The Case for De jure Legalization

PM #129

{``Armed with this authority of this certainty, the fundamentalist will always have one over the progressives``}

This really makes it impossible to take any baby steps towards separating religion from state affairs. You need to either openly embrace secularism or let religion dominate all social/state affairs.

{``The change will have to come either at an individual level, or through a kind of ‘revolution’ that Turkey saw, that lasts at least one generation``.}

Turkish conversion to secularism (It took almost 50-60 years to really make it permanent) succeeded due to confluence of quite a few events such as: a) they were defeated in the WWI and the nation was ready for critical self-examination like Japanese and Germans were after WWII and b) they were fortunate to have Kemal who commanded total respect and had credibility with the nation due to his wins against Greece near the end of war.

Most important in my humble opinion, Kemal understood that just instituting constitutional changes would not amount to much. Therefore, he instituted processes (the teeth) to insure that religion is totally separated from state affairs. He publicly kept mullahs at appropriate place during his lifetime and as I understand from Turkish friends, all army officers’ background is thoroughly checked even today to insure that army is kept pure secular. Army intervenes when necessary, per their constitutional mandate, to insure that religion does not creep through any back door.

Regards.

Ibn Rushd (1126-1198)



``For his role in having forged the vital link between Aristotelian and Renaissance philosophies, Abul Walid Muhammad Ibn Rushd is by far the best known Islamic philosopher in the West. He stood in the foremost ranks of international scolars of repute. During the great philosophical and theological upheavels of medieval times, his works were frequently confined to the fire and decried as heretical both by the Christian Church and the orthodox Muslim ulema. Because they formed the most detailed and precise commentary on Aristotle, Ibn Rushd`s writings were translated into Latin and Hebrew by European scholars. There soon appeared super-commentaries on his commentaries. Many of the writings exist only in these two languages, the original Arabic writings being long lost. This is a commentary on the extent that Ibn Rushd, as a Rationalist philosopher, was able to influence the mood of his times.

Like other Rationalists before him, Ibn Rushd drew the ire of his opponents for suggesting that revelation must be guided by reason. In his opinion, the noblest form of worship was to study God through His works, using the faculty of mind. He devised an elaborate scheme for the exegesis of Quran, drawing upon the complex linguistic structure of the Arabic language. But it is for his rebuttal of al-Ghazali`s arguments that Ibn Rushd is most well known.

Ibn Rushd`s dispute with al-Ghazali, who preceded him by 70 years, provides a fascinating view of the issues which had engaged the minds of thinkers eight centuries ago. We have encountered in the previous chapter the views of al-Ghazali, particularly as they relate to the issue of cause and effect. In al-Ghazali`s view everything-meaning all actions, events, physical phenomena, or whatever - is the result of continous Divine intervention. In his logic, fire burns a piece of cotton not becuase it is in the nature fo fire to burn a substance but, instead, because of supernatural causes such as the intervention of angels.

But, for Ibn Rushd, it is patent nonsense that a multitude of angels, or other divine agents, should descend every time a piece of cotton catches fire. Physical cause begets physical effect - one knows from daily experience that cotton put into contact with fire will burn, and it has never been seen to occur otherwise. In his famous rebuttal to al-Ghazali`s ``Tahafut al Falasifa`` (Incoherence of the Philosophers), entitled ``Tahafut al Tahafut`` (Incoherence of the Incoherence), Ibn Rushd states:

``to deny the existence of efficient causes which are observed in sensible things is sophistry...Denial of cause implies the denial of knowledge, and denial of knowledge implies that nothing in the world can really be known.``

Ibn Rushd as Qazi of Seville and later Cordova, became the victim of political intrigues and a target for the orthodoxy. When the caliph Abu Yaqub died in 1184, and was succeeded by his son, Abu Yusuf, Ibn Rushd soon fell out of favor. A prohibition was issued against the study of logic and science by the order of the Caliph. Ibn Rushd was eventually banned from Cordova and was unceremoniously carted off to a small provincial town together with other students of philosophy. All his books, except for some strictly scientific ones, were ordered burnt.``

Chapter 10: Five Great ``Heretics``

Muslims and Science: Religious orthodoxy and the struggle for rationality.

Pervez Hoodbhoy

Re:130

``I grant them that Quran may be considered absolute but the interpretations of the so-called ulema should never be taken as gospel``

who does beleive in the so-called ulema anyways!!!!Quran and the authentic books of hadiths r more than enough for the guidance.

Regardless of all the intelectual postings that r posted here it is still a fact that intoxicants r in fact prohibited in Quran and as well as in Hadiths.

Al-Razi (865-925)



Famed as the greatest clinical physician of Islam, Muhammad ibn Zakariya al-Razi earned the title of ``Arabic Galen`` and ``most brilliant genius of the Middle Ages`` for his phenomenal achievements in the field of medicine. Of Persian origin, he recieved his medical training in Baghdad but later returned as director of a hospital somewhere near modern Tehran. He is said to have been an extraordinarily considerate physician who cared for all his patients, both rich and poor.

Although al-Razi is best known for his writings on the life sciences, he was also a free thinker and an important philosophical figure who was even more radical than al-Kindi in his attachment to Greek rationalism. His metaphysical system was said to be anti-prophetic in that he soft-pedalled the importance of Revelation. Instead, he asserted, God created man and imparted a part of His reason to him, thereby enabling man to comprehend the material universe. al-Razi`s theory of cosmic creation required that, at the beginning, there existed only God, the soul, matter, space and time. Thereafter the physical world came into being through the intervention of God in a certain predicament of the soul, and after all souls return to their natural abode in heaven the world shall cease to exist. To be sure, this concept of cosmic destiny and transmigration of the soul was not something which fitted too well with the generally held doctrine of creation.

al-Razi`s unconventional views on religion certainly did not endear him with all Muslims. Later writers, though wondering at his erudition, condemned him for blasphemy because he openly spoke of the superiority of reason to revelation. Heterodox Ismailis, such as Nasr-i-Khusrau, also charged him with heresy. For his radical views, al-Razi had to pay a high price: the relegation of most of his scholarly works to oblivion.

Even al-Biruni, with the possible motive of trying to please his orthodox patron, openly denounced al-Razi and attributed his blindness to Divine retribution. It is said that the blindness resulted from the punishment meted out to him by an emir who was a member of the conservative Mansur family of Bukhara. This enraged emir ordered al-Razi be hit on the head with his book until either the book or his head broke. Thereupon al-Razi lost both his eyesight as well as his zest for life. When an oculist suggested remedial eye surgery, al-Razi replied:``I have seen enough of this world, and I do not cherish the idea of an operation for the hope of seeing more of it.`` Shortly thereafter he died.

--Muslims and Science: Religious orthodoxy and the struggle for rationality.

Pervez Hoodbhoy

People who consider the Shariah to be something holy forget that it is nothing but the interpretation of Quran by mere humans. I grant them that Quran may be considered absolute but the interpretations of the so-called ulema should never be taken as gospel. We have confused the words of God with words of mere mortals and declared them to be universal truths for all times. The other sad part of this story is the total exclusion of view-points of scholars which differed with the views of the authors of Shariah. Our mullahs continously emphasise the extraordinary piety, intelligence, and knowledge of these ulemas such as Ghazali and Ash`ari (which I am sure is a correct assesment) but they forget to mention that they represent only one side of the coin. During this early time period of Islam there were equally if not more brilliant ulemas who completely disagreed with many views of our conservatives. I don`t mind if we have to learn about the views of Ash`ari, et. al., but I would protest if they are to be imposed on me as if they are the words of Allah and I certainly don`t like the idea of totally ignoring the view-point of other brilliant scholars of the time. Here are some passages from Hoodbhoy`s book:

FIVE GREAT ``HERETICS``



Chapter #10: Muslims and Science (Religious orthodoxy and the struggle for rationality)

Dr. Pervez Amirali Hoodbhoy

``The tension between zealotry and secular learning was, as we have seen in the previous chapter, present almost from the instant at which Hellenistic sciences were introduced into Muslim civilization. Sometimes subdued, but sometimes overt and violent, the opposition of the orthodox ulema often posed a mortal threat to those who studied science, philosophy and logic. ``The piety of theologians``, exclaimed al-Jahiz in frustration, ``consists of hastening to denounce dissidents as unbelievers``.

Hoodbhoy goes on to describe the five greatest scholars of Islam and their encounters with orthodoxy.

Al-Kindi (801-873)

Al-Razi (865-925)

Ibn Sina (980-1037)

Ibn Rushd (1126-1198)

Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406)

I`ll start with Al-Kindi in this post.

Al-Kindi (801-873)



The founder of the Islamic Peripatetic school of philosophy and the author of 270 treatises ranging from logic and mathematics to physics and music, Abu Yusuf Yaqub ibn Ishaq al-Kindi, is known as the ``Philosopher of the Arabs`` in recognition of his tireless efforts to make philosophy acceptable to theologians. He is also the only great Arab Muslim philosopher of antiquity. A thorough Mu`tazilite, he wrote that truth is universal and supreme, and that philosophy is but another form of the message which the prophets have carried. The word ``truth`` for al-Kindi had a very definite meaning: it stood for what Plato, Aristotle and other Greek sages has elucidated. The job of scholars was, in his words,

``to complete what the ancients have not fully expressed, according to the usage of our language and the custom of our times, so far as we are able.``

As a Rationalist, al-Kindi proposed that certain passages from the Holy Book whose literal interpretation would be in conflict with reality should, instead, be understood as allegories to guide men of reason. Most ancient philosophers, including al-Kindi, believed that there exist two truths: one for the stupid and uneducated masses, and the other for the cultured and the educated. Al-Kindi was of the opinion that the former was only able to appreciate simple things and so had to be enticed by the vision of houris and other physical allurements. On the other hand, the latter was given the gift of logic and reason so that they might arrive at a deeper meaning of the Book. Al-Kindi rationalized his effort at allegorical interpretation in this manner.

In the court of Al-Mamun, Al-Kindi was a star who shone bright in the foremost cultural center of the world. His academic pursuits maintained their vigour in the subsequent reign of the rationalist caliph, al-Mu`tassim, and then of al-Wathiq. But then came the ascendancy of the orthodox caliph, Al-Mutawakkil, and with it the end of the long period of liberalism. It was not hard to convince the ruler that the philosopher had very dangerous beliefs. Mutawakkil soon ordered the confiscation of the scholar`s personal library, known to all Baghdad as al-Kindiyah. The assembled crowd roared each time as the sixty-year-old scholar recieved fifty hard lashes of the whip.

Long before his death in 873 at the age of sevety-two, al-Kindi had succumbed to prolonged depression and silence. Although a friend manage to retrieve his library by means of some subtle extortion, he never really recovered from the ordeal of his public flogging. Al-Kindi was the first major figure of Islamic scholarship who fell victim to the orthodox reaction against Rationalism.

to be continued..

The discourse on the tenability of reform in Islam is now getting heavy. The big guns (Iqbal, Al-Ghazali) are being quoted and the history of Ijtema being examined. If all this leads to some positive change, some reconstruction, then ALLah be praised!

However, I think in the call for reconstruction and an re-opening of Ijtema, one thing seems to be overlooked. The central question of the inviolability of the Koran will not,--cannot-- be challenged. There is simply no room for ‘interpretation’ or debate on this issue, because it has, sadly, become the keystone of the faith. By extension, I fail to see how there can be any ‘progress’ on questions of alcohol consumption, and a myriad of other issues on which the koran is quite unequivocal in it’s stance.

My friends, I am all for progressive schools of religious thought etc., for the kind of renaissance flowering in Iran. At the same time, I think we are always going to have fundamentalist, retrogressive movements in the Muslim world as long as the basic tenet of (self-referenced) inviolability cannot be questioned. Armed with this authority of this certainty, the fundamentalist will always have one over the progressives.

No, my friends, I’m afraid if you’re looking for real change to come through ijtema, you’ll be disappointed. There will always be those sacred questions than stand in contradiction to reason that no ‘interpretation’ will be able to reconcile. This is the tragedy unique to Islam. For although a similar belief was held by Christians about the Bible, there was nothing in the bible itself that claimed incontrovertibility for itself. (see JR’s excellent post #118)

The change will have to come either at an individual level, or through a kind of ‘revolution’ that Turkey saw, that lasts at least one generation.

Re. JR #118:

You stated: [In fact, modern historians agree that only the `Q` gospel is close to the verifiable truth.]

I think the term you’re looking for is ‘authentic’, not ‘verifiable truth’, remembering that even the Q accounts, like all biblical accounts, were written in a style that combined historical fact with fairy-tale embellishments. The intention was not to deceive the reader, though. It was just the manner of recording history at the time, that didn’t put a very high premium on ‘objectivity’ as long as the lesson went through to the readers. In this sense, they were ‘authentic’ without being historically accurate. Wonder if the same view might not be taken w.r.t the Koran!

regards,

PM

Give me the Wine that burns all veils,

The Wine by which Life`s secret is revealed,

The Wine whose essence is eternity,

The Wine which opens mysteries concealed,

Lift up the curtain! Give me power to talk!

And make the sparrow struggle with the hawk.

-- Iqbal

Re: #124

Ammer = Ameer

Sorry for the typo.

Re: #124

Thanks rajanjua!

For further track of the detailed process plz refer the following link:

http://www.islaam.org/Qur`aan/H-Qu-pres.htm

Re: #118 J.Alam

The process of preserving Quran in writing was started in Huzoor`s time- Ammer Muawiya is credited to be the first Katib-i-Wahi.

Hey guyz, I happened to find a great site which describes in detail how the Holy Book was compiled. The refernces in here r very credible and goes back to the SAHEEH`s, which infact provides the most authentic source of hadith`s.

Dont forget to follow the links on the bottom of every page to get the complete picture.

http://www.islaam.org/Qur`aan/H-Qu-pres.htm

Thanks.

Re: #118

Following r the two interesting quotes by JR:

``Modern research and secular historians have established that the Koran was compiled much after the death of Mohammed``

``A number of his followers did record this, but there was no attempt to collect and compile the various recordings into one book until much later``

The above two references r very vague! ``much later``

The question is: Was Koran compiled several centuries later like old and new testament? Do u have anything on that. Please let us know.

Thanks.

(I guess legalization of intoxicants in pakistan was the issue here, but anyways)

PEACE

Re: #108 Fuzair

``The true tragedy of Islam (whether Sunni or Twelver Shia) is that it has been able to marginalize and exclude any and all reform movements. Our (Sunni, can`t say for Shias) belief is that Ijtima ended in about the 12th century or so and whatever modifications/reinterpretations were to be done, had been done.``

You are so right on this. It is a sad reality that Ijtehad is dead. Here is what Iqbal has to say on why this happened:

``The student of the history of Islam, however, is well aware that with the political expansion of Islam, systematic legal thought became an absolute necessity, and our early doctors of law, both of Arabian and non-Arabian descent, worked ceaselessly until all the accumulated wealth of legal thought found a final expression in our recognized school of Law. These schools of Law recognize three degrees of Ijtihad: (1) complete authority in legislation which is practically confined to the founders of schools, (2) relative authority which is to be exercised within the limits of a particular school, and (3) special authority which relates to the determining of the law applicable to a particular case left undetermined by the founders. In this paper I am concerned with the first degree of Ijtehad only, i.e., complete authority in legislation. The theoretical possibility of this degree of Ijtehad is admitted by Sunnis, but in practice it has always been denied ever since the establishment of the schools, inasmuch as the idea of complete Ijtehad is hedged round by conditions which are well-nigh impossible of realization in a single individual. Such an attitude seems exceedingly strange in a system of law based mainly on the groundwork provided by Quran which embodies an essentially dynamic outlook on life. It is, therefore, necessary, before we proceed farther, to discover the causes of this intellectual attitude which has reduced the Law of Islam practically to a state of immobility. Some European writers think that the stationary character of the Law of Islam is due to the influence of the Turks. This is an entierly superficial view, for the legal schools of Islam had been finally established long before the Turkish influence began to work in the history of Islam. The real causes are in my opinion as follows:

We are familiar with the Rationalist movement which appeared in the church of Islam during the early days of the Abbasides, and the bitter controversies which it raised. Take for instance the one important point of controversy between the two camps - the conservative dogma of the eternity of the Quran. The Rationalists denied it because they thought that this was only another form of the Christian dogma of the eternity of the world; on the other hand the conservatives thinkers whom the later Abbasides, fearing the political implications of Rationalism, gave their full support, thought that by denying the eternity of Quran the Rationalists were undermining the very foundations of Muslim society. Nazzam, for instance, practically rejected the traditions, and openly declared Abu Hurairah to be an untrustworthy reporter. Thus, partly owing to a misunderstanding of the ultimate motives of Rationalism, and partly owing to the unrestrained thought of particular Rationalism, conservative thinkers regarded this movement as a force of disintegration, and considered it a danger to the stability of Islam as a social polity. Their main purpose, therefore, was to preserve this social integrity of Islam, and to realize this the only course open to them was to utilize the binding force of Shariah, and to make the structure of their legal system as rigorous as possible.``

-Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam

Iqbal goes on to elaborate other causes for this tragedy, explains the reason that why Turkey is the only country which has been able to wake up from this dogmatic slumber and in the ends advocates that this immobility in the rest of the Islamic world should also end by fresh interpretations. He states:

``..neither in the foundational principles nor in the structure of our systems, as we find today, is there anything to justify the present attitude. Equiped with penetrative thought and fresh experience the world of Islam should courageously proceed to the work of reconstruction before them.``

-Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam

Sadly enough, this great work of Allama Iqbal is either ignored or condemned by the people who have taken Islam`s theka in Pakistan, such as Jamat-i-Islami. Mention this title to a Jamatiya and he will cringe at the very name.

Re: #108 Fuzair

``The true tragedy of Islam (whether Sunni or Twelver Shia) is that it has been able to marginalize and exclude any and all reform movements. Our (Sunni, can`t say for Shias) belief is that Ijtima ended in about the 12th century or so and whatever modifications/reinterpretations were to be done, had been done.``

You are so right on this. It is a sad reality that Ijtehad is dead. Here is what Iqbal has to say on why this happened:

``The student of the history of Islam, however, is well aware that with the political expansion of Islam, systematic legal thought became an absolute necessity, and our early doctors of law, both of Arabian and non-Arabian descent, worked ceaselessly until all the accumulated wealth of legal thought found a final expression in our recognized school of Law. These schools of Law recognize three degrees of Ijtihad: (1) complete authority in legislation which is practically confined to the founders of schools, (2) relative authority which is to be exercised within the limits of a particular school, and (3) special authority which relates to the determining of the law applicable to a particular case left undetermined by the founders. In this paper I am concerned with the first degree of Ijtehad only, i.e., complete authority in legislation. The theoretical possibility of this degree of Ijtehad is admitted by Sunnis, but in practice it has always been denied ever since the establishment of the schools, inasmuch as the idea of complete Ijtehad is hedged round by conditions which are well-nigh impossible of realization in a single individual. Such an attitude seems exceedingly strange in a system of law based mainly on the groundwork provided by Quran which embodies an essentially dynamic outlook on life. It is, therefore, necessary, before we proceed farther, to discover the causes of this intellectual attitude which has reduced the Law of Islam practically to a state of immobility. Some European writers think that the stationary character of the Law of Islam is due to the influence of the Turks. This is an entierly superficial view, for the legal schools of Islam had been finally established long before the Turkish influence began to work in the history of Islam. The real causes are in my opinion as follows:

We are familiar with the Rationalist movement which appeared in the church of Islam during the early days of the Abbasides, and the bitter controversies which it raised. Take for instance the one important point of controversy between the two camps - the conservative dogma of the eternity of the Quran. The Rationalists denied it because they thought that this was only another form of the Christian dogma of the eternity of the world; on the other hand the conservatives thinkers whom the later Abbasides, fearing the political implications of Rationalism, gave their full support, thought that by denying the eternity of Quran the Rationalists were undermining the very foundations of Muslim society. Nazzam, for instance, practically rejected the traditions, and openly declared Abu Hurairah to be an untrustworthy reporter. Thus, partly owing to a misunderstanding of the ultimate motives of Rationalism, and partly owing to the unrestrained thought of particular Rationalism, conservative thinkers regarded this movement as a force of disintegration, and considered it a danger to the stability of Islam as a social polity. Their main purpose, therefore, was to preserve this social integrity of Islam, and to realize this the only course open to them was to utilize the binding force of Shariah, and to make the structure of their legal system as rigorous as possible.``

-Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam

Iqbal goes on to elaborate other causes for this tragedy, explains the reason that why Turkey is the only country which has been able to wake up from this dogmatic slumber and in the ends advocates that this immobility in the rest of the Islamic world should also end by fresh interpretations. He states:

``..neither in the foundational principles nor in the structure of our systems, as we find today, is there anything to justify the present attitude. Equiped with penetrative thought and fresh experience the world of Islam should courageously proceed to the work of reconstruction before them.``

-Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam

Sadly enough, this great work of Allama Iqbal is either ignored or condemned by the people who have taken Islam`s theka in Pakistan, such as Jamat-i-Islami. Mention this title to a Jamatiya and he will cringe at the very name.

Re: #113 bahmad

Dear Bilal Ahmad

I have a very negative impression of Ghazali. From my readings of Iqbal`s ``The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam`` (This book of Iqbal runs completely contrary to Ghazali`s assertions) and other sources, its apparent that Ghazali was the Moudoodi of his time. The rigidity in the Islamic Law (Shariah) has been the cause of many of our ills and it was something that Ghazali strongly advocated and was to some degree one of the founders.

I quote Ibn Khaldun from his ``Muqaddimah``:

`` In time, the science of logic spread in Islam. People studied it. They made a distinction between it and the philosophical sciences, in that logic was merely a norm and yardstick for arguments and served to probe the arguments of the philosphical sciences as well as those of all other disciplines. Scholars studied the basic premises the earlier theologians had established. They refuted most of them with the help of arguments leading them to a different opinion. Many of these were derived from philosophical discussions of physics and metaphysics. When they probed them with the yardstick of logic, it showed that they were applicable only to those other displines and not to theology. This approach differed in its technical terminology of the older one. Their approach often included refutation of the philosophers where the opinions of the latter differed from the articles of faith. They considered the philosophers enemies of the articles of faith, because, in most respects, there is a relationship between the innovators and the opinions of philosophers. The first scholar to write with the new theological approach was al-Ghazali. He was followed by imam Ibn al-Khatib. A large number of scholars followed in their steps and adhered to their tradition. These scholars were very intent upon meddling with philosophical works. The subjects of the two disciplines (theology and philosophy) were thus confused by them.``

At the end of Syed Ameer Ali`s ``The Spirit of Islam``, there`s a brief discussion on Ghazali.

Dr. Pervez Hoodbhoy summarises Ameer Ali`s views as follows:

-- Aristotelian philosophy and rationalist thinking were entirely in accordance with Islam, and the Mutazilite movement is to be sympathised with even if it went a bit too far sometimes. The Muslim philosophers and scholars - Al Kindi, Al Farabi, Ibn Sina, Ibn al-Haytham, Ibn-Rushd - are the true heroes of Islam.

-- It was the fanatics and rigid dogmatists who caused Islamic science and culture to collapse. Syed Ameer Ali identifies the important ones to be Al Ash`ari, Ibn Hanbal, Al Ghazali and Ibn Taymiyya.

(Muslims and Science: Religious orthodoxy and the struggle for rationality.)

It is a pity that Ghazali`s writings have had such a great influence on subsequent scholars after him. We are to this day paying for following him.

Regards,

Amir Janjua