Revisiting the Status of the Other in the Qur’an

NOTES FROM THE IIIT CONFERENCE ON APPROACHING THE QUR’AN AND SUNNAH #4

[This is the fourth in a series of my notes on the International Institute of Islamic Thought conference on approaching the Qur’an and Sunnah held in Herndon VA. These notes are raw material for an edited report I will write on the conference later and represent my perception of the discussion. The proceedings will be published by IIIT at a later time. The Minaret of Freedom Institute thanks IIIT for the grant that makes the publication of these notes possible. Responsibility for any errors in the notes is mine alone.]

Fourth Session, Moderator: Imad-ad-Dean Ahmed

Lecture by Muqtedar Khan

“Revisiting the Status of the Other in the Qur’an”

I am not trying to say who will go to heaven. I am addressing a political puzzle that you cannot maintain a public position that all citizens are equal and a private position that they are not. Pluralistic societies cannot maintain a public equality without maintaining the moral equality of all human beings. U.S. pluralism was not tested previously by a true diversity of faith. Muslims are hypocrites they deny equality when in Muslim-majority societies. We’ve never had a Muslim head of state in the [modern] Muslim world though we now have the second Muslim president of America after Thomas Jefferson.

I also deal with a theological puzzle in 2:62: “Those who believe (in the Qur’an) and those who follow the Jewish (Scriptures) and the Christians and the Sabians and who believe in Allah and the last day and work righteousness shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear nor shall they grieve.” Allah permits and mullah forbids. Muslims have come up with many ways to distort minimize and eliminate. No religious text has ever articulated the moral worth of people of other faiths in this way. Some say it is abrogated. I am happy with Qaradawi’s fiqh al jihad, which seeks to rescue 29 verses of tolerance from those who have declared jihad against them. They are changing the cardinal issue from belief in God or the Dy of Judgment or the doing good deeds to belief in

Muhammad Shafi in Ma`ruf al-Qur’an attacks the modernizers’ liberality and tolerance saying in its proper context (undefined) salvation is only for those who accept Islam and it is an invitation to Islam for the groups mentioned. Othern modern conservatives other than Maududi and Qutb are getting more hardline. If we actually look at context it becomes increasingly apparent the Qur’an says what the commentators are trying to deny. Further, even if we accept that the verse is abrogated 5:48 (among others) is not.

Some say this verse was in response to the inquiry of Salman al-Farsi regarding the monks who brought him to monotheism and urged him to seek the promised Prophet (Muhammad). The hadith says they are the people of Hell. To comfort him, this ayah is revealed. Subsequently, the Prophet says he who dies in the dîn of Issa if he has not heard of me….” Then comes the issue that if you have just heard of Prophet Muhammad you are finished.

Tabari goes on for 30 pages about this and on the last page says that according to Ibn Abbas this ayah is abrogated, but he disagrees, saying abrogation is only for ahkam, not for God’s promises. Ibn Abbas was 5 years old when this ayah was revealed and only really started hanging out with the Prophet after ages 8 or ten. Further, he doesn’t actually quote the Prophet.

The verse is repeated in 5:69. If 3:85 abrogates 2:62, why does Allah resurrect it (in a slightly abbreviated form) in 5:69. None of the commentators offers that 5:69 abrogates 3:62. I cannot find conclusive evidence on the date of surah al-bayyana. It is the most difficult part of the Qur’an to unerstand. The style is Makkan, the content Medinan. If it is Meccan, than the story of Salman al-Farsi should not even arise. Except for ibn Taymiyyah all interpret verse 98:1 to mean that the previous peoples will not abandon erroneous beliefs until there comes a clear message. Only Ibn Taymiyyah interprets it to mean that they shall not be abandoned until there comes the clear message. Then why the need for 2:62? If al-Bayyina was revealed in Medina, then does it not abrogate the earlier verses making the argument moot.

Muhammad al-Ghazali has argued against abrogation but he has not addressed every case.  Even al-Arabi does not list 2:62 as abrogated. No discussion of 5:9 at all. Ibn Kathir makes it clear that the verse is abrogated. Perhaps naskh should be translated as supersession rather than abrogation. Only five cases are left that are arguably abrogation [I would say qualification], like fight unbelievers followed by if not strong enough fight two, etc. We should abandon the idea that the Qur’an is negating its own verses.

Jalalain never claimed 2:62 was abrogated. Also consider 5:43-48, esp. 5:48 in which Allah has given all of us diverse minhaj and shariah. No one claims 5:48 is abrogated by anything, although it is abused by Hizb at-Tahrir. This challenges Asad’s claim that 2:62 says Qur’an has abrogated previous revelations.

What do we mean by contextualization? It means to advance the interests of the ummah at that time. We cannot claim that any tafsir of Tabari or Ibn kathir as transcendent. All interpretations are political interpretations, that is, an attempt to understand the message of God in the here and now. It is possible that in some time periods some allegorical verses become clear and those that are allegorical become clear. Consider the statement that the universe is vast or expanding. (Muttashâriha.)

We need to have a secular commentary, by which I mean aimed at mu`ammalât rather than `ibâda. I think the Qur’an is profound. I find in the Qur’an guidance for this masslaha.

Discussant 1: Jasser Auda

I have studied the abrogation narrative in the book on maqâsid puboished by IIIT. Without contradiction there could not be abrogation. If there is any way to reconcile differences, for example by context there is no contradiction. As-Sayuti took the number down to about to about twenty and Shatibi to five, but they still believed in abrogation. I believe abrogation in the legal sense does not exist in the Qur’an. Nasakha appars in forty occasions all about qualification, or special case, or gradual application.  The 5-6 remaining verses are cases of graduation rather than cancellation. Contradictions in the sayings of the Prophet are also due to error on the part of the narrators.

Khan: How do we persuade those who do believe in abrogation? It is obvious we are not winning the methodological debate. 55% of Evangelical Christians believe that others, including non-Christians will go to heaven.  I have not addressed the challenge of Christians who have heard of Muhammad and remain Christian.

Discussant 2: Khaleel Mohammad

Khaleel Muhammad: “What we have here is a failure to communicate.” If you look at the development of literature on the subject over the last 50 years you see a rapid evolution along the lines described by Dr. Auda. Muslim majority states are theocracies and in a theocracy one religion is given dominance over another. “Whoever turns and prays out of devotion even to another god that devotion comes to me.” Our critique of our own religion requires an Abrahamic critique. The very name Haggar implies otherness, Agar means the outsider.  Sachedina’s Islamic Roots of Democratic Pluralism critiqued by Fareed Zakaria. Muhammad Leggenhausen’s critique of pluralism is wonderful to look at, available on line.

Muqtedar Khan: I wish there were an emerging consensus, but I don’t think you’ll find it at Dar al Ulum, or Deoband, etc. I had a long conversation with Leggenhausen and I could not subscribe to his views at all because his sources are not ones I accept. He basically calls for dialog rather than acceptance, for which he allows no possibility. I am very familiar with Sachedina’s work, but he has taken the terms democracy and pluralism uncritically, which problemetizes Islam and reifies democratic pluralism. As far as Krishna is concerned Hinduism is inherently intramurally pluralistic. In 3:84 Islam is clearly defined as the religion of Noah, etc.

Ayoub: I do not think Surat al Bayyina is a puzzle. It is a great Medinan surah because of the way it speaks of ahl-al-kitab. It means they will not give up, which they still have not. I think the answer of who goes to heaven and hell is in 4:123-4. Surat Ankabut (I think) says, “Do not dispute with the people of the book except in the best manner, except for those among them who commit wrongdoing….” Even in Surat-al-Ma’ida are verses calling on the people of the book to unite with the Muslims in a spirit of ecumenism, but unfortunately neither side did so. Can we now move to that goal the Qur’an outlined for us?

Khan: I want my argument accessible to both scholars and young people. Hamza, Jackson, and Mattson have all rejected this out of hand. When I show 4:122 to those in my majid they take “those who believe” mean those who have converted.

Ayoub: But the earliest hadith do not include “Muhammad ar-rasul Allah” in the shahadah.

Louay Safi: I think the problem is holding onto the surface meaning. Sequencing of the verses is speculative and will be influenced by the outcome we desire.

Khan: In the end I will call for a double reading of the Qur’an. We are born with a longer history than the sahaba, all of whom would fail a pop quiz asking what are the “sittah sahih of the sunnis?” The Qur’an concedes verses have multiple interpretations and praises those take away the best meaning. A hadith qudsi says Allah’s mercy prevails over His wrath. We should make that a principle of interpretation and privelege merciful interpretations over wrathful ones.

Imtiaz Yusuf: Do we extend this beyond Abrahamic religions?

Ayoub: We have four religions mentioned: Muslims, Jews, Christians, Sabaens (non-Abrahamic, and probably the Mandaens). Buddhism is an interesting case because early Buddhism was non-theistic, but later countless Buddhas were venerated.

Khan: Sabeans may have also been non-theistic. I do not address that in this issue because it deprives me of authenticity. Even in Mecca some have made an argument for the prophethood of Krishna and Buddha. Foucoult speaks of regimes of truth, discourses about producing truth. Muslims of this era have divorced common sense.

Honercamp. I’m a convert and I find the argument of the inclusiveness of Islam much more attractive than the argument of the exclusiveness.

Ahmad: The reason for the end of polytheism in Arabia was notits suppressionj, but that the people were so overwhelmed by the magnanimitgy of the Prophet  that they converted voluntarily

Honercamp: I understand why it is socially comfortable for the Muslim in the street to think I alone have the truth, but why have scholars held so tightly to this point of view?

Ayoub: Islam has proven itself to answer people’s needs. Now when we are in the deepest darkness it is the fastest growing religion in the world, so Muslims have this certainty. The two verses 2:62, 5:59 come near the beginning and the end of the Prophet’s career in Medina. The first real major surah is Baqarah, also the first surah after the hijrah, not subject to naskh.  Because we are talking about the Muslims we are ignoring the fact that Christians are much more hardheaded than we are. Their inclusiveness is a kind I don’t want, calling even atheists “anonymous Christians.” What if I don’t want to be saved? “Had God not repelled some people by others then churches, synagogues and mosques where the name of God is mentioned….”

Khan: Scholars were very protective against rulers and to prevent the abuse of the key religion combined with a distrust of philosophy, of reason, and of the ordinary people, they feared people would be misguided and leave the Qur’an and sunnah.

Honercamp: But your argument doesn’t equate all religions; it only validates others. If my son came to me and said I’m going to convert to Judaism I would say “No you’re not!” We’re on the straight path.

Sami Catovic. Can we not allow a belief that others are going to Hell without dehumanizing them? I find that the bigger challenge in the field. My problem of interfaith dialog is some push for salvation, which doesn’t have to be the case. We can have dialog without crossing certain theological boundaries.

Khan: I like what Dr. Safi said. There is no consensus. Yes, Nuh is reviving the work of Nadawi, but they are not cornering the market for six or seven years; people are buying a box of my books and then giving it to me to distribute to the community. The mosques today were founded by “uncles.” The young people are finding there is much more to Islam than their “uncles” taught them.  The disadvantage of the liberals is that they have not articulated their methodology. One of my students said “You are turning to pluralism and liberalism now when the whole world is turning away form it.”

Ayoub. The problem is our partners. Many Christians with whom we dialog are condescending.

Khan: My views on this are not dependent on the actions or beliefs of others. It’s a belief and not a diplomatic strategy. It is about becoming a Muslim.

Ayoub: The Qur’an does not present it as a theory but as a call.

Ahmed Rafiq: Abdl Kalam Azad interprets 2:62 to include Hinduism.

Khan: Azad’s very complicated. He is Salafi in the Wahabi sense (he loves Ibn Taymiyyah), yet he is extremely liberal. If you read the tafsirs of Maududi and Qutb I think they write in prison, from memory. They quote the ones they remember.

Mousavi: The late Hamid Abu Zaid said naskh is a way of communicating with society.

Khan: Many of these commentators just translate Ibn Kathir and then attach their own comments giving examples or railing against imaginary enemies. Saudi money has gone a long way to make Ibn Kathir dominant. We need to translate Tabari, ar-Razi, etc. I had a scary two days with Yasir Qadi who said this is a debate between ar-Razi and Ibn Taymiyyah. Muslims should return to the entire tradition and not this selective tradition.

Mehmet Ata Az: Nasih almansukh?

Khan: The way I understand this is that abrogation is possible only in ahkâm, not dîn.

Ahmad: Naksh has been used to advance liberal agendas as well as conservative ones. My objection to naskh is to the idea itself, not to the consequences.

Imad-ad-Dean Ahmad, Ph.D.
Minaret of Freedom Institute
www.minaret.org