Reflection On The Reawakening Of Ijtihad

REFLECTION ON THE RE-AWAKENING OF IJTIHAD This essay is likely to be called as the most embryonic attempt to translate Iqbal’s mind about Ijtihad, particularly from one of his essays named “THE PRINCIPLE OF MOVEMENT IN THE STRUCTURE OF ISLAM” in his time-honoured lectures published under the name of “The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam” I guess this attempt will not do to the veteran readers. If it only attracts a single new and seriour reader to our National Poet, I honestly think, my sole desire will be accomplished. The character of knowledge in religious experience is something not yet wholly intelligible to the captive of time and space. Knowledge is to get that religious experience piecemeal. Man although singular in approach and genius in outlook is still confined in the den of sense perception. Nothing under the sky you learn which you cannot possibly perceive and from such standpoint man’s best conception regarding the caracter of knowledge is subject to disagree and liable to mistakes. Knowledge is something impersonal and impartial inquiry of things. It is an infinite voyage through finite chambers. Where it unlocks successively different doors to altogather new views and visions which may partially or sometimes fully eclipse the back view, as Darwin’s “The Origin of Species” made us to revise or if possible, to reconstruct some of our basic visions of Quran, and in the 20th century Einstein equally did a remarkable job. Theory of Relitivity provides new channals of inquiry to the questions which if I am not wrong have long been perceiced by Muslims quite embryonically with reference to the interpritation of Quranic verses. Its miserable that we measure,although divine attributes with the frail yardstick of our sense perception, and if we just imagin God something imperceptible from our standards of perception then our bird comes out of the cage and this is the vision of Quran which convulses you out of yourselves and history provides witness for the same. Almighty dwells apart from our latest and most advanced cognitive domain. Therefore Quran is the only and mighty propelling force for our pacing minds. We on our intellectual side,are going for the same end that Quran emphasises,and to this pace of knowledge guided by an immortal divine message nothing is alien in the fathomless depths of this universe,and this is the same perpetually on going attribute of Islamic teaching that Goethe,while making its general review said to the Eckermann “You see this teaching never fails; with all our systems, we cannot go,and generally speaking no man can go, farther than that.”Quran stirs intellectual gallop and inspires from its novel inspirations,but most unfortunately, Muslims from the very beginning comitted an unpardonable mistake in their failure to recognize motion as the fundamental characteristic of knowledge in the light of Quran. Rather, in a form of Islamic Jurisprudence they halted development of Islamic out look and teaching. Since life in all its forms is an evolutionary process, similarly Quran is the book witch guides mankind at every stage of evolution which we have undergone or even not sofar, quite like an insignificant seed which has in itself a complete machanism to come out to be a tall and conspicuous pine tree.Quran catches our intellect with same magnitism as it did 14

centuries back and it will do altogather same for an innumerable centuries to come. It is something prescriptive with descriptive spirit, and it is an unprecidented crime to try to make its principles stagnant,and the highest misfortune of the Muslim nation is the same stagnation and its persistence for centuries.In such a long time illusions crept into our minds in such a manner that our every thought comes out of the same illusional filter and in its consolidated form it seems to be adverse to the Quranic vision and individuals of nation after nation couldn’t be convinced even perhaps in their most personal thinking and beliefs. To cast your minds back over the centuries you will see the Europe in the same boat, jolted by the blows from either side by church and state. This historical quibbling was initiated due to the social and political blindness of christanity, and its undynamic and static view regarding life. It completely lacks the spirit of universal integration as a living factor. Whereas Islam on the other side assumes the spirit of universal integration with the magnetism of Ijtihad. In this respect the Prophet himself appears to be an obvious exponent and we may put forward an instance when Ma’ad was appointed as the ruler of Yemen. Prophet (SAW) is reported to have asked him as to how he would decide the matters coming up before him “I’ll judge matters according to the book of God”said Ma’ad. “But if book of God contains nothing to guide you” “then I’ll act on the precedents of the Prophet of God” “ But if the precedents fail?” then I’ll exert to form my own judgemant” this “exert”is what Islam means by Ijtihad. Such vived instances even in the life of Prophet (SAW) illustrate the fact of novelty and innovation held by Muhammad (SAW) himself alone suffices Islam to be an iconoclastic (but not entirely unrestrand, rather guided by the general atmosphere created by Quran). Then one may stand inquisitive about the nature of finality in Islamic Jurisprudence. This needs acute and purely an objective probe through the different ages of history of Islam. Its first cause was a Rationalist movement in the early days of Abbasides. Their controversies with conservatives made them out spoken to an extent that Nazzam practically rejected traditions and openly declared Abu Huraira to be an unworthy reporter. Their such unrestrained motives made conservatives to cope with the situation in quite an unliberal way, though their main purpose was to preserve the social integrity of Islam. Ascetic Sufiism thrust out from the same quibbles of early doctors mainly as a revolt,and victomised Sufyan Suri,the accutest legal mind of an age,from the hot waters of argumentative fatigue to the peaceful lap of hermitage. And the general attitude of indifference towards Appearance (zahir) obsecured Islamic social vision. Subsequently absorbtion of the best minds, muslim state fell in the hands of intellectual mediocrities, and having no support of any person of the high calibre masses found their security in blind following of the schools of Fiqh. Last and perhaps the greatest cause is the fall of Baghdad in the middle of 13th century. It was an unparallel collapse on one hand of the centre of Muslims intellectual life, and on the other hand of the very forces of integration in entire Muslim nation. Conservatives expounded Sharia’t on the same static principles laid by early doctors,

basically to re-organize the constituents of devastated muslim nation. Their focus primarily was a social aspect of the muslim nation which ultimatly crushed individuality and to this “the verdict of history is that” says modern writer “worn out ideas have never risen to power among a people who have worn them out”. The history of revolt against such static ideas is something more intresting owing to its right place and character against its counterpart,for it is quite obvious that the potential behind any revolt is more vulnerable to prejudices and in this way spirit of an impartial and objective inquiry of reality is robbed by the personal and subjective feelings of renunciation,because sometimes,and in this case most of the times, it is hard not to believe what you want to believe. It is much like a communist revolution in Russia. Lenin laid its first brick as a repudiator.He repudiated norms, values, religion, God, rituals and at the end when he was convinced he repudiated himself. Which Churchill puts like that, “He saw, he turned, he perished.” the collective revolt is more like a mob psychology with specticles of Shakespearian “Julius Caesar” and is therefore more susceptible to illusions and obsecurities because the predicessors of different schools in Islam never claimed finality of their principles. It was rather a collective attitude of followers that they stopped the spirit of movement in Islam.They committed this unpardonable mistake because their belief in Islam was over shadowed by their reverence towards the predicessors of the particular schools. They rather muddled Islam and personalities and believed in somewhat exaggerated mixture of opposits, quite unlike the spirit of Omer“the first critical and independent mind in Islam who at the last moment of Prophet (SAW),had the moral courage to utter these remarkable words ‘The book of God is sufficient for us’ ” If you go against the misinterpritation of Islam then only way left to you is to interprit it in the best knowledge and wisdom of an age, regardless to the notion that you are going to revolt, but you are going to correct, not by your own will but in accordence with the spirit of Quran. Ibn-i-Taimiyya, born five years after the fall of Baghdad in 1263 AD sparkled as the first revolt against the finality of schools. He claimed freedom of Ijtihad for himself. Suyuti in 16th century claimed the privilage of Ijtihad with addition that, at the end of each century there must be a renovator. But the fullest expression of Ibn-i-Taimiyya is reported to have started as a movement in 18th century from the sands of Nejd,described by Macdonald as the “cleanest spot in the decadent world of Islam”. Nearly all the movements in Asia and Africa got their direct or indirect inspiration from the same movement of Muhammad Ibn-i-Abdul Wahab who born in 1700 AD and studied in Madina. This movement was the great turn,though inwardly too was conservative in its own fashion, because its vision of past was wholly uncritical and falls back on the traditions of Prophet (SAW) and appeared more conservative than supporters of Fiqh.

Written by Nazir Ahmad (Lecturer in English,GPGC,Haripur)