Dr. Khalid Zaheer’s Blog

There are many intelligent Muslims who are intellectually convinced that the only correct way to follow Islam is to follow the traditional understanding of it – the one that good Muslim scholars and intellectuals have been believing in, following, and disseminating all along the history of the Muslim religious tradition.

The philosophical foundation of this understanding is built on the premise that humans are gifted with an intellect which is only capable of raising the right kind of religion-related, philosophical questions; they cannot however answer them adequately. The very fact that, so goes the argument, most notable philosophers were in agreement about the important questions that ought to be probed but they were not able to answer them is a proof of the fact that God wanted those answers to be searched in religious tradition. The fact that there was unanimity about the questions amongst philosophers and disagreement about answers to them points to the reality that the answers were meant to be sought from a superior source which provided conclusive responses to each of those questions. The conclusion that proceeds from this line of argument is that whatever answers are offered by religion are authentic because of the very fact that they have been answered by a higher source with a claim that those were from God. Good religious people have to simply take them from their religious tradition in exactly the same way as they were available in it without making any alterations in them, because if they were to make alterations they would do so with their intellect whose inability to answer such philosophical questions on religion has already been established by the history of failure of the great philosophers in answering them.

Socrates is considered to be one of the earliest proponents of the basic premise of this point of view. He is said to have inflicted a conclusive defeat on the Skeptics who claimed that human intellect was incapable of gaining knowledge. He responded to it by insisting that knowledge did not always amount to grasping the complete reality of something; instead, quite often it was the act of reflecting or absorbing the reality in a measured way that constituted it. Knowledge in other words could only be had to the extent it was available and the possibility of having it varied from reality to reality.

If one followed the advice of this line of argument, one would stick to what the unanimous approval of the traditional understanding of religion – in our case Islam — was in order to follow its true message. What is in religious tradition is what religion has to offer; since we cannot have anything better than what is available, we ought to know our limitations. The argument that a certain opinion was held by the majority of Muslim scholars would be conclusive to decide that the opinion was the only valid one to be taken seriously. All other opinions were unacceptable simply because they were not supported by the traditional religious scholars.

There were a few difficulties in accepting the above-mentioned approach from Islamic point of view.

The opinion would hold all religious traditions superior to non-religious ones, at least insofar as the responses to the philosophical questions were concerned. If human intellect can only raise valid questions in the domain of religious realities and it has to sheepishly follow the immediately available religious responses to them, it should follow from it that those who were following the suggested process were worthy of being praised rather than being condemned. The Qur’an, on the contrary, strongly condemns the religious traditions of the polytheists of Makkah and the Jews and Christians of the Arabian Peninsula. Should we accept what this philosophically argued understanding says or should we side with the Qur’anic condemnation? If one were to respond to this criticism by saying that the Qur’anic criticism was on the attitude of a people who were following a religious tradition in preference to what the book of God, Qur’an, was saying, the responder needs to be informed that both polytheists of Makkah and the people of the book were claiming that they too were following the tradition of their religious elders. The Qur’an did not accept the excuse and responded by saying “(Are they going to follow their forefathers) even when they (the forefathers) did not understand anything and had gone astray?” In other words, the Qur’an is informing that religious tradition can get corrupted and therefore it was wrong to follow it blindly, especially when convincing criticism was raised against it.

The point of view assumes that there was always only one religious tradition which was to be followed. What if there were many? If the answer was that some minor differences were always going to be there but a religious tradition was defined by the major agreements amongst the majority of the religious peoples of a society, the question that would seek an answer would be this: Who would decide what was a major difference and what was a minor one? Are we going to describe the least common denominator as the valid religious tradition to be followed? If that was true then all religious differences should be tolerated, both new and old, because there were always some areas of commonality in the broad definition of a religious tradition. The fact is that in many religious societies in the Islamic world, both past and present, many practices followed by the majority of the traditional religious people were a distorted version of religion in the opinion of the majority of the traditional religious people of another society. Whose version of religion should one follow given that the intellect itself was incapable of deciphering what was right religiously from what was wrong?

If the opinion is to be taken seriously, one would not take the Qur’anic text quite as seriously as the religious tradition of Muslims. It will have to be assumed that Qur’an itself was unclear and the meanings given to it by the traditional scholars were the only correct interpretation of it. A new understanding on some aspect of religion would stand rejected simply because it was new. An old interpretation would be revered because of its oldness. The Qur’anic text would play no role whatsoever in deciding which religious understanding was correct because the golden principle was that in case of religious guidance what was thought and done earlier had to be correct and superior to what was done and understood later. The result of it would be that Muslims will have to curb their intellect from attempting to understand the Qur’an with an open mind. The call of the book of God “Why don’t they ponder over the Qur’an” will have to be ignored, because if it was pondered over sincerely, it might give results that were against the traditional understanding of religion, in which case, according to the given view, the individual would be led astray.

In order for this view to be taken seriously it will have to be acknowledged that the traditional knowledge about Islam has always been the same all along the last fourteen hundred years, that there have been no periods in the Muslim history when the knowledge was faulty, and what is understood and practiced today in the name of religion by the traditional Muslims was exactly the same as it was done fourteen hundred years ago. A careful study of the Muslims shows that such a claim about the message of Islam cannot be made with authority.

Thus a good number of intelligent Muslims have been dissuaded by a philosophical absurdity – the fact that intellect only raises religious questions and only the tradition of religion answers them – from seeing what has been clearly mentioned in the Qur’an. Instead of asking the Qur’an about what the answers to the perplexities of philosophical reasoning were, a naïve idea was invented completely blocking all roads leading to understand the book of God properly. The Qur’an declares about itself that it was the criterion between right and wrong (al-Furqan; 25:1); that it had come to give a verdict in religious matters where men differed (2:213); and that even the prophet, alaihissalaam, was bound to follow its verdict under all circumstances (10:15). But the proponents of this point of view suggested that the text of the Qur’an cannot be understood properly. They have suggested that language is incapable of communicating true meanings to the addressee, especially when it has grown old. In other words the Qur’an was unclear to at least the modern reader and it was therefore, God forbid, not fit to guide humans in the modern times. The book of God needs the crutches of traditional Islam to be understood. All claims of the clarity of its message on the basis of its remarkable thematic and structural coherence book stand rejected in the eyes of some of these philosophically minded Muslims. The entire traditional baggage of Islam, including what Sufis have been traditionally saying and doing, would carry more worth and significance than the book of God.

The fact is that Qur’an doesn’t condemn human intellect as completely incapable of knowing religious truths. On the contrary, it suggests that human intellect is constrained by certain limitations which it is capable of appreciating and acknowledging. Divine Revelation comes to the rescue of the shortcomings of the intellect to guide it towards higher levels of spiritual and moral stations. The relationship between the two is not analogous to that of a blind man who is being guided by someone with sight; instead it is more like a teacher-pupil relationship: the pupil (intellect) is guided by the teacher (revelation) to know even more from what is already known. The Qur’an uses the expression nurun ‘ala nur (light upon light) to describe it. Whenever the student finds that the teacher is apparently not performing in a befitting manner, he can question the teacher and investigate whether it really is a genuine guide or a bogus one: If the guidance of Divine Revelation one gets through religious tradition is not making sense to the human intellect, the latter has the right to ask if the guidance was coming from the right source.

Intellect also plays an important role in guiding humans by gradually taking them from lower levels of appreciation of divine revelation to the higher ones. It is through critical reasoning that intellect can appreciate that at times what was understood by the earlier religious people was a crude understanding of religion and what has come through later, after the process of critical appraisal was a much refiner understanding of the divine text. To snub human intellect from reasoning any further because of the reverence attached to the understanding of the earlier generations would therefore deprive humans of a much better, refiner, and deeper meanings of the divine text which God had left at a much deeper level simply because He wanted human intellect to struggle to dig it out from there. To assume that there wasn’t anything that lay underneath the miraculous language of the Qur’an was to undermine the divine nature and greatness of it.

One should however not conclude from the above understanding that all aspects of traditional Islam would fail the test if put through the test of Qur’anic scrutiny. Quite to the contrary, most aspects of Islamic tradition are consistent with the true message of the Qur’an. In fact the sunnah of the prophet which is as authentic as the Qur’an has been preserved through the tradition of Muslims. It is through unbroken chain of practice of Muslims that we have been able to get the fully preserved sunnah practices like the formal prayers, the pilgrimage of the Ka’bah etc. That aspect of traditional Islam most certainly is the true message of God which will never be in danger when put through the test of intellectual scrutiny in the light of Qur’an.

In response to the messages I have received recently on my last two blogs, I have the following observations to make. Since the basic theme of the messages in both blogs is by and large the same and my worthy critics have raised similar points, I am posting this message as one separate blog to respond to the messages on both the previous blogs.

Mawlana Saleemullah Khan, the teacher of Mawlana Taqi Usmani, has accused the latter of indulging in talfīq. The Arabic term is used to mean an act whereby a Muslim follows another Imam (scholar) even though he has vowed to be a muqallid (blind follower) of a different Imam. This happens to be Mawlana Saleemiullah’s biggest objection to Mawlana Taqi Usmani’s model of Islamic banking. Talfīq is haram (prohibited) according to the conventional scholars who believe in taqlīd (blind following of scholars). It has to be said in defence of Mawlana Taqi Usmani, however, that he was forced to do talfīq because he had no choice. Hanafi fiqh, which the Mawlana otherwise follows blindly, leaves such little space to maneuver in financial matters that he was left with no choice but to partly ignore the principle he himself has so strongly pleaded elsewhere in his much celebrated book on taqlīd. Some of the readers probably don’t know that Mawlana Taqi Usmani is the proud author of a book “Taqlid Ki Shara’i Haisiat” (The Correct Islamic Stance on Taqlīd) . The book strongly pleads that taqlīd is the right approach in Islam.

I must acknowledge that Mufti Taqi Usmani deviated from his stance on taqlīd only in Islamic banking. He hasn’t done it in any other case. In fact, Taqi Usmani Sb is so firm on his stance that when he made his inaugural speech to one of his new classes of specialization (takhassus) in jurisprudence, he clearly told his students that the one who disagreed with the views of Mawlana Ashraf Ali Thanvi, a Hanfi-Deobandi scholar of repute, he should not bother to come to his classes. I am narrating this statement on hearing it from a Mufti Sahib who attended that class.

Now I could be completely unaware of the latest developments in Mawlana Taqi Usmani’s approach. If someone helps me in knowing that he has withdrawn his staunch support for taqlīd and that he has retracted from the contents of his book, I will be delighted to know that and I will applaud him as a great scholar, not that I am not his admirer right now. But has he really withdrawn his stance on taqlīd or is Mawlana Saleemullah’s stance correct that he is guilty of contradicting his own principles in the case of Islamic Banking?

The analogy of a madrassah and an ‘Alim on the one hand with a medical college and a certified doctor on the other is an incorrect one. Quacks in the field of medicine don’t challenge loud and clear that what is happening in the medical colleges is not genuine education on medicine. They simply do their medical practice stealthily despite a clear law that they are not legally allowed to do so. Also, if qualified students of medical colleges don’t perform well, the society would protest against them immediately because the results of their practice would show in the form of poor health and deaths of their patients. How shall we be able to know that ‘spiritual colleges’ are showing good or bad results? Probably the moral performance of the followers of the scholars they produce is a barometer to gauge their effectiveness. But the real result would show on the Day of Judgment when it would be too late to realize whether the decision of following the Madrassah-based religion was correct or not. The only genuine way of knowing the efficacy of these institutions was to urge every user of their services to use his/her intellect while benefitting from their views. Unfortunately is the very faculty which targeted to be made ineffective if not completely killed by the Madrassah scholars when they urge their followers to follow them blindly as a matter of religious duty. They scare people by stating that not doing so – in other words using intellect in religious matters was – prohibited (haram) in Islam.

If those who haven’t studied in Madrassas and yet are participating in spreading Islamic message are quacks, then the following are some of the names of ‘religious quacks’ of our times: Abul Kalam Azad, Dr Israr Ahmad, Dr Ghulam Murtaza Malik, Dr Zakir Naik, Dr Farhat Hashmi, Mr Ahmad Deedat, Mr Javed Ahmad Ghamidi etc. All of them resorted to learning about Islam through their own personal, non-Madrassah-based means.

Interestingly, Mawlana Mawdudi was a ‘semi-quack’, going by the definition of it of the admirers of the Madrassah system. Despite his learning from a conventional Madrassah which he couldn’t complete because of his family problems, he faced massive resistance from the clergy of his times because he committed the cardinal crime of spreading the word of Islam despite not being a Madrassah ‘Alim. Dirty slogans like this one were popularized by our Madrassah-based propaganda machinery: “Aik Maududi Sau Yahudi” (One Maududi is the equivalent of hundred [anti-Islam] Jews).

If we look at the personalities that were responsible, directly or indirectly, for the spreading of Madrassah education in the sub-continent, we find that some of the more prominent ones amongst them weren’t Madrassah graduates themselves. Qasim Nanautvi, the founder of Deoband school, Ahmad Raza Khan Barelvi, the founder of the Barelvi school, and Abdullah Ibn Abdul Wahhab, one of the most significant spiritual leaders of the Ahle Hadith movement in Pakistan, were all quacks by the definition of the term given by the Madrassah enthusiasts.

It is also interesting to note that there have been several instances when the ‘scholars’ have studied from ‘quacks’. I personally know ‘scholars’ who teach at Madrassahs and yet come to one of the ‘quacks’, Mr Javed Ahmad Ghamidi, to learn Arabic and religion from him.

It must also not be forgotten that Madrassas were created during the British rule as a reaction to the British occupation of the sub-continent. If there were elements of extreme conservatism in the structure and constitution of these institutions it wasn’t therefore surprising. The surprising thing however is the fact that what started as a reactionary movement has become in the opinion of many the only institution relevant to solve all the religious problems of the Ummah in the contemporary times. It is like Mawlana Ilyas started preaching to the poor and religiously ignorant Muslim Maiwatis of UP, India by paying them an amount equivalent to their daily wages and taking them out of the hustles of life to teach the very basics of Islam. However, what started as an improvised strategy to educate the very ignorant became the biggest preaching movements of Muslims. Such are the tragedies of the contemporary Muslim Ummah. Of course, the sincerity of the followers of either of these movements is not in question.

If a reality as stark as the tendency of blind following of the elders is continuing to plague the Ummah and hollow its foundations, its criticism has to be shouted repeatedly. If an epidemic continues to stay in a society, its cure needs to be regularly reminded and administered. Like it would be foolish to suggest to the doctors that their efforts to make a society aware for remedying an epidemic should be discontinued because it had become monotonously repetitive, similarly it is unwise to suggest that the curse of taqlīd shouldn’t be lamented anymore because the exercise has already taken too long. When we criticize for religious reasons, we are not in the business of story-telling where repetition makes the message stale. So long as poverty stays we shall continue to raise our voice of concern against it.

If a person claims to be belonging to Al-Mawrid’s way of thinking, he may not necessarily be truly representing the institute’s viewpoint. If an Al-Mawrid’s representative ridicules a scholar belonging to another school of thought, he needs to be condemned too. If he stops people from listening to others, he is not doing what Al-Mawrid stands for. However, if an individual belonging to the Madrassah-based, traditional system stops people from listening to others, he is doing exactly what his school of thought promotes. However, not all representatives of the traditional system ridicule scholars different from their school of thought. Blocking the way of dialogue is however a matter of basic policy for them.

My blog ‘The Story Goes On’ has received a fair share of criticism. I must admit that it deserved to be criticized. I have also criticized myself, not for posting it but, for failing to clarify what I really wanted to communicate. If a reporter of a murder doesn’t do well enough to make people aware of the fact that he was a witness to a ghastly crime, it is the fault of the reporter. Likewise I should be blamed for not telling well enough that in one of the most prestigious universities of the country a teacher was guilty of teaching his students that blindly following Madrassah-scholars was a religious duty of all Muslims. Of course, I should be criticized for not being clear enough in mentioning that the one who protested against the crime was the one who was put to sword by the university authorities. I apologize to my critics the same as TM apologized to the students of PPI.

Mawlana Amin Ahsen Islahi, who was my mentor’s mentor, urged the inaugural class of al-Mawrid in 1983 of which I was a participant to carry out a crusade against the evil of blind conservatism in our society. Mawlana was a graduate of Madrassatul Islah, Azamgarh, UP (India) where he taught for several years. He was therefore an insider of the Madrassah system. I am paraphrasing a part of his speech which carries a lot of significance for me:

If the women, the old, and the feeble of a society present an excuse on not responding to the need of removing garbage from a society, it is understandable. However, if the youth make similar excuses, it doesn’t befit them. Even more dangerous than the physical filth is the decay in the system of our religious education. The situation urges the conscientious youth of the society to do something about it or else they will be held guilty of ignoring an exceedingly important moral and religious duty.