- Bliv medlem
-
Du er ikke logget ind
Log ind Opret dig
Du er ikke logget ind
Beskrivelse
The umma is experiencing trauma. The reason is that the umma misunderstood revelation. This resulted from reading revelation without the engagement of reason. Exegetes rejected reason due to the perception that tradition "explains" revelation better than reason. The rejection of reason was a faux pas. It was an expression of a profoundly unfriendly disposition towards reason. Is it surprising that the traditional rendition of Islam strikes a rational person as less than reasonable? The rejection of reason resulted in harm. It prevented the umma from understanding and following revelation. Is it possible to "follow" what a person does not understand? As a result of the reluctance to use their minds, exegetes encountered difficulties in understanding revelation. They faulted the text, not their unwillingness to use reason. As a result of failing to understand revelation, they embraced the perception that revelation is "unclear," "incomplete" and even "contradictory." All three characterizations defy verses that assert the contrary. For the Book of Allah asserts that it is clear, complete and coherent. The characterizations result from a perfunctory reading of the Book, a reading without the engagement of reason. These allegations were used to justify recourse to tradition, to make up for the alleged deficit of "detail" in the Book of Allah. The turn to tradition was justified by disparaging revelation. Revelation was treated as if it were a product of a person, while tradition was treated as if it were from Allah. This is reflected in what are referred to as the "holy traditions." The umma turned to tradition in the expectation that tradition would "explain" and "complete" the revelation. The focus on tradition went far. To justify the turn to tradition, traditionists treated tradition as "revelation." They became enchanted with tradition and began treating it as "divine." But the books of traditions are not "revelation" (tanzil). For the books of traditions are not the words of Allah. They are not even the words of the prophet. For the traditions ascribed to the prophet, in defiance of his prohibition of the recording of his traditions, are paraphrases of paraphrases of sayings ascribed to the prophet and reported by transmitters. Unlike the Book of Allah, the traditions are not transmitted verbatim; they are transmitted by meaning. Persons that insist that the Book of Allah be taken literally refrain from this expectation regarding traditions. Refraining from recourse to reason deformed the sharia. This transpired by permitting revealed rulings to be abrogated and replaced by extreme punishments - not prescribed in the Book of Allah - from traditions and the writings of extreme ulama. These encompass the death penalties for apostasy, blasphemy and adultery. Embedding these punishments in penal law encroached upon Allah's exclusive jurisdiction to legislate in religion. The tension between rationalism and traditionalism is rooted in politics. Reason was "silenced" to prevent challenges to the less than rational turn from revelation to tradition. This produced ripple effects. The reorientation from revelation to tradition resulted in a disorientation. The turn from revelation to tradition represented a break from revelation. The umma "disconnected" from the Book of Allah and "connected" to books of traditions. Renewal requires a paradigm shift, from understanding Islam as a religion of war to Islam as a religion of reconciliation. It also requires a return to reason. The turn from revelation to tradition marked the emergence of traditional Islam. The alleged abrogation of the peace verses by the verse of the sword marked the beginning of political Islam.
