Addressing Aberrations in the Exegesis and Jurisprudence of Islam: Responding to Islamism

The Book of Allah is "the truth from your Lord." The Book presents itself as "clear," "complete" and "free of contradictions." But traditionists portray the Book differently. They perceive "flaws" in the Book, and assert that the Book of Allah is in parts "unclear, "incomplete" and "contradictory." They portray the Book as a product of a person. These slanders do not just contradict the Book; they disparage its Author. They suggest that its Author was "blurred," "forgetful," and "confused" when revealing the allegedly "unclear," "incomplete, and "contradictory" parts of the Book. After besmirching the Book and disparaging its Author, the traditionists proffer "assistance" to Allah. They propose to "clarify" and supply "details" allegedly "missing" from the Book. They propose to do this by recourse to books of traditions. They justify the turn to tradition by alleging that tradition is "also revelation from Allah." The boldness of these assertions surpasses belief. To resolve what strike them as "contradictions" in the Book, traditionists assert that all verses which "contradict" verses revealed afterwards are abrogated. Recourse to the "abrogation" of the "verses of reconciliation" by the "verse of the sword" revelation is an invitation to kufr. It represents tampering with the teaching of the Book of Allah. Thus, "traditional" exegesis rests on a rejection of all verses according to which the Book is "clear," "complete" and "free of contradictions." The rejections of these verses renders traditional exegesis problematic. For an interpretation based on premises that defy the Book of Allah is bound to corrupt the knowledge of revelation. Reliance upon exegesis that refrains from the utilization of reason detached the umma from the Book of Allah by preventing the umma from understanding and following revelation. After "disconnecting" the umma from the Book of Allah, traditionists "connected" the umma to different books, the books of traditions. To justify this act, traditionists assert that these traditions, recorded in defiance of the prohibitions oof recording traditions by Allah and the messenger, already encompass what is taught in the Book of Allah. The separation from the Book of Allah plunged the umma into trauma. The knowledge of revelation was corrupted by politics and the repression of reason. The repression of reason in Islam emerged during the clashes between the traditionists and the rationalists regarding the proper way to read revelation. To undermine the rationalists, traditionists resorted to disparaging reasoning. The belittling of reasoning took place even though the protection of reason is treated as a purpose of the sharia. According to a hadith, the prophet allegedly referred to the use of 'reason-based tafsir' as disbelief (kufr). Thus, Muslims are expected to refrain from reasoning in religion. The traditional reading of revelation requires the subordination of reason to tradition. Traditionists treat refraining from reasoning in religion as an expression of piety. The encounters between the rationalists and the traditionalists reveal a troubling pattern. There were clashes between the people of reason and those of tradition. There were also clashes between the free-willers and the predestinarians, as well as encounters between ahl al-kalam and the ahl al-hadith. At the political level, these conflicts were resolved in favor of the traditionists. This transpired with the killing of five thousand rationalists by Musa al-Hadi in 786, at the height of the mihna (inquisition), begun by al-Mahdi in 780. Harun ar-Rashid ended the mihna. The perception that equates reasoning with unbelief paved the way for the proliferation of bellicosity, which triggered the fall of the umma. The repression of reason and the politicization of Islam brought disasters. For it is by using reason that we acquire the knowledge of revelation. To this day teachers advise their protégés against the perils of reasoning.