, ‘Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger.’ If they refuse, then, he is responsible for his obligations, and you are responsible for your obligations. If you obey him, you will be guided.” [24:54]
Moreover, the Qur’an states:
“The guiding of them is not thy duty (O Muhammad), but Allah guides whom He will.” [Qur’an 2: 272).
If, according to the Qur’an, the Prophet is not responsible for the guiding of people to God, and if the duty of the Prophet is not to watch over whether, or not, people pursue shari‘ah, and if God is making it clear that it is up to the individual as to whether he or she believes in the truth which has been sent through the Qur’an and that each person has her or his own responsibility with respect to God, then, why do Muslim religious scholars, imams, theologians, mullahs, leaders, and the like all believe they have duties and responsibilities which were not entrusted to the Prophet? And, in the light of the foregoing considerations from the Qur’an, what is the source of their authority for assuming such duties and responsibilities?
Some religious scholars, would-be leaders, and theologians point to the following Quranic ayat as a possible source for what they consider their ‘rightful’ authority over people:
“O believers! Obey Allah, obey the Rasool and those charged with authority among you. Should you have a dispute in anything, refer it to Allah and His Rasool, if you truly believe in Allah and the Last Day. This course of action will be better and more suitable.” (Qur’an 4:59)
When would-be leaders cite the foregoing verse and seek to use it as an authority for expecting, if not demanding, that others should be obedient to the former, those who approach things in this manner are not only making several questionable assumptions, but, as well, such individuals often tend to act contrary to the full text of the guidance. More specifically, an assumption is being made that the sort of ‘authority’ to which the previous Quranic verse alludes is referring to worldly authority as opposed to spiritual authority, and a further assumption is being made that such individuals have been “charged” or given responsibility by God – or the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) -- to exercise authority over other individuals. Furthermore, when disputes arise in the community, then, contrary to the guidance of the Qur’an, such religious and political leaders often do not refer the matter to either Allah or the Prophet, but, instead, attempt to decide the matter according to their own theological likes and dislikes – with the assistance of imams, mullahs, and religious scholars who are loyal to those leaders -- and, then, seek to impose – forcibly, if necessary -- their decisions on others.
The Prophet had a unique position within the Muslim community. Under the Divinely-sanctioned circumstances surrounding such a standing, the public, for the most part, did not wish to place constraints on what the Prophet could and could not do. This would have been antithetical to the nature of his position and the Divine authority in which his position was rooted – something which, after all was said and done, most [but not all] people in the community acknowledged and accepted.
However, there were those who came after the Prophet [and I do not necessarily have the four ‘righteous Caliphs’ in mind here] who enjoyed something very similar to the status of the Prophet within the Muslim community. As a result, those individuals became rulers in a more or less absolute sense without necessarily having that status sanctioned by Divinity, even though, obviously, such rulers were permitted by God to do whatever they did.
The Prophet had appointed no one to succeed him with respect to the regulation of public – as opposed to spiritual – space. On the other hand, the individuals who followed the Prophet as leaders of the community often were supported through the general trust of the public with respect to the presumed character, morality, piety, and good intentions of whoever it was that became ruler.
Once someone was elected to lead the community – and this was usually by a small group of individuals rather than the community as a whole – or in those cases where a current caliph appointed a successor – and this tended to be the case quite frequently because fathers tended to appoint their sons as their successors -- the general public would be required, en masse, to take ba’yt, or an oath of allegiance, with respect to the individual who would be king or sultan. Unfortunately, such a process offered few, if any, avenues through which a person might opt out of that oath or agreement either before or after the oath of allegiance was to be given, nor did that system permit or encourage the general public to play much of a rigorous, active role in determining who would be ruler or whether, or not, there should only be a single leader for the community -- as opposed to some sort of system of self-governance in which shura or consultation was used as the means through which to address the problems which confront a given community in accordance with the Quranic guidance which says:
“And their rule is to take counsel among themselves …” [Qur’an, 42:38]
In addition, apparently, many people forgot what Hazrat Abu Bakr Siddiq (may Allah be pleased with him) said upon becoming Caliph:
“Obey me as long as I obey Allah and His Prophet. When I disobey Him and His Prophet, then obey me not.”
Hazrat Abu Bakr Siddiq (may Allah be pleased with him) was alluding to the right of people to opt out of their oath of allegiance to him – or to any leader. The determining factor was not the identity of the leader, but, rather, the determining factor was whether, or not, such a person was acting in accordance with the guidance of the Qur’an or the example of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).
The belief that there should be just one leader who was either given or assumed authority to do whatever he deemed to be appropriate became corrupted within a fairly short period of time following the passing away of the Prophet. When this sort of corruption was thoroughly entrenched and became institutionally calcified, many people apparently had considerable difficulty grasping the idea that the Qur’an actually served as, among other things, a Bill of Rights that was intended to protect people against oppression, exploitation, or abuse from their political or religious leaders. This sort of difficulty was maintained and perpetuated through the manner in which, on the one hand, the sultans and kings, and, on the other hand, various imams, qadis, muftis, and theological scholars would engage in reciprocal back-scratching among themselves with respect to mutually framing the historical situation in such a way that the majority of the community were induced to believe that both the leaders and their theological accomplices were the proper guardians and representatives of Sacred Law, despite the fact that many of these individuals might not have recognized the nature of Sacred Law or shari‘ah even if the former tripped over the latter.
The regulation of public space is one issue, and the pursuit of shari‘ah is quite another matter and completely independent of how public space is to be regulated. To seek to impose on others, through the public space, one’s own ideas about what the nature of the spiritual journey ought to involve is to engage in a form of spiritual abuse.
When anyone – imam, mufti, theologian, scholar, leader, qadi, mullah – seeks to control the spirituality of another human being, then, that the former individual has transgressed due limits and has entered into the realm of spiritual abuse or exploitation, and, therefore, oppression. As the Qur’an reminds us:
“Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress the limits, for God does not love the transgressors. [Qur’an, 2:190]
“… tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter.”[Qur’an, 2:191]
“And fight them till there is no more oppression, and Deen should only be for Allah, but if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressor.” [Qur’an, 2:193]
The foregoing is not sanctioning leaders to force Deen upon people, but, rather, the foregoing ayat is a reminder to everyone – especially leaders -- that Deen belongs to Allah and should not be interfered with or undermined by anyone. Moreover, when Deen – that is, the process of nurturing and enhancing the relationship of an individual with God, and, indeed, this is the cause of Allah -- is subject to oppression, then people have the right to resist such aggression so long as the form of that resistance does not transgress due limits of propriety, and one of the limits of propriety is that resistance should only be directed toward those who are being oppressive … no one else.
Indeed, as the Qur’an makes clear elsewhere:
“The blame is only against those who oppress human beings with wrong-doing and
insolently transgress beyond bounds through the land defying right and justice.” [Qur’an, 42:42]
The foregoing remains true even when the ones who are doing the oppressing are the very ones – in the form of religious or political leaders – who supposedly have assumed responsibility for protecting the people against such oppression.
Scholarly debates, rigorous research, discussions, informal conversations, symposia, conferences, round-table sessions, formal talks, books, articles, podcasts, television programs, documentaries, educational programs, and so on, are all legitimate venues through which to exchange views, ideas, and various considerations concerning problems, questions, and issues of spirituality. The foregoing are all legitimate venues through which people may consult with one another on such matters – provided there is no compulsion or oppression involved in these activities either with respect to the matter of attending these sort of exchanges or with respect to having to abide by what is said during those sessions.
In this respect, the Qur’an indicates:
“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]
Although the foregoing guidance was specifically addressed to the Prophet, and although the calling others to the way of God is not the responsibility of a non-Prophet, nonetheless, when one engages in discussions with others concerning various issues, problems, and questions affecting the quality of public space, one still can follow the sunna of the Prophet in such matters and, thereby, seek to do so “with wisdom and goodly exhortation, and have disputations with them in the best manner.”
“O ye who believe! Be upright for Allah, bearers of witness with justice, and let not hatred of a people incite or seduce you not to act equitably; act equitably, that is nearer to piety (taqwa) , and be careful with respect to Allah, surely Allah is aware of what you do.” ‘Qur’an, 5:8]
The public space or commons should not be operated in accordance with any philosophy or theology of public policy which imposes economic, legal, political, physical, moral, intellectual, educational, or cultural agendas on the members of the community who inhabit that public space. The sole task of governance is to guard against the emergence of any kind of oppression, exploitation, or abuse which may arise within the community or which threatens such a community from an external source.
Moreover, all members of the community have a duty of care toward themselves and others to contribute to helping those who are entrusted with governance to succeed in their sole task and responsibility concerning the struggle against oppression, along with the close cousins of oppression – namely, exploitation and abuse.
God:
“… made the balance, That you may not be inordinate [exceed limits, or transgress boundaries] in respect of the measure. And keep up the balance with equity and do not make the measure deficient. [Qur’an, 55:7-9]
The balance, the measure, equity, and taqwa are all expressions of truth and justice. They are all expressions of the Sacred Law. They are all expressions of a realized shari‘ah.
Determining the hukm or realities of such truths are challenges to which, God willing, individuals must aspire. They are not challenges which can be imposed on people or with respect to which compulsion is appropriate.
On the other hand, the ones who are entrusted to exercise governance have a duty of care to assist oppressors not to oppress others -- including themselves. Indeed, the Prophet is reported to have said that one should “Assist any person who is oppressed – whether Muslim or non-Muslim.”
The primary forms of oppression, exploitation and abuse come in the form of those actions which are likely to undermine or interfere with an individual’s God-given right to pursue, or not pursue, the realities and truths of Sacred Law and shari‘ah according to the nature of that person’s capacity, circumstances, level of understanding, inclinations, and God’s Grace … so long as the exercise of such choice does not interfere with, or undermine, the right of others to address such issues in their own manner. All other expressions of oppression, exploitation, and abuse are variations on the foregoing theme.
*****************
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Video - A Modern Peace Quest in Light of the Babel Problem
There is a new video from a talk given at Fordham University in Manhattan in April 2007 on the spiritual-health.org website. To view the video, click on the following link: View Video
Wednesday, July 09, 2008
Sufi Reflections Podcast - An Audio Directory of Current and Past Programs
A web page recently has been constructed at Sufi Reflections Podcast which contains two menus (one above the other) that provide links both to streaming audio versions, as well as downloadable MP3 editions, of all twenty-five completed programs of Sufi Reflections Podcast. When one clicks on any of the entries in the top menu -- which focuses on streaming audio versions of the Sufi Reflections Podcast -- one is taken to a web page which gives a brief overview of some of the main features contained in the selected streaming podcast. The foregoing description is followed by an audio box through which one can listen to the particular Sufi Reflections Podcast one has chosen.
The second menu on the Sufi Reflections Podcast directory noted above contains links to mp3, downloadable versions of all twenty-five Sufi Reflection Podcast programs. If one would rather not be tied to the computer while listening to any given edition of Sufi Reflections Podcast, then, one can download whichever program in which one might be interested. In fact, one can use the links provided in the first menu, noted above, to learn more about what a specific edition of a Sufi Reflections Podcast contains via the aforementioned program overviews, listen to a portion, and, then, decide if one would like to download the program through the links listed in the second menu of the foregoing audio directory for the Sufi Reflections Podcast.
All twenty-five programs of the Sufi Reflections podcast contain relatively brief Quranic recitation, along with poetry (often, although not always, from the writings of Jalal-ud-din Rumi -- may Allah be pleased with him), and several songs drawn from the magnatunes.com collection of artists. Below are brief descriptions for each of the podcasts:
-------------------
Sufi Reflections Podcast # 1
This program includes: an essay entitled "Discernment", a poem set to music with the title 'Aspirations', and a commentary called: 'Two Obligations'.
-------------------
Sufi Reflections Podcast #2
This program contains an essay entitled "Guidance", a poem set to music with the title 'Life, A Work In Progress', a short story called: 'Etymology', and a commentary called: 'A Study In Hypocrisy'.
-------------------
Sufi Reflections Podcast #3
This program involves an essay entitled "Love", a poem set to music with the title 'The Last Sermon', a short story called: 'Phoenix Rising', and a commentary called: 'Openings: A Critical Look at the book What's Right With Islam by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf.
-------------------
Sufi Reflections Podcast #4
This program contains an essay entitled "Expansion", a poem set to music with the title 'Salaams For The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him)', a short story called: 'Dream On', and a commentary called: 'The Two Commandments which is a critical essay on a section of the book What's Right With Islam by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf.
-------------------
Sufi Reflections Podcast #5
This program involves an essay entitled "Hatred", a poem set to music with the title 'Tears of Life', a short story called: 'Commitment's Reward', and a commentary entitled: 'Open Letter to the Muslim Community'.
-------------------
Sufi Reflections Podcast #6
This program contains an essay entitled "Spirit", a poem set to music with the title 'The Way Home', a short story called: 'What's Your Secret', and a commentary entitled: 'The Boundary Problem - Part 1' -- a critical examination of certain aspects of so-called Islamic law..
-------------------
Sufi Reflections Podcast #7
This podcast includes an essay entitled "Yaqueen (Certainty)", a poem set to music with the title 'Nature', a short story called: 'Asceticism', and a commentary entitled: 'The Boundary Problem - Part 2 -- a continuation of the critical examination of certain aspects of so-called Islamic law' which was begun in part 1 of the series.
-------------------
Sufi Reflections Podcast #8
This program contains an essay entitled "Identity", a poem set to music with the title 'The Guru', a short story called: 'Original Intent', and a commentary entitled: 'Terrorism - Part 1'.
-------------------
Sufi Reflections Podcast #9
This podcast includes an essay entitled "Fanaticism", a poem set to music with the title 'The Way Home', a short story called: 'Absence', and a commentary entitled: 'Terrorism - Part 2'.
-------------------
Sufi Reflections Podcast #10
This program contains an essay entitled "Balance", a poem set to music with the title 'The Last Sermon', a short story called: 'Artisan', and a commentary entitled: 'Terrorism - Part 3'.
-------------------
Sufi Reflections Podcast #11
This podcast includes an essay entitled "Jihad (Struggle)", a poem set to music with the title 'States: The Usual Suspects', a short story called: 'The Interview', and a commentary entitled: 'Terrorism - Part 4'.
-------------------
Sufi Reflections Podcast #12
This program contains an essay entitled "Zikr (Remembrance)", a poem set to music with the title 'Ode To Those Who Wage War On Peace', a short story called: 'The Snake Charmer', and a commentary entitled: 'Common Roots - Part 1' -- a critical examination involving part of a book What's Right With Islam by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf.
-------------------
Sufi Reflections Podcast #13
This podcast includes an essay entitled "Government", a poem set to music with the title 'The Gift', a short story called: 'Crisis', and a commentary entitled: 'Common Roots - Part 2' -- a continuation of a critical examination involving part of a book What's Right With Islam by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf.
-------------------
Sufi Reflections Podcast #14
This program contains an essay entitled "Hope", a poem set to music with the title 'The Human Condition', a short story called: 'Fantasy', and a commentary entitled: 'Common Roots - Part 3' -- a continuation of a critical examination focusing on part of a book What's Right With Islam by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf.
-------------------
Sufi Reflections Podcast #15
This podcast includes an essay entitled "Ghayr (Other)", a poem set to music with the title 'Freedom', a short story called: 'Point Counterpoint', and a commentary entitled: 'The Nature of Idols'.
-------------------
Sufi Reflections Podcast 16
This program contains an essay entitled "Kun (Be, Become)", a poem set to music with the title 'AndThat Is Enough For Us', a short story called: 'When In Rome', and a commentary entitled: 'A Critical Response to the Nature of Idols - Part 1' -- a critical exploration of certain facets of what is referred to as Islamic law.
-------------------
Sufi Reflections Podcast #17
This podcast includes an essay entitled "Death", a poem set to music with the title 'Hands', a short story called: 'Poison And Its Antidote', and a commentary entitled: 'A Critical Response to the Nature of Idols - Part 2' -- a continuation of the critical exploration into certain facets of what is referred to as Islamic law which began in the previous podcast.
-------------------
Sufi Reflections Podcast 18
This program contains an essay entitled "Dhawk (Taste/Tasting)", a poem set to music with the title 'Mystical Poem', a short story called: 'What's In A Word', and a commentary entitled: 'A Critical Response to the Nature of Idols - Part 3' -- a continuation of a critical inquiry into certain facets of what are referred to as Islamic law which was explored in the two previous podcasts.
-------------------
Sufi Reflections Podcast 19
This podcast includes an essay entitled "Prophets", a poem set to music with the title 'Life, A Work In Progress', a short story called: 'The Curiosity Shoppe', and a commentary entitled: 'The Legacy of Babel' -- a talk given at an Abrahamic Interfaith Conference which took place at Fordham University.
-------------------
Sufi Reflections Podcast #20
This program contains an essay entitled "Expectations", a poem set to music with the title 'Explosive Questions For September 11th', a short story called: 'Cul-de-sac', and a commentary entitled: 'Qualities of a Teacher'.
-------------------
Sufi Reflections Podcast #21
This podcast includes an essay entitled "Jami' (Gatheredness)", a poem set to music with the title 'God Who Is Here', a short story called: 'DancingWith The Moon', and a commentary entitled: 'The Nature of Deen'.
-------------------
Sufi Reflections Podcast #22
This program contains an essay entitled "Hal' (States)", a poem set to music with the title 'Spiritual Longing', a short story called: 'The Other Side', and a commentary entitled: My Year Inside Radical Islam - A critique of a book by Daveed Gartenstein-Ross - Part 1'.
-------------------
Sufi Reflections Podcast #23
This podcast includes an essay entitled "Autonomy", a poem set to music with the title 'Gratitude', a short story called: 'The Storm', and a commentary entitled: My Year Inside Radical Islam - A Critique of a book by Daveed Gartenstein-Ross - Part 2'.
-------------------
Sufi Reflections Podcast #24
This program contains an essay entitled "Faith", a poem set to music with the title 'Invitation', a short story called: 'Mirror,Mirror', and a commentary entitled: My Year Inside Radical Islam - A Critique of a book by Daveed Gartenstein-Ross - Part 3'.
-------------------
Sufi Reflections Podcast #25
This podcast includes an essay entitled "Heedlessness", a poem set to music with the title 'Remembrance', a short story called: 'A Job Well Done', and a commentary entitled: 'An Absence of Reason: A Critique of The End of Faith by Sam Harris'.
-------------------
Sufi Reflections Podcast #26
This podcast includes an essay entitled "Idols", a poem set to music with the title 'Human Potential', a short story called: 'Inheritance', and a commentary entitled: 'An Absence of Reason: A Critique of The End of Faith by Sam Harris - Part 2'.
-------------------
Sufi Reflections Podcast #27
This podcast includes an essay entitled "Doubt", a poem set to music with the title 'Random Thoughts', a short story called: 'Bidding For Services', and a commentary entitled: 'An Absence of Reason: A Critique of The End of Faith by Sam Harris - Part 3'.
-------------------
The foregoing links take you to streaming audio versions of the indicated editions of Sufi Reflections Podcast. If a person would like to download any of the foregoing programs, all one has to do is go to Sufi Reflections Podcast downloadable MP3 and right click on the appropriate podcast in the second menu.
The second menu on the Sufi Reflections Podcast directory noted above contains links to mp3, downloadable versions of all twenty-five Sufi Reflection Podcast programs. If one would rather not be tied to the computer while listening to any given edition of Sufi Reflections Podcast, then, one can download whichever program in which one might be interested. In fact, one can use the links provided in the first menu, noted above, to learn more about what a specific edition of a Sufi Reflections Podcast contains via the aforementioned program overviews, listen to a portion, and, then, decide if one would like to download the program through the links listed in the second menu of the foregoing audio directory for the Sufi Reflections Podcast.
All twenty-five programs of the Sufi Reflections podcast contain relatively brief Quranic recitation, along with poetry (often, although not always, from the writings of Jalal-ud-din Rumi -- may Allah be pleased with him), and several songs drawn from the magnatunes.com collection of artists. Below are brief descriptions for each of the podcasts:
-------------------
Sufi Reflections Podcast # 1
This program includes: an essay entitled "Discernment", a poem set to music with the title 'Aspirations', and a commentary called: 'Two Obligations'.
-------------------
Sufi Reflections Podcast #2
This program contains an essay entitled "Guidance", a poem set to music with the title 'Life, A Work In Progress', a short story called: 'Etymology', and a commentary called: 'A Study In Hypocrisy'.
-------------------
Sufi Reflections Podcast #3
This program involves an essay entitled "Love", a poem set to music with the title 'The Last Sermon', a short story called: 'Phoenix Rising', and a commentary called: 'Openings: A Critical Look at the book What's Right With Islam by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf.
-------------------
Sufi Reflections Podcast #4
This program contains an essay entitled "Expansion", a poem set to music with the title 'Salaams For The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him)', a short story called: 'Dream On', and a commentary called: 'The Two Commandments which is a critical essay on a section of the book What's Right With Islam by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf.
-------------------
Sufi Reflections Podcast #5
This program involves an essay entitled "Hatred", a poem set to music with the title 'Tears of Life', a short story called: 'Commitment's Reward', and a commentary entitled: 'Open Letter to the Muslim Community'.
-------------------
Sufi Reflections Podcast #6
This program contains an essay entitled "Spirit", a poem set to music with the title 'The Way Home', a short story called: 'What's Your Secret', and a commentary entitled: 'The Boundary Problem - Part 1' -- a critical examination of certain aspects of so-called Islamic law..
-------------------
Sufi Reflections Podcast #7
This podcast includes an essay entitled "Yaqueen (Certainty)", a poem set to music with the title 'Nature', a short story called: 'Asceticism', and a commentary entitled: 'The Boundary Problem - Part 2 -- a continuation of the critical examination of certain aspects of so-called Islamic law' which was begun in part 1 of the series.
-------------------
Sufi Reflections Podcast #8
This program contains an essay entitled "Identity", a poem set to music with the title 'The Guru', a short story called: 'Original Intent', and a commentary entitled: 'Terrorism - Part 1'.
-------------------
Sufi Reflections Podcast #9
This podcast includes an essay entitled "Fanaticism", a poem set to music with the title 'The Way Home', a short story called: 'Absence', and a commentary entitled: 'Terrorism - Part 2'.
-------------------
Sufi Reflections Podcast #10
This program contains an essay entitled "Balance", a poem set to music with the title 'The Last Sermon', a short story called: 'Artisan', and a commentary entitled: 'Terrorism - Part 3'.
-------------------
Sufi Reflections Podcast #11
This podcast includes an essay entitled "Jihad (Struggle)", a poem set to music with the title 'States: The Usual Suspects', a short story called: 'The Interview', and a commentary entitled: 'Terrorism - Part 4'.
-------------------
Sufi Reflections Podcast #12
This program contains an essay entitled "Zikr (Remembrance)", a poem set to music with the title 'Ode To Those Who Wage War On Peace', a short story called: 'The Snake Charmer', and a commentary entitled: 'Common Roots - Part 1' -- a critical examination involving part of a book What's Right With Islam by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf.
-------------------
Sufi Reflections Podcast #13
This podcast includes an essay entitled "Government", a poem set to music with the title 'The Gift', a short story called: 'Crisis', and a commentary entitled: 'Common Roots - Part 2' -- a continuation of a critical examination involving part of a book What's Right With Islam by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf.
-------------------
Sufi Reflections Podcast #14
This program contains an essay entitled "Hope", a poem set to music with the title 'The Human Condition', a short story called: 'Fantasy', and a commentary entitled: 'Common Roots - Part 3' -- a continuation of a critical examination focusing on part of a book What's Right With Islam by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf.
-------------------
Sufi Reflections Podcast #15
This podcast includes an essay entitled "Ghayr (Other)", a poem set to music with the title 'Freedom', a short story called: 'Point Counterpoint', and a commentary entitled: 'The Nature of Idols'.
-------------------
Sufi Reflections Podcast 16
This program contains an essay entitled "Kun (Be, Become)", a poem set to music with the title 'AndThat Is Enough For Us', a short story called: 'When In Rome', and a commentary entitled: 'A Critical Response to the Nature of Idols - Part 1' -- a critical exploration of certain facets of what is referred to as Islamic law.
-------------------
Sufi Reflections Podcast #17
This podcast includes an essay entitled "Death", a poem set to music with the title 'Hands', a short story called: 'Poison And Its Antidote', and a commentary entitled: 'A Critical Response to the Nature of Idols - Part 2' -- a continuation of the critical exploration into certain facets of what is referred to as Islamic law which began in the previous podcast.
-------------------
Sufi Reflections Podcast 18
This program contains an essay entitled "Dhawk (Taste/Tasting)", a poem set to music with the title 'Mystical Poem', a short story called: 'What's In A Word', and a commentary entitled: 'A Critical Response to the Nature of Idols - Part 3' -- a continuation of a critical inquiry into certain facets of what are referred to as Islamic law which was explored in the two previous podcasts.
-------------------
Sufi Reflections Podcast 19
This podcast includes an essay entitled "Prophets", a poem set to music with the title 'Life, A Work In Progress', a short story called: 'The Curiosity Shoppe', and a commentary entitled: 'The Legacy of Babel' -- a talk given at an Abrahamic Interfaith Conference which took place at Fordham University.
-------------------
Sufi Reflections Podcast #20
This program contains an essay entitled "Expectations", a poem set to music with the title 'Explosive Questions For September 11th', a short story called: 'Cul-de-sac', and a commentary entitled: 'Qualities of a Teacher'.
-------------------
Sufi Reflections Podcast #21
This podcast includes an essay entitled "Jami' (Gatheredness)", a poem set to music with the title 'God Who Is Here', a short story called: 'DancingWith The Moon', and a commentary entitled: 'The Nature of Deen'.
-------------------
Sufi Reflections Podcast #22
This program contains an essay entitled "Hal' (States)", a poem set to music with the title 'Spiritual Longing', a short story called: 'The Other Side', and a commentary entitled: My Year Inside Radical Islam - A critique of a book by Daveed Gartenstein-Ross - Part 1'.
-------------------
Sufi Reflections Podcast #23
This podcast includes an essay entitled "Autonomy", a poem set to music with the title 'Gratitude', a short story called: 'The Storm', and a commentary entitled: My Year Inside Radical Islam - A Critique of a book by Daveed Gartenstein-Ross - Part 2'.
-------------------
Sufi Reflections Podcast #24
This program contains an essay entitled "Faith", a poem set to music with the title 'Invitation', a short story called: 'Mirror,Mirror', and a commentary entitled: My Year Inside Radical Islam - A Critique of a book by Daveed Gartenstein-Ross - Part 3'.
-------------------
Sufi Reflections Podcast #25
This podcast includes an essay entitled "Heedlessness", a poem set to music with the title 'Remembrance', a short story called: 'A Job Well Done', and a commentary entitled: 'An Absence of Reason: A Critique of The End of Faith by Sam Harris'.
-------------------
Sufi Reflections Podcast #26
This podcast includes an essay entitled "Idols", a poem set to music with the title 'Human Potential', a short story called: 'Inheritance', and a commentary entitled: 'An Absence of Reason: A Critique of The End of Faith by Sam Harris - Part 2'.
-------------------
Sufi Reflections Podcast #27
This podcast includes an essay entitled "Doubt", a poem set to music with the title 'Random Thoughts', a short story called: 'Bidding For Services', and a commentary entitled: 'An Absence of Reason: A Critique of The End of Faith by Sam Harris - Part 3'.
-------------------
The foregoing links take you to streaming audio versions of the indicated editions of Sufi Reflections Podcast. If a person would like to download any of the foregoing programs, all one has to do is go to Sufi Reflections Podcast downloadable MP3 and right click on the appropriate podcast in the second menu.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)