This is another entry about the dire importance of scholarship today to understand things in their proper context. The following is an excerpt from a question to Ustadh Faraz A. Khan about abrogation, and specifically in reference to the famous 'verse of the sword.' The answer is poetic and enlightening, and incredibly important given the number of accusations today about Islam being a violent religion based on certain hadith that are not properly understood....
"This question is of course far too broad to be addressed in this discussion, but perhaps it is sufficient to examine the three verses dealing with peace that you mention in your question.
1) “Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits, for Allah loveth not transgressors.” (2:190)
In his Qur’anic exegesis, Imam Fakhr al-Din Razi rejects the opinion that this verse was abrogated, and interprets the phrase “do not transgress limits” as a timeless prohibition of breaking covenants, deception, or attacking non-combatants such as women, children, or the elderly. This interpretation of “trangression” is affirmed by major commentators of the Qur’an, such as Imam Biqa`i, who adds under trangression “to continue fighting with a people that want to make peace, even though they had initiated fighting in the first place.”
[Razi, Mafatih al-Ghayb; Biqa`i, Nadhm al-Durar]
2) “But if the enemy inclines towards peace, you too incline towards peace.” (8:61)
The great exegete Imam Zamakhshari denies that this verse was abrogated, as many claimed. Imam Biqa`i also interprets the verse as applicable to all times.
[Zamakhshari, Kashshaf; Biqa`i, Nadhm al-Durar]
It is also important to keep in mind what we mentioned above, namely, that many of the early Muslims [salaf] that understood the verses of fighting as abrogators of the verses of peace did so based on a very broad definition of abrogation, which would include specification or limiting general verses or making exceptions to general verses. And many later scholars would often simply cite those early Muslims as stating that such-and-such was “abrogated.” The intent was not that the earlier verses of peace had no application anymore, but rather that their application was no longer broad and general for all situations. This is why several later scholars [as we have seen] rejected the notion of abrogation of these verses, based on their more formal definition of “complete annulment of a legal ruling,” which certainly is not the case with verses of peace.
This also sheds light as to what our illustrious early Imams might have meant with statements such as, “No one is allowed to give explanation [tafsir] of the Book of Allah until they understand abrogation.” That is, unless they understand which verses serve to limit the scope of other verses, specify the generality of other verses, make exceptions to other verses, and completely annul the rulings of other verses. It is no wonder, then, that commentary on the Qur’an was not allowed without understanding this very broad meaning of “abrogation.”
3) “There is no compulsion in religion.” (2:256): The concept that this verse was abrogated is directly related to the understanding - or misunderstanding - of the following hadith.
“I was ordered to fight people…”
One well-known hadith that is often misunderstood is as follows:
“I was ordered to fight people until they bear witness that there is no deity except Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah; establish the ritual prayer; and pay almsgiving. So if they do that, their lives and wealth are safe from me, except for a right recognized in Islam. Their accounting, however, will be with Allah.” [Bukhari, Muslim]
Unfortunately, this text is often grossly misinterpreted as calling for continuous “holy war” against all non-Muslims until and unless they become Muslim. But examination of context and scholarly interpretation reveals that the hadith by no means refers to all people and is not calling for any sort of war, holy or unholy. The key to understanding the hadith, then, is to understand who exactly is meant by the word “people” in the statement, “I was ordered to fight people.”
This same hadith has various narrations as recorded by different hadith scholars. Imam Nasa’i’s narration reads: “I was ordered to fight the polytheists” rather than the word “people,” and it is an established principle in hadith methodology that various narrations of the same hadith serve to clarify its actual meaning. Hence, the narration of Imam Nasa’i indicates that the word “people” in the first narration does not refer to all people, but rather a specific group of people, namely, certain polytheists. This understanding is confirmed by both the Qur’an and the Sunna, as many incidents in the life of the Prophet [peace and blessings be upon him] clearly show that all of humanity was not intended in the hadith.
This understanding is also confirmed by our codified legal tradition, which is a reflection of the Qur’an and Sunna. Imam Abu Hanifa and his legal school limited this hadith to only the polytheists among the Arabs. And Imam Malik and his legal school limited it to only the Quraysh tribe among them. [Ibn Battal, Sharh al-Bukhari]
That is to say, according to both schools of law, all non-Arabs are excluded from the hadith - whether polytheists, atheists, Jews, Christians, or otherwise. Among the Arabs, any group that does not worship idols are also excluded, whether Jews, Christians, Magians, or otherwise. Only Arab polytheists - or perhaps just the tribe of Quraysh among them - were being addressed by the Messenger [peace and blessings be upon him]. Incidentally, the Hanafi and Maliki schools historically and up to today have constituted the vast majority of the Muslim world.
Imam Kasani, the eminent 6th-century Hanafi jurist, explains that the reasoning of this position is based on the difference between Arab polytheists and all other peoples, including People of the Book [i.e., Jews and Christians, Arab or non-Arab] and non-Arab polytheists. With respect to peoples other than Arab polytheists, it is hoped that by mutual coexistence between them and Muslims, they will be drawn to Islam after reflecting over the beauty of the religion and its Sacred Law [shari'a]. [f: And that hope is sufficient; whether they become Muslim or not is irrelevant to the Hanafi and Maliki perspective that they are not addressed by the hadith.]
The nature of Arab polytheists, however, was to reject anything that conflicted with their customs and traditions, deeming all else to be madness and worthy of scornful ridicule. They were a people - as repeatedly mentioned in the Qur’an - that refused to reflect over anything but “the ways of their forefathers.” Therefore, because the Messenger of Allah [peace and blessings be upon him] was from their same tribe and knew them intimately, he gave them no option but acceptance of Islam or fighting [f: And this statement, of course, was after years of being oppressed by those Arab polytheists].
[Kasani, Bada'i al-Sana'i]
The great early Hanafi jurist and legal theorist, Abu Bakr al-Jassas, confirms this understanding with respect to both the above hadith as well as the related verse, “There is no compulsion in religion” (2:256). In fact, he states that all the early Meccan verses of peace and forbearance with respect to non-Muslims remain in effect and are not abrogated with respect to all peoples other than the Arab polytheists. And with respect to all the later verses commanding Muslims to fight the polytheists, they abrogate the early verses of peace only with respect to the Arab polytheists.
This understanding is also confirmed by the early Hanafi scholar Abu Layth al-Samarqandi, who comments on the verse “There is no compulsion in religion” (2:256), “That is, do not compel anyone whatsoever to this religion, after the Conquest of Mecca and after the Arabs become Muslim [i.e., the Arab polytheists of that time].”
[Jassas, Ahkam al-Qur'an; Samarqandi, Bahr al-Ulum]
Friday, November 26, 2010
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Islam, God and the shining light of love
by William C Chittick
Source: The Huffington Post
Nov 23 2010
“God is love,” the New Testament teaches, and Muslim theologians would respond, “But of course.” The problem is that we are not God. As Jesus said, “Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is, God ” (Mark 10:18). There is no authentic love but one, that is, God. This is tawhid, the assertion of divine unity that is the foundation of Islamic thought.
Religious discussions of love sometimes address how it descends from its divine status and intermingles with human affairs. In any case, everyone recognizes its attractive power, even if they disagree as to what it is and where it comes from. Rumi mentions the two extremes of disagreement in the verse,
For the elect, love is a tremendous eternal light,
for the common people, love is form and appetite. (Divan 18197)
“The elect and the common people” is an expression used in all branches of Islamic learning to distinguish between the experts and the uninformed. For Rumi, the experts are the prophets and saints.
To think that love is “form and appetite” is to imagine that it derives from the realm of sense perception and biological processes. Rumi has nothing against form and appetite, but he sees the distinctiveness of human nature to lie in its openness to the tremendous eternal light.
“Eternal” (qadim) means unchanging. The word is contrasted with “newly arrived” (muhdath), which means dwelling under the sway of time and alteration. God is eternal, and everything other than God — the universe and all it contains — fades away. We change, the eternal light stays the same. We have the appearance of reality, but every appearance disappears.
The Quran says that God is “the light of the heavens and the earth” (24:35). The heavens are the high realms of spiritual beings (such as angels and souls), and the earth is the low realm of bodily things. Nothing appears without light. The more intense the light, however, the more difficult it is to see, which explains why the spiritual realm is invisible. No one can imagine the upper limit of physical light, much less that of nonphysical light, which is the consciousness that animates the heavens and the earth.
Spiritual traditions speak of ascending levels of nonphysical illumination, beginning with the obscure sparkles that typify everyday awareness and culminating in the infinite light of the eternal Self. In the Quran’s retelling of the story of Moses and the Burning Bush, the light said, “I indeed am God; there is no god but I” (20:14): There is no god but God’s very Self, the light of the heavens and the earth.
Rumi’s verse, in short, refers to the axiom of tawhid, the fact that there is no true light but the divine light and no true love but the divine love. Everything in heaven and earth is the reverberation of the loving light. Each thing arrives newly and departs just as quickly. In relation to the universe, God is like the moon in relation to flowing water. As Rumi puts it,
The creatures are like water, limpid and pure,
shining therein the attributes of the majestic God…
Ages have passed, and this is a new age.
The moon is the same, but the water is not.
(Mathnawi 6: 3172, 3175)
Our scientific worldview is rooted in the measurable, but love and God are immeasurable. Scientific theories that speak of love naturally tend to agree with Rumi’s common people: Love is form and appetite, feeling and emotion, impulses in the brain — all these can be measured. The Quranic and Biblical worldviews see love as none other than the only reality that truly is. The word “reality,” of course, fails to stir the heart, and “love” calls for commitment. Those who answer the call can transform themselves and the world.
Among the many mentions of love in the Quran, the favourite verse of love-theorists is this: “He loves them, and they love Him” (5:54). This verse puts the Islamic worldview in a nutshell: God brought the universe into existence because of his love for human beings. Human beings fulfil their calling by loving God.
The radiance of love’s eternal light gives rise to the universe. The goal of love is to overcome separation, to bridge gaps, to bring the two lovers together as one. If love is to do its work, people must recognize the light and love it in return.
“He loves them” brought them into existence. Their recognition of the light feeds “They love Him.” Once love intervenes, form and appetite lose their lustre.
The final goal of lovers is to join the shining light at its source. The power that works this transformation is love. One of the many Quranic names of God is “friend” (wali), an Arabic word that combines the senses of “lover” and “helper.” Both meanings can be seen in the verse, “God is the friend of those who have faith. He brings them out of the darkness into the light” (2:257).
Source: The Huffington Post
Nov 23 2010
“God is love,” the New Testament teaches, and Muslim theologians would respond, “But of course.” The problem is that we are not God. As Jesus said, “Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is, God ” (Mark 10:18). There is no authentic love but one, that is, God. This is tawhid, the assertion of divine unity that is the foundation of Islamic thought.
Religious discussions of love sometimes address how it descends from its divine status and intermingles with human affairs. In any case, everyone recognizes its attractive power, even if they disagree as to what it is and where it comes from. Rumi mentions the two extremes of disagreement in the verse,
For the elect, love is a tremendous eternal light,
for the common people, love is form and appetite. (Divan 18197)
“The elect and the common people” is an expression used in all branches of Islamic learning to distinguish between the experts and the uninformed. For Rumi, the experts are the prophets and saints.
To think that love is “form and appetite” is to imagine that it derives from the realm of sense perception and biological processes. Rumi has nothing against form and appetite, but he sees the distinctiveness of human nature to lie in its openness to the tremendous eternal light.
“Eternal” (qadim) means unchanging. The word is contrasted with “newly arrived” (muhdath), which means dwelling under the sway of time and alteration. God is eternal, and everything other than God — the universe and all it contains — fades away. We change, the eternal light stays the same. We have the appearance of reality, but every appearance disappears.
The Quran says that God is “the light of the heavens and the earth” (24:35). The heavens are the high realms of spiritual beings (such as angels and souls), and the earth is the low realm of bodily things. Nothing appears without light. The more intense the light, however, the more difficult it is to see, which explains why the spiritual realm is invisible. No one can imagine the upper limit of physical light, much less that of nonphysical light, which is the consciousness that animates the heavens and the earth.
Spiritual traditions speak of ascending levels of nonphysical illumination, beginning with the obscure sparkles that typify everyday awareness and culminating in the infinite light of the eternal Self. In the Quran’s retelling of the story of Moses and the Burning Bush, the light said, “I indeed am God; there is no god but I” (20:14): There is no god but God’s very Self, the light of the heavens and the earth.
Rumi’s verse, in short, refers to the axiom of tawhid, the fact that there is no true light but the divine light and no true love but the divine love. Everything in heaven and earth is the reverberation of the loving light. Each thing arrives newly and departs just as quickly. In relation to the universe, God is like the moon in relation to flowing water. As Rumi puts it,
The creatures are like water, limpid and pure,
shining therein the attributes of the majestic God…
Ages have passed, and this is a new age.
The moon is the same, but the water is not.
(Mathnawi 6: 3172, 3175)
Our scientific worldview is rooted in the measurable, but love and God are immeasurable. Scientific theories that speak of love naturally tend to agree with Rumi’s common people: Love is form and appetite, feeling and emotion, impulses in the brain — all these can be measured. The Quranic and Biblical worldviews see love as none other than the only reality that truly is. The word “reality,” of course, fails to stir the heart, and “love” calls for commitment. Those who answer the call can transform themselves and the world.
Among the many mentions of love in the Quran, the favourite verse of love-theorists is this: “He loves them, and they love Him” (5:54). This verse puts the Islamic worldview in a nutshell: God brought the universe into existence because of his love for human beings. Human beings fulfil their calling by loving God.
The radiance of love’s eternal light gives rise to the universe. The goal of love is to overcome separation, to bridge gaps, to bring the two lovers together as one. If love is to do its work, people must recognize the light and love it in return.
“He loves them” brought them into existence. Their recognition of the light feeds “They love Him.” Once love intervenes, form and appetite lose their lustre.
The final goal of lovers is to join the shining light at its source. The power that works this transformation is love. One of the many Quranic names of God is “friend” (wali), an Arabic word that combines the senses of “lover” and “helper.” Both meanings can be seen in the verse, “God is the friend of those who have faith. He brings them out of the darkness into the light” (2:257).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)