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)