CONTEMPORARY
IJTIHAD
By: Kassim Ahmad
Part One
Is the Door Open or Closed?
The question of contemporary ijtihad, or the formulation of ideas and views consistent with the basic teachings of Islam to solve the problems of contemporary Muslim society, although very pressing, is still largely unsolved. There must be a reason to this. I shall discuss this and some other of the more important related matters in these series of articles, in the hope that they can be a basis for further discussion and, if agreement is reached, a basis for actions. The nature of this writing necessarily will not enable me to attribute to authors, but I am drawing heavily on modern authors like Fazlur Rahman, Muhammad Iqbal, Ali Shariati, Dr. Hassan Hanafi, Muhammad Abduh, Malik Bennabi and many others, including those from our own country.
In our country, in 1994, a book was published in Malay by Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka, edited by Associate Professor Mahmood Zuhdi of Akademi Islam, Universiti Malaya, bringing together several articles by local scholars and writers, including himself, Mahfodz Mohamad, S. Othman Kelantan, A. Ghani Ismail and this writer, on this topic.. This debate shows an unbridgeable gulf between the traditionalist school which dogmatically adheres to Imam Shafi`e’s classical formulation of the bases of Muslim law and the modernist school which seeks a freer and more flexible approach. The major bone of contention seems to be the role of the so-called Prophetic traditions or Hadith/ Sunnah. Although this little book fails to bring the two groups nearer, its publication is important in the sense that it brings two differing views in one volume, thus enabling scholars and writers to weigh them and continue the debate.
Firstly, let us ask the question why there occurred the freezing and stagnation of Muslim thought or what is known in Muslim juristic literature as the “closing of the door of ijtihad”, at the close of the tenth century, three hundred years after the death of Prophet Muhammad. Although some dogmatic Muslim opinion would deny this phenomenon and almost blindly assert that the contrary has prevailed, there is no gainsaying that Muslim thought has frozen after flourishing brilliantly for three centuries, producing such world-class scientists and philosophers as al-Khawarizmi (mathematician), al-Jahiz (zoologist), Jabbir ibni Hayyan (chemist), al-Battani (astronomer), al-Biruni (physicist), Ibni Sina, (philosopher, physician, musician) al-Farabi, al-Kindi (philosophers), al-Mas`udi, al-Tabari (historians) and many others.
The European Renaissance not only took off from here but owed much to this Arab-Islamic Ranaissance. Of this period in Islamic history, the historian Phillip K. Hitti remarked: “If someone in the first third of the seventh Christian century had had the audacity to prophesy that within a decade some unheralded, unforseen power from the hithertoo barbarous and little-known land of Arabia was to make its appearance, hurl itself against the only two world powers of the age, fall heir to the one – the Sasanid – and strip the other – the Byzantine – of its fairest provinces, he would undoubtedly have been declared a lunatic. Yet that was exactly what happened. After the death of the Prophet, sterile Arabia seems to have been converted as if by magic into a nursery of heroes the like of whom both in number and quality is hard to find anywhere ...”
The English social historian and philosopher, Robert Briffault, in his brilliant and profound book, The Making of Humanity, records the extreme debt modern European civilization owes to it: “… It is highly probable that but for the Arabs modern European civilization would never have arisen at all; it is absolutely certain that but for them, it would not have assumed the character which has enabled it to transcend all previous phases of evolution. For although there is not a single aspect of European growth in which the decisive influence of Islamic culture is not traceable, nowhere is it so clear and momentous as in the genesis of that power which constitutes the paramount distinctive force of the mdern world and the supreme source of its victory – natural science and the scientific spirit” In an unusually honest tribute to Muslim science, famous science historian, George Sarton, said: “The main task of mankind was accomplished by Muslims. The greatest philosopher, al-Farabi, was a Muslim; the greatest mathematicians, Abu Kamil and Ibrahim ibn Sinan, were Muslims; the greatest geographer and encylopaedist, al-Mas`udi, was Muslim; the greatest historian, al-Tabari, was still a Muslim.”
But just as what happened earlier in Europe, the priestly class, through the Catholic Church and the Pope, dominated the politics of the European Middle Ages, so three hundred years after the Prophet’s death, the theologians surreptitiously took over the affairs of religion and the afterlife of the Muslims. Life became fragmented into two separate compartments: the worldly life generally of miserable living, and the imaginary afterlife of Paradise through hardly comprehensible rituals. Religion, which in the Islamic conception is a way of life (comprehensive, dynamic and changing), became sacralized and therefore fossilised, unreacheable by change. Europe broke out of this yoke through its religious reformation of the 16th century and the scientific revolutions of the 16th and 17th centuries. The Muslim world tried to solve this problem with its religious reformation and legal reforms of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. This resulted in some changes, especially in personal and family law, but not yet deep and comprehensive enough to render the Muslim mind capable of facing up to the challenges of 21st century.
It is now obvious to any discerning observer that the two major Western ideologies of Capitalist Liberalism and Marxist Communism, that have reigned supreme in the world for the last five decades, have failed. It is not so clear that another religion-orientated ideology, religious theocracy of the Iranian type, has also failed. As are result, the world is now acutely feeling the necessity of a new ideology to replace the two, or rather three, failed ideologies. It is in this context of profound ideological and philosophical crisis of our time that our young Muslims are flocking to the banner of Islam, this “Islam” being defined by the theological class, known as ulama.
It is obvious that life is evolutionary. It is enough for us to reflect on the development of a human being from the embryo in the darkness of the mother’s womb to the new-born babe, born into a lighted world, knowing next to nothing, and then slowly growing into a child, a youth, an adult and a mature human being, capable of improving or destroying society and the world, and then into old age and death. It took several centuries for this historical evolutionary outlook to take root in Europe. In Muslim society, the absolutist, anti-historical, anti-evolutionary outlook is still the major impediment hindering the reconquest of the territory of ijtihad that was its own in the early centuries. This criticism of the anti-historical and evolutionary outlook of present-day Muslim society is not equal to our embracing a relativist world outlook. The teachings of the Quran point to a unified world outlook wherein relativism exists as a pair to absolutism.
To break this impasse posed by static absolutism, Muslim leaders and intellectuals must re-open the debate on all problems of society. To put it in Kant’s phrase, they must dare to think. The fear that this debate may lead to confusion and chaos is baseless. There is more than enough confusion and chaos already! All not because of free debate, but because of wrong policies and methods! We must return to the basic hypothesis that man is a rational creature, able to act, given favourable conditions, on the basis of reason. As the Quran has beautifully put it: “No one can believe except with God’s permission. However, He blocks those who do not use their reason.” (10:100) In other words, true faith and reason are not contraries.
The orthodox or traditionalist school must defend its position in a free open debate. It is no longer acceptable to argue that such matters have been debated and settled long before. Every generation, because of its vital interests in contemporary culture and civilization, must review its heritage in order to retain and advance the good aspect and discard the bad. This is how civilization and culture develop and progress.
Part Two
Certain
Methodological Inadequacies
There is no stopping the flow of history and of life. This is, as the Quran puts it, God’s system. In secular language, it is natural law. Only the morally fit human society will survive the 21st century and the next millennium. But the morally fit also means the intellectually fit. So Muslim leaders and intellectuals must resolve to overcome Muslim society’s stagnation and decadence. In the beginning, the early Muslim jurists, especially Imam Shafi`e who laid the basis of Muslim classical jurisprudence, wanted unity to overcome what he saw was the prevailing chaos. He raised the status of precedents, the so-called Hadith/Sunnah, to equal, even rival, the Quran. He may be right in his aim of wanting unity, but the method is surely wrong. Certainly it cannot be right that his formulation must last for all times for Muslims. There must be critical re-evaluation by every generation. Even he, Shafi`e, said as much. But certain vested interests saw to it that it did not happen, and so this stagnation and decay has lasted for a thousand years!
To break out of this vicious circle, we have to fall back on the Quranic advice to Muslims always to nurture and develop a group that “invites to the good, command the proper and prohibit the wrong” (3:104) The Muslims are described as the best nation among mankind because “they command the right, prevent the evil and believe in God.” (Quran, 3:110) So simple precepts, yet so difficult to achieve! Why? Because their theologians (a veritable priesthood, in spite of their denial) have made religion difficult and mystifying for them.
Consider the inconsistency and folly of their propositions: Firstly, Muslims should recite the Quran because they will get blessings from God from such recitals, even though they may not understand a word of what they recite. Secondly, Muslims should not read the Quran, because the Quran is beyond their comprehension. What a neat way of putting God’s teachings away from the Muslims!
Thus one of the first things to insist in a true Islamic reformation is the proper reading and study of the Quran. It has to be taught in schools as well as outside the school. The Quran is a guide to life, understood in a comprehensive sense of the word, covering all aspects, not just so-called religious duties. It is the only divinely-protected scripture, claiming itself to offer perfect and comprehensive teachings to all mankind. It has proved itself to be potent and successful in the example of Prophet Muhammad, the only spiritual teacher who achieved success in his lifetime, and in the examples of his immediate successors who were inspired by the lofty teachings of the Quran that he brought to them and with which he brought them back to life and to the peak of the then civilization.
Once the source of Muslim creativity, the liberating teachings of the Quran, is rehabilitated, then the creative flow will automatically resume. The classical jurists were rather restrictive and stingy about whom to allow to formulate Muslim thought, in other words, to carry out ijtihad. They place all manner of conditions so much so that it resulted in stifling creative intellectual activity. God teaches us in the Quran to obey two sources only, firstly God and his messenger, i.e. the Quran; secondly, our rightful (and just) leaders. (see Quran, 4:59 and 4:58) The leading group, always the active and the thinking part of the community, should rightfully do the intellectual formulations. Enlarged, the leading group includes the intelligentsia, those who are knowledgeable and use their minds to think things out. This group studies and analyses data and formulates ideas and thoughts that are discussed and debated before they are re-formulated and entered into policy decisions by the proper authorities. That is how it should be and that was how it all started in the beginning. To insist on arbitrary and even academic qualifications is neither here nor there. Academic qualifications do not equal serious thought or concern for society.
For instance, consider the following pre-conditions laid down by classical jurisprudence for doing ijtihad. (a) He must be a Muslim, (b) He must be conversant in Arabic, (c) He must be knowledgeable of the Quran and of the rules of classical exegesis, (d) He must not only know the Hadith science, but believe in the Hadith as well, (e) He must know what has been agreed upon by classical theologians, and not re-open discussion on them, and (f) He must know the methodology of Qias, or analogical deductions.
Some of these qualifications are obvious without anyone having to stipulate them, such as being a Muslim, conversant in the Arabic language and knowledgeable in the related sciences. But to insist on uncritical acceptance of the Hadith and all the interpretation and explanations that had been handed down from a thousand years ago is unreasonable, to say the least.
Let free scientific debate weed out the false. No authority can legislate on truth. Therefore, Muslim society must dare to think freely (of course, within the wide confines of Islam) and allow their concerned members to think through the basic teachings of their religion to formulate new ideas and thoughts to enable them to cope with the problems of the modern world and to win their rightful place in it.
One matter that has caused Muslim backwardness is their bifurcation of life into the worldly and the other-worldly with the rise of the theological class. They look down upon the first and aim for the second. Their theologians misinterpret verses from the Quran and quote traditions to justify this false world-outlook. To my mind, it is the greatest single factor causing their present backwardness. They must overcome this quickly if they wish to survive in the 21st century.
Our religion of tauhid or belief in One God necessarily implies one life and one world with one law. There is no afterlife without this life. Therefore, Islam has taught us to think in terms of the unity of life. Our ijtihad must cover all aspects of life, not just certain aspects only. In the past, our theologians and jurists deliberated on rituals of worship and certain aspects of law. They left the so-called secular area (government, politics, commerce, economics and science) to the secular authorities. That, in fact, spelt Muslim doom.
Secularism is another bane in present-day Muslim thought. If life is a unity, why the division into secular and sacred? Quranic teachings and Muhammad’s Medinah Charter point to a very important but little observed matter in the religion of Islam. Islam is both a philosophy or world-view, a code of life and a method of worship. The philosophy is all-embracing, universal and meant for all mankind. It consists of the principles one sovereign lawful and loving power legislating for the whole created Universe with Man as simultaneously servant of the Lord and master of the Universe, and the absolute values of goodness, unity, justice, peace, truth and mercy. The code is historically bound and therefore pluralistic but linked to the absolute values. The method of worship is also historically bound, particular and pluralistic. Thus, if we adopt this correct perspective of Islamic teachings, many of our current problems will be clarified for us.
Last, but not least, we should not forget the intellectual and political environment in which many of our leaders and intellectuals were born and bred in. I am referring to Western colonialism and imperialism. As the Algerian thinker, Malik Bennabi has pointed out, one of the lasting effects of Western colonialism is the colonialism of the Muslim mind. It has not only cut us away from our Islamic heritage to draw us to adopt Western ideologies, but also to make us feel inferior to the West. We know more of Adam Smith, Descartes, Bertrand Russell, Newton and Einstein than al-Farabi, Ibn Sina, al-Khawarizmi, Ibn Khaldun, Mulla Sadra, Shah Waliullah and even Muhammad Iqbal.
The first independence is the independence of the mind. That is the
basic meaning of tauhid, that we
are free and equal to all other human beings and that we bow down to no
one other than God. We have to seek and follow the Right Path taught to us
by God in this world. This seems to me to be the first condition of Muslim
revival.
Part Three
The Way
Ahead
We shall now consider the last question, the areas of contemporary ijtihad. Let me break it into two principal categories: the theoretical and the practical. In spite of al-Ghazzali’s famous refutation of philosophy in 12th century, it does seem that the Muslim world, in spite of going through a period of decadence after the fall of Baghdad, does not lack philosophers and thinkers in the rationalist tradition of the Mu’tazilites. We have the 14th century Arab historical philosopher Ibn Khaldun with his incomparable Muqaddimah, ironically made known to us only recently by a European scholar. We have the profound works of the 17th century Iranian philosopher, Mulla Sadra, the 18th century highly modern Indian thinker, Shah Waliullah, the widely-travelled modern political thinker, Jamaluddin al-Afghani and his equally famous Egyptian disciple, social reformer Muhammad Abduh, the the important works of the Indian poet-philosopher, Muhammad Iqbal and again the invigorating lectures of the Iranian thinker, Ali Shari`ati, to mention a few big names only. Their works definitely can stand more than comparison with their Western counterparts. The question is why they are not studied in the Muslim world itself. I do not know how many universities in the Muslim world teach philosophy. In Malaysia itself, after forty-four years of independence, no university has a full-pledged philosophy department, although the teaching of the subject is extremely important for the development and growth of the Muslim mind. Our educational system is too utility-orientated. It must reformed to bring in knowledge for the sake of truth, since truth is the ground rule of this lawful Universe.
Are the Muslims clear about the right Islamic attitude towards the various Western ideologies? They are divided. Some adopt Western liberal democracy; some socialism; some even communism. Almost all the philosophers and writer mentioned above had ably criticized Western philosophies and ideologies, but since they have not been read and studied by the Muslim elites of recent times, they have remained dead in the libraries!
In this respect, Muslim traditional and backward ideology has played an important role in suppressing this rationalist tradition in Muslim thought and preventing it from spreading and growing. Why should al-Ghazzali, Ibn Taymiyah, Sayyed Qutub, Maududi and Yusuf Khardawi be more read in our country than Ibn Sina, al-Farabi, Ibn Khaldun, Shah Waliullah and Ali Shariati? The link between Western imperialism and Muslim reaction, though outwordly concealed, is clear. Our last Malaysian election revealed this link. The on-going Western imperialist attempt to destroy Iraq is a glaring and blatant example.
Muslim societies must be honest and brave enough to admit they have not allowed intellectual freedom to their inquisitive and thoughtful sons. In recent times, some of the best Muslim intellects, incuding the brilliant Pakistani Nobel laureatte, scientist Abdul Salam and again the able Pakistani scholar Fazlur Rahman had to migrate to Europe and the United State to do their work. We have seen that at all times Muslim societies do not lack philosophical minds. What we must resolve to do is give those minds their requisite freedom. We should not fear error, because, being believers in truth, error will be weeded out in a free, open, scientific debate. On the other hand, piling up error upon error in the absence of free debate have led us to -- where? Doom and destruction! Muslim societies must remedy this situation quickly. Critical philosophical thinking must be encouraged and supported, as it is the basis for the development of true knowledge, the only sure way to our progress.
The practical category must, of necessity, mean political economy and government. As between communist theory (which has now failed) and capitalist theory (whose failure, though certain, is perhaps not yet clear), what is the Islamic concept of development? Does Islam teach a particular form of government, or does it leave the form free, within the limits of certain principles? Many Muslim writers have tried to answer these questions, especially during the last three decades. There seems to be a general consensus that Muslim political economy and government are neither of the Eastern Marxist communist type, nor of the Western liberal capitalist type. These should aim to achieve justice and general welfare for the population. But the experiments of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Iran have not produced the results expected from an Islamic system. Of course, the example of modern Turkey is there to warn us against wholesale Westernization.
Again, to solve this problem, we have to resort to the standards of the teachings of the Quran and the example of Prophet Muhammad. The first advocate three basic changes: ideological, moral and material. The Meccan revelations sought to bring a change in the ideological outlook of the people from one of disbelief to one of belief in One God and one universal law as well as to change the moral outlook of bestial life of the Jahilliah period to one consistent with human dignity, equality and brotherhood and with man’s God-given role as master of the Universe. The latter Medina revelations laid down the law and principles of the law.
Once he was in control of the city of Medina, Muhammad gave it its famous charter, known as the Medina Charter, claimed by some writers to be the first written constitution in the world, five hundred years before English Magna Carta of 1215. In that Charter, he formed a consultative government, with himself as the head, and a federal power structure, with security, economy and justice under central control and religious rites and customs under various clan or religious community’s jurisdiction, The Charter provided a common citizenship to all its inhabitants who owed the state their loyalty and to whom the state gave protection. One can call the Medina Charter Muhammad’s ijtihad, based on the teachings of the Quran. That is what we should also do, with other scientific aids to help, but not to block, as happened in the past.
This consultative form of government initiated by Muhammad was continued in one form or another by his four successors, the so-called righteous caliphs, Abu Bakr, Umar Ibn Khattab (by whose time the lighting moves of the Arab-Islamic armies had established a Muslim empire), Uthman Ibn Affan and Ali Abi Talib. Muawiyyah, who wrested power from Ali, began the Muawiyyah Dynasty, putting an end Muhammad legacy of consultative government. The Muawiyyah Dynasty was succeeded by the intellectually illustrious Abbasiyyah Dynasty, during which luminaries whose names we have mentioned flourished in Baghdad and during which Baghdad also fell the hordes of the Mogols in 1258 A.D. Even before then, decline and decay had set in, putting an end to the Arab-Islamic Renaissance, which truly ushered in the modern world, to which the ensuing European Renaissance owed much debt.
We must ask why the so-called Islamic experiments in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Iran have failed. The common characteristic of these experiments is that they don the garb of Islam, but in actual fact, it is the Islam defined by the traditional clergy, both Sunni and Shiah, that has always, directly or indirectly, collaborated with imperialism. That is the reason for their failure. Islam is a revolutionary ideology and ethic. It can never compromise with imperialism. Compromise with imperialism means compromise with error.
Let us examine the specific cases of Iraq, the seat of Islamic civilization, and of Malaysia, a non-Arab country on the periphery of the Islamic heartland. After the break-up of the Ottoman Empire and its division among the European powers, Iraq was a monarchy aligned to British imperialism. The anti-feudal revolution of July, 1958 put an end to the old regime and further the Ba`ath revolution of July, 1968 put the revolutionary republican party in power. Ba`ath ideology ably combined Arabism, socialism and Islam . Under its leadership, Iraq nationalised the British oil company and developed Iraq, within twenty years, into a modern, strong, progressive Arab country, capable of uniting the Arabs and of defeating the Zionist state of Israel. After Iraq’s victory in the imperialist-instigated Iran-Iraq War of 1981-88, Anglo-American imperialism immediately recognized Iraq’s danger to their interests. This was the real reason for the Anglo-American imperialist-manipulated U.N-sanctioned war against Iraq, which they actually lost on the ground, but which, because of their control of the U.N. Security Council, succeeded in sidelining Iraq temporarily.
Although its constitution states that Islam is the religion of the state, Iraq is a secular state in the sense that it separates religion, defined in the narrow sense, from state policy. Contrary to popular opinion, this is quite in line with the teachings of the Quran (see Quran, 22:67 and 2:62) and with the formulation of Muhammad’s Medina Charter. Of course, its revolutionary philosophy is entirely in accord with the teachings of Islam. This is precisely why Anglo-American imperialism wishes to destroy it.
An Islamically-orientated government can take many forms, depending on the history and culture of its people. As long as the government satisfies the basic conditions that it governs justly, is based on consultation with the people, and is led by morally upright and professionally competent people, it can be described as Islamic. As we know, the population of Iraq consists mainly of Muslims, with some Christians and Jews. The Muslims divide almost equally between the Sunni and Shiah sects and yet they live and work in perfect harmony. Mr. Tariq Aziz, Iraq’s Deputy Prime Minister, for example, is a Christian. This situation of good cooperation and harmony among the various religions and sects in Iraq is unique. One must admit that such peace and harmony between religions is the essence of Islamic teachings. Yet, Iraq is not seen by many Muslims as Islamic. This is partly due to the intrigues of imperialism and partly to the great influence the Muslim clergy exercises on them.
Like Iraq, the Malaysian constitution also stipulates Islam as the official religion, while allowing other religions to be practised freely. Is the Malaysian state secular? But then Muslims are not free to renounce their religion, if anyone of them chooses to do so, even though the Quran clearly gives them that freedom. The Muslim clergy is represented in a political party (PAS), now ruling two states, and has made known its intention to implement what they call Muslim Law. What they call Muslim Law is simply what classical Muslim jurists stipulated to be so a thousand years ago! It is universally agreed that law evolves and Muslim law too should evolve to suit the prevailing circumstances. What do not change are the basic principles of the law. It is clearly stated in the Quran that these principles are only two: the principles of justice and mercy. Some forms of punishments mentioned in the Quran, like cutting off the hand for thieves, precisely refer to punishments on the basis of the principle of justice of a certain specific era. (In England in the 19th century one of the punishments for theft was death!) They are not applicable to all times and places. I have already alluded to the weakness of historical thinking in the Muslim mind above.
Unlike Iraq, independent Malaysia took over the political and economic systems of its erstwhile colonial power, Britain. Of course, changes have been made over the years to suit the requirements of the Malaysian people, for instance, the New Economic Policy, to help the disadvantaged Malay community. But liberalism, being capitalistic, suffers from the weaknesses of philosophical liberalism, like the unfettered freedom of individuals to make money and own property, leading to elite control of economic and political power – the famous “money politics” problem that still bedevils UMNO. That is why the liberal UMNO-led ruling coalition, the National Front, is being challenged by the party of the Muslim clergy. Will UMNO try to outdo PAS in its Islamization drive? I have stated above that such a path cannot lead to a solution of the problems of modernization of Muslim society in Malaysia. The way ahead is to modify the present system to bring it closer to the Islamic politico-economic principles of justice, government through consultation (democracy is really dia mahu kerusi, meaning they want position), government by upright and competent leaders and care for the general welfare. As for law, apply the principles of justice and mercy and that is the essence of Islamic law. As for women, they are essentially equal and complimentary to men and must be so treated. Historically, they depended on men, explaining the historically-bound laws in some passages of the Quran. As for rites of worship, they are pluralistic and particular, and should be under autonomous jurisdiction of each religious community. Of course, religious reaction, such as posed by PAS, can only be fought by thoroughly exposing its false ideology and the building of a just society.
I hope I have sufficiently made clear that contemporary ijtihad in Muslim society should be based on the universal principles taught in the Quran. Other sources should help, but not hinder, this necessary work. It should lead to practical solutions. A way must be found quickly to release Muslim society from the clutches of hide-bound traditionalism that has weighed it down for so long.
There is not the slightest doubt that Islam will triumph in the end, because this is God’s promise in the Quran. (See 9:33 repeated three times.) But Muslims and other believers must strive hard to bring it about quicker, as God bids them to do.