This is a translation of a portion done by Yoginder Sikand from a chapter titled Taqlid Aur Ijtihad in Maulana Wahiduddin Khan’s book Din-o-Shariat: Din-e Islam Ka Ek Fikri Muta’ala [Goodword Books, New Delhi, 2003, pp.224-228].
In the wake of the industrial Revolution in Europe, Western countries established their political and cultural domination over much of the rest of the world, leading to the establishment of European colonial empires. This posed a new and major challenge for Muslims. At that time, numerous Muslim leaders in various countries emerged, inspired with just one mission—to engage in armed jihad—thinking that to be the only solution to the challenge of Western imperialism. But despite two hundred years of armed struggle against the West, Muslims did not gain substantially.
If this problem is examined in the light of the Quran and Hadith it is clear that the solution lay somewhere else—in peaceful dawah or missionary work. The Prophet was faced with a similar predicament, and the Quran’s instruction to him in this context was to present the message of God to the people, for this would be the guarantee of his protection (Surah Al-Maidah: 67). The Quran advises us to engage in dawah and propagation of Islam with wisdom (hikmat), and it adds that the result of this would be that one’s foes would become one’s friends. Thus, it declares, ‘And O Prophet, goodness and evil are not equal. Repel evil with what is best. You will see that he with whom you had enmity has become your closest friend’ (Surah Fussilat: 34).
It would not be wrong to say that the Quran indicates that dawah is the only solution. Why is it, then, that modern-day Muslims could not understand this? Why did they take to jihad, in the sense of physical warfare or qital, instead of dawah, especially when it was not difficult to realize that in the given conditions violence would cause even more destruction for Muslims and nothing else? Why is it that modern-day Muslim leaders made such a terrible blunder by adopting the slogan that violent jihad was the only solution?
In my opinion, one of the main reasons for this was that these leaders considered that ijtihad-e mutlaq or directly deriving rules from the Quran and Hadith to be prohibited for them. In accordance with their deeply-rooted taqlidi mentality, they believed that they had to strictly follow the guidance and rules of the established corpus of fiqh. Now these books of fiqh were full of rules and commandments about jihad, in the sense of qital. In contrast, they hardly contained any rules that could provide guidance for the task of dawah. They had long and detailed chapters on jihad, in the sense of qital, but none at all on dawah and tabligh.
These leaders could have learnt about the need to engage in dawah in the Quran, but they viewed the Quran simply as a book of laws. For rules for new issues they turned not to the Quran, but, instead, to the established corpus of fiqh, which, as I said, does not contain any guidance for dawah work. From this it can be gauged how useful and essential ijtihad, in the sense of directly deriving rules from the Quran and Hadith, is, and, contrarily, how harmful taqlid, regarding the established corpus of fiqh as the sole source of rules, can be.
This same mistake was made by many Indian Muslim leaders who, in the wake of the establishment of British rule, declared India to be dar ul-harb or ‘abode of war’. In 1823 Shah Abdul Aziz issued a fatwa, opining that India had now turned into dar ul-harb. Thereafter, 500 Indian ulema signed a fatwa claiming that it had now become obligatory for the Indian Muslims to engage in jihad, in the sense of qital, against the British. Consequently, many Muslims began being involved in violent anti-British activities, thinking this to be their religious duty. This carried on for over a hundred years but it proved to be completely fruitless. Despite this, it is shocking to see how some Muslims still believe, and some even openly announce, that India is dar ul-harb and that they can solve their problems through jihad.
The reason for this peculiar situation is that the minds of these people are still stuck in the groove of the traditional corpus of fiqh based on the established maslaks, or schools of thought, whose views on taqlid and ijtihad they consider themselves duty bound to follow. And according to this tradition of fiqh, countries like India are categorized as dar ul-harb. Had these Muslim leaders gone back even before the formation of the schools of fiqh, directly to the Quran and Sunnah, they would undoubtedly have realized that the status of a country like India is not that of dar ul-harb, but, rather, that of dar ul-dawah, ‘abode of missionary work’ by inviting others to the faith. But this they did not do because they considered ijtihad, in the sense of directly approaching the Quran and Sunnah to derive rules, to be prohibited to them. In accordance with their taqlidi approach, they limited themselves wholly to the corpus of established fiqh for guidance. And, as is known, this corpus of fiqh speaks in detail about dar ul-harb but not at all about dar ul-dawah.
Present-Day Fiqh Is Not Enough
The present corpus of fiqh was compiled by the second or third [Islamic] centuries. Many Muslims erroneously believe that this fiqh is complete and that it contains all the teachings of the Quran and Hadith related to human life. This reflects the belief that, following the compilation of this corpus of fiqh, the doors of ijtihad-e mutlaq or ‘absolute ijtihad’ were fully closed, and that now only ijtihad-e muqayyad or ijtihad within the established schools of fiqh or what can be called taqlidi ijtihad, is permissible.
This belief might have been seen as appropriate in the past, but when social conditions began to undergo massive changes with the passing of the traditional age and the advent of modern science, it proved to be extremely harmful for Muslims. Muslims had come to view the corpus of fiqh as a complete legal system, and believed that there was no need to look beyond it for solutions to all their problems. Because of this, modern-day Muslims were unable to access guidance on numerous issues which was present in the Quran and Sunnah but not in the established corpus of fiqh.
Let me cite one instance in this regard. The political revolutions that accompanied the advent of the modern age brought about democracy as a new political system. Our corpus of fiqh had been developed in a prior age, that of monarchy. That is why it had no conception of modern democracy. Consequently, Muslims who thought in terms of the established corpus of fiqh could not appreciate or understand the importance of democracy. That is why some of them branded it as irreligious (la-dini) and even as ‘prohibited’ (haram). Others denounced it as a system of counting heads, where numbers are given the importance that quality deserves.
But, in fact, democracy has the potential of being a blessing for Muslims. In contrast to the old monarchical system, democracy is based on the principle of power-sharing. It offers Muslims the opportunity to gain political importance if they act wisely. But because of the lack of ijtihadi insight Muslims failed to do so. Instead, their taqlidi approach led them to talk about such plans as launching a movement to establish the Caliphate in America and to change the name of California to Caliph-ornia and dreaming up similar laughable schemes. But they failed to see how by participating in democratic governance and getting involved in democratic processes they might be able to make a place for themselves in democratic countries.
The reason for this terrible backwardness of present-day Muslim thought is the refusal to engage in ijtihad, to come out of the boundaries of the established corpus of fiqh and to gain guidance directly from the Quran and Hadith. But for this Muslims would have been able to ponder on the Quran, and this would have taught them that the Quran provides appropriate guidance in this regard.
The Quran says that at the time of the Prophet Yusuf (Joseph), Egypt was ruled by a certain king, who, although a polytheist (mushrik), appointed the Prophet Yusuf to a high political position. He was made in-charge of food and agriculture, but he had more powers than this, acting, in a sense, as the deputy of the king, because in the ancient agricultural age the economy of countries was based essentially on agriculture. In other words, the Prophet Yusuf’s position in the political system was that of the highest official.
If modern-day Muslims did not bind themselves to taqlid but, instead, approached the Quran in a spirit of ijtihad and pondered on it carefully, they would have realized that this incident about the Prophet Yusuf is a prophetic example for them to seek to emulate. They should understand that they can use the principle of power-sharing of modern democracy for their benefit, being confident that doing so is in accordance with a prophetic practice.
Photo: Quran and Beads
Hello. This is a general observation on the last few articles published at indianmuslims.in. They have all been peppered with links to searches within the indianmuslims site. These links do not add anything to the articles; on the contrary, are quite distracting. Do you have to include them?
The story of Prophet Yusuf should be a lesson for the naxal-Islamists in India who wanted to take part in elections only after establishing Islamic rule here. They had even shunned assuming government positions under an un-Islamic rule. Obviously such an approach was extremist and non-conforming to the Islamic ideals, which in fact advocates tolerance and provides room for pluralism.
That now they have reversed gear and is even ready to lie at the leg of atheist-communist parties for a pie in the power shows that any kind of extremism will not last long. As Prophet Muhammad famously said: “Do not show extremism in religion, or the religion is bound to fail you”.
Awesome Mr. Sikand!!
Very well written article. This is the FIRST one I have seen on this website that points towards a solution.
Thank you.
Just one question – Why propagation of Islam (dawaah) so important? I mean if Hindus propagate their religion or DHarma, and Muslims their – don’t you think there would be a clash of ideologies and hence chaos and violence. Would like to know your views.
The Quran has immutable principles, but verdicts relating to contemporary situations can be derived from it on an ongoing basis.
Therefore, very clearly, the doors of ijtihad must not be shut. Islam has to be constantly kept fresh and vibrant.
Good suggestion mummyjaan,
I have one more. In the opening page, under each article block in the second column, the link “Read The Story” is redundant. Why dont you replace with the number of views of that article? Of course at least if it is technically feasible.
A very good article but lost it’s charm due to the stereotypical approach of trying to justify everything from the Islamic view point. The confusing terms like fiqh, taliq, ijtihad etc all are unknown and irrelevant for an ordinary Indian Muslim and does not carry any meaning in their daily life. When can we get out of this religious barrier and start talking about the values of humanity instead?.
Fiqh , taqlid and ijtihad are important in the sense that it is these things that drive the clergy. And the clergy plays a major role in influencing the thinking of the Muslim mind.
Yes, it is a different matter that the Ummah needs to get out of the grip of the clergy.
@ Fiqh and Taqlid could also be creating unnecessary dispute and small scale
industry for clergy, does it exist in Islam, clergy ?
you must go for ijtihaad, the key instrument to solve various problems created by
ourselves and the nature.
Yoginder Sikand said: “In the wake of the industrial Revolution in Europe, Western countries established their political and cultural domination over much of the rest of the world, leading to the establishment of European colonial empires. This posed a new and major challenge for Muslims. At that time, numerous Muslim leaders in various countries emerged, inspired with just one mission—to engage in armed jihad—thinking that to be the only solution to the challenge of Western imperialism. But despite two hundred years of armed struggle against the West, Muslims did not gain substantially.”
I would add:
Many of the things we use today were invented by different peoples in different places at different times. Bronze, for example, was invented by the Chineese, glass by people in Mesopotamia, paper by the Egyptians, alphabet by Phoenicians, and so on. Each people learned from the other peoples and made their own inventions, thus expanding Man’s knowledge of the world. This knowledge spread through trade and conquest. The conquerors inherited the knowledge of the vanquished people and took it home or spread it to other places. At the same time, the conquerors brought in their own way of life, their thoughts, their arts and their religion.
The interaction between so many powers, so many civilisations and so many ways of life made it necessary for each people to defend their own existence. Each people had to defend everything that was at stake for them. That included their culture. So those who happened to believe in God had to defend their own faith by using all the tools available, including those that had been invented or developed by non-believer nations. Such tools may have included Phoenicians’ alphabet and Greeks’ logic. Thus non-believer nations were not « redundant ». They were just as useful as believer nations in that they contributed to the spread of belief in God.
It is also interesting to notice that most of those early interactions between various contending nations took place just where Abraham was once : Palestine. The Egyptians, the Babylonians, the Persians, the Hittites, the Greeks, the Romans, and many more in between- all had a foothold there at some point in history. And then came the Arabs. They came from another place to where Abraham was once : Mecca. Those Arabs found themselves thrusting in every direction, going towards nations who had known impressive empires, and ended up building their own empire stretching across most of the then known world.
There followed a magnificent world interaction. The Arabs borrowed old, dormant knowledge from the Greeks, the Persians and other nations, and updated and enriched it, and then spread it in every direction. Baghdad emerged as the world capital of knowledge. And in the West there was Cordoba, where Arab knowledge was passed on to Europe through translation. Averroes spoke to Muslims and non-Muslim Europeans of God using Aristotle’s logic.
Baghdad was destroyed, but Islamic knowledge survived. It survived because it was not only in the books that the Mongols threw into the Tigris River, but also in people’s hearts and minds. Like the destruction of the Alexandria Library in antiquity, the loss of Baghdad libraries could have been a much more awful tragedy had there not been what I called interactions. Marrakesh, which was built and made their capital by Morocco’s Almoravid dynasty, was deliberately and completely destroyed by their Almohad successors. These rebuilt the whole city in the most beautiful possible way, because they had already « received » the necessary knowledge from their predecessors. As long as knowledge is intact, it does not matter how beautiful or big a destroyed place was. It can always be rebuilt.
Even the rebuilding of a whole nation is possible if there is the necessary knowledge. Europe milked the Arabs of their knowledge and rebuilt itself in a matter of generations.
But the Arabs’ knowledge was « poisonous » somehow. Averroes’ lectures taught Europeans how to look at religion differently. This led to voices rising against the way the Church taught religion. The Church defended itself by persecuting people of knowledge such as Galileo.
The conflict between the Church and new scientists resulted in new thinking. Some clung to their religious beliefs, defending themselves by use of logic and philosophy. Others broke with the Church altogether and called their way « Secularism ». They defended themselves by experimenting with their knowledge of the world, excluding any reference to the Unknown.
The new knowledge of the world, based on experimentation, led to the Industrial Revolution. The boom in industry led to the spread of knowledge on a phenomenal scale. But this knowledge remained confined to where industry was thriving.
The Church was clever enough to make good use of that thriving industry. Wherever there was a new industrial site there was a large church. Moreover, church men paved the way for their respective industrial states to seize new lands on other continents. Both church men and those who were only interested in wealth agreed on a magic word : civilisation. That civilisation had to be spread through occupation.
Occupation made it possible for more people to go to more places. Africans « went » to America, taking with them their religions, including Islam. Other Muslims were taken into Europe, where they continued to practise their faith. Orientalists (from Europe) went to the Arab and Islamic world to « return » part of the Arabic and Islamic heritage to the newly awakening Arabs and Muslims.
Now that imported material is being exported with an added value. It is done through the Internet and satellite TV stations.
Islam has become the fastest growing religion in America, which invented the Internet and satellite TV. There are now American-born imams who know the Koran and the Haddith by heart and are authorized to issue fatwas. All the Islamic literature is now everywhere, thanks to the Internet. This was made possible by American technology and Arab oil money.
“Islam has become the fastest growing religion in America, which invented the Internet and satellite TV.”
I have heard it so often.
Can you please give a break up of how much of this growth is via increased population and immigration from other Muslim countries?
Pingback: Indian Muslims Blog - Best Of 2008 | Indian Muslims Blog