The Great Theft: Wrestling Islam From the Extremists (20 page)

In general, the Hanbali school of thought is the strictest and most conservative school in Islamic jurisprudence. Despite some very notable exceptions of Hanbali jurists who were de- cisively rationalist and liberal, the Hanbali school is known for its literalist, strictly constructionist, and inflexible ap- proaches. Because of its rigidity and inflexibility, by the nine- teenth century the Hanbali school was on the verge of becoming extinct. By that time, the only geographic area where the Hanbali school continued to exist was the Arabian Peninsula, but even then several gulf countries, such as Kuwait, had abandoned Hanbalism in favor of the more flex-

ible Maliki school of thought. However, the emergence of Saudi Arabia and its embrace of what may be called selective Hanbalism radically altered the fate of the Hanbali school. Not only did Saudi Arabia save the Hanbali school from ex- tinction, but through the concerted efforts of the Saudi gov- ernment, selective Hanbalism became the ideology of choice for all puritan movements around the Sunni Muslim world.
2
The disagreements between puritans and moderates over is- sues of law and morality are even deeper and more fundamen- tal than discussed thus far. As alluded to earlier, puritans, conservatives, and moderates all believe that the Qur’an is in- corruptible. The Qur’an has not been corrupted or changed in any way, and therefore, the revelation was preserved exactly as the Prophet Muhammad received it from God. The Sunna or traditions attributed to the Prophet, however, are a differ- ent question altogether. Puritans treat the traditions attributed to the Prophet as if a code of law that must be enforced with- out question. Although these traditions count in the thou- sands, puritans will often base a law on a single tradition found in one of the many sources in which these traditions are preserved. The puritans treat certain sources, such as
Sahih al- Bukhari,
as immutable and not open to questioning.
3
Some puritans even go as far as maintaining that if a Muslim ques- tions any of the traditions in
Bukhari,
such a Muslim is an in- fidel. The problem is that many of these traditions defy reason, or are offensively demeaning toward women and non- Muslims, or are blatantly inconsistent with the ethics and morality set out in the Qur’an. Furthermore, as some re- searchers have pointed out, puritans are very selective in terms of which particular Prophetic traditions they choose to em- phasize or completely ignore. In fact, their approach is very reminiscent of the phenomenon of “
hadith
hurling” that

Shaykh al-Ghazali described in his famous work.
4

The reason that puritans rely on these slipshod methods in dealing with the source materials of Islamic law is partly due to a certain attitude that they adopt toward the Qur’an and Sunna. Despite the complex set of issues raised by these source materials, puritans treat the Qur’an and Sunna as a panacea to all challenges that could confront them in life. Indeed, the Qur’an and Sunna can inspire creative solutions to most prob- lems, but this is a far cry from assuming that they can auto- matically yield solutions to life’s challenges. However, among puritans it has become accepted dogma that the Qur’an and Sunna provide for a complete way of life and contain an anti- dote to every social and political ailment that confronts Mus- lims. In this paradigm, one often encounters a simplistic attitude that assumes that the Qur’an and Sunna are full of formulas, and that the only thing missing in the equation is the will and determination to apply the correct formula to the appropriate problem. This attitude induces puritans to treat the tradition as a vending machine of sorts—the puritans make-believe that there is a ready-made solution in the sources for every problem that confronts people. If the lived reality, however, clashes with the puritan pretense, the puritans con- clude that the solution is most certainly correct, and it is the people who must be all wrong.

In contrast to the puritans, moderates apply systematic principles of historical criticism to the traditions attributed to the Prophet. Unlike the Qur’an, as mentioned earlier, these traditions were documented and preserved a few centuries after the death of the Prophet. In addition, the traditions clearly reflect historical circumstances, sectarian disputes, and political conflicts that took place years after the Prophet’s death. Using modern methods of critical analysis, moderates conclude that many of these traditions are apocryphal or pure inventions. Moreover, many of the Prophetic traditions were

reported by single individuals. In other words, an individual told some other individual that he heard the Prophet say such and such. Moderates scrutinize the circumstances to make sure that any given report makes good historical and rational sense; otherwise, the report is dismissed as unreliable. For in- stance, there is cumulative evidence that when the Prophet wanted to teach Muslims something of importance, the Prophet would have a person call upon the people to gather, and then he would relate the necessary lesson. When moder- ates find that this procedure was not complied with, despite the significance of the subject matter, they naturally become suspicious and investigate the circumstances. If the report re- lates to a major aspect of the faith or to a relatively important issue, it would have made little sense for the Prophet to inform a single person about this matter. If the issue was very impor- tant or if it would have had a major impact upon Muslims, one would expect that the Prophet would have implemented the above described procedure or would have informed a large number of people about the matter. In certain circumstances and on particular issues, it would have made sense for the Prophet to inform a close confidante, and thus these reports might be treated differently. Without getting lost in the numer- ous technicalities, it is sufficient to say that moderates seek to make sure that the evidence supporting a ruling is coherent, reasonable, and reliable.

When it comes to the Qur’an, the disputes between moder- ates and puritans also relate to the validity of using rational methods of analysis in articulating the law. Puritans tend to treat the Qur’an as a code of law—that is, they focus their at- tention on the specific Qur’anic verses to prescribe detailed rules on marriage, divorce, inheritance, or criminal punish- ments. They enforce these rulings without regard to the histor- ical circumstances that existed at the time these rulings were

revealed to the Prophet Muhammad. The puritans do not pay any attention to the overall guiding principles of the Qur’an or try to analyze the moral or ethical guidelines enunciated in the Qur’an. In effect, the details and specifics take precedence over the ethical and moral objectives of the Qur’an.

Moderates recognize that the Qur’an did express specific rulings on different subjects. But for moderates, the moral and ethical objectives of the Qur’an play a central and pivotal role in the process of legal analysis. The point of the legal analysis is not to unthinkingly and blindly implement a set of technical rules, but to seek after the ultimate objectives of the Qur’an. All Qur’anic laws reinforce and promote moral and ethical objectives, such as racial and ethnic equality, freedom from compulsion in the conduct of human affairs, freedom of con- science, and the right of women to own property, and it is the duty of Muslims to apply themselves intellectually in order to comprehend and fulfill these objectives. These moral objec- tives are related to the obligation to seek Godliness in oneself and in society.

The specific rulings of the Qur’an came in response to par- ticular problems that confronted the Muslim community at the time of the Prophet. The particular and specific rules set out in the Qur’an are not objectives in themselves. These rul- ings are contingent on particular historical circumstances that might or might not exist in the modern age. At the time these rulings were revealed, they were sought to achieve particular moral objectives such as justice, equity, equality, mercy, com- passion, benevolence, and so on. Therefore, it is imperative that Muslims study the moral objectives of the Qur’an and treat the specific rulings as demonstrative examples of how Muslims should attempt to realize and achieve the Qur’anic morality in their lives. Because puritans do not think of the specific rules as demonstrative examples but as objectives in

themselves, they seek to implement the rules
regardless of whether their application will enhance or undermine Qur’anic principles
such as justice, equity, and mercy.

The debate about how the specific rules relate to the ulti- mate objectives of the Qur’an is closely tied to a far more basic and fundamental issue and that is: What are the ultimate ob- jectives of the Shari’a (the eternal law as it exists in God’s mind)? What is the Shari’a for, and what does it aim to do? Historically, legal schools of thought disagreed on many issues, but they agreed on the response to these questions. According to all the jurisprudential schools, the purpose of the Shari’a is to serve the best interests of human beings (
tahqiq masalih al- ‘ibad
). Perhaps the whole controversy between the puritans and moderates can be summed up in how each interprets this prin- ciple. The puritans believe that the best interests of humanity are served by strict application of the law to human conduct and behavior. Using reason is thus absolute anathema—rather, all Muslims need to do is find the law and apply it strictly and faithfully, and that is the end of the process. Puritans believe that not only did God make about 90 percent of the law clear, but they also believe that God has a determinable will as to about 90 percent of human affairs. In the puritan conception, God is a micromanager—God left only about 10 percent of human affairs to human discretion, and this is why God left no more than 10 percent of the law unclear or open to debate.

These presumptions are fundamentally at odds with the moderate approach. Rather, moderates pose the rhetorical question: Why did God grant us reason when in reality God has already resolved most issues in life for us? According to Is- lamic theology, God declared at the moment of creation that He created a wonder that is worthy of the highest honors— this wonder is the ability to reason (
‘aql
). But if one would ac- cept the puritan paradigm, God did not leave much space for

human beings to apply their rational faculties since God un- equivocally resolved most matters for human beings and all that is left is for humans to obey.

Furthermore, in Islamic theology, it is believed by moder- ates that God rewards those who search for the Divine Will, even if they ultimately reach the wrong conclusions. God, ac- cording to this theology, rewards the diligence and the hard work expended in the effort to find the Divine Will, not the re- sults that one ultimately reaches. Moderates contend that it would make little sense for God to reward the effort if all God expects of us on most matters is blind obedience.

Regarding the ultimate objective of Shari’a, moderates con- tend that serving the interests of humanity means achieving Godliness on the earth. Put differently, the objective of the law is not to apply technicalities regardless of their consequences, but to achieve the ultimate moral and ethical objectives that represent the essence of Godliness on this earth.

These disputes and debates are not theoretical or pedantic distinctions without practical consequences. For instance, pu- ritans accept without question the traditional rule mandating that the punishment for apostasy is death. Moderates do not accept that traditional position because it is inconsistent with the Qur’an. First addressing the Prophet, the Qur’an states: “Remind them for you are but a reminder; you are not a war- den over them.”
5
This verse emphasizes that even the Prophet does not have the right to think of himself as a warden who has the power to coerce people. This is reaffirmed by many of the historical reports regarding the Qur’anic revelation that emphasize that belief and conviction cannot be coerced. For example, it was reported that at the time of the Prophet, a Muslim man named Husayn bin Salim bin ‘Awf had two daughters who were Christian. This fellow seems to have tried to persuade his daughters to become Muslim, but they were

persistent in their refusal. Fed up, the father went to the Prophet and asked for permission to compel his daughters to convert to Islam, but the Prophet resolutely refused. Shortly thereafter, the Qur’anic revelation arrived declaring that truth and falsity are clear and distinct, and whoever wishes to be- lieve may do so, and whoever refuses to believe may do so— there can be no coercion in religion.
6
“There is no compulsion in matters of faith,” the Qur’an proclaimed.
7
Moderates con- sider this verse to be enunciating a general, overriding princi- ple that cannot be contradicted by isolated traditions attributed to the Prophet. Therefore, moderates do not believe that there is any punishment that attaches to apostasy.

Other than the issue of apostasy, puritan methodology leads to adopting various positions that moderates cannot accept, including, for instance, that the testimony of women counts as half that of men in court; that the rights of women upon di- vorce are extremely limited; that men at their absolute discre- tion may take up to four wives with or without cause; and that shockingly severe criminal penalties can be applied un- justly and without justification. The significant point is that as one observes in Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan (under the Tal- iban), Nigeria, and Sudan, what is purported to be Islamic law is applied in a fashion that shocks the conscience, and that ap- pears capricious and arbitrary. What one observes is a com- plete lack of compassion, mercy, equity, or justice.

Even more disturbing is that by relying on the most tangen- tial and tenuous types of evidence, puritans force upon Mus- lims a kind of austerity that is entirely suffocating. In fact, much of what they advocate is affirmatively designed to re- move tenderness and kindness from the human heart. They eradicate art, beauty, and anything else that excites the creative imagination, and demand that Muslims become like mecha- nized robots. Furthermore, since according to puritans God has