One of the best documentaries on Islam I have come across. Here it is: Part 1, 2 and 3. It dives deep into how the Sunnah, Hadith and especially the Quran are interpreted differently by different Muslims all over the world. It even delves into the controversial “Pigs & Apes” Quranic verse. After the documentary is over, one might question, “so which interpretation is correct?” That’s where the principles of Ijma and Qiyas come in. Ijma is the consensus of Islamic scholars regarding various aspects of the Sharia. A group of Islamic scholars get together, discuss and come up with a consensus regarding a certain issue. The problem with how Ijma is carried out today is that it’s only carried out by a number of Islamic scholars or so called “scholars” and is being monopolized by them rather than being open for more Muslims to participate in. Another problem is that the principle of Ijtihad is almost non-existant now in many parts of the Muslim world. It was because of Ijtihad that the Islamic civilization achieved many wonders. It’s not a big surprise that there’s little Ijtihad taking place nowadays in the Muslim world. After all, illiteracy is very high and when illiteracy is very high, those who read will be the only ones able to interpret Islamic sources as they please. Moreover Islamic scholars in the past always had and continue to have a habit of defining who and who cannot engage in Ijtihad. Such definitions themselves are a form of monopoly in my opinion. More to come. Meanwhile I’m busy and my computer is still screwed. I’m using my brother’s computer right now. He went out for a while and he’s not using it at the moment. Laters. Watch the 3 part documentary. Peace. Oh ya and Darfur still burns.
SudaneseThinker
SudaneseThinker
{ 17 comments… read them below or add one }
ST-
The only one I have heard use the term Ijtihad before you is Irshad Manji, but she is not very well loved in the Muslim world.
But yes…you make some good points and interpretation, control, and application are problems with all religions I am familiar with.
At this point in history…I believe it is Islam that has most lost its bearings in this regard
howie, the reason why Irshad Munji isnt loved in the Muslim world is becuase her writting aint ABOUT Islam, more like AGAINST Islam.. andher book is filled with misconceptions on Islam.. and what she is trying to do is to create another religion that is derived from Islam!!!
Thanks Drima for the Links and enlighting materials..
Hey Drima:
Two things, if I may:
1. The problem with how Ijma is carried out today is that it’s only carried out by a number of Islamic scholars or so called “scholars” and is being monopolized by them rather than being open for more Muslims to participate in.
That seems to be a problem that feeds off itself. The question is (or perhaps, the questions are) - why do the ordinary everyday people agree to give such ’scholars’ (your quotes, not mine) such power? Why is it ok for the people to be kept in the dark and for the scholars to develop such a monopoly? Why - apart from the obvious reason that these days, the scholars are also the ones with the guns - are Muslim people afraid of the ’scholars’ whom they themselves have consented to ordain? (and I mean, apart from the fact that they have the guns, because something happened for them to be the ones that got the guns - somehow, the moderates agreed to this. Why?)
2. Another problem is that the principle of Ijtihad is almost non-existant now in many parts of the Muslim world.
And why is this? Who declared it unislamic to engage in ijtihad, whilst at the same time extolling the virtues of the outward jihad - and the more violent, the better? And once again, why are the people silent about this?
One of the things that strikes me about the points you’re making here, Drima, is that the people who are most frightened of Islam are Muslims themselves. Those who fear that they do not know enough, or are not close enough to the religion, transfer the power of philosophy and argument to the ’scholars’, most of whom seem to be competing with each other as to who can come up with the most stringent and belligerent interpretation of any given piece of text. And the scholars themselves are, I think, petrified of having to actually think for themselves also. The collective seems to be more than content with spiralling into a whirlpool of extremism, rather than having to truly face their problems.
Oh, and Darfur is burning because of this, I think. In a world where Islam cared, Darfur would not be burning. The rest of the world can care all it likes, but if Islam does not care about what Muslims do to other Muslims (and since Islam seems patently not to care about what Muslims do to people who are not Muslims), then the rest of the world is left to sort of shrug its collective shoulders and say - “well, not much we can do about that then, is there?”
Precious - that’s as may be, but it doesn’t address the issue of what has happened to ijtihad. All it says is that the only person to bring it up - as far as howie knows - is a person who you say is anathema to Islam anyway. I’m not saying you’re wrong, I don’t know anything about Irshad Munji myself, but if you’re right, and I presume you are, then it’s kind of like me writing a book about ijtihad - pointless in the extreme. I think howie’s point (if I may) was that ijtihad is simply not a concept that modern-day Islam is addressing. You seem to confirm this. Our question, as outsiders to Islam is: why?
And still I wonder:
If God really did write a book, does anyone besides me think he could do better than one that is constantly and frequently misinterpreted? Don’t you think a book actually written by God would translate easily across languages (God is, I presume, fluent in more than one)? Wouldn’t a book written by God be clear enough so that different people would not study it and get from it absolutely opposite messages? Doesn’t the very fact that people can spend a lifetime studying it and yet disagree on completely fundamental issues- compulsion in religion and death for apostates, for example, mean there is something basically amiss? I use the road map analogy. If I give a map to one person, and he tries to drive from New York to San Francisco, but reaches Mexico City instead, I might say he cannot read a map. If I give it to a million people, and half get to San Francisco, and half wind up in Mexico, I must start to think: there is something very, very wrong with my map.
Ben
Ben-
I consider myself a religious Jew and that is a long story. But your point is so very well taken. This is what holds me back…all we really have..Jews, Christians and Muslims, really is a book and no two people can really agree on it.
I laugh at one of my relatives who is a Christian Evangelical. When I point out weaknesses in the book..he shows me all these cross references etc etc. He is a brilliant guy…so I ask him…well how does a dude with average intelligence get saved?
It comes down to revelation…was it all revelation, partial, how much was edited and why could not God, in His ultimate wisdom, have been clearer?
Howie, I too consider myself a religious Jew, but I also believe that no holy book was “written” by God. Inspired by God, that I can agree to, but written by God? No, books are written by men, and nothing made by man is perfect. Like in anything that is translated, something is lost in the process… And Moses, to take the example that is closest to me, was by no means perfect.
FWIW, I used to call myself a religious Jew and one of the main (but certainly not only) departure points for me was the whole book issue - my point being: even if the book is divinely inspired and not divinely written, why does God, in his omnipotence, need to reduce anything to writing, when he could, in theory, have created us with the natural capacity to understand how we are supposed to live without having to give us a user manual. And in case anyone is interested, then FWIW (which may, admittedly, be very little), to the extent that I do believe in a God, I believe that he she or it did in fact create us with precisely the knowledge and capacity for knowledge that we need in order to live that life, without the need for a reference book. But that’s just me, and I don’t expect (or need) anyone to agree with me on this point
Having said that - guys, this is Drima’s blog and it is about Islam. Enough hijacking by the JOOOOZ (which, by the way, I proudly remain, despite my ambivalence as to the existence or otherwise of a deity)
NC-
I don’t we have hijacked it at all…don’t you think Muslims, especially THINKING Muslims, like our host, also struggle with this enormous question.
I will be the first to admit that I have many mixed feelings on this critical issue. The 10 Commandments seem to have a divine inspiration about them, but does that mean I also have to accept that God really asked different biblical characters “where are you?”, because I don’t.
But I have struggled with these issues since I was a teenager and still struggle. Like Kirkedgaard…I finally or gradually, took the leap of faith, but I admit it has been more like some hops.
Also…we have to realize that often our actions are profoundly affected by our beliefs/hypothesis about life. If, say, we Jews still believe in the mitzvah to kill Amalek…and this is God’s command…then we need to do some jihad ourselves (good luck finding the dudes). But I don’t believe God wants us to hunt down Amalek…but I do believe in a God that would be quite pleased with: don’t envy, don’t murder, don’t adulter (damn that one), don’t lie, respect your parents etc. Those are some reasonable rules for mankind me thinks.
Howie, I was sort of joking about the hijack comment. I really only said it because Drima is apparently still without a computer, and here we are having this discussion without him - it sort of seems unfair.
But having said that, I agree with you that the topic is possibly of interest to other people, and I fully expect to be told that it isn’t, if it isn’t.
As for picking and choosing (and I hope you will excuse me for putting it that way), there are those who might argue that you have no right to do that - not within the context of the religious establishment anyway. And they might have a point.
In my view, the more salient of the 10 commandments seem to be fairly universal. Sure, not every culture in the world opted for a saturday off, but most peoples managed to come up with not murdering and not taking other people’s stuff, all by themselves. As for respecting one’s parents, I would argue that unqualified, that is not a reasonable commandment. Respect, in general, has to be earned and should never be assumed. Why should we expect a child with abusive parents to respect them, just because they are the child’s parents? Rather, the commandment forces a situation of respect, only on relationships where the parents would otherwise not be deserving of it - because when they are deserving of respect, they get it as a matter of course.
I could go on, but I won’t
NC-
Why not go on? In terms of pick and choose…of course I do it as does EVERY religious person…I just admit that I do it. But much of what I follow or try to follow, tends to be inconvient so it is not like I make it easy on myself. (E.G. I won’t stone my kids for disobient or pray for bears to kill teenagers that make fun of my bald head
Of the ten commandments…yes…the respect one is the one I have most trouble with. But then we run into an enormous interpretation problem. I have worked with folks that have been beaten, abandoned, molested etc. by their parents. But, just maybe part of the honor would be to try to understand something about what caused that person’s madness, to pray for their salvation…not to obey or like them.
I agree with you on the universal nature of most of the big 10. Religious people would argue that all nations are inherently aware of the Noahide or big 7.
I still think adultery should be negotiable. If God were truly meriful could He not have said, “hey…I got ten available…you pick the ten you can best use, the rest is forgiven”.
But life is unfair
I meant you pick 9 outta 10.
Hi, guys me at work. About 2 religious people not being able to agree on a book. Well of course. It’s not surprising. Even twins don’t 100% agree with everything with 100%. Muslims agree with each other regarding the main points ie. 5 pillars of Islam, 6 pillars of faith and other stuff but there’s major disagreement once we start going deeper. That’s why mass ijma (consensus) is the way forward in my opinion. It’s kinda like letting all Muslims vote and decide what should and shouldn’t be regarding various issues in Sharia.
NC, you guys can continue debating. It’s all good but I really gotta tell ya. It sux when ur computer gets screwed and plus my bro is infront of his 24/7 so I can’t really get a chance to use it much
Oh well… back to work now… I miss my daily dose of blogging.
Howie; out of curiosity, what are the 7 comandments non-jews are supposed to follow according to judaism?
I think your discussion is very good and as what I suppose would be called a liberal or open minded christian I must say I agree with you on the gist of what you’re saying. As for picking and choosing I think those christians (can’t really speak for judaism or islam) who obsess about sertain quotes from the Bible, rather than taking in the big picture, are the ones picking and choosing. As for the ten commandments, I think they are something we should strive for, but I suppose God knows we are the type of creatures who make mistakes. The comandment I find the most difficult is the one about not coveting your neighbours property.
Drima
Interesting post. Ijma and Itjihad along with other Islamic principles including Shura are very much democratic principles which have been lost in Islam. I did a presentation on this once where I compared the Islamic principles with democratic principles- but I can’t find it and don’t remember all the details exactly.
I like that Islam encourages us to question, debate and discuss things. Unfortunately, those who do question are now labelled as Kafir and this is not something that is tolerated let alone encouraged. The strict doctrinal interpretation reminiscent of the wahabi/salafi branches of Islam have, sadly, become more the norm and Islam is being used to instill fear and control people.
What’s really confusing as well as frustrating though, is that the Islamists who advocate for Islamic states and Sharia governance, also have a very rigid, singular and intolerant interpretation of doctrine. Surely, true Islam also means acknowledging the pluralistic nature of religious doctrine and hence using Islamic principles to come to a concensus on what is best for the people.
Exactly Usual Suspect! An example of monopoly on interpretations and application of Sharia is the Iranian system. Ahmadinejad can’t do anything without consulting his board of mullahs (who aren’t even chosen by the people). Remember the recent issue on women attending football matches in a stadium? The word came from the mullahs and not him. They get to say what they want to say and enforce it. The ijma (consensus) takes place only amongst them and NOT the people of Iran. Therefore when you really get down to it, their system is UN-Islamic. The ijma is kept within a very small group that is NOT representative of the people. Moreover they get to decide how qualifies to make ijtihad and who doesn’t. Obviously people like you and me won’t be allowed to engage in ijtihad or at least our efforts won’t be recognized, coz you know we’re just like totally stupid westernized kaffirs who can’t think of ourselves
To people reading this comment, me still at work but I’ve got a lot of material lined up for future Islam posts. Please bear with me. Life has been VERY hectic recently and my PC is bugging me like HELL
K from Oslo-
It is a little long…but here you are:
“Although G-d created the world giving people free choice, He nevertheless has given us the tools and the guidance we need to encourage us to choose the good: a Divine moral code, one that predates all human codes, and the only one that has timeless and universal application for a good, moral civilization. This Divine code, known as the Seven Laws of Noah, establishes an objective definition of “good” - one that applies to all people. For as recent history has proven, a morality that is based on human ideas of good, is relative, subjective and essentially not persuasive. Furthermore, as is abundantly clear to educators and law-enforcement agents, neither intimidation nor threat of punishment can foster a deep sense of moral obligation. This can only come from the knowledge - through education, that there is an “Eye that sees and an Ear that hears” to Whom we are all accountable.
The Noahide Code of seven basic Divine laws, was given to Noah and his children after the deluge. These laws would assure Noah and his children, the forebears of the new human race, that humanity would not degenerate into a jungle again. The laws, which command the establishment of courts of justice and prohibit idolatry, blasphemy, homicide, incest, robbery, and eating the limb of a live animal (cruelty to animals), are the foundation of all morality. And they extend, by laws derived from these, into all aspects of moral behavior.”
By the way…I tend to very much agree with your comment about focusing on the overall jist of the Bible…fairness, mercy, kindness, charity, protecting the weak. Do you know the famous story of “Torah on one leg”?
Heh, Old Hillel was one of the greatest minds in Judaism. At the time the Jews left in Israel/Judea had to import him from the Babylon Diaspora to finally make some sense in the religious discourses(read: bloody rows) of the time.
And that wise old man did just that. He knew what the core was, and what was truly important for a society.
“Love thy friend* as thou loves yourself. The rest is interpetation.”
*this is a direct translation of the word, the meaning being “fellow human being”
Leave a Comment