Rehabilitation of Religious Knowledge: Rediscovering the Teaching of Islam

The Book of Allah says that "Allah never changes the condition of people until they change what is inside themselves." (13:11) When the umma embraced the Book of Allah the condition of the umma improved. The umma became prominent. However, when the umma "exchanged" the Book of Allah for books of traditions. It began to wane. The "change" transpired under the sway of politics. The turn from revelation to tradition was triggered by rulers efforts reinterpret revelation to justify wars of aggression. Accordingly, they engaged hawkish ulama to furnish this justification. The turn from the Book of Allah to the books of traditions was justified by asserting that Allah also "revealed" tradition to "explain" and "detail" the Book of Allah. The turn from revelation to tradition was a paradigm shift of epic proportions. The umma turned from the revelation-centric paradigm to a tradition-centric paradigm. The shift triggered a torrent of catastrophes ending with the fall of the umma. Traditions reported by transmitters "supplemented" the Book of Allah as binding guidance and root of legislation. Tradition was accorded the rank of "revelation from God," and transmitters of traditions emerged as "authorities," "lawgivers," and "partners" of Allah, with the power to "abrogate" and "replace" rulings revealed by Allah. This transpired with the revealed rulings on blasphemy, apostasy and adultery. They were replaced by the harsher rulings - all death penalties - drawn from traditions. This rendered parts of the sharia extreme. This transformation is reminiscent of the treatment of Isa as "divine," with the difference that the treatment of tradition as "revelation from Allah," traditionists treat tradition as "divine," although there are persons who refer to the prophet as "holy." The reinterpretation of Islam as a teaching of war required bypassing the prohibition of aggressive warfare in the Book of Allah. This required the weaponization of exegesis and jurisprudence and, by extension, of the teaching of revelation. The weaponization of exegesis and jurisprudence was achieved by resorting to hawkish traditions and the teaching of abrogation. Exegesis was weaponized by an appeal to a tradition in which the prophet reportedly asserted that "the blood of the kafir is halal for the believer." Exegesis was also weaponized by recourse to the "abrogation" of the verses of reconciliation by the verse of the sword. The teaching of abrogation requires rejecting all verses of reconciliation in the Book of Allah allegedly "abrogated" by the verses of the sword. But to ask readers to reject any verse of the Book of Allah is tantamount to encouraging kufr. The repression of reason triggered a misunderstanding of revelation. Particular verses began to strike exegetes as "unclear," "insufficiently detailed," and "contradictory." The reluctance to engage reason prevented Muslims from understanding revelation. It left them at the mercy of traditionists. Reconstruction of jurisprudence and exegesis requires the affirmation of the perceptions that revelation is "perspicuous," "detailed" and "coherent." The treatment of tradition as "revelation from God" had profound effects on the umma. Tradition became a "partner" of revelation. Tradition would not merely "supplement" or "explain" revelation. It would judge, abrogate and replace parts of revelation. Traditions - reports of persons - would replace the words of Allah. The subordination of revelation to tradition is an expression of shirk. Thus, renewal will require the rehabilitation of the knowledge of revelation from corruption. It requires purifying the knowledge of revelation from shirk. This also requires rejecting unwarranted perceptions, for example the perception that reason is unsuitable for understanding revelation or that tradition is "revelation from God." The rehabilitation of the knowledge of revelation requires the affirmation of the pre-eminence of revelation in relation to all tradition.