For the conquest and usurping of our thought, and thereby our land it is firstly very important to separate us from that which already separates us from the entire world. Our very search for truth, and our talab for it, and above all, our very way to derive the truth, or to put it simply, our methodology to derive the truth. The Islamic worldview, as we know, is shaped by wahy (revealed truth). In a sense to separate the Muslims, from wahy would be to completely separate them from their worldview. The wahy, in the widest sense of the word, is much more than what the modern Muslim thinks it is. “The revelation that the Prophet عَلَيْهِ ٱلسَّلَامُ, received which became the Quran”, on a good day you will also hear one include a hadith in this borrowed definition.
“Since the truth is wahy and the wahy is only the Quran and Hadith, whatever I read and reduce and interpret from the text is the truth. Because I have used wahy to deduce it.” Upon sincere reflection, one would easily point out the problems this approach would cause. Not only does this open a door for infinite re-interpretations but it also completely individualises the Islamic epistemology i.e the way to derive the truth. We will not critique this approach here, but rather point out how it plays a very important role to further decline the “Prophetic Tradition” which we seek much eagerly to revive.
This way of reasoning, to make the text the ultimate truth, without realising that what one is making out to be the ultimate truth is his own interpretation and is misaligned with what the text in its actual sense is saying. In principle this is the same atheistic reasoning which determines ‘my interpretation of the truth is the only valid interpretation’ although his decision of not believing in God and someone else’s decision of believing in a God both come from observing the same material world. Newton a scholar in physics would say-
“This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”¹
But the layman with basic to advanced levels of knowledge of physics would deny God because physics explains everything. He too thinks that it is physics that is the ultimate truth but in reality, it is his own interpretation of physics. More so, he also may dare to take his own interpretation of this ‘physics’ and disagree with the physicist based on some twisted idea of what he calls ‘critical thinking’. In vain are the modern physicians because they have no valid principle upon which physics could unite, no epistemic discipline except the supreme authority of the 5 senses. Since it is, unlike its aristotlean ancestor a ‘compartmentalised science’ and has no place for ethics, nor is the purpose of modern physics ethics, the purpose is simply material progress which in itself is up for debate. Guenon would ask “Progress towards what?” and none would know what. This is how having no epistemic discipline leaves a man blind and simply makes him act for the sake of acting.
The modern Muslim too, employs the same reasoning. We have established how the text which he would consider the final authority truly is not the final authority for him in any sense of the term. Is the Islamic discipline as devoid of principles as modern physics or other science? Absolutely not, and hence our emphasis on the concept of wahy. The wahy contrary to popular belief is not just the Quran and Hadith in its text and a very curious lesson we learn from the Qur’an itself proves this-
رَبَّنَا وَٱبْعَثْ فِيهِمْ رَسُولًۭا مِّنْهُمْ يَتْلُوا۟ عَلَيْهِمْ ءَايَـٰتِكَ وَيُعَلِّمُهُمُ ٱلْكِتَـٰبَ وَٱلْحِكْمَةَ وَيُزَكِّيهِمْ ۚ إِنَّكَ أَنتَ ٱلْعَزِيزُ ٱلْحَكِيمُ
Here Sayyeduna Ibrahim makes dua for a Prophet to be sent, to which we know it was none other than the Prophet of destruction and the mercy to two worlds Muhammad ibn Abdullah عَلَيْهِ ٱلسَّلَامُ who has sent. Two qualities are asked separately in this case.
"Our Lord! Raise from among them a messenger who will recite to them Your verses, teach them the Book and wisdom, and purify them. Indeed, You ˹alone˺ are the Almighty, All-Wise.”²
Recital of the revelation and teaching of the book is mentioned both separately. Why so? When the book is already being recited why does it, the book, being taught have to be asked for separately? Indeed Allah replied to this dua and sent our Prophet عَلَيْهِ ٱلسَّلَامُ to be exactly of those qualities. If it is the messenger that does not just recites the text but also teaches it and the messenger does not speak except if it is wahy, then by sound intellect it is easy to deduce that it's not just the text but that the understanding of the text too is indeed revelation. The way to teach it too is revelation. In another verse, we see Allah taking the responsibility of the revelation and the recitation and then even its understanding as three separate responsibilities.
(O Prophet) move not your tongue therewith to make haste with it (the learning of the Qur'ān). Surely upon Us rests the collecting thereof and the reciting thereof. So, when We recite it follow you the reciting thereof. And surely upon Us then rests the explaining thereof.³ (Surah Al-Qiyāmah)
Here too we see our Lord, exalted is he and there is no God except for him separate the recitation from the understanding.
Shaykh Muhammad Abdul Azeem Zarqan mentions-
“At this stage, the gist of the entire discussion is that it is unanimously agreed that both the words and meanings (understanding) of the Qurān were revealed through Wahy. The popular conception is that the same holds good about Ḥadīth Qudsī (Divine non-Qur’ānic inspirations beginning with the words “Allah said to me…”). However, as for the Aḥādīth of the Prophet ﷺ only the meanings were revealed, but the words were his own.”⁴
We understand that wahy was not just text but the very influence of the Prophet عَلَيْهِ ٱلسَّلَامُ upon the Sahaba, it was not just taught in letters but further by amaal, by passive conveyance, by tarbiyah in the widest sense of the word, wahy I believe won’t be a very surprising thing to assert was also the gradually instilled upbringing of the Sahaba as a jama’at till it became a part of their way of thinking and thereby acting and speaking. It may be so that this is the reason, along with of course what is understood of the Quran that the scholars assert, the ijma of the Sahaba is just as innocent as wahy, as we can see that as a society the Sahaba were shaped by the Prophet عَلَيْهِ ٱلسَّلَامُ who does not act except by wahy. So, as imam as shatibi affirms in his iti’sam-
وحاصل الأمر أن أصحابه كانوا مقتدين به مهتدِين بهديه
“To sum up, the Companions followed him in every respect and were guided by his example”⁵
But the modern world unites that which is separate and separates that which is united. Understanding and interpretation have been synonymised with the text. We recognize this understanding was revealed to the Prophet عَلَيْهِ ٱلسَّلَامُ and from him was taught to the Sahaba by a revealed way of teaching. It is true that true understanding began to shrink after the Sahaba, but the way of preservation of that understanding continued to be the same in essence. Those who held this true understanding could only be of those that have by any means, had the influence of the Sahaba. Let it be clearly noted, that there would be those that were under the influence of the Sahaba but still deviated and even resorted to kufr but to use such an argument to assert that there could still be true understanding of wahy alive without it having any connection to this way of preservation would be to merely misunderstand what is being conveyed. We have not made the claim that every student of the sahabi is rightly guided, rather our claim is that in order to be rightly guided one must without fail be a student of the Sahaba. So such an argument would merely be strawmanning our claim. The only logical way then for the true and revealed understanding to be passed further, one had to be the student of the students of the Sahaba, and so on and so forth. We quote from al bukhari-
عَنْ مُعَاوِيَةَ قَالَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ مَنْ يُرِدِ اللهُ بِهِ خَيْرًا يُفَقِّهْهُ فِي الدِّينِ وَإِنَّمَا أَنَا قَاسِمٌ وَاللهُ يُعْطِي وَلَنْ تَزَالَ هَذِهِ الْأُمَّةُ قَائِمَةً عَلَى أَمْرِ اللهِ لَا يَضُرُّهُمْ مَنْ خَالَفَهُمْ حَتَّى يَأْتِيَ أَمْرُ اللهِ
71 صحيح البخاري كتاب العلم باب من يرد الله به خيرا يفقهه في الدين
Mu’awiyah reported: The Messenger of Allah peace and blessings be upon him, said, “To whomever Allah wills goodness, He grants him understanding of the religion. Verily, I am only a distributor, but Allah is the giver. Those within this nation will continue to establish the commandments of Allah. They will not be harmed by anyone who opposes them until the decree of Allah has come".⁶
Here the word يُفَقِّهْهُ as explained by Imam Nawawi is “The scholars said: the meaning of the ḥadīth is that whoever Allah intends good for, He grants him success in understanding the religion — that is, in understanding the Qur’an and Sunnah and knowing their meanings”
In another Hadith narrated by ibn majah, with whom may Allah be pleased is-
It was narrated that Ibn 'Abbas said:
“The Messenger of Allah said: ‘One Faquih is more formidable against the Shaitan than one thousand devoted worshippers.’”⁷
The faquih is praised in formidability against the shaytan himself, due to his understanding of the revelation. The understanding revealed to the Prophet عَلَيْهِ ٱلسَّلَامُ and from him to the Sahaba from them to the tabieen and from them to their students and from them to their students. This also continues to be the reason because of which, the memoriser of the entire ‘Matn’ or text of the Quran is not necessarily always a faquih. Rather he is mostly not a faquih but a follower of a faquih for it was well understood in Islamic epistemology that merely the text is not enough to understand the religion or to act upon it. The way of passing on this understanding which was revealed to the Prophet عَلَيْهِ ٱلسَّلَامُ, the epistemic tool used for it is called a sanad, as Islamic knowledge is bound to a principal and it evolves only from it. The principle here is the Prophet عَلَيْهِ ٱلسَّلَامُ who is also the walking Quran, and the understanding gets passed only via a chain that reaches back to him. We have known that only via attaining this sanad, one becomes a faquih and here too is the same law that not everyone with a sanad is a faquih. Just as how the text is validated by a sanad, the understanding too is validated hence, it is now easy to understand, how there would be infinite different interpretations if sanad as a principle is abandoned, and it may now be better understood why Imam Muslim said in his muqaddimah to saheeh Muslim
“The isnād (chain of transmission) is part of the religion. Were it not for the isnād, anyone would have said whatever he wished.”⁸
Let it be noted, that although being a muhaddith and having the task to grade and memorise hadith, in matters of fiqh (understanding), he too was a follower of the faquih and our Imam Muhammad bin Idrees as Shafi. As for the orientalist and his way to interpret Islam, or perhaps any other science it has no way to consider a deeper meaning behind what is apparent. For his worldview is only limited to the visible matter, rather as Guenon mentions-
‘’Westerners pursue science; as they interpret it, their foremost aim is not knowledge, even of an inferior order, but practical applications’’ ⁹
His approach to knowledge is merely to ‘practically act’, to refute, to respond, to confirm, to build and to establish somehow a ‘working’ material that addresses the problem at hand. These are the principles of the western epistemology which in the widest sense of the world is not even an epistemology as epistemology deals with truth and the orientalist cares not about truth, for him whatever that ‘solved’ a problem at hand is the truth to the point where it does not use truth to measure if something should be used as a solution, but rather uses the ‘solution’ to measure if something is the truth. Such deviancy in the hierarchical order of realities arises from an orientalist or dare I say western methodology which has now colonised our own epistemology.
Since the access to text is now defamiliarised to the point that one could access any verse of the Quran or Hadith merely on his fingertips in any corner of the world which again serves to desensitise these scriptures more. Every person now wishes to see what it is that can serve to his immediate practical action, rather than try to achieve true understanding. In a sense, the “faquih” who per the Prophet عَلَيْهِ ٱلسَّلَامُ is formidable against the shaytan is not needed anymore by the modern society, since fiqh and faquih are both ‘irrelevant’ as the modern man has, the scripture, worse, not even the scripture but a simple google search has substituted itself to a bearer of Islamic epistemic discipline. Secular thought has established being scholar as a ‘profession’ rather than it being a bearer of ethics, protector of epistemology and the successor of the inheritance of the Prophet عَلَيْهِ ٱلسَّلَامُ, his wealth which was his knowledge. Islamic epistemology is the only epistemology that has ‘life’ in it and is very much alive, since Islam as a deen in itself has come to elevate man and make him the representation of God’s will on earth, the khalifatul ardh. The scholar, the faquih in this manner is the representation of the Revealed knowledge on this ardh. There is no epistemology except via him which while accepted by everyone is still a fact ignored.
As the modern man denies God after learning laws of physics, the groundworks to which were laid by staunch believers to begin with, the same modernity makes one deny a faquih after learning hadith or Quranic text, the groundwork of which’s preservation was laid by the fuqaha in question.
Tajdid, or tehreek or to revive the Prophetic civilisation, or the bringing back of khilafah ar rashida requires for one to first have the knowledge and understanding of what khilafah ar rashida, the object of his revival is. If the orientalist ibleesian epistemic colonialisation cuts one in a way from the very methodology to learn about the object of revival, to learn about the time which we attempt to bring back, to learn about that which was revealed to Sayyeduna Nabi Muhammad عَلَيْهِ ٱلسَّلَامُ, then the colonialist may rest easy as he
knows that he has hijacked the very nature of this ‘revival’ epistemically rather than the use of Guns.
By portraying the faquih himself as a reason for the decline of the ummah the kafir coloniser makes sure that his colony is ever preserved, even at times the lands would physically be under the Muslim man his thoughts and reasoning are still in the hands of he who once colonised him.
And to Allah belongs all true knowledge.
Reviewed by Maulana Waseem @ Darul Uloom Khalas
[1] Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica
[2] Translation of The Clear Quran, Dr. Mustafa Khattab
[3] Surah Al Al-Qiyamah 75: 16, 17, 18, 19.
[4] Manahil-ul--Irfan Fi 'ulumil Quran vl.1. p44 Eisa-Al-babi, Al-Halabi. Egypt 1322 AH.
[5] Al I'tisham Imam Asy Syatibi
[6] Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī 71, Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 1037
[7] Ibn Majah 222
[8] Muqaddimah Sahih Muslim
[9] Crisis of the modern world, chapter sacred and profane sciences