The Politics of Ijtihad
By brnaeem on Jul 21, 2007 in ,
Cross posted at Naeem’s Blog
Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said in a famous hadîth: “No one truly believes until he wants for his brother what he wants for himself.”
We have all heard and studied this hadith from the days of Sunday School. We have all heard it in various lectures and sermons.
We have all understood this hadith to be teaching us that the perfection of our individual faith is not solely a process involving oneself and Allah but it also incorporates the dynamics between oneself and the Ummah. Meaning that one can never achieve complete faith in a social isolation – it can only be achieved through the respectful interactions with other fellow Muslim brothers.
Sounds about right so far, eh?
Well not according to the renowned Dr. Abdullah Bin Bayyah. In this otherwise excellent posting on Suhaib Webb’s blog, Sh. Bin Bayyah explains the Prophet’s reference to brother as meaning ‘humankind brother’, not solely a Muslim brother:
“The value of “human brotherhood” is being joined with that of “love” in these words of our Prophet (peace be upon him). Before somebody accuses me of reinterpreting this hadîth for my own purposes, they should know that this is the understanding of the scholars from centuries back.
For instance, the leading Hanbalî jurist, Ibn Rajab said: “The brotherhood referred to in this hadîth is the brotherhood of humanity.” [Sharh al-`Arba`în al-Nawawiyyah]
The same is asserted by al-Shabrakhîtî and many others.”
If you know me, you’ll know that I’m very accepting of this broader interpretation. I have no problem with it as I feel it’s this approach that will bring about the true spirit of the Sunnah of our beloved Prophet (saw). I do believe that we Muslims have far too long advocated an exclusivist philosophy where non-Muslims are seen as the ‘other’ (especially ironic since we are the first to object when we Muslims are ‘otherized’ by the West) and it is this unique interpretation that will alleviate many unnecessary tensions between Muslims and non-Muslims.
What I do find problematic is why this interpretation has been dusted off from the bookshelves of traditional fiqh and is now receiving some airtime. How come it took us several centuries to publicize this interpretation?
In my opinion, and I don’t wish to project this onto the sincere intentions of scholars such as Sheikh Bin Bayyah, political considerations have come into play. The socio-political context in which we live is compelling us to find varying interpretations to well-known Islamic ‘principles’. We find this especially common in discussions on jihad, apostasy, and polygamy.
My concern is that, in our post-9/11 environments, we are performing intellectual gymnastics with our classical fiqh in search of opinions that are more palatable to the non-Muslim world.
I do realize that the bipolar worldview of classical scholars (dar al-Islam and dar al-Harb) is being replaced by a more pluralistic outlook wherein a new Islamic paradigm is *possibly* being developed. So it is understandable that previous majority interpretations are being replaced by minority, or even altogether new, opinions.
I do acknowledge that opinions once held as absolute truths need to be re-evaluated in the context of our times (that is what Ijtihad is all about), but we must equally be conscious of the circumstances in which this re-evaluation is taking place. Are we defining the issues based on the needs of the Ummah or are they being dictated to us by our very own critics?
I mean is apostasy or FGM such a serious global epidemic in the Ummah that it needs to trump other more rampant problems such as misogyny, illiteracy, and corruption? But since our critics choose to focus on the former two, we too must dedicate all our efforts to analyzing those issues.
And once we accept their prioritizations of our problems, how far will we go to appease them in redressing said problems?
Will polygamy go the way of slavery or concubinage, explained away as social aberrations that were tolerated in past Muslim societies only to become phased out and prohibited?
Will the Islamic concept of jihad be stripped of its military aspect and become a spiritual struggle against the devil?
If the term ‘brother’ in the hadith I began with is allowed to be interpreted as the ‘human brotherhood’ variety, will all other instances of ‘brother’ in our textual sources be allowed such an interpretation?
I think we all agree that the doors of Ijtihad need to be reopened (that is if you are of the opinion that they were ever closed), but I really wish that this development were taking place under the impartial patronage of Muslim scholars, independent of the suggestions by the critics of Islam. I find the uninvited tentacles of the West’s call for Islamic reform all too present in such fiqhi exercises.
As Salamu 'alaykum and Greetings of peace! If you are new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
Sphere: Related Content
Stumble it!
Editor@IJTEMA | Jul 22, 2007 | Reply
Assalamu ‘alaykum wa rahmatullah
I pray that you are in the best of health & imaan.
This is a short message to notify you that this entry has been selected for publishing on IJTEMA, a venture to highlight the best of the Muslim blogosphere.
To find out more about IJTEMA, and how you can further contribute, please click here.
May Allah bless you for your noble efforts.
Wa’salam
iFaqeer | Jul 23, 2007 | Reply
It is very exasperating for people like me to hear things like “we Muslims have far too long advocated an exclusivist philosophy”.
Funny thing is, most young American Muslims often dismiss the way Islam was traditionally interpreted and practised (Hanafi, Shafi’i, Maliki, Hanbali, and the two Shi’a schools) as either “medieval” or “bid’a-ridden”. I am not a scholar so I can’t speak of whole schools, but I am a person brought up by traditional Hanafi parents (South Asians–who make up a good 30-50% of the Ummah) and who had my early education in government schools in (then traditionally Maliki) Northern Nigeria. And I have always understood “brother” in that hadith to mean “the next man”. Man. Not Muslim.
And the curriculum in Northern Nigeria, my parents’ upbringing–all of that was not put in place because “political considerations have come into play”. It was what a *lot* of very traditional Muslims held to be their faith.
I know WHY he did it, but it is very vexing that my brother Naeem has to say things like “…this otherwise excellent posting…” and “Before somebody accuses me of reinterpreting this hadith for my own purposes, they should know that this is the understanding of the scholars from centuries back.”
I say that in a lot of these matters, we only need look back half a century to what the conventional wisdom was in the Muslim world. And I am not defending the misogyny, illiteracy, and corruption that a lot of Muslim cultures were ridden with. I am an activist who grew up in Northern Nigeria and Pakistan and have worked in the field of human rights on the ground in Pakistan. I follow affairs in India very closely and have friends and relatives there.
But American and Western Muslim friends have often asked me in the last few years, as I got involved in organizations and efforts that carried the “progressive Muslim” label, “..but, but Islam is progressive in its nature; why do you need to say ‘progressive Muslim’?” This kind of issue is exactly why.
I have often had to say to people: Islam told us to be nice to our neighbours. Not to our *Muslim neighbours*. The Prophet and Awliya and Ulema down the centuries have set an example of good conduct and actively looking out for the welfare of even their Jewish neighbours. A story is told of one aalim, of how he had a neighbour, who just happened to be Jewish, who would intentionally disturb him, especially during worship. Then, for a few days, the disturbance stopped. The aalim took it upon himself to find out and discovered that the man was ill or something–I forget the exact details–and took it upon himself to help. THAT was the Islam I was brought up in. And I am thirty-six. My upbringing was not changed because of events in 2001 or since. Today, do most of us even know the names of our non-Muslim next door neighbours?
Islam is by definition progressive and humanistic; but how we often understand it, especially how we have come to understand it in the last 2 or 3 decades, and how Muslims have come to practise it, is not at all humanistic, humane or compassionate. Looking for your own tribe is not compassion. It is not Ihsan. It is parochialism. Being just only to members of your own tribe is not adl. It is discrimination.
Wa Allah Aalam, but in my very “naqis” opinion, that should be pretty obvious to anyone who reads the Qur’an–and most of the folks here seem much more formally educated in what we called “Islamic Religious Knowledge” in in the Nigerian educational system. Where the Qur’an wants to refer or address Muslims, it says “Ya Ayyuhal Momineen”, or “Ya Ayyuhal Muslimeen”. But in other places, it refers very clearly to “Rabbin Nas, Malikin Nas”. Do go back and read the verses on compassion. For example:
Surah 60, Verse 8: 8. Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just.
Tell me He is not telling you that he will love you for being kind to non-Muslims–who are not belligerent towards you.
In my late 30s, and having lived under more than half a dozen military dictators, all forms of corruption in the Third World, and at the receiving end of the American Media, there is little that surprises me. But I have to admit that it amazes me no end that whether a Muslim should be kind and humane towards non-Muslims is even a question.
Wa Allahu Aalam, indeed!