Admin

Motives on God rather than people

For reasons that I'd say were mostly political, a response or argument for justifying particular conceptions of the sharī’ah tends to be:

• "What will non-Muslims say?!"
• "But non-Muslims will laugh at us!"
• "But people are leaving Islam!"

Whilst I acknowledge there can be sincere sentiments behind these and other statements, shaping a shar’ī understanding that is fixated on seeking approval is very misplaced and leads to both falsehood and ruin. Not only is it ungodly, but it's also unproductive. The palpable result tends to be a focus on issues that are of little concern to the believers and their growth but of great political importance to non-Muslims. Now before I proceed to expand on what God says on this, I'd like to provide some nuance and differentiate between two things here: (a) the substance of the sharī’ah and (b) its form.

(a) On substance: the contents of the sharī’ah, that's to say how we understand what God wants, cannot be dictated by what others might say, how they feel, or what they'll do. Our interests ought only to be theocentric (centred around God).

(b) On form: this is to do with the presentation of the substance and thus the opinions/views/attitudes/cultures etc of others need to be considered. It'll depend on who is being addressed, and as Ali b. Abi Talib put it: "Speak to people in a way they understand, do you desire that God and His messenger be rejected?!" This doesn't only go for the language used, but also how things are framed so that unnecessary impediments to understanding/acceptance are not imputed into the conversation.

So what does God have to say about a fixation on placating non-shar’ī sentiment, on shaping discourse to satiate non-believers, or advocating shar’ī understandings merely to save 'Muslims' who take umbrage with defining features of subservience to God?

1. Our motives must be theocentric and our concerns for articulating the sharī’ah ought to be to provide practical guidance for the believers, defined as the people of scripture - not those who, through speech or actions, care little for God nor holistically consider what He has told us: "Do not yield to those whose hearts We have made heedless of Our Quran, those who follow their own low desires, those whose ways are unbridled. Say, ‘Now the truth has come from your Lord: let those who wish to believe in it do so and let those who wish to reject it do so.’ (18:28-29) Further, our motive isn't to champion a 'religion' as a cultural construct but to seek true guidance. It is in this sense that God said to the Prophet: "The Jews and the Christians will never be (theologically) satisfied unless you follow their ways. Say, ‘God’s guidance is the only true guidance.’" (2:120)

2. We ought to shun a saviour complex. Firstly, God guides whom He wills and secondly, we cannot misrepresent what God wants or dilute His intent for the sake of some contrived inclusivity, or to have people superficially ascribe to 'Islam'. On the first point God says, "If you find rejection by the disbelievers so hard to bare, then seek a tunnel into the ground or a ladder into the sky, if you can, and bring them a sign: God could (compellingly) bring them all to guidance if it were His will, so do not join the ignorant. Only those who can hear will respond." (6:35-36) On the second point, "Say, ‘Now the truth has come from your Lord: let those who wish to believe in it do so and let those who wish to reject it do so.’" (18:29)

3. Seeking accommodation from those unreasonably opposed to Islam out of fear of what they might do, is no valid strategy. God says, "You will see the perverse at heart rushing to them saying, ‘We are afraid fortune may turn against us.’ But God may well bring about triumph or some other event of His own making: then they will regret the secrets they harboured in their hearts." (5:52) In such scenarios we must trust in God and continue the march towards progress, "who strive in God's way without fearing anyone's reproach." (5:54)

4. Mockery and them (whoever they might be) "laughing at us" is absolutely irrelevant when deducing the substance of the sharī’ah, for God tells us, "The wicked used to laugh at the believers, they would wink at one another when the believers passed by them, joke about them when they got back to their own people, and say, when they saw them, ‘These people are misguided'" (83:29-32) However, there are situations in which some Muslims invite mockery by (a) speaking from a point of ignorance, presenting the sharī’ah as some absurd proposition and using weak/irrational reasoning, and (b) due to a lack of integration they have little cultural capital with wider society and consequently have no idea of how to make themselves reasonably understood and consequently sound foolish. The Companion Abdullah b. Mas'ud put it, "It is problematic to speak to a new people [where Islam is novel to them] with things they cannot make sense of." (Muslim)

As we ought to see, dealing with the shari’ah requires differentiating between substance and form, but my general objective is to speak about the substance of the shariah in a way that cares little to satiate secular sentiments/aspirations, although I actively strive to present things in a way that will hopefully resonate with all.

by Admin

Dealing with the shari'ah on its own terms

There are many ways in which the shariah ought to be dealt with on its own terms, and in this post, I'd like to point to three issues which arise frequently in the real world, and briefly highlight how I approach them.

1. Using shar’ī terms

When discussing the sharī’ah, I believe we ought to stick to the shar’ī terms God sets out as closely as possible, they are most accurate since it is how God and His messenger described and taught an issue/concept:

• the words God and His messenger use reflect particular meanings and an outlook which allows us to more accurately get to the kernel of what was intended,
• it offers a 'rooting' which ensures that however wild and lost interpretations get, we always have an established and legitimate basis to default back to and start again.

This point also extends to translations. Often, English words that are meant to represent shar’ī concepts (whether fiqh or aqīdah) are the closest resembling words but not the exact thing, rarely are they conceptually the same. For example, riba is not the equivalent of interest, and depending on context, interest might or might not be ribawi. (There are many other examples.)

2. False dichotomies:

I do not consider concepts such as deen/dunya or religion/science as binaries, and in the case of spirituality/fiqh I hold separating the two to be detrimental to our understanding of what God wants.

• The deen occurs in the dunya so there shouldn't be antagonism between the two, what God warns of is obsessing over 'hayat dunya' in a way that causes us to neglect the 'hayat akhirah'; 'hayat' (life) refers to the way we act out our time, not the time itself.
• The English word 'religion' refers to a social construct premised on certain beliefs, and science is an enquiry into the processes behind what God has said about the corporeal world - there shouldn't be antagonism between the two;
• Spirituality is an ambiguous term that undermines the fact that heartfelt subservience to God as an inherent part of our 'religious' actions, and the basis of their validity/divine acceptance.

An important point to consider is that there is an inherent difficulty in carving up the nature of subservience to God into neat slices which can be removed from one another. It's nigh impossible to precisely determine where one ends and the other begins, and rigid divisions such as those between spirituality and law, or the sacred and profane are myths. I strongly advocate the undifferentiated whole.

3. Categorisations in fiqh and aqīdah

The purposes of categorisations in fiqh and aqīdah is to provide a presentation that is analytically clearer and has greater explanatory power for issues that concern us. This means that categories have no inherent value but simply serve as aids - they are conceptual tools that help us to understand things. Issues change and so do the ways we understand things. So sticking to categorisations formulated by mediaeval scholars who were speaking to the particular needs of their masses defies reason. Nearly every categorisation/framework we have in aqīdah (regardless of the school) was formulated by men and derived through reasoning and deduction (sabr wa taqsim). Depending on the perspective, there are always variant ways the same thing can be looked at - this is just common sense.

If today we seek to categorise things, it should simply be to make things analytically clearer and offer greater explanatory power for issues that concern us, not out of some immature notion to champion something from the past that doesn't require championing.

by Admin

Understanding the shari'ah properly leads to overarching positive outcomes

4 min read

I hold that a sound understanding of the shariah should include at least the following three major positive outcomes, and if an understanding doesn’t, there’s something wrong with it. As Ibn Al-Qayyim put it, “every issue that goes from justice to oppression, from mercy to its opposite, from benefits to loss, from wisdom to imprudence, then it is not the shariah even if it is made to appear so through interpretation (of revelation)."

1. It should result in (increased) godliness: “God increases the guidance of those who follow right guidance, and grants them their taqwa [of Him].” (47:17) This verse tells us that by following right guidance we are increased in guidance and God consciousness. So from this and other verses, I generally conclude that any understanding (or view) of the shariah that neglects rabbaniyyah, diminishes consciousness of God or impedes its growth, and fails to prove inspirational in a way that develops a person holistically, does not reflect what God wants.

2. It brings about optimum outcomes which include noble virtues and prosperity: “When the righteous are asked, ‘What has your Lord sent down?’ they say, ‘All that is good.’ There is a reward in this present world for those who do good…” (16:30) So any understanding of the faith that doesn’t lead to ‘all that is good’ - i.e. optimum outcomes - ‘in this present world’ including civility, intelligence (a sound, sustained and productive use of the intellect), and moral conduct, as well as social, political, and economic welfare, is not a sound understanding. As Ibn al-Qayyim put it above, “it is not the shariah even if it is made to appear so through interpretation (of revelation)."

3. It brings about happiness and contentment: Through producing optimum outcomes that are relative to the context, the shariah creates positive opportunities to thank God since it is the primary purpose for which we are on earth, with Iblis's ultimate objective to ensure "most of them are ungrateful." (7:17) So any understanding that brings about sorrow, anxiety, hatefulness, despair, confusion, suffering etc., where these negative outcomes are directly induced by actions necessitated by a particular understanding, cannot be a sound understanding of the shariah. They do not reflect the 'light' and 'peace' God speaks of when he says, "God guides to the ways of peace those who follow what pleases Him, bringing them from darkness out into light, by His will, and guiding them to a straight path." (5:16) Furthermore, God says, “The truth has come, and falsehood has passed away: falsehood is bound to pass away. We send down the Quran as healing and mercy to those who believe,” (17:81-82) where ‘truth’ understood properly heals these maladies and God’s mercy fills believers with contentment and dignity.

Now I understand that various questions might arise, such as: how do we
determine whether an understanding increases godliness, and brings about
optimum outcomes and contentment? How do we then explain those people who
practice the faith but are not content? I would briefly put it that these poor
souls have not understood the entire edifice of the shariah and how it works in
a holistic way, which results in internal conflicts where their understanding
of the shariah doesn’t work in the real world, or where they haven’t
appropriately understood what they’re doing and how to effectuate optimum
outcomes. I'm sure some might put it simplistically that such people are merely
overcome by worldly desires, but given the question applies to those who practice
their faith sincerely, I'm not convinced such a retort applies here.

However, putting aside these short responses, I believe these questions are best answered by actually teaching the shariah and showing what I mean in practice (rather than musing with hypothetical scenarios) - the functionalist approach I speak of - so that we can fully see how it all works.

by Admin

God is not an ideologue

6 min read

People tend to be very quick to impose their interests and aspirations on others, and people do this no less with God. The feminist will argue for a feminist God, the secularist for a secular God, the theocrat for a political God, the ritualist for a quietest God, and so on. Yet God is not subject to the diverse and banal interests of His creation, fleeting views and ideologies that come and go as fads. Allah is not only Lord of the east and west (73:9) but is the Owner of time and what happens both within it, and beyond it. Rather than assuming He is caught up with our moment, culture, or context, we ought to recognise that He has an elevated perspective over all of time: past, present and future. In this sense I don’t believe it is sensible to accept binary ways of viewing the shari'ah which are predicated on age-related social paradigms such as religious vs secular, religion vs science, and so on. This also suggests that when we ascertain what God wants of us in our moment, we must recognise that His will is not bound by the nature of Muslim or non-Muslim populism, the battle between ideologies (secular or religious), and the politicisation of Islam (both in wider society and amongst Muslims themselves).

Read more

by Admin

God engages humans rationally

4 min read

Here are some fundamental positions (none of which should prove controversial) from which I speak about the shari'ah or approach revelation so that believers better understand where I am coming from. My belief is that if we constantly produce results with first principles in mind, we end up with a coherent conceptualisation of the shari'ah as opposed to the scattered approach, which amongst many negative outcomes, is leading many sincere believers into a state of internal conflict. The first of these is that God is a rational actor in the sense that:

1. everything God does has a purpose, and
2. everything God wants from human beings ought to resonate with the intellect since it is the tool with which we have been endowed to understand, engage with God, and determine right from wrong.

As a result:

• what God wants of us will not be irrational, it will make sense;
• it will not be without purpose, there will be reasons behind it;
• it will not be beyond our collective comprehension, some might not get it but there will be others who will.

Short explanation:

God says, "We were not playing a pointless game when we created the heavens and the earth and everything in between,” (44:38) and repeatedly challenges cohorts of humans on a range of matters, both to do with their beliefs and actions, asking, “Do they not use their intellects,” and “how is it they judge?” On the city of Lot, God says, “We left some (of the town) there as a clear sign for those who use their reason,” (29:35) the idea being that through reasoning people might come to know the bad outcomes of committing immoral practices. The verses and ahadith on this are innumerable.

Now my ultimate point is that when it comes to fiqh and aqidah, things ought to make sense. And if it doesn’t, it means we’ve understood matters incorrectly. I find the Hanbali philosopher, jurist and theologian Muhammad b. Abi Bakr b. al-Qayyim’s point instructive here:

The entire edifice and foundations of the shariah are based upon wisdoms and advantages afforded to people in their living and afterlife; all of it is justice, all of it is mercy, all of it is utility, and all of it is wisdom.

Some reject this idea out of the fear that it might cause the laity to (mis)understand that if you don't get something you don't need to do it. But like with anything, not getting something doesn’t necessary demand inaction. In the majority of cases, and this being one of them, it simply necessitates a person humbly acknowledge his/her ignorance, and if they require, to find out from those who do get it.

One response I tend to get from students of theology/law is: “How can you say God intended something when He hasn’t explicitly said it?”

My answer is simple:

Such a response overlooks how much of the shari'ah actually works; the fuqaha do it as normal juristic practice and most (dhanni) ahkam are based on this! In the majority of cases, the illah (reason) or hikmah (wisdom) behind something is not explicitly stipulated (mansus) but derived through a process known as ‘masalik illah’ (see the chapter on qiyas in the field of usul al-fiqh). The view that we cannot ascertain the reasoning behind something unless it is explicitly spelled out by God and His Messenger is only held by Dhahiris (literalists). One of the key objectives of ijhtihad and tafsir is working out the reasoning behind a statement of God. [As I’ve already intimated, this is the realm of scholarship and I’m not suggesting every layman run away with his/her flights of fancy]

In this way, the statement of Imam al-Shafi’i is brought to life:

I believe in God and what has come from God in the way God intended it; and I believe in the Messenger of God and what has come from the Messenger of God, in the way the Messenger of God intended it.

What this means is that getting to the kernel of what God intends is key - I’m always seeking an explanation on the why and for a particular purpose: if we know why we’re doing or believing something it ultimately means we can do it properly, and subsequently, achieve the optimum outcomes God intended.

by Admin