Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
February 27, 2008
A Fresh View on Islamic Law

The BBC reports about a project for a new interpretation of Islamic scripture. This is indeed big news.

I have written about these scriptures, Islamic law interpretation based on them and how they reflect the Shia-Sunni divide.

To recap – Islamic law is based on:

  • Quran – God's own words written down by the prophet Muhammad
  • Hadith – Historic tales of the "practice of the prophet" as a supplement to the Quran
  • Ijtihad – case-law developed through interpretation of the Quran and Hadith
  • Quiyas – For the Sunni school of Islam Ijtihad was closed several hundred years ago and development of new case-law is not allowed. Application of Islamic law to new social circumstances and technical development is therefore based on analogies, quiyas, from the old case law. Scholar consensus, Ijma, is needed for acceptance of a analogy-interpretation.

For the Shia school of Islam Ijtihad is still open and religious/legal scholars can and do develop new case-law.

Both Shia and Sunni see Quran and Hadith essentially as given. Whoever doubts these is accused as aposta and heretic.

An official program for a new reading of the Hadith is therefore an enormous and risky endeavor. Here, BBC reports, Turkey is taking the lead:

The country's powerful Department of Religious Affairs has commissioned a team of theologians at Ankara University to carry out a fundamental revision of the Hadith, the second most sacred text in Islam after the Koran.

The argument is that Islamic tradition has been gradually hijacked by various – often conservative – cultures, seeking to use the religion for various forms of social control.

Leaders of the Hadith project say successive generations have embellished the text, attributing their political aims to the Prophet Muhammad himself.

This project is at least two years old. Interestingly a German Jesuit and prominent scholar on Islam, Felix Koerner, is involved.

Instead of literal reading of Quran and Hadith, which was revived by the Saudi Wahabi school in the late 19th century, the project is encouraging critical reading of the text and setting it into its historical context. A Turkish scholar gives an example:

"There are some messages that ban women from travelling for three days or more without their husband's permission and they are genuine.

"But this isn't a religious ban. It came about because in the Prophet's time it simply wasn't safe for a woman to travel alone like that. But as time has passed, people have made permanent what was only supposed to be a temporary ban for safety reasons."


Prof Gormez points out that in another speech, the Prophet said "he longed for the day when a woman might travel long distances alone".

So, he argues, it is clear what the Prophet's goal was.

There are several scholars like Jamal Al-Banna (interview: 1, 2) who for years are arguing for a renewed interpretation of the Hadith. The real big news now is the official support for such.

It remains to be seen if and how this will effect the interpretation of religion in the Arab world. It certainly will lead to new discussions, but fundamentalists will likely reject it.

Historically broad new interpretations of a religion, like through the Christian reformation, lead to splits and even wars about the "true belief". So while this is welcome news, it might have some dangerous implications.

Comments

I’m not well versed by any means in these matters. But I’m pretty sure that the word-root which gives us Koran or Quran has the meaning of “read”. For example there was an offshoot of Judaisn who called Karaite who reject the rabbinic tradition and insist (like some Xstian protestants) that in is sufficient to read the Tanach.
What I am saying is that the Koran is not “God’s own Word” as written down by the Prophet — rather it is the Prophet’s reading of the Eternal Book which was first shown to Mohammed in the Hira cave.
My point here has long been that this “reading”, accepting that he actually was shown the Absolute Truth, is that it was the 6th Edition. If the Prophet was to read it today, in the 21st century, I am sure it would sound different, albeit the spirit of the message would be the same

Posted by: Chuck Cliff | Feb 27 2008 16:18 utc | 1

Islam is still lacking in a critical/historical approach to interpreting its holy scriptures. It took Christianity over fifteen centuries before it was able to begin to approach the Bible as the work of human hands and view it in its historical and social context.
The West should be doing all it can to encourage this sort of movement within the Islamic world, instead of pursuing policies that only encourage fundamentalist reactionaries.

Posted by: ralphieboy | Feb 27 2008 17:23 utc | 2

This is very good news and a very good move from Turkey, as far as I’m concerned.
And even if it might lead to violence, deaths and wars, I’m of the opinion that it is necessary for Islam, and the way to go if it is to survive and have a serious influence in the future.

Posted by: CluelessJoe | Feb 27 2008 19:46 utc | 3

Whether or not the new Turkish edition of the Hadith amounts to a real revolution or “Reformation” depends on how the Turks have gone about it; we will have to see how widely the new version is accepted. As you indicated in your previous post, b, the two original sources of law in Islam are the Qur’an and Hadith. The Qur’an is the literal word of God transmitted to Muhammad, and cannot be faulted (though faults in transmission could be argued). Muhammad was the perfect human being, but still a human, and what he had to say could be described as of a similar level to the Bible, that is human writing inspired by God. That is the Hadith. It was recognised at an early stage, in the 8th-9th centuries, that false sayings could have been introduced into the corpus. The method, however, used at that time to eliminate false sayings was faulty. Oral transmission was regarded as superior to written texts, and the method of analysis used was to determine whether one person could have transmitted to another the saying, in terms of whether the two were alive at the same time and could have met. It is evident that a plausible chain of transmitters could be invented in the same way as the saying itself. The canonical versions of the Hadith date to the 9th century.
What I would think the Turks have done is to go back to original presumption that sayings could be false, and to use other criteria for deciding whether true or false. In my view a legitimate activity.
My first question would be: will this edition only be accepted in Turkey? The issue of nationalism could play a role. In general, however, the space between liberal and fundamentalist Islam is bound to be widened. Fundamentalists are not going to be convinced. However there is no difference there from the space between Christian fundamentalists in the US, and liberal Christians who are ready to appoint gay bishops.

Posted by: Alex | Feb 27 2008 21:46 utc | 4

Pat Lang, a real expert on Islam, picks up this (I sent him the story)

I had not heard of this development before. This is of the greatest importance to the future of the Muslims.
The Islamicate civilization has long suffered from a rigidity that defies logical evolution in the sacred law.
This reformist activity can be seen as a restoration of the essence of a great religion, just as the Protestant Reformation and Catholic Counter-Reformation can be seen as restorations.
For the Turkish government itself to be doing this, at a time when that government is strongly influenced by religious political party strength is, in itself, a kind of miracle.
If I were a Muslim I would take that as a sign of God’s will. pl

Posted by: b | Feb 29 2008 8:27 utc | 5

good one b

Posted by: anna missed | Feb 29 2008 10:12 utc | 6

“just as the Protestant Reformation and Catholic Counter-Reformation can be seen as restorations.”
restored to what, exactly?

Posted by: jcairo | Feb 29 2008 13:45 utc | 7

A dementi:
BBC claims of hadith reworking unfounded

A recent BBC report, titled “Turkey in radical revision of Islamic texts,” asserts that the Turkish directorate’s project is of a “revolutionary nature” and has “altered and reinterpreted” prophetic statements heretofore agreed upon as authentic. Speaking with Today’s Zaman on Wednesday, Dr. Mehmet Görmez, the directorate’s deputy director, said: “Our project is not aimed at effecting a radical renewal of the religion, as is claimed by the BBC. Our objective is to help our citizens attain a better understanding of the hadith….”

The hadith comprise the sayings and actions of the Prophet Mohammed. Six canonical hadith collections possess a semi-sacred place in Sunni Islam and are the most important source of Islamic law (Shariah) after the Quran, serving to clarify and illustrate the text. Though made up of collections gathered at different times by different scholars, they are often collectively referred to as the hadith. The two largest of these six collections are Sahih Bukhari (collected by Muhammad al-Bukhari, d. 870) and Sahih Muslim (collected by Muslim Ibn al-Hajjaj, d. 875).
An attempt to alter these texts as part of a “radical modernization of the religion,” as the BBC put it, would certainly be a highly controversial move. The online BBC article alone had generated over 1,500 reader comments as of Thursday evening. For many Muslims, though, there is a crucial difference between altering hadith texts and reinterpreting them.

Posted by: b | Feb 29 2008 17:30 utc | 8

Accepting fairy tales as fact in order to explain what we do not understand is foolishness… regardless of whether they come from the Bible, the Koran or some other book of myths. So we should be encouraging all (including Muslims, Christians, etc.) to grow up and think for themselves and reject all this nonsensical piety.

Posted by: ed | Mar 1 2008 21:55 utc | 9