Tradition in Islamic Legislation: Reconciling Revelation and Tradition (Paperback) (ISBN-13: 9798825165585)

The umma is in trauma. Poverty, illiteracy and alienation abound. Clashes rage. This is a result of education that perceives reality in binary terms. This is the heritage of sectarian education. The knowledge of revelation was corrupted by problematic, politicized exegesis, endorsing the political purposes of hawkish rulers. Militant preachers became mercenaries. Where is the unity of the umma? Muslims are blamed for terrorism. The ulama assert that "Islam is not like that." This is true on the assumption that Islam is properly understood. Islam is a teaching of reconciliation. Unfortunately, the pronouncements of militant ulema reveal a different reality. They reveal a tendency to endorse aggression in the propagation of Islam and extremist positions in Islamic law. The endorsement of aggression finds expression in the shape of jihad al-talab, a manifestation of political Islam. How was jihad al-talab rendered a "sixth pillar" of Islam? The propagation of religion through compulsion is prohibited in Islam. This transpired as an effect of political pressure, buttressed by the repression of reasoning. Reason was silenced. The repression of reasoning enabled departure from key teachings of the Book of Allah. These encompass the teaching that the Book of Allah is unambiguous, detailed and coherent. Among the effects of the repression of reason was the emergence of the teaching of predestination. According to this teaching, embraced by traditional ulema and those that follow them, there is no connection between cause and effect because Allah predestines everything. This means that we are not responsible for anything because Allah predetermines all events, not excluding His servants transgressions. We have no freedom. The tendency to excess is reflected in the embedding of punishments in the legislation that are harsher than those prescribed in revelation. The death penalties for apostasy, adultery and blasphemy furnish examples of juristic excess. Allah states that He does not change the condition of people until they change what is in themselves. Did Muslims alter what is in themselves? The answer is in the affirmative. What changed was that a connection with revelation was exchanged for a connection with a different, "second" revelation." This second revelation was tradition. But tradition is temporal; did Muslims alter what was "inside" themselves? Was the turn to tradition from revelation a result of this alteration? Was the meaning of revelation changed? Was there a reorientation from revelation to the traditions of the predecessors of the Muslims? Does revelation encourage following the traditions of the predecessors in preference to revelation? Problems began with the rejection of reasoning, and its association with unbelief in tradition. To be better Muslims, persons that followed this tradition reduced their reliance on reason. As a result, they began to misunderstand and misrepresent the teaching of revelation. The prophet Muhammad was treated to the rank of a second lawgiver. Following the "prophetic tradition" became a religious requirement. Whoever refused to abide by traditions was branded an unbeliever. But there are problems. The authentication of traditions necessitated using reason. But afterwards, reason was subordinated to tradition. In time, revelation too, was subordinated to tradition. Tradition judged, abrogated and replaced parts of revelation. Then reason, tradition and even revelation were subordinated to the rulings of the ulema, whose agreement became the chief arbiter. The ulema became the chief authorities, even able to abrogate the rulings of God. The ulema's recourse to the teaching of abrogation enabled them to tamper with the teaching of revelation. By recourse to the abrogation of a hundred and twenty verses that teach reconciliation, hawkish ulema transformed the religion of peace into a religion of war.