Case Studies
1. SOME CASE STUDIES TO SHOW WHY SOME REFORM IS NECESSARY
EXAMPLES OF RITUAL
Before we delve into this subject I cannot emphasise enough that I am not after changing the time-honoured rulings of the Sharia worked out over several centuries by our great jurists. This would be a very controversial and dangerous enterprise even when it could be justified in some instances and for some cases. The most difficult and dangerous thing in religion is challenging old wisdoms since these over time come to gain the sanctity almost equal to if not in some instances exceeding the authority of the letter of the Qur’an and Hadith as the case could be.
For example and to begin with a hopefully less dangerous challenge: Our religious instruction books usually teach that the prophets of Allah are of two kinds: Those fewer and greater figures who are sent with a Book and Law (Sharia) are called ‘rasul’ which means messenger on top of being prophets (nabi). On the other hand, those who a revealed to by Allah and appointed as teachers from Allah to their people without being given a book and law are not messengers (rusul, mursaleen) but only prophets (anbiya in plural and nabi in singular). Yet, if we care to admit that Allah knows better Arabic and can speak with more authority than our jurists we can easily debunk this unnecessary pseudo-refinement of terminology. For example, these jurists say that while Abraham was a messenger his son Ishmael was only a prophet and had to practice the law he had inherited from his father. Yet Allah, not the least worried about His future Muslim jurist servants call Ishmael ‘nabiyyan rasulan’ (19: 54) as He calls Joseph was know to be (40: 34). Again, in the course of Allah mentioning several prophets in succession which include Moses, an unnamed leader after him is also mentioned Talut, a leader who, on the request of the Israelis seeking a leader to wage holy war under, nominates as their king. He All-Knowing concludes the mention of these several holy persons with the clause ‘tilka’l rusuli’, i.e, these are messengers (2: 253).
This is not the only example where we find an incredibly reckless discrepancy between the language and word of Allah and the terminology invented by some of our jurists which replaced Allah’s own choices for the same concepts. This I a
Let this single example for departing from Allah’s Word while wandering off into the speculations of creed and terminology suffice. We may not look at the area of ritual practice for another example of taking reckless liberties with Allah’s prescriptions.
Let us read the verse about fasting:
“(Fasting has been prescribed for you) for a number of days. Whoever fro
Here it is explicit that fasting may be replaced by feeding or sponsoring the feeding of the poor when the person concerned finds fasting almost unbearable despite his best efforts. The later stipulations like ‘he should certify his unsuitability for fasting by obtaining a competent doctor’s certificate etc. are unjustifiable, over-zealous after thoughts. In the verse above Allah is not mincing His words: He is saying that if a person, despite trying in good will and repeatedly (for how can one be sure that when something looks hard at the first try will not look easier if repeated a few times more with good will?). What is more by all the other evidence in the Qur’an, Allah hardly loves any pious act more than helping the less fortunate servants of His.
With the above analysis I do not mean fasting should be put aside easily and price for daily meals be paid to the poor in lieu. Allah is saying that both fasting and charity on top is best. Nothing could be lovelier. But this is one thing and tightening up something which Allah did not choose to tighten is both over-zeal and misguided. We are not allowed to either ‘improve’ on Allah’s prescriptions (support Him when He is not effective enough!!!) or contrarily to subvert Him out of ou ‘superior mercy’ than His. So, I am not advocating the replacement of fasting with feeding the poor but only recognising that the criteria for finding what is too hard for a servant to his own conscience and not anathematise and terrorise him by condemnations Allah did not issue. No tightening up is necessary: fasting done with loathing and protest inside the heart can only corrode faith. It is no wonder that some fasters are so cross and may be so mean during the days of fasting and so voracious throughout the night and if one such a drinker he will rush to the drink bottle as soon as Ramadan ends. If people think they cannot fast it is their business and no ‘improvement’ is necessary in ‘closing the loopholes’ in the Word of Allah. There are no loopholes at all except when designed to allow some merciful tolerances, tolerances which should be allowed to stand.
Before we move on to more examples of unnecessary and implausible as well as wildly divergent fatwas whether on fasting or other matters let us first read the ‘mind of the lawgiver’ from the verses like:
“Allah means ease for you and He does not mean hardship for you” (2: 185)- this occurs in the course of discussing fasting but should apply to everything about Islam’s laws really. Another piece of a verse reads:
“Allah will not charge a soul (person) beyond its capacity… Our Lord, Do not prosecute us if we forget or make a mistake, Our Lord do not place a burden on us we cannot bear, spare us, forgive us…” (2: 286)
Now let us compare these basic and infallible rules (infallible because Allah formulated them) with some fatwas which compete with other fatwas on the same issues: It is argued that forgetting that it is Ramadan daytime and therefore eating any kind and amount of food will not annul the fast. So one can feast on a whole lamb leg and drink a litre of cold water or sherbets and his fast will stand provided he stops eating and drinking as soon as (and if) he remembers that it is Ramadan and he had intended fasting that day. This is perfectly true because ‘forgetting’ is a human failure which Allah accepts as an excuse to absolve His servants from responsibility. But that is not all: He also accepts making an accidental mistake. Hence by granting that eating and drinking by forgetting during fasting is a sound decision whether ‘hadith’ supports it or not. In this case hadith supports this; in other words because the hadith about this matter agrees with the Word of Allah it can only be true. But a fatwa about swallowing something however small and irrelevant to nutrition by accident rule that the fast will be annulled. What happens then?
Why, the first part phrase, namely ‘Our Lord do not prosecute us if we forget’ is rightly employed while in the case of swallowing something by accident is refused as an excuse despite the next part of the same verse, namely ‘if we make a mistake, i.e., suffer an accidental lapse’! Page after page fiqh books discuss matters like a cobbler or tailor wetting the thread he is using to sew up his articles and argue about whether the colour of the thread released to his saliva and swallowing of that saliva will annul the fast. One sagely rules: If the colour overpowers the saliva its swallowing will annul the fast! Another debate is whether the accidental escape of a pebble into the back passage will annul the fast. Some argued it will. Similarly, if one is shot by an arrow, the arrow breaks and the tip remains embedded in the flesh, is the fast annulled? Some say yes some say no. The more sensible however point out that for any piece of matter to annul a fast by passing through the orifices or otherwise penetrating the barriers of the body must have nutritional value, like quenching the thirst or supplying energy. And hundreds of such hair-splitting, disagreements-breeding materials! They are forgetting the advice of both Allah in Surat al Baqara concerning the matter of the Israelis sacrificing a cow and the Prophet’s remark that rather than making life difficult for themselves by poking into more and more details and aspects of a legal issue the believers should just take the commandments at their most obvious and concise face value and implement the
The wudhu verse reads: “When you are about to rise to pray (salat)
The above list can only be full and enough although there will be a lot of good to add some details from genuine Hadith which our ulema did. There is a bone of contention though between us the Sunnis and the Shia. We read the ‘feet’/’arjul’ part with a ‘fatha’ which makes it read ‘erjulakum’ and adds it to the parts to be washed. This sentence structure is common in the Qur’an, that is to say enumerate a number of things and mention the last member of the list after an interposed judgment (hukm). An example of this can be “Allah is far from the polytheists and His Messenger” (9: 3). In English such a sentence means “Allah is far from both the polytheists and His Messenger”. But the tittles (wovel marks) on the Arabic words decide the matter. The word ‘His Messenger’ is written as ‘Rasuluhu’ and not ‘Rasulihi’ which rules in the sense that both Allah and His Messenger are far from the polytheists and NOT that Allah is far from both parties. The same with the wudhu verse: We Sunnis read it as arjulakum’ which makes washing the feet obligatory while the Shia read it as ‘arjulikum’ which adds the feet to the head to be only wiped. Because tittles were added to the Qur’an decades later a reader not guided by a hadith he could rely on could be excused to read it either way. Such ambiguities are not infrequent in the Qur’an and must be deliberate by its Author enabling Him to instal some relief or alternative to cater for varied needs.
This seems to be borne out in the wudhu verse well: Later the Prophet allowed the feet to be washed only once a day and provided some suitable footwear was put on the person could just wipe over the footwear at his repeated wudhus. During travel, this grace period was extended to three days and nights. Clearly the verse, read the Sunni way, does not provide for this concession but read the Shia way it provides more than it: It allows wipe only option at all times. As in most such constructively ambiguous cases the truth must be in the middle: wash your feet at least once a day so that they are cleansed and for the rest of the times wipe over footwear which now is keeping your feet clean. Why wipe over footwear at all, you may ask. The same as for wiping the top of the head- to remove at least the dust which begins to cover such up-looking parts! After all, the messiest operation in wudhu is washing either or both of the head and the feet. In some reputable hadiths we also see wiping over the head-cover, e.g, the turban as practiced by the Prophet which shows that the whole wudhu operation is about cleansing the most exposed and used parts of the parts of the body among which hands and face and if not covered feet are messed up most while top of the head and in case the feet are covered then the feet are less in need of frequent cleansing by water. In the fuller list of wudhu washings as described in hadith to the wipe list the back of the neck and the inside of the ears are added- obviously these parts need some wet-wipe treatment. The list becomes complete when the inner mouth is rinsed and if necessary brushed and the nose blown withy water being drawn in first. So, as we see, the idea is a kind of cleansing of the most easily messed parts of the body, some being cleansed only by flowing water and some by a wet wipe. And rightly so, hands and arms may always be busy with handling all sorts of objects and thereby easily messed while the top of the head can only gather a little bit of dust. Wash the first and just wipe the second then.
The wording of the verse is therefore a miracle of both brevity and constructive ambiguity. For its part, the fasting verse is less ambiguous or I dare say not ambiguous at all. Each believer seems to be made the judge about his or her ability to fast: that does not mean that they could treat the matter lightly- they must really be conscientious and honest: fasting is not difficult for a healthy person and often even for some sick. It simply boils down to missing a day meal with some additional thirst.
But if the person concerned, despite repeated conscientious tries and despite then support from friends, decides that it is not for him or her then he or she may substitute it with charity as prescribed. That difficulty need not be too terrible is glaringly obvious from the phrase ‘that you fast is better for you if you but knew’. How can Allah propose fasting to a servant who finds it simply beyond his or her capacity? After all He All-Gracious says “Allah will not charge a soul beyond its capacity” (2: 256). The allowance is simply there to defuse a deep resentment on the part of a not too strong servant and allow him or her make do with charity to the poor which is a more helpful service to humanity than a very reluctant and resentful if brief hunger. Lastly, Allah swings to another form of grace within that tiny space provide by that miraculous verse “Whoever opts for voluntary extra (both fast and render charity) does better”. Isn’t that wonderful in the extreme? Allahu Akbar!
At the expense of repeating myself I a
What wisdom we may read fro
In my humble opinion ‘ahl al ra’y’ (rational opinion forming) school of jurists have been more sensible than ‘ahl al hadith’ (forming opinions on the basis of alleged hadiths) school. The former never ignored hadith but examined and used them judiciously. On the other hand they fully took notice of the Qur’an and all hadiths which did not fly in the face of the Qur’an but mostly agreed with its word or at least spirit. For their part ashab al hadith sometimes preferred their hadiths to the Qur’an ‘explaining’ that the Prophet had abrogated the verses concerned. Well, we would accept that if the verse “It is impossible for me to change it (the Qur’an) of my own accord. I only follow what is revealed to me…” (10: 15).
What ahl al hadith do not understand is the obvious fact that from the time of the first man and the first prophet Adam not only the personal words and examples of the prophets but also the revelations made to them have been corrupted and part lost, part invented by their followers and although this was escaped in the case of the Qur’an it was anything but even largely escaped in the case of Hadith. Taken as a whole corpus the number of unreliable hadiths in all the named compilations of them, beginning with that most reliable (but by no means and nowhere as reliable as the Qur’an) Al Bukhari and then Al-Muslim, all the way down to al Suyuti’s and later compilations and then almost apocryphal heroics where the Prophet is almost totally mythicalised if not deified and plainly ‘novels’ about the Prophet and popular heroes like Jesus, Khidr, Ali etc are hailed in support of whom legions of implausible hadiths are proffered as are those hadiths about the political and scholarly figures are glorified or condemned as the case may be… all these make hadith a minefield of delusion and abuse and as he said the Prophet could not be farther away from such material and such material farther away from him.
In passing we may surmise on what may have caused such irresponsible and reckless proliferation of hadiths over the first ten centuries of Islam (can you imagine, we also meet hadiths on tobacco!!!, first seen in the East in the 16th century). Two things I think: First, to gain an unfair scholarly or political advantage over adversaries. Second, to attract attention and attain popularity even it took to invent exciting spiritual-romantic novels and science-fiction-like, well-selling compilations.
Lastly the naïve claim that hadith compliers did or could do enough to ensure the reliability of their chosen hadiths by checking on the character and reliability of each and every member mentioned in the transmission chain of the hadiths concerned can only be seen as pious good opinion so desired of each and every Muslim. Yes, we should entertain good opinions about each and every Muslim brother and sister until and unless proof to the otherwise reaches us. But how on earth could the character and technical reliability of each and every hadith transmitter be checked fully in an age when there were no registers of births and deaths, no official files on anybody, no enough time to make all those travels, write down all those details and the hadiths themselves. For example it is obviously apocryphally boasted that Imam Bukhari knew and selected his about two thousand or so hadiths in his famous compilation fro
Imam Malik so fresh and recent after the age of the sahaba and tabe’een had already collected all the lore of Prophet’s very town the Medina while Abu Hanifa, as a member of taba-e tabe’een (he was a young scholar by 100 AH raised on the still fresh lore of the like us our masters Ali and ibn Mas’ud (RAnhuma) and an almost incomparable genius of both crystal clear rational thinking and most moving piety. Fiqh was already near-perfect at the time of Abu Hanifa and his brilliant pupils who then contributed to the success of al Shafe’e. Al Bukhari came more than a century after these masters of Islamic jurisprudence (and some of theology as well) and the other imams of the six still later. The later jurists’ increasing dependence on these later and later hadith compilers did certainly achieve some genuine improvements and growth to fiqh but it also created a playing field for more dubious and more wasteful growths. One may read those often condemnatory and otherwise vindictive debates and struggles among many jurists and the occasional inquisitions, persecutions and bloodshed to gain an idea what sort of a Pandora’s Box later theology and jurisprudence activities opened. All began simple, pious and economical with the likes of Abu Hanifa and Malik and increasingly descended into a Medieval tragedy and scandal as centuries passed, excepting some bright lights of correct guidance like Ghazali and the like. Legal tricks (hiyal al fiqhiyya) proliferated until almost any judgment could be procured provided the questions were formulated so skilfully that the answering fatwas became foregone conclusions. May Allah forgive all of us past, present and future for our follies.