The Battle over Interpretations of Islam: How Certain are We about Dominant Interpretations of Islam?

One of the most important problems in history is failure to admit that one doesn’t know or that there remain other options or possibilities besides the one’s chosen one or that one’s position is probable and could be questioned/reviewed by oneself or the other. Islam’s path breaking announcement expressed in its shahadah implied  bracketing all claims to finality/certitude  and recognizing that God alone is reality/truth/knowledge/certitude/beauty. From this metaphysical or ontological openness follow radical consequences including rejections of all absolutisms in the world of contingency. Even if we find certain statements in the canon so clear and unambiguous, the necessity of human filter/interpretation of it and multiplicity of contexts and possibilities of  change in their reception with time/situation introduce element of uncertainty or need to qualify one’s dogmatic absolutism. Without questioning the sovereignty of the Good and the absoluteness of the command and sacrality of the revealed word, one can interrogate popular assumptions against humility in matters of interpreting Islamic Law.

Assumption Regarding Clear Statements/Muhakamat

WaelHallaq, one of the distinguished scholars on Islamic Law, observes:
With the exception of a relatively few Qurʾānic and Prophetic statements that were unambiguous and contained clear and specific normative rulings, the rest of the law was the product of ijtihād. Thus, whereas such unambiguous textual rulings were deemed certain and hence not susceptible to ijtihād (because the mind cannot see any other meaning in the language in which they were stated), this latter involved inferences and was the domain of probability.” It follows that “In the majority, therefore, the laws, rules, and regulations of the Sharīʿa are largely the result of ijtihād, a domain of interpretation that rests on probability. Every accomplished jurist could exercise ijtihād, and two or more could arrive at different conclusions on the same problem with no one knowing but God which mujtahid (i.e., the jurist conducting ijtihād) had arrived at the truth. This extensive relativism gave rise to the famous tenet that “Every mujtahid is correct,” a maxim that proved operative and became sanctified.

    There are differences over definitions and identification of muhakamaat and mutashabihat and who knows or does anyone know mutashabihat. It is also argued that greater and deeper part of scripture is constituted by mutashabihat and as such it becomes imperative to clarify veto against contemplating their meanings.

Assumptions on Tafsir

Regarding tafsir attributed to the Companions, the following qualifications granted by traditional scholars, may be noted:
Suyuti in Al-Itiqan quotes Imam Ibn Hanbal as stating that there is no foundation for such tafsir. Suyuti adds a qualifying clause that there are very few traditions which can be authoritatively attributed to the Prophet in connection with tafsir. Suyuti clearly expresses skepticism regarding longish traditions regarding tafsir attributed often to Ibn Abbas stating they are transmitted by unknown people. Imam Shafi has also expressed his skepticism regarding all but 100 statements on tafsir attributed to Ibn Abbas. If we closely engage with the detailed studies by modern scholars, our skepticism increases further. Bukhari has included very few tafsiri sayings in his canon. Allama Kashmiri has pointed out that Bukhari uncritically  depended upon Mu’mar bin Musana and we shouldn’t conclude that Bukhari necessarily endorsed – he only transmitted – tafsiri sayings. Given clear standpoint of Imam Abu Hanifa that ahad narrations can’t in any way qualify Quranic nasoos. All that Salaf demand is we don’t disregard their core beliefs while approaching the text of the Quran on its own terms– linguistic and other considerations – with occasional support from what is called tafsir bil mathur. There are huge variations in transmitted opinions of Companions. There is no such thing as normative view. Imam Shafi noted diversity within the Companions on almost every issue.Those who quote Imam Malik to quell dissenting opinions within the Tradition fail to practice his maxim that three things including tafseer are baseless.

    Ibn Abbas interpreted "yawmane batshatal kubra –" as the Last Day’s  punishment  but Ibn Masud as battle of Badr. Both were not accused of denying traditions on the Last Day.

    Some issues complicating or qualifying the assumed definitive role of Companions and the following two generations in fixing or freezing interpretation of canon include varying reception and understanding of such notions/traditions as related to Khayr al-quroon regarding which three views exist: a) embraces taba-tabiyeen, b) gradual decline till last day has occurred and c) Shah Waliullah against jumhoor that only till 30 years after the Prophet (saw). Razi denied that “My Ummah will not agree on the wrong” reaches tawaturi mani. The tradition regarding seventy two sects has received several interpretation including quite counterintuitive one by Ghazali. Muqaddasi (a 10th-century geographer), according to Roy Mottahedeh (“Diversity and Pluralism in Islam”), tells us that “72 sects are in heaven and one in hell, according to what he considers is a more sound line of transmission (isnad)”. Razi denied that “My Ummah will not agree on the wrong” reaches tawaturi mani  and noted that some have questioned the authenticity of this tradition, saying that “if by 72 they mean the fundamentals of religious belief (usul), then they do not reach this number and if they mean the practices (furu), then the number passes this number by several multiples. The other view of this hadith is that the figure 73 is not meant literally, but is a relative and figurative number, identified because of a context.” The distinction between tawil and tafsir and parallel evolution of two concepts in Shiite and Sunnite exegesis though one of the most influential exegetical works by Sunni Tabari was titled Tawil.

Assumptions on Hadith

While there is almost a consensus that there is consensus on less than a dozen hadith as reaching tawatur which has certitude of a sort, the verdict of traditional scholars on the rest of hadith corpus is it is of zannithubutor doesn’t  achieve certainty in transmission and as such is probable  though this doesn’t imply unreliable but does mean one can’t vouch for it or ostracize as heretics anyone who doubts  a particular narration on this or that ground. There remain differences about most often quoted a hadith in sermons. Ikhtilafi umma hrahma Azad has great difference with it on naqli and aqli grounds. “iski koi asliyet nahi.” However notes that is some have believed hadith to be correct they mean disagreement in understanding/interpretation, not of sects.

    Same hadith is declared fabricated by some (IbnJozi and Aqeeli) weak by others, sahih or hasn by others (IbnHajr, Khateeb, etc.). Albani reviewed the status of great number of hadith and published his voluminous Silsilah Ahadees-I Mozooyae such attempts would continue in future. This means debates on invoking a particular hadith for foreclosing the debate or fixing an interpretation of canon through it would continue. 

    Some of the most influential hadith (cited by Sufis, philosophers, Shiites, Sunnis, Muqallids, moralists) are denied by hadith scholars while others (such as on end times, on women, on non-Muslims, on destiny) though accepted interpreted quite divergently. Many key hadith that divide sects and schools (such as  those that are invoked in Quranic exegesis, in defense of reason and free will,on first Caliphs/Imams), or inspire radical exclusivist or inclusivist interpretations (such as 72 sects or 999 out of 1000 going to hell) have been interpreted against the grain.  Similarly mutawatir status of such decisive hadith as “My Ummah will not agree on the wrong” has been debatable. Invoking hadith to fixing interpretation of the Quran and reduction of sunnah to hadith has been contested not only Mu’tazilities but  many from the earliest times. Those who quote Imam Malik to quell dissenting opinions within the Tradition fail to practice his maxim that three things are baseless including Tafseer.

    Many of the key traditions cited in defense of certain sectarian or so-called mainstream positions are contested on well recognized grounds. For instance, “Ikhtlaf-i ummah rahmah” “Ulama are like prophets of Bani Israel” are judged fabricated. Hadith-I Ma’adh so central to codifying legal manuals is found problematic by hadith scholars.

Assumptions on Ijma

Almost all claims of ijma are debatable as the every definition of ijma is debatable. “Over reported Ijma”is a common lament amongst scholars.

Uncertainty Regarding Major Interpretation of  Issues of Faith and Practice

I quote William Chittick’s remarks about the central issue of belief in God:

…no two person’s understanding will ever be exactly the same—my belief in God will never be identical to your belief in God, my understanding of God cannot be the same as your understanding of God.There is one God, but an infinity of creatures and an infinity of beliefs about the one God. Even for a single person, there will never be “one understanding” and “one belief.” Anyone who is honest with himself knows that his understanding of things—not least of his own beliefs—is changing all the time, hopefully for the better—that is, more in conformity with tawhid.

    There is agreement on the words but not on interpretations, agreement on fundamentals of practice and doctrine but not on significant details. Take Tawhid. Imam Anwar says so much transcendence is not there as one would find in Salafis. Scholar and theologian of a stature of Ayub Dehlavi, for instance, says about the central doctrinal issue of Shahadah that kalimah laillaillah hae Muhammad rasullalah nahi (though this doesn’t mean non-centrality of affirmation of Muhammad’s messengerhood). And comments about the key notion of ibadah “Our ibadat kya hae yeh sawal hae” and then disputes usual views on ibada. About the vital concept of Spirit (Ruh) Allama Badr Aiyni has said that there are 70 opinions about Ruh. Allama Anwar Shah Kashmiri adds a note. Hell’s duration and what is it. There is also difference on whether God alone has knowledge of spirit. Badr Aiyni says Muhammad (PBUH) saw has but most disagree and he also disagrees. Differences on legal issues are legion as you have alternative opinions on almost every detail. From how to make ablution or what invalidates it to timing of prayers to emphasis on sunnah prayers to details of inheritance law and zakat/ushr/khams calculus in numerous concrete situations to obligation of sacrificing animals and other numerous routine ritual and other legal matters, we find huge differences. 

    What is certain is Islam calls for Tawhid, literally making one. There are many translations of La illaillallah and unending debates about Allah from etymological and other viewpoints and relation between essence and attributes and what constitutes tawhid or kinds of tawhid and unending controversies on what practice from invoking help of prophets and saints to use of amulets and local practices contradict pristine tawhid. 

    At a time when  God’s advocates are running huge enterprizes despite the fact that God appointed none and many behave as if God’s personal secretaries and issue edicts of excommunication to every mind who dares to think and engage with the Tradition more creatively and “so many Muslims are bound to textual literalism, when they see reason as an obstacle to faith, and when male hubris has reached such heights that a handful of (mostly Arab) men can claim to know the truth as it resides with God” it is important to remember the qualifying clauses that “literalism is not the essence of faith, that God’s will is not transparent but needs to be interpreted, and that no one can claim interpretive infallibility.”

Illustrating the Problem of Uncertainty in the Institution of Qurbani

Giving concrete questions that are routinely faced by Muslims on both individual and community basis, the elucidation of the problem of uncertainty and its implications on one’s commitment to faith or otherworldly prospects is important. It is a million dollar question asked at the time of annual festival of Eid whether one is required to perform animal sacrifice and if yes whether it suffices to do one from one’s family or one needs to do it on individual basis if there are several persons in a family with requisite wealth (nisab). Let us detail how many factors have to be factored in before issuing an edict regarding most aspects of qurbani in our time and space. 

    The debate on Qurbani misses comprehensive view of this institution and as such issuing an edict, especially enforceable edict, on it becomes more complicated.  Animal sacrifice is a feature of many world religions and understanding it requires engaging with scores of questions – involving religion, folk psychology, mythology, metaphysics, esoterism, anthropology. The meaning of sacrifice is either forgotten or ignored and we don’t find it being discussed in academic forms or mentioned in sermons. Anthropology, mythology and other sciences are hardly known in Muslim scholarship. Sophisticated discussions by Sufi sages are also largely forgotten. One of the measures of the depth of our engagement with the tradition of Islam is how we treat Qurbani as an institution. And how lax is our attitude towards complexities in the issue is evident by considering absence of the ethical in practice and FAQs or legal manuals on it. Consideration is welfare would question the current practice of choosing sacrificial animal from market. The author of Animal Welfare in Islam Al-Hafiz Basheer Ahmad  Masri says “If animals have been subjected to cruelties in their breeding, transport, slaughter, or in their general welfare, meat from them is considered impure and unlawful to eat (Haram). And we know that industrial farming fails to observe welfare in general, especially in our conditions. Before discussing more esoteric and philosophical questions, a brief overview of legal positions is in order to emphasize the complexity, breadth and open ended nature of Islamic legal tradition.

    There is no debate regarding obligation of Qurbani for hajj/umrah pilgrims. There is debate regarding wajib and sunnah status and thus warrant for occasional skipping of it for no reason. It is also debatable if each and every individual who can sacrifice should or it suffices if family head does it. And some extend this family to larger groups. Consideration of public interest (both environment and economy) and such juristic devices as isthisan (juristic preference) extend scope of modern arguments for more rational structuring of the institution especially individual/family as a unit of determining qurbani obligation/recommendation, factoring in cost of environmental impact and welfare index while declaring a qurbani valid and ensuring distribution of meat to the needy for an extended period.Given the narratives regarding major companions including Abu Bakr, Umar and Bilal (RA) stating they  desisted  from Qurbani and the last mentioned were critical of zeal for it turning it into a status symbol, we become further circumspect. And given ambivalence in the very foundational verse stating that to God doesn’t reach blood and flesh but our piety, literalism of Muslim community as a whole is more rooted in respective socio-economic and cultural profiles than in the canon. However, given such factors as perception of Qurbani amongst shaiair al-llah and something corresponding to it in most religions, the institution will survive all secularist demythologizing critique as redemptive use of sacrifice is deeply rooted in psycho-spiritual makeup of mankind. Sufis are reported to have said that if animal blood isn’t given to the earth, human blood will have to be avenged for. There is a deep psychological and spiritual truth hinted here as it is well known that life, as Nietzsche underscored, is essentially appropriation and injury and we find in the Quran a very profound articulation of a different but convergent point in the verse “Verily in revenge is life.” Humans share with animals life and parts of evolutionary history and if we could use a term from another tradition, karmic burden.  

    Animal sacrifice requires sacrificing part of oneself and ideal sacrifice is one where consent of animals is sought and they embrace death, so to speak. And there are many such cases reported to which many amongst us are witnesses – the animal is told to lay down and it complies. Why is it that human ritualistic or other transgressions need to be expiated by sacrificing animals? Why is it that we need to let grow hair and nails during first ten days of Zil Haj? Why is it that it is animals that are to be sacrificed and other forms of helping the needy can’t supplant this?  Why is it that it is emphasized we sacrifice with our own hands and paradoxically, ideally, personally grow rather than buy from market, take best care  and groom animals that are to be sacrificed. Development of fellowship with animals is a clue to the institution of qurbani and it is sadly lacking in our case when most animals are factory farmed and we don’t spend even few hours with animals and don’t know the special blessing of sacrificing with our own hands.

    Opposition to ritual slaughter from certain religious (such as Buddhist) and secularist quarters isn’t to be summarily dismissed. Its use is to critique extreme literalism and underscore the point that to God doesn’t reach blood and flesh besides showing relative value as against the absolute one and contextual significance of animal sacrifice. Islam has had wide variety of attitudes towards animals and animal sacrifice which are usually brushed aside. For instance, note the case of Ibn Arabi who maintains that “dumb beasts possess an exalted knowledge and understanding from God, and he concludes that anyone who considers himself superior to the beasts is ignorant of his own situation.” 

    Qurbani doesn’t involve spending money if we think as a community and Islam emphasizes to think as a community. Let us reflect on the credit and debit side of Qurbani to put in perspective those critiques that wish to substitute it by some welfarist stratagem. 

    We all need protein and what we get from animals sacrificed, usually at reasonable price, is animal protein. Given there is a provision to store meat for long period and we can store it, we don’t need to fear protein overload. And there are many other health and social and economic benefits associated with the institution of Qurbani.

    The Sufis have been mistakenly assumed to shun animal sacrifice. Major Sufis have been using sacrificial logic for faith healing and many other routine functions. Sufis are especially prompt in making sacrifices not only on Qurbani days but on other dates as well. When we get animals at reasonable rate we get our money’s worth of animal protein. As a community we are protein deficient and need more reasons for sacrificing animals. I would suggest every three months a niyaz for which a ram is sacrificed. We can as a community determine how many sheep can be grown organically with little stress on environment and it would be a net profit to individual and to community in terms of maintaining ecological balance.

    Whether we distribute or hoard meet, the supply of protein we get is hardly affected as we get in turn from others what we distribute, roughly of similar quality and quantity or even more. We need to get from market in piece meals what we get at one go from Qurbani. When we sacrifice animal at home we get a sense of festivity that is to be treasured. And if people  refuse to buy others will refuse to grow and grasses will not be consumed in pastures etc. and we on the whole are losers as a community. 

    We need to note the following point in perspective some arguments in the air from more liberal circles:

Japanese arguments for the consumption of meat, including those made by Shin Buddhist clerics, have adopted a sacrificial reasoning. Unlike earlier Buddhist discourses that stigmatized meat consumption or averted the human gaze from the slaughter, contemporary Japanese discourses propose that witnessing the killing of animals makes the consumption of meat wholesome, as long as humans avoid wastefulness and express their gratitude for the animals’ sacrifice. Contemporary Japanese Shin Buddhism embraces a sacrificial logic as a critique of mindless consumerism. Recognizing the indebtedness of humans to animals, creates an opening for reflection that makes it possible to see animals as subjects and to de-stigmatize the labor involved in animal slaughter and the manufacture of animal-based products.

Implications of the Above on the Question of Salvation

Since focus on correct doctrinal view and practice is ultimately linked to the question of salvation in the worldview of a believer, it is imperative to clarify implication on salvation of this debate on certitude. We need to spell our clearly theory of salvation and salvific function of opinions and practices. The following points have been put forth by the present author in one of his weekly columns in Greater Kashmir and are reproduced from there to present the arguments.

• Is our fate in the otherworld linked to following particular juristic school in a given case? Is animal sacrifice (qurbani) mandatory for every individual who can afford it (sahibi Istita'at)? Is the popular understanding of qurbani (especially Hanafi one) based on certain reading of prophetic traditions uncontested in Islamic tradition?  No is the answer to all these questions. Let us explore why. And our inquiry would be relevant to other important issues that often divide us, declare us guilty or cause us to take positions that we are not sure, at some level, we should be identifying with.
  
  
•  It is often forgotten by legists who make certain legal opinions  as if a matter of life and death and resent picking and choosing the most convincing opinion  across schools in a given case, that hell only punishes gross violation of moral law and that moral law is essentially shared by Semitic and non-Semitic religions. A review of eschatological corpus of Islam reveals mostly silence on the issues – or God’s non-interest – that are vehemently advocated by legists and one wonders whom to make responsible for unnecessary guilt and hardship. Issues that divide Muslim legal schools or “modernists” and “traditionalists” mostly make little or no difference to one’s otherworldly prospects and as such should have been less rigidly taken or the other position more empathized with by either camp. Much of the legal corpus sustains varied orthodox readings and there is “dissent between the various schools on almost all questions of law” implying certain neutrality/wide latitude in terms of otherworldly implications. On the issue of qurbani we find significant dissent and thus different options remain open to consider without impacting prospects of salvation.
  
  
• What saves us from hell is surrender of will (as is meaning of islam) that wants to have a kingdom of its own and claims agency and reward or sanctity. (Sin is to have claimed that I haven’t sinned, as Ibn Hazm remarks in his Al-fasl fil al-Milal wal-Nihal).
  
  
• Istihsan, validated by majority of jurists, is for avoiding “any rigidity and unfairness that might result from literal application of law.” A major jurist Al-Sarakhsi considers Istihsan as “a method of seeking facility and ease in legal injunctions.”
  
  
• The terms Farz, Wajib, Sunnah, Mustahab etc. have been fashioned by jurists and may often be contested, at least in application, and are even quite fluid and there are intra and inter-schools disputations regarding the status of most of particular rulings about which we ordinarily are supposed to chose in absolutist terms.
  
  
• Since it is unambiguously granted that our; a) salvation is not linked to following this or that school of Fiqh (Imam Kashmiri, the great advocate of Hanafi school, has given us a telling confession stating his energies would have been better spent elsewhere as ultimately God didn’t mind our following this or that school) b) there are well attested opinions amongst the Salaf that go against the supposed obligational nature of individual qurbani (one may see examples and more insightful discussion of prophetic traditions supposed to imply obligational character in Amaar Khan Nasir’s “Qurbani: Nawiyet, Wujoob-o-Istihbab” on http://ibcurdu.com/news/31880) and  c) we have now arguments from considerations of Maqasid-i-Shariah that lead to revisit the position of individual obligation, let us resist absolutism on this issue. Given wide prevalence of divergence in interpretations from the age of Companions till date and given the possibility that our interpretation may be wrong/not final or may miss something more profound that may be revealed later in time and given the consideration that the words of God or Prophet (SAW) are final but our interpretation of them can’t be final let us consider views of those who think differently without going outside the bounds of Tradition. One can chose from diverse opinions (qurbani is wajib/mandub  individually/for head of family/collectively), that better satisfy our mind and conscience and express better the spirit underlying all legislation which is removal rather than imposing of constraint/hardship. So when you, as an individual, are in doubt concerning any ruling or its true meaning and scope or spirit, search for the diverse opinions held by mujtahids and jurists of all schools and choose the one that furthers love of God and love of neighbour. Since ulama or jurists differ and none of them may be a prioirly  or necessarily correct in a given case and it is not demanded by God/Tradition to follow any one scholar or school in all matters till eternity (scholars of different schools have sometimes opted for views from another school in certain issues) and knowing well that mountains wouldn’t fall because of differences in opinion which are bound to arise because it is the domain of will or action which is linked to different contexts and historicity, let us not be trapped in holier than thou attitude and accuse those who sacrifice one animal per family of miserliness/being bad Muslims. I recall Mujahidul Islam Qasmi, among others, who pleaded for more open attitude to talfeeq (picking and choosing opinions from other schools)…. The time has come to exercise, for capable jurists, (although many, including God fearing Muslims, have already embraced it in practice!) talfeeq on many issues including the issue of qurbani or any issue that one finds incompatible with larger understanding of Tradition grounded in Metaphysics as Scientia Sacra and embracing every tradition we know about without ignoring insightful new thinking respectfully engaging with our worthy predecessor. Qurbani has been a part of Islamic Shariah but the fiqh of it – its exact form and popularly supposed obligation on every individual who can afford – has been a matter of debate and thus open to interpretation. For an individual (though not for the collectivity/Ummah) to choose or not to choose to do qurbani on particular Eid remains an option for which God will not take him/her to task. (http://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/opinion/revisiting-the-debate-on-qurbani/259069.html)

Conclusion

Recognizing the fact that it is salvation/felicity that is the key rationale for seeking to observe the revealed Norm and knowing the divine injunctions, and noting that it is certitude that would be required before demanding a belief or an action decisive  for salvation, let us evaluate certain FAQs that cause so much debate and guilt in the Muslim world. There is evidence far short of certitude in dispatching those involved in such controversial practices as visiting shrines, celebrating  anniversaries of saints, faith healing, prayer food culture, invoking saints for help etc. to hell on account of shirk. Dominant views regarding much of what is subject of heated controversy regarding minority rights, women’s rights and such issues as not sticking to segregation on the basis of sex, donning burqa/hijab, cutting hair short shoulder height or exposing hair, shaping brows etc. all are based on evidences short of certitude in the text and as such one’s particular choice regarding them would not earn hell. Similarly damning people for not subscribing to belief in Mahdi and Dajjal, eternity of hell, punishing apostates with death, exclusive salvation of Muslims as a default position, or going for intersect and inter-religious marriage especially marrying girls from such faith communities considered to be resembling the People of the Book is not admissible as evidence for all these omissions and commissions is short of requisite certitude. Muslim scholars who hold alternative opinions on the above mentioned issues based on their own reading of texts or ijtihad and those who act upon them can’t be supposed to have earned hell.