Retrieving Authentic Islam

It was alleged that knowledge requires "Islamization." Presumably, this refers to "present-day" knowledge. For there is a perception that "present-day" knowledge is not Islamic, and therefore it could "corrupt" Muslims. There is a phobia of "secular" knowledge. But knowledge is already Islamic. The epistemology of revelation distinguishes between knowledge and ignorance, not between knowledge that is Islamic and knowledge that is un-Islamic. What is Islamic does not require "Islamization." If anything, knowledge requires rehabilitation. For the knowledge of revelation was corrupted. In fact, knowledge requires rehabilitation rather than Islamization. Knowledge of revelation was corrupted by perceptions that the Book of Allah is "unclear," "insufficiently detailed," and "contradictory." To "clarify" and "detail" revelation, exegetes turned to tradition. To justify the recourse to tradition, they asserted that tradition is also revelation, a second "revelation." This enabled tradition to become a root of legislation, at times even overruling rulings in the Book of Allah, such as those on apostasy and adultery. But to treat tradition as "equal to" and even a "part of revelation" is to treat traditions as "partners" of the Book of Allah. This is shirk. Moreover, as tradition is not revelation, the re-orientation from revelation to tradition resulted in disorientation. For hearsay reports do not guide better than Allah. The "ascent" of tradition did not stop just at treating tradition as "equal" to revelation. Tradition also became a "judge" and "abrogator" of revelation. But treating tradition as a "judge" of revelation is to subordinate the rulings of God to men. It is to reverse the relationship between God and man. This is a further expression of shirk. In different words, tradition surpassed revelation. In this way revelation became a "protégé" of tradition. This re-arrangement reversed the relationship between revelation and tradition. The reversal of the relationship between revelation and tradition placed the Book of Allah "under" the books of traditions. Placing tradition above revelation is reflected in the assertion that tradition "judges" revelation and in the assertion that "revelation requires tradition more than tradition requires revelation." The subordination of revelation to tradition was assisted by the assumption that the use of reason is kufr and that revelation features "unclear" verses. These assumptions flout revelation. For revelation is the furqan, the criterion used for judgment. Revelation also presents itself as "clear" and asks us to use our reason. In addition to placing tradition above revelation, the assumptions paved the way for recourse to the theory of abrogation. According to the teaching of abrogation, verses revealed earlier were abrogated by verses revealed afterwards. But this is problematic. Fo the Book of Allah states that we will never find a change on the words of Allah. Moreover, to ask a person to cease believing in any verse of the Book of Allah is tantamount to asking that person to abandon Islam. The teaching of abrogation is an invitation to kufr. The teaching of abrogation further tainted the knowledge of revelation, in particular with the alleged abrogation of the peace verses by the ayah as-sayf. The theory of abrogation was used by mercenary ulama to transform Islam into a teaching of war. Waging wars to "propagate" Islam through compulsion was designated as a sixth pillar of Islam. The alleged abrogation of these verses was tantamount to tampering with revelation. The abrogation of the peace verses robbed Islam of its teaching of peace. The treatment of tradition as "revelation" marked the emergence of "traditional" Islam. Recourse to the teaching of abrogation marked the emergence of "political" Islam. As regeneration requires knowledge, renewal requires the rehabilitation and re-engagement of reason. For it is in part through reason that we acquire knowledge.