Revelation, Tradition and Exegesis

Practice should reflect the theory. Whenever we fail to live up to expectations, a chasm emerges between the theory and the practice. Exegesis is the process of understanding text. In Islam there was a separation between the exemplary and the actual. There was a break from revelation as well as the tradition of the prophet. This was partly due to the repression of reason. The repression of reason was due to the repression of the rationalists by the traditionists. The use of reason was associated with kufr. Thinking - in particular free thinking - became a crime, punishable by death. The repression of reason produced calamitous effects on the umma. It prevented Muslims from understanding and thus following revelation. Thus, they turned to tradition, to the ways of the forefathers. Traditionists misunderstood the purpose of reason. They postulated a "clash" between reason and revelation. Reason and revelation are not enemies; reason is required to understand and heed revelation. Anti-rationalism corrupted knowledge as well as the sharia. Bereft of reason, and in defiance of revelation, hawkish ulama treated terrorism as "martyrdom operations" permitted by God, and meriting reward in the hereafter. The hawkish rendition of revelation, buttressed with following traditions in preference to revelation, resulted in the fall of the umma. The renewal of the umma requires a return to revelation, a return to sanity. This should take place by the reengagement of reason. Refraining from reasoning resulted in the confusion of tradition with revelation, and the subordination of revelation to tradition. Treating tradition as a "part of" revelation, able to "judge," "abrogate" and even "replace" parts of revelation, unfortunately, is an expression of shirk. The turn from revelation to tradition, from the guidance of God to the guidance of men was spurred by efforts to enlarge the empire through wars of aggression. But wars of aggression are prohibited by revelation. The justification of waging wars of aggression, which entail the perpetration of war crimes, was achieved through a "reinterpretation" of the teaching of revelation. The justification of aggression required undermining verses that teach peace and reconciliation. This was achieved by recourse to the teaching of abrogation. By abrogating the verses of reconciliation, hawkish ulama transformed the religion of peace into a religion of war. The reinterpretation of Islam as a religion of war was buttressed by recourse to traditions. Rulers asked different persons to record the traditions. The requests to record traditions were made in defiance of the prohibition of "adding" to revelation by the Book of Allah and the prophet. In so far as traditions are records of the ways of the predecessors, the turn from revelation to tradition was an expression of secularisation. For traditions are "worldly." The reinterpretation of Islam as a religion of war embroiled the umma in unprovoked conflicts. The murder of Mongol traders and ambassadors brought destruction to the Abbasid empire. Assaults on Vienna brought an end to the Turkish empire. The expansion in France brought defeat. This was the toll the umma paid for drifting from the Book of Allah and following the teaching of hawkish ulama and warlike traditions, in preference to the Book of Allah. Reform requires rearticulating Islam as a religion of peace. This requires the rejection of militant exegesis as well as the assumptions on which it rests. Reform requires the reengagement of reason, and the affirmation of the preeminence of revelation in relation to all tradition and writings of exegetes and jurists. It requires a re-reading of the Book of Allah according to its teachings. It requires affirming that the Book of Allah is as it presents itself: "clear," complete," and "coherent."