Tradition in Islamic Legislation: Reconciling Revelation and Tradition

The trauma of the umma is palpable, but for those who bury their heads in the sand and pretend that everything is just fine. Poverty and illiteracy abound. Internecine clashes rage among Muslims. Where is the unity of the umma? Muslims are associated with extremism and even terrorism. Traditional ulema assert that "Islam is not like that." This is true, but on the assumption that Islam is properly understood. Islam is indeed a teaching of reconciliation. Unfortunately, an examination of the writings of the ulema reveals a different reality. It revels a tendency to endorse aggression in the propagation of Islam and excess in Islamic law. The endorsement of aggression finds its expression in the form of jihad al-talab, a reflection of political Islam. Nary an alim rejected the teaching of aggressive jihad, which made jihad al-talab possible in the first place. Spreading religion by force became a sixth pillar of Islam. There was a "agreement." But how could agreement reached on a teaching that defies the teaching of revelation? It transpired as an effect of the repression of reason. Reason could not restrain excess because it was silenced. Among the effects of the repression of reason was the emergence of the teaching of predestination. According to this teaching, embraced by traditional ulema and those that follow them, there is no connection between cause and effect because Allah predestines everything. This means that human beings are not responsible for anything because Allah predetermines all events, even people's transgressions. We have no freedom of will. The tendency to excess finds expression in the embedding of punishments in the sharia that differ from, and are harsher than those prescribed in revelation. The death penalties for apostasy, adultery and blasphemy furnish examples of juristic excess. Allah states that He does not change the condition of people until they change what is in themselves. Did Muslims alter what is in themselves? The answer is in the affirmative. What changed was that a connection with revelation was exchanged for a connection with a different, "second" revelation." This second revelation was none other than traditions, which in order to make itself acceptable, presented itself in the garb of "tradition." But tradition is temporal; did Muslims alter what was "inside" themselves? Was the turn to tradition from revelation a result of this alteration? Was the meaning of revelation changed? Was there a reorientation from revelation to the traditions of the predecessors of the Muslims? Does revelation encourage following the traditions of the forefathers in preference to following revelation? Problems began with the rejection of reason, the use of which was associated with unbelief in a tradition. To be better Muslims, persons that followed this tradition reduced their reliance on reason. As a result, they began to misunderstand and misrepresent the teaching of revelation. The prophet Muhammad was elevated to the rank of a second legislator. Following the "traditions" attributed to him became a religious requirement. Whoever refused to abide by traditions was branded an unbeliever. But there are problems. Reason was used in the authentication of traditions. But reason was subordinated to tradition. In time, revelation was subordinated to tradition, too. Tradition judged, abrogated and replaced parts of revelation. Then reason, tradition and even revelation were subordinated to the rulings of the ulema, whose agreement became the chief arbiter. The ulema became the chief authorities, able even to abrogate the revealed rulings of God. The ulema's recourse to the teaching of abrogation enabled them to tamper with the teaching of revelation. By recourse to the abrogation of a hundred and twenty verses that teach reconciliation, hawkish ulema transformed the religion of peace into a religion of war and empire.