There is a misunderstanding that the reformists/liberals/modernists/critical thinkers...etc. want to impose their view on the Qur`an and ahadith, and do exactly what they accuse the traditionalists of (imposing their misoginistic views...etc. on the Qur`an). However, it is important to take a step back and see what the leaps/jumps that are taken on both sides and see which makes more sense:
1. That of the traditionalists - that A. hadith in one context apply in other times ; B. ahadith (which have less reliability than the Qur`an) should be used to explain the Qur`an (which is tawatur plus more)
2. That of modernists/reformists - that there must be a Qur`anic worldview derived from the Qur`an which is used in conjunction with philosophy, reason and the spirit of islam to explain the Qur`an and ahadith where the context has changed, or it is unclear
The problem is that the spirit of anything is derrived from its application in reality. When you ask someone, what does justice mean in Islam, you'll quote them verses and practices on helping the poor, etc. What is problematic, is saying that certain things are in line with the spirit of Islamic justice whilst others aren't. Maybe the hudood punishments are a manifestation of the spirit of justice? The argument then becomes circular. You can't understand the spirit without the application, but you want to understand the spirit to reinterpret the application. No win situatioN?
ReplyDeleteI don't think that this understanding is true. The jump that modernists make is as follows:
ReplyDelete1. What is the Quranic worldview. They use the Quran and "ijtihad" to work this out. This is not using application in real life.
2. Where there is no Quranic worldview, then they use rational thought and philosophical understandings, in the line with the Quranic worldview where possible.
In neither case is the application used to find the spirit.
The example of justice quoted is a useful example. Justice per se is of course a principle. But the principle of justice in the Quran is not a blind principle of justice, but one of equity..etc., and it is for the scholars to do the relevant ijtihad to derive the Quranic worldview and then apply it.
Hudud might be stopped using this understanding in two ways (if at all):
1. If the scholars believe that it is against the Quranic worldview and thus it is not what is meant by the specific ahadith..etc.
2. If the scholars believe that the texts talking about hudud are very much based on context and cannot be generalised to other contexts because generalising requires proof.
No circularity here?
I don't think either solution works. The first solution doesn't work because it's premissed on the understanding that the application of something has to imply application in real life. This doesn't have to be the case. You can have the application of a principle which results in an if clause. So if x happens, then the just thing to do would be y.
ReplyDeleteThe second solution is too vacuous and arbitrary. What is "rationality." Who decides?
For hudud, I think the context argument works better than the worldview argument. I think its opportunistic and wishful thinking to detach the world view from its real life application.
It is circular then?