|
The Islamic legislation emanates from the Kitab and the Sunnah,
unlike the body of laws existent throughout the world today. From
the East to the West the laws that regulate how people relate to
each other are sourced to man and not the Creator of man. The West’s
thinkers, intellectuals and ruling circles claimed that man should
not be held hostage by a thinking anchored in the past. It was their
assertion that this amounted to dogma and fanaticism and it was the
main cause for the backwardness and material decline they found
themselves in. They were living under the rule of monarchs who were
in league with the clergy to keep a hold on power and the
guaranteed servitude of the people. Yet this reality was used to
conclude that ‘religious rule’ or theocracy should be abandoned in
favour of ‘democracy’ or man’s rule whereby people choose the manner
by which they should live and interact with each other. The thinking
should never have reached such heights of depravity, rather the
discussion should have focused on the correctness of the basis for
governance.
As Muslims we believe that a Book and an example dating back 1426
years ago are suitable for any time. This is because we have
conviction in the basis of this assertion. Before we delve into
proving this basis, a few words detailing the foolishness of the
faith in man’s ability to legislate is in order.
Within every society there are those who are charged with making
laws. In some Muslim countries it is the King and others it a
mixture of the King and the Assembly/Parliament, whilst other
countries place this right in the hands of a committee or ruling
elite. In the Western countries, despite the disparity in systems
sovereignty rests with the people. Whether one person or a number
of people legislate the outcome is the same. Human Beings are
pre-disposed to influence by the society in which they live. They
are affected by bias based upon prejudices and self-interest. When
Parliaments the world over make laws they are invariably compromise
solutions reached to achieve a common ground between various
interest groups. This also impacts the wording of what is agreed.
The fact that that new laws are made and old laws are updated is
indicative of the inability of human beings and a natural weakness
we all share. Human beings can only comprehend realities which exist
here and now, it is impossible when laws are being made to take into
account the realities of five years hence. When laws regulating
communications were being framed 30 years ago, could the legislators
have envisaged the formation and growth of the Internet or Mobile
phones? Politicians in parliaments the world over spend lengthy
hours of debate in trying to formulate the words to convey the
meaning for what they intend to impose in terms of laws. Even after
this, problems naturally occur as a result of loopholes caused by
the language. Lawyers pick away at the words in court cases in order
to manipulate the law to benefit their clients. Judges have to
interpret these words without making new law, which they nonetheless
inevitably do. Judges in England for example have spent centuries
discussing whether they should merely apply a law according to its
strict wording or interpret it according to what Parliament
intended. Some judges came to argue that Judges should make law so
as to avoid a ‘manifest absurdity’.
The sum of all of this is that human beings cannot make laws because
of their inherent weakness in looking at matters in a blinkered way
rather than from the point of view of the one who knows man better
than he knows himself, that is the Creator, Allah (subhanahu wa
ta’aala). As for the manner by which He communicates to the people,
this is up to Him (subhanahu wa ta’aala). Whatever the form a
communication is crucial. How else does man come to know of the
reason for his existence? Man has been created with the natural
instinct of reverence. This instinct like all other instincts is
aroused by the surroundings. The trigger for this instinct is
weakness, man feels himself weak when he faces problems, illness,
experiences bereavement etc. Man sees people being born and dying
and this shows him that he too will one day die. He observes the
complexity of the natural universe and the human body, and this
contemplation draws his attention to the order that shapes our
surroundings. How can this organisation be explained away through
theoretical ponderings such as the big bang or evolution through
natural selection? The one who ponders the natural universe cannot
but come to the conclusion that there is a Creator.
Man then requires a communication from this Creator
As for the Qur'an, it has been proven by definite evidence that it
is the Word of Allah (Kalaamu llah), and that the Qur'an is an
Arabic book that Muhammad brought and said that it is from Allah.
There are only a few possible options that explain away the origins
of the Qur'an. It could have come from the Arabs and Muhammad
transmitted it from them, or it came from Muhammad and he was the
one who transmitted it but claimed that it is from Allah, or it is
really and truly from Allah. It cannot be from any other than those
three sources, because the Qur'an is in Arabic with respect to its
language and style. As for it being from the Arabs, this is false as
it challenged them all to bring the like of it.
"Say: then a Surah like unto it"
[ Yunus: 38].
"Say: Bring you then ten forged Surahs
(chapters) like unto it" [ Hud:13].
The Arabs tried to bring something like it but they were unable to
do so. It is, therefore, not from the speech of the Arabs, because
they were unable to produce something like it despite the challenge
and despite their efforts to bring something like it. As for it
being from Muhammad, this is false, because Muhammad was one of the
Arabs and however much a genius he may have been ascribed, he was
still a human being, one of his society and nation. As long as the
Arabs were unable to bring something like the Qur'an, then this is
also true for Muhammad, an Arab. Thus the Qur'an is not from him.
Furthermore, Muhammad has left sound Ahadith (Ahadith Sahihah) and
other Ahadith which have been reported via recurrent transmission (Tawatur)
and whose authenticity is beyond reproach. If any of these
traditions (Ahadith) were to be compared with any verse (Ayah) of
the Qur'an, one would find no similarity between them in style.
Moreover, he would utter the revealed verse and then say the Hadith
at the same time, whereby the difference in style between them would
be clear. The speech of a man, however much he might try to disguise
it, will remain nevertheless similar in style, because the style is
a part of the man himself. Given that there is no similarity between
the Hadith and the Ayah in style, the Qur'an is definitely not
Muhammad's speech due to the clear, lucid difference between it and
Muhammad's speech. Since a man cannot depart from the age in which
he lives, so he would not be able to make a speech other than the
speech of his time, however much he attempted to forge it.
Therefore, he will be unable to depart from his entity i.e. by
greater reason, he will be unable to make a speech other than his
own speech in terms of meaning and style. Literary critics recorded
poetry attributed to the time of Jahiliyyah, and afterwards it was
said that the Qur'an did not belong to that age. These critics
managed to distinguish it and relate it to the Abbasi, Umawi or
Andalusi eras. Such a matter makes it definite that a man cannot
depart from the speech of his age or his own speech. Due to the
stylistic difference of the Qur'an from the Hadith of Muhammad, the
Qur'an is not the speech of Muhammad. Since it has been proven that
the Qur'an is not the speech of the Arabs or the speech of Muhammad,
then it is definitely the speech of Allah and a miracle for the one
who brought it.
As for the fact that the Hadith of the Rasool is a revelation from
Allah, this is indicated by the fact that he is the Rasool of Allah.
The Hadith, like the Qur'an, is his message that Allah revealed to
him. It has been proven that Muhammad is the Rasool of Allah, since
he is the one who brought the Qur'an, which is the Word and the
Shari’ah of Allah. Since no one brings the Shari’ah of Allah except
the Prophets, then he is definitely a Rasool (Messenger) and a Nabi
(Prophet). This is why his Ahadith are revelation from Allah because
it is the Ahadith of a Rasool whom Allah has sent. Not to mention
that the Qur'an, which has been definitely proven to be the word of
Allah, clearly states that the Hadith of the Rasool is revelation
from Allah. He (subhanahu wa ta’aala) said:
"I but follow what is revealed to me by
Wahi" [Al-An’am:50] and He (subhanahu wa ta’aala)
said:
"Nor does he speak of his own desire. It is
only an inspiration (Wahi) that is inspired" [ An-Najm:
3-4].
And He(swt) said:
"Say: I warn you only by the revelation"
[ Al-Anbiya:45].
With this, the decisive and rational proof has been established that
the Book and Sunnah are revelation from Allah. Since only these two
constitute the Islamic Shari’ah, then it has been proven by the
rational and decisive evidence that the Islamic Shari’ah is
revelation from Allah.
So every thought mentioned in the Qur'an or Sunnah must be
revelation from Allah. Consequently, anything deduced from the Book
and Sunnah must also be from the revelation. Therefore, it becomes
clear that the Islamic Shari’ah is not a set of speculative theories
applied to new incidents. Rather the Shari’ah has general meanings
brought by the Rasool as a revelation from Allah. These meanings are
applied on new incidents. By applying these meanings, rules for
these incidents are deduced. These deduced rules are themselves
considered part of the revelation. This is why the 'Ulema have
defined the Shar’i rule as: "the speech of the Legislator
pertaining to the actions of the servants (of Allah)". Thus,
it is what Allah has addressed the Rasool with, so that he may
convey it to the people, because it has been taken from the wording
or meaning of the Legislator's Speech.
|
