fantastic planet » Anulios on Ijtihad [...] Thanks to Anulios, I just learned about something in Islam called Ijtihad. (And no, that’s not a misspelling of jihad, although Wikipedia asserts that they have a common root word meaning “struggle”). I’ll let the blog entry from Anulios explain it to you though: Ijtihad was a philosophical practice inherent in Islam from the very beginning that stated that if something was true then it would not be harmed by questioning it, even in the most extreme manner. Conversely, something false would not be upheld under such questioning and would be exposed and this would be a good thing. Hence, it became a duty for Muslims to practice this questioning - on the words of Imams, teachings of Mullahs and even the Qur’an itself. This questioning is what resulted in the Golden Age of Islam and formed the foundation of one of humanity’s greatest civilizations. [...]----- [...] Wow, this is fascinating! Ijtihad was a philosophical practice inherent in Islam from the very beginning that stated that if something was true then it would not be harmed by questioning it, even in the most extreme manner. Conversely, something false would not be upheld under such questioning and would be exposed and this would be a good thing. Hence, it became a duty for Muslims to practice this questioning - on the words of Imams, teachings of Mullahs and even the Qur’an itself. This questioning is what resulted in the Golden Age of Islam and formed the foundation of one of humanity’s greatest civilizations. [...]-----

Even though I’m strongly in the question-everything camp, and learning about Islamic mysticism as well, I don’t think it’s fair to interpret the closing of the gates of ijtihad back then through the filter of post-Enlightenment democratic principles and rationalism.

Just to add some historical detail (from my modest pool of knowledge). The closing of the gates of ijtihad around 13th century CE was also in response to the invasions of Islamic lands by the Mongolian armies of the Khans from the Far East.

Life was in severe turmoil--war, upheaval, destruction, etc--so the head honchos of Dar-el-Islam (either by themselves or in response to popular sentiment) decided that there were too many wishy-washy beliefs and practices. Times were uncertain enough without the inherent uncertainty of someone who constantly questions (and possibly undermines) the basic assertions of society and truth. People wanted something simpler and more concrete.

So, to remove that inherent uncertainty a number of reformers declared that there was nothing more to learn--people could not become wiser, and would only need to look back to the legal decisions of the past, not seek new ones.

Inevitably, this kind of intellectual self-censorship proves detrimental. Now...does any of this sound familiar with what’s going on today? Reminds me both of the “patrotism” immediately post-9/11 in the USA (no one must question the government new national mythology), as well as Muslim reactions to invasion by the aforementioned Western empire. The threat comes from the West instead of the East, but the reaction is the same: no room for questioning.

But Islam didn’t go into direct decline either. You look at the Ottoman Empire. Even before the Ottomans, Islam controlled trade from Asia, which was what prompted Columbus to look for a new route to Asia.

And you look at the Moghul Empire in India. Around the time of Akbar, the Moghul Empire was making more money--adjusted for inflation--than Britannia would during the height of its imperial power in the late 1800s. It’s no wonder than Britain considered India to be the crown jewel in its empire.

Anwyay, Moghul India, at least under Akbar, was extremely tolerant (from what I understand).

I’ll be coming back to your blog! Seems interesting

Some good points Sj - I agree one cannot view things through our current western filters. I’m not so sure about the Mongols though, Islam was under threat and at war from the beginning and ijtihad remained as a principle for hundreds of years - don’t you think that a major factor was the efforts to stamp it out by the Asharite school and also (strangely) a result of the thought of al-Ghazali?

In a way it is not so important the ‘why’. The fact is it existed as a solid principle and then it didn’t - which benefitted people who wished to prevent others from exercising a reasoning capacity.

The Moguls were actually very interesting, wish I knew more about that period. You are definitely right about some uncomfortable parallels too…

Many Muslims are calling for a return to the principles of ijtihad. Most notable I suppose is Irshad Manji of Muslim Refusenik.

Manji is a good example of the ijtihad debate actually - she is a gay feminist and is still a Muslim (despite death threats and general aggravation).

Extremists say she cannot be a Muslim (or is a heretic) and non-Mulsims who for one reason or another have set themselves up as calling for ‘reform’ cite her as a ‘moderate’ but in fact she is just a Muslim who is exercising her reason (aql) in a personal ijtihad.

Despite her sexuality and political views being opposed by those who have defined themselves as the ‘orthodox’, she still defines herself as a Muslim: because her reason sees no conflict - as opposed to the literalist’s non-reason which does.

Now I do not agree with Manji on many topics and do not like many of her approaches - but she is right about several things: most particularly about what exactly islam is and isn’t.

Suffice to say for now that it isn’t the way it is portrayed - either by the western media or by the literalists and extremists.

Some good points, Segovius. As you pointed out with the Asharites, freedom of interpretation was always a problem. I don’t know if this is specific to ijtihad, which from my understanding was specifically a legal doctrine rather than a more general theological or philosophical one—it’s about adapting law rather than out-and-out philosophical rationalism (which had its place too, though). Al-Ghazzali railed against pure rationalism as an approach to finding God, because no amount of rationalization can allow you to experience God. In the end, he vouched for mysticism as a better approach to finding God. But he didn’t discount rationalism for things like science. Or maybe I’m getting mixed up with Ibn Arabi…

In any case, it all goes back to the conflicting approaches to faith that appear in many religions. Karen Armstrong explores the topic brilliantly in her books. That’s where I first learned about ijtihad (read it in Manji as well). Funny, the things they don’t teach you in Sunday school. Then again, the teachers were all volunteers and maybe they didn’t know either. I’m just thankful that I have come across this deeper knowledge.

Great that someone on Blog Ladder referred me back to this article after leaving a link there this morning she (Kitlulu) told me she had already come across you via other channels.
Also marvellous to see other westerners delving deeply and bringing up useful knolwedge to help de-mythologise and de-defame Islam.
Thanks and all encouragement to your good work.