"The Learned Men of God" and Interpreting Islam For Today's World

"This religion is a science, so pay close attention to those from whom you learn it."

I think Malik ibn Anas' quote about Islam summed up this chapter pretty well.  I read with great interest about the Abbasid leader, al-Ma'mum, who wanted so much religious authority Aslan declared he almost ushered in the Muslim Papacy.  This chapter dealt mostly with "the learned men of God" or ulama. I learned many things about Islam's development first and foremost that like Judaism, it's an orthopraxic religion - one of rituals rather than belief (orthodox) such as Christianity.  This helps me understand something I've often pondered: why go back under rules like the Jews were?  Why is Islam so much a religion of extensive rules such as I read in the Old Testament?  I grew up to believe Jesus fulfilled the Law and set us free. Not to do our own thing, but to love God in a way that pleases Him. Annnnnd with God's help!  More of a relationship by following God daily and being attentive to His Spirit than by going through the motions of rituals.  Granted much of Christianity is doing. We shouldn't merely talk pretty, but "do pretty" as well!  As the book of James tells us "faith without works is dead."  So we have belief that moves us to do that which pleases God rather than - what I think of orthopraxy - doing good deeds in order to earn God's favor.  So that section of this chapter was noteworthy to me as I reflected on my own beliefs on, well, beliefs and/or practices.

Aslan shares that the ulama's chief objective was establishing who was and who was not a Muslim!  Apparently they thought their powers extended to making this call! Quite an endeavor!  A result of their labors were the Five Pillars of Islam all of which are communal practices except the shahadah which is an individual's statement of belief in God as the only God and Muhammad as God's messenger.  Prayers, fasting, obligatory charity giving and the hajj (pilgrimage to Mecca) were all primarily done in community with others, and, as you can tell, are actions or rituals rather than statements of belief.  Intention, however, is stressed before each of these actions so they are not - hopefully - merely rote with no heart behind the actions.  In other words, ideally they aren't merely going through the motions.

Aslan said the fasting ritual was adopted from Arabia's Jews by Muhammad who initially had his followers fast Yom Kippur with the Jews.  Later it was changed to fasting the month of Ramadan.

I found the discussion of not using metaphors for God and tawhid - the Oneness of God - very interesting.  As the author points out tawhid is not mere monotheism, it's proclaiming that God is utterly indefinable, "resembles nothing in either essence or attributes." For this reason the Quran's use of anthropomorphic traits were "grudgingly acknowledged" by both the Rationalist and Traditionalist theologians.  Quite frankly I think it's a mercy of God to describe Himself in human terms because I can understand human terms and metaphors whereas Godspeak is out of my realm. So, if God wants to communicate with us, He is wise to use ways we can comprehend.  I don't see any problem with God speaking of His face, arms, throne or even emotional traits (wrath, love, mercy, compassion.)  To me this doesn't make God human, it makes God wonderful to want me to get to know Him. He could remain aloof and outside of my realm and to some extent I guess He does since I cannot see Him sitting in the chair beside me.  But He communicates with me - in English, in a language I know and in terms I can understand!  I love this about Him!

I learned that shirk, mostly used in the context of associating partners with God, can also include any grave sin that keeps one apart from God.  So it's not just we Trinitarians who are in danger of the unpardonable sin!

Aslan told of the Ash'arite school who came up with the "don't ask why" or bila kayfa response to the Rationalists. It's the age-old reply of parents to their children who want to know why they must do such and such.  Because I said so.  Like that, this response conveys "because the Quran says so...and it's not our place to ask how or why."

The author notes that during Moses' time, his miracles were primarily conveyed through magic. Jesus' miracles involved healing and exorcisms.  And Muhammad's was through words. In fact Aslan notes that many Muslims believe Muhammad's only miracle was the Quran which basically created the Arabic language. Or helped standardize it anyway.

The Traditionalists argued the Quran was not only the Speech of God, it is God, therefore, it was uncreated and eternal. This raised questions of whether God spoke Arabic and is every copy of the Quran a copy of God.  The Rationalists, on the other hand, said the Quran merely reflected God.

The author introduced me to baraka, the concept of the words themselves possessing a spiritual power. (If the word IS God, you'd hope so, eh?) This is most famously and artistically expressed through the beauty of calligraphy since Muslims frown on icons and pictures of spiritual things. I didn't realize there were strict rules for reciting the Quran. Tajwid regulates "when one is permitted to stop during a recitation and when it is forbidden to stop, when to prostrate oneself and when to rise, when to breathe and when not to take a breath, which consonants to stress and how long to hold each vowel." 

As for interpreting the Quran, there are tafsir, concerned with the literal interpretation in light of historical context and chronology, and ta'wil which is more mystical and able to be interpreted by only a select few.  Most Traditionalists have held that what was appropriate to Muhammad and the Muslim community of 7th century Arabia must be appropriate for the ummah at all times, "regardless of the circumstances."   Shariah was "developed by the Ulama as the basis for the judgment of all actions in Islam as good or bad, to be rewarded or punished."  The ulama used the Quran, hadiths ("the bulk of what are considered to be sound traditions are deemed so not because of their isnads [a chain of transmission in order to validate hadith] were particularly strong, but because they reflected the majority beliefs and practices of the community"), drawing parallels from the present community to Muhammad's and ijma which addresses situations not covered in the Quran or hadiths.  One problem with ijma is that it created Islamic precedence which many will not allow to change and grow as society changes and grows. 

Aslan makes the case for the Quran being living and breathing and changing as times changed. He points to verses that contradict others - abrogated by God or Muhammad - as times changed. He suggests this may be why Muhammad never had the Quran written down because it was subject to change based on how the community grew.  He argues that "while God may not change, the Revelation most certainly did, and without apology." The idea that the Quran cannot be interpreted in ways that make sense to modern times and Muslims must live as the Prophet and other early Muslims did is "simply an untenable position in every sense."

Thoughts?