Islamism is nothing new: this political ideology, using religion as its justification, has existed since the earliest days of Islam.
Based originally on the advice of Allah to his people as revealed in the Qur’an, Islam developed rapidly over several hundred years from a pure religion: the advice and guidance of Allah to his people, into a political system defining everything from personal conduct to a system of law: defining a complete way of life.
Islam continued to develop for several hundred years in a variety of forms with multiple regional and cultural interpretations until the 13th century, the canonical forms of Sunni, Shia and Sufi Islam had crystallised and further reinterpretation was discouraged by an effective ban on Ijtihad (reinterpretation and revision of the scriptures) that persisted until modern times.
It is an examination of the theological basis for this traditional narrative that modern research has examined and finds to have been deeply flawed, and which forms the basis for this essay.
Since the second world war however Islamism has experienced a revival and has been given a new lease of life, based on the writing of a number of Islamist thinkers, including most notably Sayed Qutb and Abd Alla Maududi. The purported theological basis for their arguments is the subject of a later essay: The failed theology of modern Islamism.
1. The nature of theology
Theology, the study of the divine, if it is to have any validity, must start not by assuming what it seeks to prove, but from the available evidence: it must take account of, or at least not conflict with, everything we now know about God’s creation, including what science has discovered about life, the Universe and everything.
Allah acknowledged in the Qur’an[1] that human understanding of His creation would grow over time and He left the door open to humanity to add new knowledge to His revelation. But by rejecting modern science in favour of a major misreading of a few words in the Qur’an,[2] the Islamists are attempting to deny God’s promise.
Advances in research in textual analysis, archaeology and numismatics have made it possible to shine new light on the origins of the Qur’an and Islam which can be used to settle some age-long disputes as to meaning.
From this it follows that, in the search for truth, modern research into the meaning of the scriptures, theological research, must be allowed to continue – wherever it may lead.
2. The problem of interpretation
The need for interpretation began with the first revelation of the Qur’an; the Prophet (PBUH) was illiterate. Had Mohammed been able write down what he heard he would no doubt have done so immediately, but he had to dictate it to his companions who wrote it down. But there was a problem: at the time, Arabic had not yet become a stable written language. The earliest Qur’anic text lacked diacritical marks necessary to distinguish between consonants. It was only with the introduction of diacritics some centuries later that an authorised vocalisation of the text became canonical. The possibility of misinterpretation was therefore present from the outset, exacerbated by the fact that many words only appear in Arabic for the first time in in the Qur’an, leaving their real meaning open to debate[3], a debate that has continued through the centuries.
Differences in interpretation of the Qur’an and the Sunna since the beginning have given rise to a multitude of differing schools of thought. By the late 7th century, multiple versions of the Qur’an were in existence and the Caliph, Uthman[4] (reigned 644 – 656) decided to consolidate them into a single canonical version, essentially as we know it today. The original sources were destroyed.[5]
By the end of the 10th century the dominant versions of Islam: Sunni, Shia and Sufi, had crystalised.
Consolidating the Sunna into a single narrative proved to be a bigger problem, however, and arriving at a single definitive version of the Sharia has proved impossible. With more than 20,000 hadith in circulation, it took scholars almost another 200 years to settle on the four main schools of Sunni jurisprudence: the Hanbali, Maliki, Shafi and Hanafi schools, and the Shia, Jafari school. The geographical distribution of these schools today is shown below. All are based on different collections and interpretations the hadith, yet all claim to be the “Holy” Sharia.
For centuries it was considered inadmissible for anyone to attempt to revise or reinterpret the widely accepted traditional narratives, even through the recognised process of Ijtihad. So for centuries, inconsistences in the received text, even including some contradictions, were allowed to go unchallenged.
But before we dig further into the issue of interpretation we have to ask, after more than a thousand years in which numerous versions of Islam have crystallised, whether we, or anyone, have the right to question any of the traditional narratives?
To answer that question we need to recognise that
the argument against reinterpretation of the scriptures has always been, and remains, primarily political, not theological.
Real knowledge must be based on evidence.
3. Abrogation
There is general agreement among scholars that the concept of abrogation in the Qur’an was created early on in the history of Islam in an attempt to justify some of the war-like passages in the Quran revealed in Medina that appear to contradict some of the more peaceful passages revealed in Mecca. Sadly, debates have continued down the centuries as to how many, or few, of the earlier suras were abrogated. An exhaustive review of this issue can be found in “Abrogated Rulings in the Qur’an” by Justin Parrott, published by the Yaqueen Institute for Islamic Research.[6] The conclusion is that, rightly understood, and using the earliest definition of abrogation, none of the earlier passages in the Qur’an were ever replaced but reinterpreted, and all verses need to be interpreted and understood together.
But the Meccan verses are unconditional and absolute, unqualified by any reference to time or circumstances. There can therefore be no valid argument that any of the earlier verses have been cancelled or replaced in the name of justifying or accepting war or violence. To do so would be to deny the infinite wisdom of Allah, or to argue that He changed His mind in light of the changed circumstances of the Prophet.
From a theological perspective, the continuing existence of differences over interpretation demonstrates better than any polemical arguments that:
No-one can claim with absolute certainty that theirs is the one true version of Islam.
We suggest that this fact alone is sufficient to justify continuing research into the origins of Islam and the true meaning of our faith.
4. The primacy of personal faith
Following their indoctrination with deeply conservative Islamist ideology, many Muslims are faced with a huge problem: how to distinguish between Islam, our religion, and Islamism, the political ideology. The evidence suggest that many find it impossible. For the Islamists there is no distinction: it is precisely the confounding of the two that has formed the bedrock of their hugely successful political campaign. Muslims under the sway of Islamism are obliged to conform to its tenets without exception.
The door to personal judgement in matters of faith was actually opened in the Qur’an, in sura 2:256: “There can be no compulsion in religion”. But the meaning of this apparently unequivocal statement has been the subject of debate within Islam for more than a thousand years, a debate that continues today: Is sura 2:256 descriptive: i.e: is it impossible to compel anyone to accept a religion? Or is it prescriptive: i.e. we must not attempt to compel anyone to adopt a religion? Or perhaps it applies only to those accepting Islam, since the merits of Islam are so self-evident that no compulsion is necessary?
Today, as it was for the Mutazilites[7] 1000 years ago, the most widely accepted interpretation of this sura makes clear the distinction between external acceptance of a religion and one’s internal convictions. The state can impose religious observance on society but cannot impose real belief on the heart and mind of the individual; there can be no compulsion when it comes to one’s personal faith: to what one truly believes, whereas religious observance can be imposed. But for the Islamists, despite what sura 2:256 may say, there is compulsion in religion.
It has been argued that if Allah had wanted to reveal a final, unambiguous plan for mankind He could have done so, but that the uncertainties surrounding the revelation suggest strongly that it has been left to humanity to interpret His will. And since Allah has endowed each of us with the gift of free will, it is for each of us to seek our own truth from what we have learned in life.
For the reformist Shia philosopher Abdolkarim Sorouch[9] (b 1945), we must distinguish between faith and religion: between what one truly believes and the tenets and practices that can be imposed externally. Faith cannot be compulsory:
“True believers must embrace their faith of their own free will – not because it was imposed, or inherited, or is part of the dominant local culture. To become a believer under pressure or coercion isn’t true belief.”[10]
He also argues that the believer must remain free to leave his religion, even Islam.[11]
A former Sunni proponents of the need for reform but who has since changed sides is Khader Abou El Fadl, chair of the Islamic Studies program at UCLA. He argued that sura 2:256 amounts to a general overriding principle that cannot be contradicted by any traditions attributed to the Prophet, and noted that the Quran never proposed earthly punishment for apostasy in this life.[12]
Unsurprisingly, the Islamists tie themselves in knots[13] over this issue, arguing both that Islam is tolerant, quoting sura 2:256, and that atheism is not a religion so sura 2:256 does not apply to non-believers. For the Islamists, becoming a Muslim is a one-way street, there is no way out and apostasy is punishable by death.
For secularists, liberals and Islamic reformers alike, sura 2:256 is clearly prescriptive: no one can be compelled to adopt any religion, including Islam, and everyone is free to leave if so guided to do so by their conscience.[13],[14]
5. The man-made Sharia
The Sharia (the Way) is mentioned only three times in the Quran,[15] leading to the observation that Islam, as revealed by Allah, was intended purely as guidance to His people, rather than as a system of law. Nevertheless the Sharia developed over several centuries based upon the Sunna, the purported sayings and deeds of the Prophet.
But with huge differences existing between the five main schools of the Sharia, each claiming ‘divine’ sanction, can any of them justifiably claim the title of the “Holy” Sharia?
The prime example of injustice under the Sharia that many Muslims find totally unacceptable is the treatment of apostates and blasphemers.
Do the Islamists really believe that Allah, the creator of the Universe, needs their earthly protection? Such an idea is clearly blasphemous. And the imposition of the death penalty is clearly intended to be a weapon of political control, rather than a religious necessity: an attempt to usurp the authority of Allah. The Creator, the all-powerful and all-knowing, never suggested that apostates should be punished in this life, so why are the Islamists so keen to do so, thereby risking divine punishment for themselves? An analysis of the deep flaws in the Islamist Sharia is given in The Failed Theology of Modern Islamism.
For more than 1000 years, based on their understanding of the scriptures, liberal Islamic scholars have advocated freedom of religion for all. Everyone has the absolute right to believe whatever they want to believe and to express their beliefs, even if others believe those beliefs to be false. The only caveat is that no-one has the right to act upon their beliefs to the detriment of others.
In the end, theology is about what can reasonably be believed, not about what must be believed. It is precisely here that Islamism falls short and must be rejected.
[1] [Sura needed]
[2] Bucaillism: See https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Bucailleism
[3] https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Diacritical_Marks_of_the_Qur%27an
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uthman
[5] Not all of the existing versions of the Qur’an at the time of Uthman were destroyed, however. Among the 12,000 Quranic documents discovered in the Great Mosque in Sanaa, Yemen in 1972 are some parchments that can be dated to the mid 7th century, quite possibly written during the lifetime of the Prophet. Suffice to say they contains significant differences from the Qur’an as we know it today. An excellent overview of the development of the Qur’an can be seen at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M544DtdLD9Q
[6] https://archive.nyu.edu/bitstream/2451/43710/2/Abrogated%20Rulings%20in%20the%20Qur%E2%80%99an%20Discerning%20their%20Divine%20Wisdom.pdf
[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu%27tazilism
[8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdolkarim_Soroush Voted in an on-line poll in 2005 the world’s 7th most influential public intellectual.
[9] “Reason, freedom and democracy in Islam”. Essential writings of Abdonkarim Sorouch, Oxford 2000
[10] Ibid
[11] Khaled Abou el-Fadl “The Great Theft: Wrestling Islam from the Extremists”, and
https://newrepublic.com/article/66588/moral-hazard
[12] Patricia Crone in Open Democracy (2007): “No compulsion in Religion”. https://ioir.org/patriciacrone
[13] Ref Abdolkarim Sorouch in: “The Philosophical Case” on this website.
[14] See: “The Political Case” for the need for external observance of the norms of one’s community, even if it means paying lip service to a faith one does not share.
[15] In the Quran: Ash:3, Jashiya:18, and Mayeda:48