In the previous blog, we discussed how there are different narrations on the beginning time for Dhuhr and Asr, and that there were two categories:
1. The start for both is midday
2. The start for both is after midday (there are different narrations implying varying lengths of time after midday)
It is clear that these are contradictory i.e. both cannot be true. However, both opinions are justified by narrations that are sahih. Therefore, from the perspective of rijal studies, they all came from the Imam (AS). Based on this, the first port of call for the scholar is to try and “harmonise” (jam’) these narrations and find a solution that fits both of these sets of narrations.
Ayatullah Khui then considers the following possible solution:
• All other things being equal, the best time (farida) for Dhuhr and Asr, is midday
• However, if you pray the nafila prayers, then the time for Dhuhr and Asr becomes later, and the varying terms mentioned for the time period after midday are only examples of how long it would take to pray the nafila prayers, and are not themselves the time for praying Dhuhr and Asr
He supports this harmonisation using a range of narrations, some of which I will outline below:
• The hadith of ‘Amr ibn Handhala: “…[the 6th Imam (AS) said]: ‘when the sun reaches midday, the time for Dhuhr begins unless you are about to pray – and that is up to you. If you cut down [on the prayer], then [the time for Dhuhr begins] when you finish your prayers, and if you take longer [on the prayer], then [again], [the time is] when you have finished your prayers.” (1)
• Muwatthaq narration from Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn Yahya al-Ash’ari: “…Some of the people said: ‘we pray the first [prayer i.e. Dhuhr] when it is two qadam, and Asr when it is four qadam.’ Abu Abdullah [the 6th Imam] (AS) said: ‘half of this is preferable to me’.” (2)
This solves the contradiction! There is an extra complication that I will discuss in the next blog inshaAllah – but hope this makes sense!
By the way, if anyone is interested in writing a guest blog at some point, please do get in touch – we now have about 60 people getting this in their email inbox…
(1)Wasa`il, Volume 4, page 133 in the Chapter on prayer times, Chapter 5, Hadith 9
(2) Wasa`il, Volume 4, page 146 in the Chapter on prayer times, Chapter 8, Hadith 22
Thursday 3 November 2011
Wednesday 26 October 2011
Harmonising contradictory narrations (the time for afternoon prayers) (1)
In the next few blogs, I will be looking at Ayatullah Khui again. He was one of the most illustrious scholars of the modern era, and by looking at his works, we are best able to understand and gain insight into the mind of a scholar!
The topic we will be focussing on is seeing how apparently contradictory narrations are harmonised (jam' urfi) by Ayatullah Khui in his Tanqih (1) - we will do this by looking at how he concludes what the time for Salat al-Dhuhr and Salat al-Asr is. His argument is lengthy and I will summarise to help illustrate the point as succinctly as possible, whilst maintaining enough to show how he argues his point.
Part A - the start of Dhuhr
From the Qur'an (17:78), it is clear that the beginning of Dhuhr is midday (duluk in the verse means zawal i.e. midday). However, there are two groups of narrations about the start of Dhuhr (and Asr):
1. Those which make it clear that the start of the time for these prayers is midday - e.g. Zurara from the 5th Imam (AS) who said: "When it becomes midday, the times for Dhuhr and Asr begin" (2)
2. Those which imply the time is a bit after midday - these are split into several sub-categories based on how much after midday:
A. e.g. the sahih narration from Isma'il from 'Abd al-Khaliq, who said: "I asked Abu Abdillah (AS) about the time of Dhuhr, and he said: 'it is a qadam after midday'..." (3)
B. e.g. sahih narration from Fadlaa' from both the 5th and 6th Imam (AS) that they both said: "The time for Dhuhr is two qadam after midday, and Asr is two qadam after that." (4);
C. there are others which talk about it being "dhira' after midday" (5);
D. or qama (6).
[Note I am not going to worry about the meaning of qadam [foot], dhira' [armlength] or qama [body length] here, other than to note it has an implication of a bit after midday, and the relationship between these varies e.g. 2 qadam = 1 dhira' but it is complicated so I will not go into it further]
It should be clear from these narrations that some seem to suggest that it starts at midday, and others have different times slightly after midday - in the next blog, we will look at how Syed Khui deals with this apparent contradiction.
(1)volume 2 on Salat, Page 81 onwards
(2)Wasa`il, Volume 4, page 125 in the Chapter on prayer times, Chapter 4, Hadith 1 (there are others e.g. hadith 5 and 9 on the same page)
(3) As above, Chapter 8, Hadith 11 (there are others e.g. hadith 17 in the same chapter)
(4) As above, Hadith 1
(5) As above, Hadith 3
(6) As above, Hadith 9, 13, 29
The topic we will be focussing on is seeing how apparently contradictory narrations are harmonised (jam' urfi) by Ayatullah Khui in his Tanqih (1) - we will do this by looking at how he concludes what the time for Salat al-Dhuhr and Salat al-Asr is. His argument is lengthy and I will summarise to help illustrate the point as succinctly as possible, whilst maintaining enough to show how he argues his point.
Part A - the start of Dhuhr
From the Qur'an (17:78), it is clear that the beginning of Dhuhr is midday (duluk in the verse means zawal i.e. midday). However, there are two groups of narrations about the start of Dhuhr (and Asr):
1. Those which make it clear that the start of the time for these prayers is midday - e.g. Zurara from the 5th Imam (AS) who said: "When it becomes midday, the times for Dhuhr and Asr begin" (2)
2. Those which imply the time is a bit after midday - these are split into several sub-categories based on how much after midday:
A. e.g. the sahih narration from Isma'il from 'Abd al-Khaliq, who said: "I asked Abu Abdillah (AS) about the time of Dhuhr, and he said: 'it is a qadam after midday'..." (3)
B. e.g. sahih narration from Fadlaa' from both the 5th and 6th Imam (AS) that they both said: "The time for Dhuhr is two qadam after midday, and Asr is two qadam after that." (4);
C. there are others which talk about it being "dhira' after midday" (5);
D. or qama (6).
[Note I am not going to worry about the meaning of qadam [foot], dhira' [armlength] or qama [body length] here, other than to note it has an implication of a bit after midday, and the relationship between these varies e.g. 2 qadam = 1 dhira' but it is complicated so I will not go into it further]
It should be clear from these narrations that some seem to suggest that it starts at midday, and others have different times slightly after midday - in the next blog, we will look at how Syed Khui deals with this apparent contradiction.
(1)volume 2 on Salat, Page 81 onwards
(2)Wasa`il, Volume 4, page 125 in the Chapter on prayer times, Chapter 4, Hadith 1 (there are others e.g. hadith 5 and 9 on the same page)
(3) As above, Chapter 8, Hadith 11 (there are others e.g. hadith 17 in the same chapter)
(4) As above, Hadith 1
(5) As above, Hadith 3
(6) As above, Hadith 9, 13, 29
Tuesday 18 October 2011
I'm back!
Salaam all
Apologies for the very long time since the last blog! I have not had much time to pursue the progressive Muslim framework but will get back there eventually!
As you know, the point of these blogs are to provide an insight into how scholars think, thereby providing a basis for the the ultimate struggle towards understanding what Allah wants us to do in this world. I have done this so far by:
1. Giving an overview of methodology used by some of the most famous Shi'i scholars of the recent age on a range of rulings (paraphrasing their work but keeping their structure)
2. Providing examples of the discussions on the framework used (the usul al-fiqh)
3. Finally, discussing some of the alternative frameworks out there (progressive Muslims) - but I have left this one up in the air still!
I will come back to number 3, but I believe that it would still be beneficial to provide further examples of number 1 to help understand how Shi'i scholars derive rulings. My plan is the following:
- Discussion on rationale for Shi'i view of Wudu - my summary of the various opinions by the scholars (but not my view)
- Discussion on prayer time - Salat al-Asr in Shi'i fiqh
- The theological principle of raj'ah in Shi'i fiqh (- maybe...)
Following blogs on the above topics, I have been requested to discuss some of my own personal views on the topics below:
- The problems with expecting "unity" to be a major impact in deriving Islamic law in the current methodological framework
- My understanding of the reform movement within traditoinal Islamic law
If anyone has any other ideas, please do get in touch - and it would be great to have some feedback as I go along! (The lack of feedback made me think that people were not interested....whereas that may not have actually been the case!)
Apologies for the very long time since the last blog! I have not had much time to pursue the progressive Muslim framework but will get back there eventually!
As you know, the point of these blogs are to provide an insight into how scholars think, thereby providing a basis for the the ultimate struggle towards understanding what Allah wants us to do in this world. I have done this so far by:
1. Giving an overview of methodology used by some of the most famous Shi'i scholars of the recent age on a range of rulings (paraphrasing their work but keeping their structure)
2. Providing examples of the discussions on the framework used (the usul al-fiqh)
3. Finally, discussing some of the alternative frameworks out there (progressive Muslims) - but I have left this one up in the air still!
I will come back to number 3, but I believe that it would still be beneficial to provide further examples of number 1 to help understand how Shi'i scholars derive rulings. My plan is the following:
- Discussion on rationale for Shi'i view of Wudu - my summary of the various opinions by the scholars (but not my view)
- Discussion on prayer time - Salat al-Asr in Shi'i fiqh
- The theological principle of raj'ah in Shi'i fiqh (- maybe...)
Following blogs on the above topics, I have been requested to discuss some of my own personal views on the topics below:
- The problems with expecting "unity" to be a major impact in deriving Islamic law in the current methodological framework
- My understanding of the reform movement within traditoinal Islamic law
If anyone has any other ideas, please do get in touch - and it would be great to have some feedback as I go along! (The lack of feedback made me think that people were not interested....whereas that may not have actually been the case!)
Saturday 12 March 2011
Progressive Muslims - Mahmoud Taha (3)
Now we have discussed the idea that there are two messages of Islam, we will now go on to explain how this came about in the history according to Taha.
He believes that initially, the Meccan Qur’an (full of eternal, universal, general and lofty principles) was revealed, inviting people to the final true Islam (stage 3 in the previous blog) but when they failed to adopt the ultimate Islam, and it was practically demonstrated that they were below its standard, they were addressed in accordance with their abilities as Mu’minun (1) and the original precept was postponed. This was done through the verses of the Qur’an revealed in Medina (compromises e.g. most the verses on women’s rights …etc.).
[Important to note here is the general distinction that is noticed by all scholars between the Meccan and Medinese verses e.g. Medinese verses often start with “O mu’minun” whilst Meccan verses start with “O mankind”…etc.. And also important to note, is that other scholars often consider the Meccan verses to be abrogated by the Medinan verses whereas Taha argues there would otherwise have bee no point in the previous Meccan verses]
It is useful to look at an example to make it clear what he means. When 6:82 was revealed: “Those who believe you without obscuring their belief with unfairness have security and they are truly guided”. The people complained to the Prophet following this verse saying it was too difficult to comply with, and the Prophet explained – at the Mu’minun level – that it was only disbelief rather than the subtle shirk in the sense mentioned in the sir al-sir verse (20:111). (2)
His view is that as soon as the conditions necessary for achieving the original objective returns i.e. once both individual as well as collective human capacities are sufficiently mature, the original precept shall be restored. He does not consider the verse “today we have perfected for you your religion” (5:3) to mean that the religion is finished – rather that Islam cannot be concluded as “the (true) religion with God is Islam” (3:19) and “Say, if every sea became ink for the words of my Lord, surely, the sea would be exhausted before the words of my Lord were exhausted even if a similar amount is brought as additional supply ” (18:109) i.e. the true religion is with God beyond time and space. Progress is required to get there.
He says that there is a difference between revelation and explanation in the verse: “And we have revealed to you the Reminder [the Qur'an] so that you may explain to mankind that which has been sent down to them, and they may reflect” – he considers the revelation to be the second message (yet to be found), and the explanation to be the first message. (3)
We are yet awaiting the nation of the true Muslims (4) – rather the current nation are Mu’minun. And the initial message is that which the future nation believes in. It is up to us, to revive the initial universal, eternal religion. This Second Message of Islam had remained concealed in the text of the Qur’an until humanity had reached the degree of development that made its application possible. According to Taha, this moment had now arrived.
Taha then goes through some of the issues of concern, and explains how the initial message was one of purity that we need to get back to – he goes through slavery, capitalism, inequality, hijab, polygamy and explains them all in the same way using the above theory.
Note that there are slight issues with this theory e.g. there are some universal principles like “there is no compulsion in religion” in the Medinese verses (although he argues that there are some texts he considers as Meccan in his terminology , although they were revealed in Medina, and others he considers Medinese, although they were revealed in Mecca.)…
This theory is well known and majorly important in the development of modernist thinking. What is really interesting is that he went through with his theory in practice and in his politics, and he was executed for it…In the next blog, we will look at a different thinker: Muhammad Abduh
Sources:
Taha, Al-Qur’an
Taha, Second Message of Islam
The Second Message of Islam: A critical study of the Islamic reformist thinking of Mahmud Muhammad Taha (1909-85), Ph. D, 1995, Eltayeb Eltayeb
(1) Verses used in support of this theory include 47:31, 3:102, 64:16
(2) The Prophet was one of the true Muslims as referred to in 6:163
(3) These two-fold messages are explained in an earlier blog – refer also to 30:23
(4) We have said that the nation of the first message are Muslims – the Qur’an described these at the time of Musa as Jews; and at the time of Isa as Christians; and at the time of Muhammad as Mu’minun (e.g. 2:62, 5:69, 4:136, 5:44)
He believes that initially, the Meccan Qur’an (full of eternal, universal, general and lofty principles) was revealed, inviting people to the final true Islam (stage 3 in the previous blog) but when they failed to adopt the ultimate Islam, and it was practically demonstrated that they were below its standard, they were addressed in accordance with their abilities as Mu’minun (1) and the original precept was postponed. This was done through the verses of the Qur’an revealed in Medina (compromises e.g. most the verses on women’s rights …etc.).
[Important to note here is the general distinction that is noticed by all scholars between the Meccan and Medinese verses e.g. Medinese verses often start with “O mu’minun” whilst Meccan verses start with “O mankind”…etc.. And also important to note, is that other scholars often consider the Meccan verses to be abrogated by the Medinan verses whereas Taha argues there would otherwise have bee no point in the previous Meccan verses]
It is useful to look at an example to make it clear what he means. When 6:82 was revealed: “Those who believe you without obscuring their belief with unfairness have security and they are truly guided”. The people complained to the Prophet following this verse saying it was too difficult to comply with, and the Prophet explained – at the Mu’minun level – that it was only disbelief rather than the subtle shirk in the sense mentioned in the sir al-sir verse (20:111). (2)
His view is that as soon as the conditions necessary for achieving the original objective returns i.e. once both individual as well as collective human capacities are sufficiently mature, the original precept shall be restored. He does not consider the verse “today we have perfected for you your religion” (5:3) to mean that the religion is finished – rather that Islam cannot be concluded as “the (true) religion with God is Islam” (3:19) and “Say, if every sea became ink for the words of my Lord, surely, the sea would be exhausted before the words of my Lord were exhausted even if a similar amount is brought as additional supply ” (18:109) i.e. the true religion is with God beyond time and space. Progress is required to get there.
He says that there is a difference between revelation and explanation in the verse: “And we have revealed to you the Reminder [the Qur'an] so that you may explain to mankind that which has been sent down to them, and they may reflect” – he considers the revelation to be the second message (yet to be found), and the explanation to be the first message. (3)
We are yet awaiting the nation of the true Muslims (4) – rather the current nation are Mu’minun. And the initial message is that which the future nation believes in. It is up to us, to revive the initial universal, eternal religion. This Second Message of Islam had remained concealed in the text of the Qur’an until humanity had reached the degree of development that made its application possible. According to Taha, this moment had now arrived.
Taha then goes through some of the issues of concern, and explains how the initial message was one of purity that we need to get back to – he goes through slavery, capitalism, inequality, hijab, polygamy and explains them all in the same way using the above theory.
Note that there are slight issues with this theory e.g. there are some universal principles like “there is no compulsion in religion” in the Medinese verses (although he argues that there are some texts he considers as Meccan in his terminology , although they were revealed in Medina, and others he considers Medinese, although they were revealed in Mecca.)…
This theory is well known and majorly important in the development of modernist thinking. What is really interesting is that he went through with his theory in practice and in his politics, and he was executed for it…In the next blog, we will look at a different thinker: Muhammad Abduh
Sources:
Taha, Al-Qur’an
Taha, Second Message of Islam
The Second Message of Islam: A critical study of the Islamic reformist thinking of Mahmud Muhammad Taha (1909-85), Ph. D, 1995, Eltayeb Eltayeb
(1) Verses used in support of this theory include 47:31, 3:102, 64:16
(2) The Prophet was one of the true Muslims as referred to in 6:163
(3) These two-fold messages are explained in an earlier blog – refer also to 30:23
(4) We have said that the nation of the first message are Muslims – the Qur’an described these at the time of Musa as Jews; and at the time of Isa as Christians; and at the time of Muhammad as Mu’minun (e.g. 2:62, 5:69, 4:136, 5:44)
Saturday 19 February 2011
Progressive Muslims - Mahmoud Taha (2)
In the previous blog, we looked at how Taha’s religious development started from a period of seclusion and meditation where he aimed to get closer to God.
Like many reformers, he thought that Islam in its current form had become alienated from its original intentions, and had become just a rigid system of rules that did not provide guidance to Muslims of the current age. He believed that there needed to be a new interpretation of the Qur’an in light of modern scientific knowledge and the democratic political order. Taha, however, went beyond the agenda of mainstream modernism by putting the text of the Qur’an itself up for discussion. Even now, most modernists limit their efforts to reforming the medieval jurisprudence, but ignore the fact that the Qur’an itself contains a number of texts which evidently contradict modern democratic principles, especially where the positions of women and non-Muslims are concerned. Taha, by contrast, put the problem of these 'undemocratic' verses at the centre of his reform project.
In line with other modernists, Taha was not only critical of traditional Islam but also of western modernity. He admired the scientific progress achieved by modern western culture. This progress, however, had made modern science so over-confident that it had started to deny the existence of an 'unseen' supernatural world altogether. As a result, western man had denied himself access to his spiritual essence and was no longer able to define himself as more than the sum total of his physical needs. Although Taha recognised the moral excellence of the western ideals of human rights and democracy, he believed that such a materialist worldview could never sustain this moral standard in the long term. This would require religion, albeit it in a new form.
Anyway, as explained in the previous blog, during the period he was imprisoned and in seculsion, he felt he received inspiration from God to send this second message of Islam. He sets out some of his views on the meaning of Islam using 3:102 and 40:14. He considers there to be several stages split into three:
1. The first message of Islam: Dogma (aqida) – stage of the nation of Mu’minun:
a. Islam (the near meaning of 49:14) – external/apparent submission to do with speech and action
b. Iman (the near meaning of 49:14)
c. Ihsan (1)
2. The second message of Islam: Truth (haqiqa) – stage of the nation of Muslimun:
a. ilm al-yaqin, ilm ayn al-yaqin, ilm haqq al-yaqin
3. Pure Islam (the near meaning of 3:102 and the distant meaning of 40:14) – intelligent external and internal (genuine) submission: this final stage looks similar to the first stage
We are still (in Taha’s view) in the first nation of the Mu’minun, with very few members of the second nation – that of the Muslimun, really here (e.g. some of the Prophets).
Taha believes that although the Prophet is the Messenger, who explained the First Message in detail, he also delivered the Second Message through an outline, whose elaboration requires a fresh understanding of the Qur’an.
In the next blog, we will look at how he explains the two messages of Islam and how it affects his view of Islam as a whole.
Sources:
Taha, Al-Qur’an
Taha, Second Message of Islam
The Second Message of Islam: A critical study of the Islamic reformist thinking of Mahmud Muhammad Taha (1909-85), Ph. D, 1995, Eltayeb Eltayeb
(1) Initial Islam, according to Taha, is built on five principles: Affirmation of the faith, the five daily prayers etc. This level is not that powerful, unless it leads to Iman, because hypocrites would be in this group!
Iman, as described by the Prophet, is to believe in God, the angels', the heavenly Books, the Messengers, the Last Day and Fate whether good or evil.
Like many reformers, he thought that Islam in its current form had become alienated from its original intentions, and had become just a rigid system of rules that did not provide guidance to Muslims of the current age. He believed that there needed to be a new interpretation of the Qur’an in light of modern scientific knowledge and the democratic political order. Taha, however, went beyond the agenda of mainstream modernism by putting the text of the Qur’an itself up for discussion. Even now, most modernists limit their efforts to reforming the medieval jurisprudence, but ignore the fact that the Qur’an itself contains a number of texts which evidently contradict modern democratic principles, especially where the positions of women and non-Muslims are concerned. Taha, by contrast, put the problem of these 'undemocratic' verses at the centre of his reform project.
In line with other modernists, Taha was not only critical of traditional Islam but also of western modernity. He admired the scientific progress achieved by modern western culture. This progress, however, had made modern science so over-confident that it had started to deny the existence of an 'unseen' supernatural world altogether. As a result, western man had denied himself access to his spiritual essence and was no longer able to define himself as more than the sum total of his physical needs. Although Taha recognised the moral excellence of the western ideals of human rights and democracy, he believed that such a materialist worldview could never sustain this moral standard in the long term. This would require religion, albeit it in a new form.
Anyway, as explained in the previous blog, during the period he was imprisoned and in seculsion, he felt he received inspiration from God to send this second message of Islam. He sets out some of his views on the meaning of Islam using 3:102 and 40:14. He considers there to be several stages split into three:
1. The first message of Islam: Dogma (aqida) – stage of the nation of Mu’minun:
a. Islam (the near meaning of 49:14) – external/apparent submission to do with speech and action
b. Iman (the near meaning of 49:14)
c. Ihsan (1)
2. The second message of Islam: Truth (haqiqa) – stage of the nation of Muslimun:
a. ilm al-yaqin, ilm ayn al-yaqin, ilm haqq al-yaqin
3. Pure Islam (the near meaning of 3:102 and the distant meaning of 40:14) – intelligent external and internal (genuine) submission: this final stage looks similar to the first stage
We are still (in Taha’s view) in the first nation of the Mu’minun, with very few members of the second nation – that of the Muslimun, really here (e.g. some of the Prophets).
Taha believes that although the Prophet is the Messenger, who explained the First Message in detail, he also delivered the Second Message through an outline, whose elaboration requires a fresh understanding of the Qur’an.
In the next blog, we will look at how he explains the two messages of Islam and how it affects his view of Islam as a whole.
Sources:
Taha, Al-Qur’an
Taha, Second Message of Islam
The Second Message of Islam: A critical study of the Islamic reformist thinking of Mahmud Muhammad Taha (1909-85), Ph. D, 1995, Eltayeb Eltayeb
(1) Initial Islam, according to Taha, is built on five principles: Affirmation of the faith, the five daily prayers etc. This level is not that powerful, unless it leads to Iman, because hypocrites would be in this group!
Iman, as described by the Prophet, is to believe in God, the angels', the heavenly Books, the Messengers, the Last Day and Fate whether good or evil.
Wednesday 2 February 2011
Progressive Muslims - Mahmoud Taha (1)
Hopefully, the discussion on Shahrour (one of the most interesting theories) was useful. In no particular order, we will move onto Mahmoud Taha – a Sudanese thinker (and also an engineer!). His religious ideas (together with political views) were firmly against the application of Shari’a in an unchanged form, whilst also fighting against secularisation of society. This led him to form the Republican Brotherhood, which ended with his execution in 1985, with some accusing him of apostacy.
Although some believed that he did not deal properly with complex theological issues (e.g. Norman Calder), others argue that he simplified his views for the public (for those interested, he is an Ash’ari).
In this and the next blog, I will start by focussing on some of his general views, which are interesting, particular because of their similarity to others in the “progressive” world. I will then move onto the theory he is most famous for – “the second message of Islam”. I will not focus on his important role in the politics of Sudan, although that is also very interesting!
In terms of the Qur’an, he believes that it has a vast and deep meaning constrained by the letters of the Arabic language. Therefore, although the words can give a near or apparent (dhahir) meaning, there is often a more distant or inner meaning (batin) to these words. He considers this ta’wil, as something that cannot be attainable through rational means such as studying and reading books. Rather, he thinks that it can only be acquired by imitating the infallible Prophet and following his example in diligent worship and good conduct (Sufi-esque through which you receive inspiration as to what they mean). (1)
Whilst he was imprisoned for leading a revolt against the British, he felt that he was brought there by God, and that’s where he started his seclusion with God. Even after his release from prison, he continued his self-imposed religious seclusion in his home town for three years, where he tried to follow the Prophet’s method of worship through prayer and fasting. Although he shared the common Muslim belief that all heavenly revelation had ended with Qur’an as the literal word of God, he kept emphasizing that devoted individuals can receive an enlightened understanding of the word and learn from God directly through His word as revealed to the Prophet. (2)
In the next blog, I will look at how this resulted in his different view on Islam and Iman (not that dissimilar to Shahrur, although preceded him) and then move onto his main theory…
Sources:
Taha, Al-Qur’an
Taha, Second Message of Islam
The Second Message of Islam: A critical study of the Islamic reformist thinking of Mahmud Muhammad Taha (1909-85), Ph. D, 1995, Eltayeb Eltayeb
(1) For those interested, he believes that 3:7 is misunderstood as it actually means that there are varying levels of ta’wil – and only God knows the peak of ta’wil i.e. every facet of the true meaning but scholars can learn more than the apparent meaning. He uses 31:20 to show that the difference between dhahir and batin is not just based on the words
(2) He uses 2:282 to support his view as it states that God teaches the one who is pious and fearful of God. He also cited the Hadith of the Prophet that states that the person who acts in accordance with what he or she knows shall be granted by God knowledge of that which he or she does not know.
Although some believed that he did not deal properly with complex theological issues (e.g. Norman Calder), others argue that he simplified his views for the public (for those interested, he is an Ash’ari).
In this and the next blog, I will start by focussing on some of his general views, which are interesting, particular because of their similarity to others in the “progressive” world. I will then move onto the theory he is most famous for – “the second message of Islam”. I will not focus on his important role in the politics of Sudan, although that is also very interesting!
In terms of the Qur’an, he believes that it has a vast and deep meaning constrained by the letters of the Arabic language. Therefore, although the words can give a near or apparent (dhahir) meaning, there is often a more distant or inner meaning (batin) to these words. He considers this ta’wil, as something that cannot be attainable through rational means such as studying and reading books. Rather, he thinks that it can only be acquired by imitating the infallible Prophet and following his example in diligent worship and good conduct (Sufi-esque through which you receive inspiration as to what they mean). (1)
Whilst he was imprisoned for leading a revolt against the British, he felt that he was brought there by God, and that’s where he started his seclusion with God. Even after his release from prison, he continued his self-imposed religious seclusion in his home town for three years, where he tried to follow the Prophet’s method of worship through prayer and fasting. Although he shared the common Muslim belief that all heavenly revelation had ended with Qur’an as the literal word of God, he kept emphasizing that devoted individuals can receive an enlightened understanding of the word and learn from God directly through His word as revealed to the Prophet. (2)
In the next blog, I will look at how this resulted in his different view on Islam and Iman (not that dissimilar to Shahrur, although preceded him) and then move onto his main theory…
Sources:
Taha, Al-Qur’an
Taha, Second Message of Islam
The Second Message of Islam: A critical study of the Islamic reformist thinking of Mahmud Muhammad Taha (1909-85), Ph. D, 1995, Eltayeb Eltayeb
(1) For those interested, he believes that 3:7 is misunderstood as it actually means that there are varying levels of ta’wil – and only God knows the peak of ta’wil i.e. every facet of the true meaning but scholars can learn more than the apparent meaning. He uses 31:20 to show that the difference between dhahir and batin is not just based on the words
(2) He uses 2:282 to support his view as it states that God teaches the one who is pious and fearful of God. He also cited the Hadith of the Prophet that states that the person who acts in accordance with what he or she knows shall be granted by God knowledge of that which he or she does not know.
Wednesday 26 January 2011
Progressive Muslims - Muhammad Shahrur (3)
In the previous blogs, I explained how Muhammad Shahrour’s theory of limits – basically, that where the Qur’an sets limits, you cannot exceed them (tilka hudud Allahi fala ta'taduha). In some cases, you should not even get close to them (tilka hudud Allah fala taqribuha). However, you can move in between the limits (curvature).
He uses this theory to say that the Islamic Shari'a have boundaries/hudud but these are meant only to establish a general framework but within these boundaries, you are free to legislate laws that suits best the continuously changing circumstances of human life.
Now the issue is that Muhammad Shahrur is not directly dismissing history and tradition. He says that although previous jurists did not distinguish between verses of the Quran and narrations that express limits and those that are instructions, they cannot be blamed as they are articulating their own society’s understanding. But he does note that there is a misconception in his view about how the prophet worked during his life. Women’s rights were improved throughout his prophethood but the traditional mindset considers the end of his life to be the end of the improvement, whereas he considers the model of improvement to be the ongoing process that must be continued.
He uses the theory of limits with these understandings to tackle with the problem of polygamy. From the famous verse in surah Nisa (4:2-3), he notes two types of limits:
Firstly, quantitatively, the lower limit is 1 wife, and the upper limit is 4 wives.
Secondly, qualitatively, the new wives must be young widows (to protect their young children). His view is that after a first wife, any other wife can only be married if the individual can treat the widows’ children with justice and equality which is difficult. He notes, however, that this idea of looking after widows who have young children, is good, as it is an effective way to provide care for orphaned families.
Overall, his idea is like a football pitch, where he believes that the traditionalists are playing on the borders, whereas they should be playing within the main pitch!
Note that his view removes the need for ijma’ as there is no need for certainty in his understanding. Note also that limits can be achieved from the Sunnah. Also, a question that is often posed to the cases in law that are not in the revealed texts – he makes it clear that there are no limits here e.g. new taxes – minimum limit of 0, and maximum limit would be the maximum the society can bear…
On the side, it is useful to see his understanding of the difference between Islam and Iman: The basis of his philosophical view is his different understanding of general religion (al-islam) and on particular religion (al-iman). He considers the former to be an eternal ideal practiced throughout history and based on scientific reason and good moral action (e.g. Prophet Ibrahim was a Muslim); and the latter to be a religion (what we call the actions of Islam) brought into existence in one particular time but contingent on that time. He characterises Salafi islam to be the antithesis of the ethical true islam, as it only considers the ritualistic iman to be the entirety of the religion.
Overall though, his thoughts are an interesting point of view – he has of course been attacked by the establishment and many responses have been written to his work. This must be understood and in this blog, I am not trying to say he is right or wrong, just giving an insight into his views…
In the next blog, we will move onto another progressive thinker!!
Sources:
“The Quran, Morality and Critical Reason” by Muhammad Shahrur
http://www.islam-and-muslims.com/Quran-Morality-Critical-Reason.pdf
Islamic Legal Theories by Wael Hallaq
He uses this theory to say that the Islamic Shari'a have boundaries/hudud but these are meant only to establish a general framework but within these boundaries, you are free to legislate laws that suits best the continuously changing circumstances of human life.
Now the issue is that Muhammad Shahrur is not directly dismissing history and tradition. He says that although previous jurists did not distinguish between verses of the Quran and narrations that express limits and those that are instructions, they cannot be blamed as they are articulating their own society’s understanding. But he does note that there is a misconception in his view about how the prophet worked during his life. Women’s rights were improved throughout his prophethood but the traditional mindset considers the end of his life to be the end of the improvement, whereas he considers the model of improvement to be the ongoing process that must be continued.
He uses the theory of limits with these understandings to tackle with the problem of polygamy. From the famous verse in surah Nisa (4:2-3), he notes two types of limits:
Firstly, quantitatively, the lower limit is 1 wife, and the upper limit is 4 wives.
Secondly, qualitatively, the new wives must be young widows (to protect their young children). His view is that after a first wife, any other wife can only be married if the individual can treat the widows’ children with justice and equality which is difficult. He notes, however, that this idea of looking after widows who have young children, is good, as it is an effective way to provide care for orphaned families.
Overall, his idea is like a football pitch, where he believes that the traditionalists are playing on the borders, whereas they should be playing within the main pitch!
Note that his view removes the need for ijma’ as there is no need for certainty in his understanding. Note also that limits can be achieved from the Sunnah. Also, a question that is often posed to the cases in law that are not in the revealed texts – he makes it clear that there are no limits here e.g. new taxes – minimum limit of 0, and maximum limit would be the maximum the society can bear…
On the side, it is useful to see his understanding of the difference between Islam and Iman: The basis of his philosophical view is his different understanding of general religion (al-islam) and on particular religion (al-iman). He considers the former to be an eternal ideal practiced throughout history and based on scientific reason and good moral action (e.g. Prophet Ibrahim was a Muslim); and the latter to be a religion (what we call the actions of Islam) brought into existence in one particular time but contingent on that time. He characterises Salafi islam to be the antithesis of the ethical true islam, as it only considers the ritualistic iman to be the entirety of the religion.
Overall though, his thoughts are an interesting point of view – he has of course been attacked by the establishment and many responses have been written to his work. This must be understood and in this blog, I am not trying to say he is right or wrong, just giving an insight into his views…
In the next blog, we will move onto another progressive thinker!!
Sources:
“The Quran, Morality and Critical Reason” by Muhammad Shahrur
http://www.islam-and-muslims.com/Quran-Morality-Critical-Reason.pdf
Islamic Legal Theories by Wael Hallaq
Wednesday 19 January 2011
Progressive Muslims - Muhammad Shahrur (2)
We are continuing to discuss Muhammad Shahrur and have explained briefly the idea of curvature and straightness, which are important to understand the Theory of Limits, which will be the focus of this blog…
Basically, the divine decree (in the Book and the Sunna) sets a Lower (minimum that must be adhered to) and Upper Limit (maximum required by law) for all human actions…once these limits are breached, penalties are warranted, proportional to the size of the violation.
There are 6 types of limits:
1. Lower limit by itself e.g. marrying one’s mother, …etc. – these are limits, such that if you do not do them, then any other marriage is possible.
2. Upper limit by itself e.g. cut off the hands of thieves (5:38). The penalty here is the upper limit that cannot be exceeded but the penalty might be mitigated depending on the society…the mujtahids have to make the decision as to which type deserves cutting the hand e.g. stealing intelligence might have another verse apply to it e.g. 5:33 (those…”who make war upon God and His messenger…should be killed or crucified or…”) – again that is the upper limit.
3. Lower and upper limit conjoined e.g. inheritance. Shahrur believes that the upper limit of a man is twice that of a woman; and the lower limit of a woman is half that of a man – independent of maintenance costs…etc.. But the exact amount depends on the society…etc. This example shows the freedom of movement (curvature) in between the limits (straightness). He says that if we just rely on the interpretation 100s of years ago, we would be losing the curvature of islam.
4. Lower and upper limit together – he cites only one example: 24:2 (“the adulterer and the adulteress, scourge each one of them with a hundred lashes. And let not pity for the twain withhold you from obedience to God…”). Here, both the upper and lower limits are at one point i.e. 100 lashes. This is because God insists that the adulteres should not be pitied, signifying the punishment should not be mitigated.
5. Curvature in between the lower and upper limit but touches neither e.g. sexual relations between men and women – starts with the lower limit where the sexes are not to touch other; curvature in between that and the upper limit where they come close to committing adultery
6. Curvature between a positive upper limit and a negative lower limit e.g. interest. He considers the lower limit to be taking care of the poor, who cannot be forced to pay what they cannot afford (he uses 9:60 and 2:276 and narrations to help his point of view); but those who can pay, that is separate, and the upper limit is based on 3:130 “O you who believe, devour not usury, doubling and quadrupling [the sum lent]” i.e. the maximum limit of the interest paid is 100% of the principal independent of the duration (due to 2:280).
In the next blog, I will look at other applications of this theory e.g. to polygamy, as well as some of his other views…
Sources:
“The Quran, Morality and Critical Reason” by Muhammad Shahrur
http://www.islam-and-muslims.com/Quran-Morality-Critical-Reason.pdf
Islamic Legal Theories by Wael Hallaq
Basically, the divine decree (in the Book and the Sunna) sets a Lower (minimum that must be adhered to) and Upper Limit (maximum required by law) for all human actions…once these limits are breached, penalties are warranted, proportional to the size of the violation.
There are 6 types of limits:
1. Lower limit by itself e.g. marrying one’s mother, …etc. – these are limits, such that if you do not do them, then any other marriage is possible.
2. Upper limit by itself e.g. cut off the hands of thieves (5:38). The penalty here is the upper limit that cannot be exceeded but the penalty might be mitigated depending on the society…the mujtahids have to make the decision as to which type deserves cutting the hand e.g. stealing intelligence might have another verse apply to it e.g. 5:33 (those…”who make war upon God and His messenger…should be killed or crucified or…”) – again that is the upper limit.
3. Lower and upper limit conjoined e.g. inheritance. Shahrur believes that the upper limit of a man is twice that of a woman; and the lower limit of a woman is half that of a man – independent of maintenance costs…etc.. But the exact amount depends on the society…etc. This example shows the freedom of movement (curvature) in between the limits (straightness). He says that if we just rely on the interpretation 100s of years ago, we would be losing the curvature of islam.
4. Lower and upper limit together – he cites only one example: 24:2 (“the adulterer and the adulteress, scourge each one of them with a hundred lashes. And let not pity for the twain withhold you from obedience to God…”). Here, both the upper and lower limits are at one point i.e. 100 lashes. This is because God insists that the adulteres should not be pitied, signifying the punishment should not be mitigated.
5. Curvature in between the lower and upper limit but touches neither e.g. sexual relations between men and women – starts with the lower limit where the sexes are not to touch other; curvature in between that and the upper limit where they come close to committing adultery
6. Curvature between a positive upper limit and a negative lower limit e.g. interest. He considers the lower limit to be taking care of the poor, who cannot be forced to pay what they cannot afford (he uses 9:60 and 2:276 and narrations to help his point of view); but those who can pay, that is separate, and the upper limit is based on 3:130 “O you who believe, devour not usury, doubling and quadrupling [the sum lent]” i.e. the maximum limit of the interest paid is 100% of the principal independent of the duration (due to 2:280).
In the next blog, I will look at other applications of this theory e.g. to polygamy, as well as some of his other views…
Sources:
“The Quran, Morality and Critical Reason” by Muhammad Shahrur
http://www.islam-and-muslims.com/Quran-Morality-Critical-Reason.pdf
Islamic Legal Theories by Wael Hallaq
Thursday 13 January 2011
Progressive Muslims - Muhammad Shahrur
Having discussed the views of the various different ways of thinking amongst some of the major traditional scholars of our era, we now embark on a brief overview of the major progressive thinkers.
Before we start, remember that the previous blogs were based on the final law itself i.e. the implicit thinking of the scholars can be inferred from how they reached their conclusions. The thinkers we are going to discuss now, are at a much earlier and less mature stage in their development i.e. they are at the theoretical stage, explaining their theory because they believe that the general traditional approach either needs to change given the changing circumstances, or just does not make sense at all.
I personally have not reached a conclusion on what I believe but inshaAllah this process will help us all understand our religion more deeply. I am going to start with one of the authors that has made me think the most – Muhammad Shahrur. Although some of his works are fantastic, I am going to start by explaining the most famous of his theories.
He uses the verse: “indeed We have revealed the Remembrance [the Qur’an] and We are surely its preservers” to (in contrast to most) say that the Qur’an is as much ours as it was the Qur’an of the previous generations. Therefore, given that each interpretation of each age depends on the particular reality they live in, we have as much right to interpret the Qur’an that reflects our time i.e. we are better placed to understand the Qur’an for our purposes, than earlier generations [so previous commentaries are not binding on us]. In fact, he goes as far as to say we are better placed to interpret the Qur’an given the fact we have developed in philosophy, sciences…etc.
Now given his right to interpret, he makes an important distinction between the Qur’an and Kitab (the title of one his famous works), as well as the difference between Prophet and Rasul. I will skip over these, and move onto two opposite terms that are the pillars of his “Theory of Limits”:
1. Hanifiyya (curvature) – more a deviation from a straight path
2. Mustaqim (straightness)
(he uses many verses of the Qur’an to explain this)
He says that both of these attributes are integral to the message and in particular, curvature is natural and intrinsic to human nature – we see that through physics e.g. motion even of electrons or galaxies are in curves. But at the same time, you need straightness to maintain a legal order in the “non-straight” society (with different cultures, needs…etc.). Nowhere in the Qur'an you can find a single verse which recommends us to pray God to bestow on us “hanifiyya” even though it is praised about Prophet Ibrahim. We don’t need to pray for hanifiyya as it is natural, but we do need to pray for straightness (as it says in Surah Fateha – “guide us/keep us on the straight path”), which is indispensable but not natural.
So the question that we have is: what is the form of straightness that God revealed to complement its curvature? Here Shahrur puts forward the crux of his theory – the Theory of limits (hudud). He says that man moves in curvature within these limits which represent straightness. In the next blog, I will explain this theory in more detail.
Sources:
“The Quran, Morality and Critical Reason” by Muhammad Shahrur
http://www.islam-and-muslims.com/Quran-Morality-Critical-Reason.pdf
Islamic Legal Theories by Wael Hallaq
Before we start, remember that the previous blogs were based on the final law itself i.e. the implicit thinking of the scholars can be inferred from how they reached their conclusions. The thinkers we are going to discuss now, are at a much earlier and less mature stage in their development i.e. they are at the theoretical stage, explaining their theory because they believe that the general traditional approach either needs to change given the changing circumstances, or just does not make sense at all.
I personally have not reached a conclusion on what I believe but inshaAllah this process will help us all understand our religion more deeply. I am going to start with one of the authors that has made me think the most – Muhammad Shahrur. Although some of his works are fantastic, I am going to start by explaining the most famous of his theories.
He uses the verse: “indeed We have revealed the Remembrance [the Qur’an] and We are surely its preservers” to (in contrast to most) say that the Qur’an is as much ours as it was the Qur’an of the previous generations. Therefore, given that each interpretation of each age depends on the particular reality they live in, we have as much right to interpret the Qur’an that reflects our time i.e. we are better placed to understand the Qur’an for our purposes, than earlier generations [so previous commentaries are not binding on us]. In fact, he goes as far as to say we are better placed to interpret the Qur’an given the fact we have developed in philosophy, sciences…etc.
Now given his right to interpret, he makes an important distinction between the Qur’an and Kitab (the title of one his famous works), as well as the difference between Prophet and Rasul. I will skip over these, and move onto two opposite terms that are the pillars of his “Theory of Limits”:
1. Hanifiyya (curvature) – more a deviation from a straight path
2. Mustaqim (straightness)
(he uses many verses of the Qur’an to explain this)
He says that both of these attributes are integral to the message and in particular, curvature is natural and intrinsic to human nature – we see that through physics e.g. motion even of electrons or galaxies are in curves. But at the same time, you need straightness to maintain a legal order in the “non-straight” society (with different cultures, needs…etc.). Nowhere in the Qur'an you can find a single verse which recommends us to pray God to bestow on us “hanifiyya” even though it is praised about Prophet Ibrahim. We don’t need to pray for hanifiyya as it is natural, but we do need to pray for straightness (as it says in Surah Fateha – “guide us/keep us on the straight path”), which is indispensable but not natural.
So the question that we have is: what is the form of straightness that God revealed to complement its curvature? Here Shahrur puts forward the crux of his theory – the Theory of limits (hudud). He says that man moves in curvature within these limits which represent straightness. In the next blog, I will explain this theory in more detail.
Sources:
“The Quran, Morality and Critical Reason” by Muhammad Shahrur
http://www.islam-and-muslims.com/Quran-Morality-Critical-Reason.pdf
Islamic Legal Theories by Wael Hallaq
Wednesday 5 January 2011
Progressive Muslims - Introduction
Following a request, I have decided to devote the next series of blogs onto what I term as “progressive” Muslims. There are always issues with terminology:
- some say that the term “liberal” should be used – but others dislike that term due to the connotation of the person being more lax with Islam, which is not the case here
- others prefer the term “reformist” or “revisionist” – but others dislike the term as it implies a change or reform akin to that of the Christians, which is not necessarily something that people like!
- others prefer the term “modernist” but this implies there is a different Islam in the modern age
The term that seems to work best is to call adherents of this “new” view, as “progressive Muslims”. The positive of this terminology, is that it is not taking a view on Islam but just Muslims; it is also talking about progression, which was exactly what the Prophet (SAW) did during his life. The main negative is that it might imply that those who do not subscribe to these points of view, are “regressive” or not “progressive”. However, overall, I think that this term works best (and is actually the title of a book edited by Omid Safi – “Progressive Muslims”) and it is what I will use throughout the next few blogs…
Now the questions that we are going to try and look into are:
1. What is this Islam that “progressive Muslims” consider to be the true Islam?
2. Why does there need to be a change?
3. Is there a strong grounding/methodology that provides a consistent applicable foundation to all issues or is it just bit-part
Given that (as far as I’m aware at least) there is little available which deals with this area of work in this way, I will try and just summarise the views of some of the big thinkers in these fields…after which we can try and build them all back again to answer these questions…
The thinkers that seem to be worth exploring are:
1. General:
a. Abdulkarim Soroush (I know he is massively controversial and I apologise for this but in many works by orientalists/non-Muslims, he is seen as one of the biggest thinkers in the field and is sometimes discussed before anyone else. Given that I have read some of his works, and met him, he seems to be worth discussing)
b. Fazlur Rahman
c. Muhammad Shahrur
d. Khaled Abu el-Fadl
e. Maybe Arkoun and Ebrahim Moosa
f. Would be nice to have stuff on Muhammad Iqbal, Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan, Abduh, Ali Abd al-Razaq, Shah Wali Allah but I have not read much on them so contributions would be welcome!
2. Women-specific:
a. Fatima Mernissi
b. Amina Wadud
c. Kecia Ali
d. Leila Ahmed
e. Asma Barlas
It is important to note that I am not agreeing with them but just explaining their views/ methodology, so that we can then get these together and understand what is trying to be done, why and how…and what the missing steps/critical questions are.
Please do forward this blog to other people/add them to the list…
- some say that the term “liberal” should be used – but others dislike that term due to the connotation of the person being more lax with Islam, which is not the case here
- others prefer the term “reformist” or “revisionist” – but others dislike the term as it implies a change or reform akin to that of the Christians, which is not necessarily something that people like!
- others prefer the term “modernist” but this implies there is a different Islam in the modern age
The term that seems to work best is to call adherents of this “new” view, as “progressive Muslims”. The positive of this terminology, is that it is not taking a view on Islam but just Muslims; it is also talking about progression, which was exactly what the Prophet (SAW) did during his life. The main negative is that it might imply that those who do not subscribe to these points of view, are “regressive” or not “progressive”. However, overall, I think that this term works best (and is actually the title of a book edited by Omid Safi – “Progressive Muslims”) and it is what I will use throughout the next few blogs…
Now the questions that we are going to try and look into are:
1. What is this Islam that “progressive Muslims” consider to be the true Islam?
2. Why does there need to be a change?
3. Is there a strong grounding/methodology that provides a consistent applicable foundation to all issues or is it just bit-part
Given that (as far as I’m aware at least) there is little available which deals with this area of work in this way, I will try and just summarise the views of some of the big thinkers in these fields…after which we can try and build them all back again to answer these questions…
The thinkers that seem to be worth exploring are:
1. General:
a. Abdulkarim Soroush (I know he is massively controversial and I apologise for this but in many works by orientalists/non-Muslims, he is seen as one of the biggest thinkers in the field and is sometimes discussed before anyone else. Given that I have read some of his works, and met him, he seems to be worth discussing)
b. Fazlur Rahman
c. Muhammad Shahrur
d. Khaled Abu el-Fadl
e. Maybe Arkoun and Ebrahim Moosa
f. Would be nice to have stuff on Muhammad Iqbal, Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan, Abduh, Ali Abd al-Razaq, Shah Wali Allah but I have not read much on them so contributions would be welcome!
2. Women-specific:
a. Fatima Mernissi
b. Amina Wadud
c. Kecia Ali
d. Leila Ahmed
e. Asma Barlas
It is important to note that I am not agreeing with them but just explaining their views/ methodology, so that we can then get these together and understand what is trying to be done, why and how…and what the missing steps/critical questions are.
Please do forward this blog to other people/add them to the list…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)