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

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

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…

Seafood (FINAL) - and your thoughts on the next set

In the last 10 blogs we have seen how Fadlallah derives rulings – what is most interesting is that even though his conclusion is radically different from everyone else, the general method he uses, is very similar to others.

The main difference has been in how he has dealt with contradictions in narrations. In general, we see that when there is a contradiction between sahih narrations (regardless of number), the options (in order of preference) are:

1. Try and harmonise them and find a ruling that all the narrations make sense for
2. Take that which is in line with the Qur’an where this can be done
3. Take that which is against the Sunni opinion
4. Ignore both sets of narrations and refer back to the Asl

Fadlallah believes that numbers 1, 2 and 4 all lead to his opinion (i.e. that it is allowed to eat all seafood) and he does not believe that 3 is applicable. Most other scholars believe that 1 is not possible, 2 is not relevant, 3 is correct, and 4 would lead to Fadlallah’s opinion if 3 was not correct. Therefore, most scholars believe that fish without scales are not allowed [and this is a huge simplification] because the Sunnis believe they are allowed (details are in previous blogs).

What needs to be understood, is that although there are scholars out there, who have suggested radically alternative methods of derivation of Islamic law using the ideas of contextualisation (Fazlur Rahman, Shahrur, Soroush), or the fact that Qur’anic principles can supersede even sahih narrations (Saanei perhaps), Fadlallah does not seem to fall into these categories. He seems to be using an adapted version of the general methodology rather than a new methodology entirely!

Regardless, hopefully this detailed set of blogs has given an insight into how scholars of fiqh, reach their conclusions, and how if you have a different conclusion, it does not really necessarily mean you are outside the mainstream.

In the next blogs, we will look at one of the following options:
1. Another similar ruling on fiqh to understand how rulings are derived (but this seems to be boring you guys!)
2. A brief overview of the “alternative” ideas out there e.g. the work being done by the “progressives”
3. A look at tafsir – perhaps looking at the suggestion: “Is the Qur’an's view on women/marriage sexist?”

One of the readers had suggested music (following what they heard from a lecturer during the first ten days of Muharram), but this will not be possible at the moment as the research required is too much! InshaAllah next year we can reach this area...

Your views would be appreciated!

Seafood (10)

In the last blog we looked at Fadlallah’s view that there was no consensus on the issue of eating fish without scales, and he noted that there is an apparent contradiction in the narrations with some suggesting they are allowed (a minority but unambiguous) and some suggesting they are not allowed (a majority but potentially open to being restricted).

When dealing with contradictions in Shi’i usul al-fiqh, there are several methods (as the assumption is that the Imam cannot have made a mistake and said two contradictory things):
1. Trying to reconcile them where possible and plausible (jam’ urfi) e.g. if there is something general and something particular, they both could be right and one could be an exception to the other
2. Give a greater weight to the set of narrations that is against the opinion of the Sunnis (based on the fact that the Imams might have been in Taqiyya and said one of the statements under duress) – this rule of “ma khalaf al-aama” is based on a sahih narration in al-Kafi from the 6th Imam (AS).

Normally the first option will always be preferred where possible and plausible. Where the above two do not reach a conclusion, the narrations are discarded.

The method used by most scholars in this case is the second one as Sunnis believe that you can eat fish without scales. However, Fadlallah says that there must be constraints to the usage of this second rule. He posits two important constraints:

1. Only the minimum would be said by the Imam (AS) i.e. he would not add supplementary evidence if he was under duress. In this case, we see the Imam (AS) backing up this point of view with Quranic verses and Fadlallah wonders why he would do this if he was only under taqiyya – as it backs up the other argument

Of course, one might argue that the Imam might have used that verse of the Quran to justify the Sunni position, in order to satisfy the Sunni audience and protect his followers but the problem is that this is a legal matter, and therefore the assumption must be that the Imam expressed what he wanted to express unless you are confident that this is not the case i.e. the evidence is on the other foot!

2. Secondly, he suggests that this rule can only be applied as a last resort when you cannot reconcile the narrations (we will come to this later – to understand Fadlallah’s view)

3. Finally, he says that according to the narration that is the basis of this rule, the first thing to do is to compare the narrations with the Qur’an before looking at the Sunnis’ actions. And in this case, Fadlallah argues that the narrations that support the eating of fish without scales are in line with the Quran as stated in previous blogs


Fadlallah therefore argues that using the second method of solving the apparent contradiction does not make sense here, and for him, it does make sense to reconcile the narrations in the following way:

1. Those that indicate impermissibility – consider that they actually are talking about makruh (rather than haram) – this is a possible interpretation in usul al-fiqh where “Don’t do XX” can be an advisory statement.
2. Those that indicate permissibility – consider these to be again referring to makruh

Therefore, the correct rule for him is that these fish without scales are makruh to eat.

In the final blog on this topic, I will conclude and discuss this methodology and how it provides an insight into the minds of scholars. I will also give my thoughts on the next set of blogs – and hope that you agree with them!

Seafood (9)

Below are a summary of the main narrations used to form the prohibition of eating fish without scales (from the previous blog):

1. ‘…he said: eat fish with scales, and do not eat fish without scales.’
2. ‘Can the whale be eaten?’ He responded: ‘That which has scales can be eaten.’
3. ‘Ali was in Kufa on the mule of the Messenger of God. Then he passed by the whale market and said: ‘Do not eat and do not sell that which does not have scales.’
4. ‘Do not approach that which does not have scales.’
5. ‘The true Islam includes several parts: the testimony that there is no God but Allah…[and]… the impermissibility of al-jirri and al-tafi, (8) and al-marmahi [eel] and al-zamir (9) and all fish without scales.’ (10)

In usul al-fiqh, it is an agreed principle, that a negative imperative (e.g. “don’t do XX”) normally means it is haram to do it. However, it is also agreed that if there are any other contextual indicants, you might infer that it COULD mean it is makruh and the “don’t” is advisory. Therefore, most the narrations are of this category and although they imply that fish without scales are haram, they leave out the possibility that if there is any other context, they might imply makruh instead.

This argument is true for all the narrations except, some might argue, for narration number 3 and 5 above, where the context seems to make it very clear that it is haram.

Fadlallah analyses these two narrations and finds that the fifth narration has a weak chain, and hence should not be used to draw a conclusion. The only one of any substance he needs to look at is the fifth narration. His main view is that it is not clear that Imam Ali (AS) went to the market specifically to tell the people that this is haram – it is equally likely that he was just passing by and noticed this, and was discouraging it. More than that, it says that he was on the mule of the Prophet (SAW). Now as he is in Kufa, that means it was in his Caliphate i.e. 25 years after the Prophet’s death – an unlikely age for a mule!

He concludes, therefore, that ALL of the narrations might mean that fish without scales are makruh if there is some context that might support this theory.


Fadlallah then analyses the narrations, that indicate that fish without scales are permissible to consume. Two such narrations are as follows:

‘He said: I asked Abu ‘Abd Allah about eating eels (jarith) he responded [using Qur’an 6:145] “Say: In all that has been revealed to me, I do not find anything forbidden to eat for the one who wishes to eat it” then he added: “God has not made impermissible any animal in the Qur’an other than pig; and everything from the sea without scales…is not impermissible, it is actually discouraged.”’ (1)

Muhammad ibn Muslim from Ja’far ibn Muhammad [al-Sadiq]: ‘I asked Abu ‘Abd Allah about…fish without scales, are they impermissible to be eaten? He responded: Muhammad, read this verse from al-An’am [Qur’an 6:145]: “Say: In all that has been revealed to me, I do not find anything forbidden to eat”…he explained: “Indeed what is impermissible is that which God and his Messenger have considered impermissible in his Book…”.’ (2)

Fadlallah notes that these narrations are explicit (sarih) in permitting the consumption of all fish, and this undoubtedly precludes the possibility of them being impermissible. In the next blog we will discuss how to reconcile the apparent contradiction between this set of narrations and the one above (only 2 blogs left on this topic!).

(1) Wasa’il al-Shi’a, volume. 16, page 334, no. 19; considered sahih (from Zurara from 6th Imam)
(2) Ibid., Page 335 also considered sahih.

Seafood (8)

Apologies for the delay – I’ve been working hard to try and see if I can publish the research in a journal…we will see what happens!

Anyway, back to the topic at hand – we have looked at non-fish animals from the sea and noted Fadlallah’s conclusion that they are okay to eat. This is because there is no consensus and even the author of Wasa’il (al-Hur al-Amili) says that the narration used to substantiate the claim that non-fish animals are haram, should not be understood without reading the narration which allows it, and therefore must be considered makruh. Alternatively, the Qur’anic general principles should be referred to, if you cannot reach a conclusion on the narrations.

We are now moving onto fish without scales – the final type of sea animal! This is quite controversial (Tusi even said that it is an essential part of being Shia). But there are three levels of discussion:

1. Is there consensus on the issue?
2. What do the narrations say?
3. What should we do

On the first issue, Fadlallah notes opinions of major scholars of the past:
Al-Muhaqqiq al-Hilli in his Shara’i‘ says: ‘As for fish which do not have scales at all, like al-jirri (1), there are two narrations, the more well-known of the two indicates impermissibility. (2)

Shahid al-Thani in Al-Masalik hesitates as well: ‘The Shi‘a scholars differ in considering their permissibility because of the difference in the narrations concerning them’, similarly to Ardabili in Majma‘ and Sabzawari in Al-Kifayah. (3)
Fadlallah considers it clear that there is no scholarly consensus regarding the permissibility of consuming fish without scales.


On the second issue, Fadlallah considers two groups of narrations:

1. Those that imply that fish without scales are haram
2. Those that imply that fish without scales are halal


There are very very many in the first category – many of which are sahih. I will mention 5 of the most important and we will discuss them and Fadlallah’s discussion on them in the next blog:

Muhammad ibn Muslim from Muhammad ibn Ali [al-Baqir]: ‘…he said: eat fish with scales, and do not eat fish without scales.’ (4)
Hammad ibn ‘Uthman from Ja‘far ibn Muhammad [al-Sadiq]: ‘Can the whale be eaten?’ He responded: ‘That which has scales can be eaten.’ (5)
Abdullah ibn Sunan from Ja‘far ibn Muhammad [al-Sadiq]: ‘Ali was in Kufa on the mule of the Messenger of God. Then he passed by the whale market and said: ‘Do not eat and do not sell that which does not have scales.’ (6)
Hannan ibn Sudayr from Ja‘far ibn Muhammad [al-Sadiq]: ‘Do not approach that which does not have scales.’ (7)
Al-Fadl ibn Shadhan from al-Rida in his letter to al-Ma’mun: ‘The true Islam includes several parts: the testimony that there is no God but Allah…[and]… the impermissibility of al-jirri and al-tafi, (8) and al-marmahi [eel] and al-zamir (9) and all fish without scales.’ (10)

How can these mean anything other than fish without scales are haram? We will look at this in the next blog…

(1) Jirri is a type of fish (Majma’ al-Bahrayn)
(2) Muhaqqiq al-Hilli in Shara’i’ al-Islam, book 3, page 217 (from Fadlallah’s work)
(3) Al-Shahid al-Thani in Masalik al-Afham, book 13, page 14; Ardabili in Majma’ al-Fa’ida, book 11, page 189; Sabzwari in Kifayat al-Ahkam, book 2, page 596 (from Fadlallah’s work)
(4) Wasa`il, book 16, chapter 8, page 329, no. 1 ; considered sahih
(5) Ibid. no. 2 ; considered sahih
(6) Ibid. no. 4; considered sahih
(7) Ibid., no. 5; considered reliable but to a lower degree
(8) A fish which dies in the water and rises to the surface (refer to Majma’ al-Bahrayn)
(9) A type of fish (Majma’ al-Bahrayn)
(10) Wasa`il, book 16, chapter 9, page 333, no. 9 ; considered weak