Ijtihad & Islamic Reform
-
Just wanted to start a discussion about Ijtehad and its relevance to the cause of Islamic Reform.
What were the primary reasons due to which The "gates of ijtihad" were "closed" in the 10th century in Sunni School of Thought and a consensus was gradually established itself to the effect that from that time onwards no one could be deemed to have the necessary qualifications for independent reasoning in religious law, and that all future activity would have to be confined to the explanation, application, and, at the most, interpretation of the doctrine as it had been laid down once and for all.
The reasons for the closing the gates of Ijtehad were,
The Imam Shafi's contention that Sunnah is not a living practice of Interpretation(aka The Living Sunnah)but it goes back to an ideal sunnah of the prophet referring to the acts and sayings of the prophet. Imam Shafi views as to the ideal sunnah came to be widely accepted and as a result of which Hadith acquired an authority at par with the Quran.
The Abbassids who came to power after the Umayyads condemned the latter for being unislamic and corrupt. They set about to create a standardized religious law without any recourse to reason. The natural flow of the islamic law adjusting itself to changing conditions was hampered and purely dogmatic articles of faith were translated into law. The abbassids blocked the rational, logical and progressive ideas and in its place created a rigid and unworkable system. This was the prime reason that the intellectual minds of the time abandoned the field of law and went into other sciences.
The fall of Baghdad and the destruction of the caliphate in 1258 came rather quickly as a result of which most of the intellectual heritage of islam was lost. In the resulting confusion and with no center of authority the surviving leaders of the time attributed the (mongol)invasions to the sins of the time as a result of which the past was made the guide of the future. By this time the doors of Ijtihad were essentially closed. The masses were expected to blindly follow the interpretations of the past. The surviving intellectual elite took to sufism as an alternative to the closing of the doors of Ijtihad.
Serious rethinking within Islam is long overdue. Muslims have been comfortably relying, or rather falling back, on age-old interpretations for much too long. This is why we feel so painful in the contemporary world, so uncomfortable with modernity. Scholars and thinkers have been suggesting for well over a century that we need to make a serious attempt at Ijtihad, at reasoned struggle and rethinking, to reform Islam. At the beginning of the last century, Jamaluddin Afghani and Mohammad Abduh led the call for a new Ijtihad; and along the way many notable intellectuals, academics and sages have added to this plea - not least Mohammad Iqbal, Malik bin Nabbi and Abdul Qadir Audah. Yet, ijtihad is one thing Muslim societies have singularly failed to undertake. Why?
-
Your title question doesnt match your post. Perhaps you mean 'where has the ijtihad gone' or something similar, for the title.
I guess the traditionalists are stuck too deep down in their tradition that they closed the gates of ijtihad. Also, with all the different 'schools of thought' (AKA sects) and the whole consensus thing, how can they have ijtihad if they are not independent of any sect?
-
Salamun alaikum
Like anything there has to be sufficient momentum to get it to move forward. Too many muslims are stuck at having a go at each other that they can't see what they're doing is futile.
We need an Islamic Reformation, which can only be brought about by people strong enough to withstand the onslaught of the 'ruling' Imams in power today. The ones in power need to be invited to live discussions, live debates to get the discussion going. So that we can make the Muslim World a better one and hopefully spread that Love to the rest of humanity. But we will never do it if we continue our useless bickering about things when two people can't stand firmly together on one idea.
We need a public platform. If there was sufficient money a tv channel dedicated to discussion and open debate would really help as a stepping stone to get the powers to listen. The masses will follow, we need to bring them to get them involved in these things, but again this will only happen when they're not worried about where the next meal is coming from, or if they are safe in their house...
-
Just wanted to start a discussion about Ijtehad and its relevance to the cause of Islamic Reform.
What were the primary reasons due to which The "gates of ijtihad" were "closed" in the 10th century in Sunni School of Thought and a consensus was gradually established itself to the effect that from that time onwards no one could be deemed to have the necessary qualifications for independent reasoning in religious law, and that all future activity would have to be confined to the explanation, application, and, at the most, interpretation of the doctrine as it had been laid down once and for all.
The reasons for the closing the gates of Ijtehad were,
The Imam Shafi's contention that Sunnah is not a living practice of Interpretation(aka The Living Sunnah)but it goes back to an ideal sunnah of the prophet referring to the acts and sayings of the prophet. Imam Shafi views as to the ideal sunnah came to be widely accepted and as a result of which Hadith acquired an authority at par with the Quran.
The Abbassids who came to power after the Umayyads condemned the latter for being unislamic and corrupt. They set about to create a standardized religious law without any recourse to reason. The natural flow of the islamic law adjusting itself to changing conditions was hampered and purely dogmatic articles of faith were translated into law. The abbassids blocked the rational, logical and progressive ideas and in its place created a rigid and unworkable system. This was the prime reason that the intellectual minds of the time abandoned the field of law and went into other sciences.
The fall of Baghdad and the destruction of the caliphate in 1258 came rather quickly as a result of which most of the intellectual heritage of islam was lost. In the resulting confusion and with no center of authority the surviving leaders of the time attributed the (mongol)invasions to the sins of the time as a result of which the past was made the guide of the future. By this time the doors of Ijtihad were essentially closed. The masses were expected to blindly follow the interpretations of the past. The surviving intellectual elite took to sufism as an alternative to the closing of the doors of Ijtihad.
Serious rethinking within Islam is long overdue. Muslims have been comfortably relying, or rather falling back, on age-old interpretations for much too long. This is why we feel so painful in the contemporary world, so uncomfortable with modernity. Scholars and thinkers have been suggesting for well over a century that we need to make a serious attempt at Ijtihad, at reasoned struggle and rethinking, to reform Islam. At the beginning of the last century, Jamaluddin Afghani and Mohammad Abduh led the call for a new Ijtihad; and along the way many notable intellectuals, academics and sages have added to this plea - not least Mohammad Iqbal, Malik bin Nabbi and Abdul Qadir Audah. Yet, ijtihad is one thing Muslim societies have singularly failed to undertake. Why?
You seemed to have answered your own question well. Good article. There is nothing more to add.
-
Something I wanted to add to the above
Does anyone here knows why the Sunnis and Shias parted their ways?
First and foremost Sunnis and Shias followed the same truth (that is the Quran) but then what was the point of difference or what had changed since the life of the prophet that after the death of the prophet they decided to part their ways. Both sects parted their ways because they preferred to follow a different system rather than the fact they differed on the truth(that is the Quran) which was given to them. The Shias believed in a system based upon two things the 'infallible imam' and the 'Blind following' the same system that was followed by the Egyptians and the Rabbanic jews and the Catholics/Eastern orthodox and finally the Shias. The Infallible Imam is the only one who can interpret the Quran and make it known to the people. The Sunnis on the other hand followed a system based upon two things 'Independent Reasoning' and 'Consensus of the community' a system that was followed by the Greeks/Romans, Karaite Jews, Protestants and finally the Sunnis. This system on the other hand depended upon interpretation by the learned scholars.
This is how it worked. The Sunni scholars interpreted their religion with the changing circumstances of the time and updated their laws according to the changing times. This process of interpretation of the Quran and updating the law according to changing times was known as the 'Living Sunnah'. When imam shafi came on the scene he literally and single handedly destroyed this process by declaring that there is no such thing as the 'Living Sunnah' but Sunnah is an Ideal Sunnah which gave birth to the idea of making Hadith or interpretations of the earliest generations of Islam as a source of Law, which it never was. They were just interpretations or in other words human activity which was bound to have some errors in them as to say to err is to human. Suffice to say this led to people believing that all they had to do is to follow the hadith which was understood to be the explanation of the Quran. From this time onwards the Suuni system started to decline until finally a time came when the rulers of the time declared that apart from the four interpreters there is no one else to be followed and that there will be no interpretations from so on forth. Independent reasoning was totally outlawed by a decree popularly known as the closing of the gates of Ijtihad. After that Sunnis became worse than the Shias in their ignorance. That is the reason when you ask a Sunni he will reply that you should not think in matters of religion but follow the earliest interpreters since we are ignorant and they were wise. The Sunnis abandoned their system based upon 'Indpendent Reasoning' and 'Consensus of the community' at the behest of Imam Shafi and started following the Shia system of 'infallible imam' and the 'Blind following'. The Sunnis of today glorify their Imams(past) in their mosques and praise the wisdom of the earliest interpreters and other than that sit on their butts do nothing and follow baseless rituals and rites. The original Sunnis that came before Imam Shafi were a different class altogether.
What we need to do is to convince the Sunnis of today is to revive the original system and to abandon the system of ignorance based upon the ('infallible imam' and the 'Blind following' they are following. Hadith is simply a part of a wrong system the sunnis seem to be following, they just need to be convinced that interpretations are not binding they are either relevant or not relevant anymore. For interpretations to be valid they need to be in line with the quran and the changing circumstances of the time.
Your views are welcome
-
Something I wanted to add to the above
Does anyone here knows why the Sunnis and Shias parted their ways?
First and foremost Sunnis and Shias followed the same truth (that is the Quran) but then what was the point of difference or what had changed since the life of the prophet that after the death of the prophet they decided to part their ways. Both sects parted their ways because they preferred to follow a different system rather than the fact they differed on the truth(that is the Quran) which was given to them. The Shias believed in a system based upon two things the 'infallible imam' and the 'Blind following' the same system that was followed by the Egyptians and the Rabbanic jews and the Catholics/Eastern orthodox and finally the Shias. The Infallible Imam is the only one who can interpret the Quran and make it known to the people. The Sunnis on the other hand followed a system based upon two things 'Independent Reasoning' and 'Consensus of the community' a system that was followed by the Greeks/Romans, Karaite Jews, Protestants and finally the Sunnis. This system on the other hand depended upon interpretation by the learned scholars.
This is how it worked. The Sunni scholars interpreted their religion with the changing circumstances of the time and updated their laws according to the changing times. This process of interpretation of the Quran and updating the law according to changing times was known as the 'Living Sunnah'. When imam shafi came on the scene he literally and single handedly destroyed this process by declaring that there is no such thing as the 'Living Sunnah' but Sunnah is an Ideal Sunnah which gave birth to the idea of making Hadith or interpretations of the earliest generations of Islam as a source of Law, which it never was. They were just interpretations or in other words human activity which was bound to have some errors in them as to say to err is to human. Suffice to say this led to people believing that all they had to do is to follow the hadith which was understood to be the explanation of the Quran. From this time onwards the Suuni system started to decline until finally a time came when the rulers of the time declared that apart from the four interpreters there is no one else to be followed and that there will be no interpretations from so on forth. Independent reasoning was totally outlawed by a decree popularly known as the closing of the gates of Ijtihad. After that Sunnis became worse than the Shias in their ignorance. That is the reason when you ask a Sunni he will reply that you should not think in matters of religion but follow the earliest interpreters since we are ignorant and they were wise. The Sunnis abandoned their system based upon 'Indpendent Reasoning' and 'Consensus of the community' at the behest of Imam Shafi and started following the Shia system of 'infallible imam' and the 'Blind following'. The Sunnis of today glorify their Imams(past) in their mosques and praise the wisdom of the earliest interpreters and other than that sit on their butts do nothing and follow baseless rituals and rites. The original Sunnis that came before Imam Shafi were a different class altogether.
What we need to do is to convince the Sunnis of today is to revive the original system and to abandon the system of ignorance based upon the ('infallible imam' and the 'Blind following' they are following. Hadith is simply a part of a wrong system the sunnis seem to be following, they just need to be convinced that interpretations are not binding they are either relevant or not relevant anymore. For interpretations to be valid they need to be in line with the quran and the changing circumstances of the time.
Your views are welcome
The Sunni initially could have been the Banu Umayyas(Abu Sufyan and Mua'wiya etc) while the Shia were Banu Hashim. Both originated from Mecca but the Umayids won the day and ruled after doin away with the 4 caliphs. The Hashimis came to power later during the Abbasids. There is no real difference between them but the Hashimis benefited from their lineage and therefoe codified the Umayid form of governance as the sunnah of the prophet.
Anyways for more on this
http//www.fordham.edu/halsall/med/schacht.html
Interesting points of view and it does give some insight as to the development of Shariah law.
-
The Sunni initially could have been the Banu Umayyas(Abu Sufyan and Mua'wiya etc) while the Shia were Banu Hashim. Both originated from Mecca but the Umayids won the day and ruled after doin away with the 4 caliphs. The Hashimis came to power later during the Abbasids. There is no real difference between them but the Hashimis benefited from their lineage and therefoe codified the Umayid form of governance as the sunnah of the prophet.
Anyways for more on this
http//www.fordham.edu/halsall/med/schacht.html
Interesting points of view and it does give some insight as to the development of Shariah law.
Wow..that's quite interesting, and probably true.
-
The Sunni initially could have been the Banu Umayyas(Abu Sufyan and Mua'wiya etc) while the Shia were Banu Hashim. Both originated from Mecca but the Umayids won the day and ruled after doin away with the 4 caliphs. The Hashimis came to power later during the Abbasids. There is no real difference between them but the Hashimis benefited from their lineage and therefoe codified the Umayid form of governance as the sunnah of the prophet.
Anyways for more on this
http//www.fordham.edu/halsall/med/schacht.html
Interesting points of view and it does give some insight as to the development of Shariah law.
hmm this is interesting..
-
Peace
When anything relating to islam comes up we usually say
"this in not in Quran"
"show us where it is in the Quran"
"It is not essential to know because it is not in the Quran"So exactly in the same way the question can arise about ijtihaad.Is this present in the in Quran ?
(I hope you will not ask this highly intellectual question "show the tooth brushing" in the Quran" )
Regards