:: this was posted by thabet at 10:38
Towards developing a heremeneutical model of the Qur'an (III)
Part III: The fundamental premise
A natural outcome of this work was that the Qur’an was placed in a concrete setting in history, in which it, first and foremost, addressed a set of people, what might be called the “first addressees”. In other words, all the words in the Qur’an, first and foremost, relate directly to those who were witnessing the revelation.
[1] It goes without saying, that the first addressees understood this; after all the Prophet (p) was speaking to
them. It is, therefore, up to Muslims of latter times to derive an adequate hermeneutic to determine the true meaning of the Qur’an.
Farahi and then later Islahi
[2] derived a concept, that one can regard as being the fundamental premise with which to understand the Qur'an. This understanding is as much a ground breaking concept as the original concept of
nazm (coherency) itself. This understanding has the potential to revolutionise Muslim ethics and law, in particular the social and political laws, and allow for improved relations between Muslims themselves, and with non-Muslims. It is described very briefly as follows.
Man, in general, has been granted free-will
[3] in which he is allowed to exercise his inherent moral judgment. He will, therefore, be completely accountable for his actions, and more importantly his intentions. He is to recognise the Almighty through his intuition, history and through a study of the Universe, and because man recognises justice is to be followed, then he is to surrender to the Almighty (i.e. come to “Islam”) which is only the pinnacle of justice.
The only exception to this norm is when a Messenger
[4] arrives among a people. During the missionary career of the Messenger, God gradually reveals Himself, either through miracles or through the removal of any misunderstanding whatsoever (metaphysical or otherwise) in the people’s minds. This He guarantees because the Messenger will speak plainly and clearly. Because of this clarity, the rewards and punishments for the direct addressees are both immense and also in this world, as well in the Hereafter (the latter being the norm for most of mankind). The mundane (i.e. this-worldly) punishment for polytheists is death, while for monotheists who reject a Messenger it is political subservience. the end of immunity for the Rejecters is marked by the
hijrah, or migration. All Messengers have made a migration, after which the ounishment of God has been delivered on the Rejecters.
[6]
The punishment takes place either through a natural disaster, or through the hands of the new believers. The latter takes place when the Messenger and his followers can form an organised collective, or a "state". This happened in the case of Muhammad (p), and his followers. After he made
hijrah to Yathrib (later renamed Medinah), the Messenger (p) was able to form a state, where he was accepted as the leader of the peoples. The wars were to Muhammad (p), like the floods were to Noah (p). They were not at the behest of Muhammad (p) or his followers, as non-Muslims and Muslims like to think. They were the culmination of the Divine Law.
A look at the history of the Prophets (p), as outlined both in the Qur'an and the Bible, shows that this Divine Law culminating itself in those the Qur'an calls Messengers. According to the Qur'an some examples of Messengers were Noah, Lot, Moses and Jesus (pbut). According to the Bible, the peoples of these Messengers were punished by God Himself, after turning away from their respective Guide. The people of Noah (p) were afflicted with the floods; those of Lot (p) were destroyed in natural calamities; Pharoah was wiped out, and those who worshipped the Golden Calf were slain because they were admist Moses (p); the Israelites were punished for rejecting Jesus (p), by having the Temple of Soloman destroyed by the Romans. Eventually Christianity, a faith which springs from the belief in Jesus (p), gained the upperhand in the State. The Old Testament refers to this law in
Deuteronomy 8: 19-20 and the New Testament in
Luke 13: 1-4. The case of Moses (p), and his followers is similar to that of Muhammad (p): both were able to establish a "collective" under the leadership of their respective Messenger. Both groups of followers were, therefore, revealed the Law of
Jihaad, and both were made "witnesses to the Truth".
Furthermore, the first addressees who formed a nation with the Messenger (like the Israelites with Moses (p) and the Ishmaelites with Muhammad (p)), are entrusted with spreading the Message among new peoples, and God Himself ensures that they will be victorious, as long as they adhere to the Message themselves, and as long as they formed a collective. One must note too, that both the peoples granted this elevated status were the progeny of Abraham (p). The Israelites and the Ishmaelites both received the extension of "witnessing the manifest Truth", but only, as stressted before, in their collective capacity, and only for those who were with the Messenger (p).
This understanding, a fundamental premise for understanding the Qur’an, was further strengthened by the coherency of the Qur’an. Reading from chapter 6, the entire set of chapters bluids up to the culmination of the punishment which is related in chapter 9, regarded as the harshest chapter. In fact it doesn't begin with the custopmary
"Bismillah".
[7] It is only harsh simply because it is a punishment from God to those people who have rendered themselves unfit for the Mercy of God.
The obviously has the affect of revolutionaising Islamic law. The word
Kaafir is usually translated as “disbeliever (in the Islamic faith)”, and it has also come to mean “non-Muslim”. According to this concept, however, the word
Kaafir is only correctly applied to “those who reject the Truth even though they knew it to be such”. In other words it applies to those have rejected a Messenger
while he was present amongst them. There may well be those who have become
Kaafir outside of these Missionary periods, but we do not know them, since we cannot see inside a man’s heart and judge his intentions fully. This makes the abode of declaring someone to eternal damnation, for God alone.
Naturally, the obvious extension to this understanding is that exhortations to fight disbelievers, levy the
Jizyah on the "People of the Book"
[8], claims to the superiorty of Muslim blood in a court of law, (and many more discussed below) are not applicable to all Muslims of all times, since we today are not assigned with "witnessing the Truth". The seemingly second-class citizenary offered by medieval schools of Islamic law to non-Muslim, therefore, seem unfailingly un-Qur'anic.
[9]
How else does this impact Muslim law and ethics? As I have already mentioned the exhotations to fight, which is over and above the much talked about
Jihaad, the disbelievers and make "Islam" dominante in the land, ceases to be a command to all Muslims. Is it any wonder that historians and social scientists have given a million and one reasons as to sudden expansion of early Islam from the depths of the deserts of Arabia? It is obvious that the early Muslims realised their duty, and saw it fit to assume political control over the neighbouring regions. From a purely theological point of view, their early victories were victories from God. People flocked ot Islam because the Truth was being made manifest
before their very eyes. The nation who had lived through the manifestation with the Prophet (p), was now passing it on to the World.
It becomes clear that for Muslims
[10] living today warfare with the sole aim of gaining political control for Islam, does not apply. Warfare becomes a defence mechanism, primarily. In the case of offensive warfare, this too is allowed (apologetically some deny this, but I feel this has no basis, religiously of otherwise), but primarily if another state or group of people call for help, and the Muslim state deems it a worthy cause.
[11]
A whole host of laws which have been built up over the years by Muslim jurists now seem to have no basis or are directives which only applied directly to people who were with a Messenger and "witnessed the Truth". An outline of these laws which are very popular in traditional Islamic law include: punishment for apostasy; waging war against non-Muslims;
Daru’l-Harb /
Daru’l-Islam classification;
dhimmi status of non-Muslim minorities; enmity with non-Muslims; eternal damnation for the non-Muslims in the Hereafter; assassination of non-Muslims; the political supremacy of Islam; status of Muslims as the "best" community.
These are just some examples we find in Classical Islamic jurisprudence. Obviously with the understanding that has been proposed by Farahi, Islahi and Ghamidi (and that entire school of thought), Muslim law and ethics takes on a different dimension. And, as far as I know, there exists nothing which says a non-Muslim cannot enjoy basic human rights in a Muslim state, following Islamic Law.
As an aside, a critic of this understanding may say: "Well, Muhammad and his followers didn't show tolerance of of those non-Muslims who fought them and refused to live under them and Islam". My response would be, as follows. The Qur'an clearly evidences that the Prophet (p) was eager to preach his Message to his people. He knew that he was assigned with a task, but he was also informed that he little to no control over the peoples fate. If they accepted his Message, the people would prosper. If they rejected, the Prophet (p) was told that their fates were out of his hands, and he was not worry. God would send His punishment upon the Rejecters. When the punishment did come, it was via the hands of Muhammad (p) and his followers. Furthermore all those killed were the most open and vicious critics and opponents of the Prophet (p), those even more anti-Muhammad (p) than Abu Sufyan, who eventually accepted Islam. So, from the Qur'anic point of view, the Prophet's (p) sole aim was to preach his Message. It was not "his" decision to have this war, or that.
Furthermore, the critic may say that this punishment of God was a concoction of Muhammad (p). Muhammad (p) certainly believed he was a man sent by God on a mission, and even harsh critics of Muhammad (p) have attested to this. He believed all the things he told his followers and his people. It is a case of whether or not a person accepts him, and the Qur'an as such, if indeed the person even believes in God. His contemporaries ultimately did. But, then we are into the realms of theology and discussing questions like "Does God exist?" and "Was Muhammad really a prophet?" and "Is the Qur'an the Book of God?" and so on. Criticisms trying to show Muhammad (p) as an "evil bandit" are then somewhat off-the-mark. Was he ever shown to be morally flawed? Was he shown to be two-timing his people? Can someone point me to a phase where he secretly admitted to fooling people? At most, the critic can say he was deluded, that he was hearing voices. But then again we will come back to the previous theological questions. To an atheist, those who believe in God might seem sincere, but must also seem somewhat delusional (I can attest to this thought process myself, before I became a Muslim). To a Jew or a Christian or a person of any other faith, a Muslim might seem sincere, but also delusional (and vice versa). And then again, we must ask the questions above.
In short, the response to the above-mentioned criticism may be summed up as follows: When the Truth is manifested so clearly that an individual knows what it is, and Who it is from, and yet still turns away and in essence abuses the autonomy granted to him, why should anyone feel sorry for him? Is that Justice? Do we reward a criminal? Or punish somene who does good? From the Qur'anic point of view, put simply, this life is a test, for man to grow and climb the "spiritual ascent". If, however, man fails
deliberately to take heed and becomes arrogant (as the history of man shows that he does), then unfailingly the Justice of God will prevail.
At some other time, I'd like to expand on some of the topics I've touched on.
Notes
[1] This might be called the “socio-grammatical-historical” hermeneutic.
[2] This idea was actually expanded in its fullest sense by a student of Islahi, and a contemporary scholar of Islamic law and philosophy, the Pakistani Javed Ahmad Ghamidi, who founded the
al-Mawrid Institute of Islamic Sciences. Ghamidi’s students in turn have made these works available in English. See the websites:
Understanding Islam, and the Islamic journal,
Renaissance, which is a monthly publication, and is also produced online.
[3] This is often a confused term. Though I confess to being somewhat agnostic on this issue, for now, opponents of free-will think it means man has complete control over his environment, and can do as he wills. This is wrong. Muslim proponents (as much as any proponent) of this argument hold that man has complete free-will in his
moral judgement, and this will make accountable to God. It has Mu’tazili overtones, which is the term moral autonomy may be better (it is also, in my opnion, gives a superior intuitive explanation.) I would like to, God-willing :-), discuss this sometime in the future.
[5] According to most schools of Islamic theology, there are two types of people who received Divine Guidance:
Anbiyaa (singular
Nabee) usually translated as Prophet; and
Rusul (singular
Rasool) translated as Messenger. The usual distinction has been that a Messenger is one who received a Divine text. This understanding differs somewhat.
[6] A fuller explanation of this is outside the scope of this blog, but I do plan on blogging about this in the near future. So please forgive me for jumping to the conclusions of this interpretation.
[7] Each chapter of the Qur'an, bar number 9, starts with the words
"Bismillahi-r-rahmaani-r-raheem", meaning "In the Name of God, Most Merciful, Most Kind".
[8] The term for monotheists who have a scripture. Jews and Christians are two obvious examples.
[9] This is obviously judging by "modern" standards. Also, I am not suggesting that Muslims were always preoccupied with subjegating non-Muslims. On the contrary, Islamic history shows that many parts of the Muslim world were very tolerant; ironically more tolerant than parts of the Muslim world today. In fact no society can function if there is no tolerance; and the mere fact that Muslims were acquiring new knowledge meant showing tolerance to non-Muslims (like the Christians and Jews and later Hindus) It is safe to say, however, that
de jure, non-Muslims were "below" Muslims.
[10] This does not, of course, remove criticism from non-Muslims on the actions of Muhammad (p) or his followers, or any other Muslims. This does, however, change the way a Muslim is meant to see the world and interact with it.
[11] As with so many other issues, I'd like to blog about the laws regarding warfare at some other date.
:: this was posted by thabet at 10:37
Monday, December 02, 2002
Towards developing a hermeneutical model of the Qur'an (II)
PartII: Some short examples
The contextualised approach becomes ever more important when we consider the unified structure of the Qur’an. Evidently, every verse has a place among several verses. Then every set of verses has a place among the chapter. The chapter is then drawn out to have a place in the entire Qur’an. This approach, up till recent times, has completely been disregarded. A couple of examples will suffice to show the difference the context makes to studying the Qur'an.
Consider
Qur'an 56: 77-80:
"That (this) is indeed a noble Qur’an, in a Book kept hidden, which none toucheth save the purified, a revelation from the Lord of the Worlds.”
The context of these verses is related to the Arab belief of the time that the soothsayers had control over the
Jinn (this-worldly beings made of fire who cannot be seen within the limited spectrum of mans eyesight). The Arabs claimed that the Prophet (p) was one of these soothsayers masquerading as a prophet, and received insights from these
jinn. The Qur’an refutes this by saying that the Revelation to him is authentic because (i) it comes from an impeccable source, one which is protected by the Almighty (called the “Mother Book”); and (ii) that it is only sent to him via the “purified”, that is the angel, i.e. it is sent down via an unadulterated medium thus guaranteeing it’s authenticity. Soothsayers, however, usually receive ill-information, often tampered with by evil
Jinn.
Muslim jurists, on the other hand, have taken the middle verse “none toucheth save the purified”, and written pages upon pages of legal injunctions that only those who have been ritually cleansed shall touch the Book. What relationship has this verse with the following? This obvious and warranted question seems to go unanswered.
Another example is
Qur’an 6: 38:
"We have neglected nothing in the Book…”
This verse is usually supported to show that Islam has a rule for everything. From this Muslims have derived rules, regulations and systems from every verse of the Qur’an (and as a corollary, the life of the Prophet (p)). We have developed a whole catalogue of minutia of doctrines and practices, which seem in stark contradiction to the spiritual message of the Qur'an.
However, when seen in the entire context (taking a verse before and after):
“They say: Why hath no portent been sent down upon him from his Lord? Say: Lo Allah is Able to send down a portent. But most of them know not. There is not an animal in the earth, nor flying creature flying on two wings, but they are peoples unto you. We have neglected nothing in the Book. Then unto their Lord they will be gathered. Those who deny Our revelations are deaf and dumb in darkness Whom Allah will He sendeth astray, and whom He will He placeth on a straight path”
As one can see, the verse cited takes on a whole new meaning. It no longer refers to rules and law. It refers instead to the Arabs asking the Prophet (p) for a sign from God. In reply the Qur'an asks them to look at the animals on the earth and the flying creatures in the sky, and to note that God has left nothing of these signs out of His Glorious Book. Then reminds us that ultimately we shall be brought before God, and those who turn away from God's signs it is as though they are in darkness. For these people only God can help them.
The net result of the traditional approach has been to treat the Qur’an, not like a book which is what it says it is, but like a dictionary. In a dictionary one simply looks up the relevant entry, ignoring the context. Muslim jurists and theologians have similarly dived into the verse that supports their conclusions, and have ignored what it says around that particular verse. This has resulted in a very legalistic approach, where we are constantly looking for some regulation or rule, producing a list of do’s and don’ts. (History shows us that this is one of the reason for the development of Sufism – something I’d like to blog about at a later date.)
In the penultimate part of this series, I should like to explain what Islahi, then his students, explained as the fundamental premise with which the Qur'an is read. This carried on the theme of the unity of the Qur'an, and also a unity of understanding early Muslim history; that is an understanding which considers not only the Qur'an, but the whole of history of Muhammad (p), and because he was a chain of Messengers and Prophets, the entire history of religion. This brought in a coherent study of the Bible, in light of the Qur'an.
:: this was posted by thabet at 21:56
