Modern vs. Islamic Values

I was asked the following question this morning:

How would you respond to those who attack the Abrahamic religions on the grounds that they promote a pre-industrial system of values which no longer makes sense today.

The first thought that came to mind is, "These people don't understand Islam (or shari'ah)." Or perhaps even the other Ibrahimic faiths. Not that that's anything new!

I talked to my wife about this topic during lunch, and I'll write down what she said first, before giving my own answer. Her thought is that Islam maintains a dynamism through ijtihad. As I'm sure you know, Muslims are constantly asking for fatawa from imams regarding the halalness of various issues. Although the Qur'an and Sunnah are static documents, both shari'ah and fiqh are dynamic. The novel situations presented for review make fresh interpretations a regular occurrence. Add to that the differences in opinion between different scholars. So, from her (and my) perspective, Islamic values make a great deal of sense today because the values are evaluated and applied in our post-industrial society.

My own perspective is that Islamic values are not time-limited, but timeless. The details of human life have changed greatly over the millennia, but the essence of human existence is more or less the same since the beginning of recorded history. Shari'ah today deals with the same issues that existed when the Qur'an was revealed 1400 years ago: marriage, divorce, inheritance, theft, murder, eating, drinking, adultery, sex, and so on. Nothing has really changed since the beginning of time. What Islam doesn't do is change its core principles, its values. The guidelines for determining what is right and what is wrong remain the same. The same cannot be said for modern values, and I think society is the poorer for it.

The message continues:

The Muslim preference for a religiously-based legal system is probably the strongest example, but I'll use natalism (famously promoted by Roman Catholicism) as my example.

In pre-industrial times, natalism made sense for two reasons:

1) The pre-industrial economy was poor and to first approximation a zero sum game, so the only way to get appreciably richer was to rob wealth from someone else thru aggressive war.
2) The state of military technology at the time meant that "victory belonged to the bigger battalions", so maximizing the birth rate was an effective way for a state to maximize its political power.

Today however, natalism is a bad idea financially (because of the huge cost of educating all those extra children to the standard which a modern society requires) and can no longer be justified by its original basis. Aggressive war -- at least against other major powers -- is now suicidal due to nuclear weapons, and industrialization now allows ample opportunities for positive-sum economic growth.

And then there's the environmental consequences of excessive population growth!

Regarding natalism, while there is nothing similar to the Biblical "go forth and multiply," there is a slight natalist attitude in the Qur'an. You mention the argument that "natalism is a bad idea financially (because of the huge cost of educating all those extra children to the standard which a modern society requires)." But from an Islamic perspective this argument is very weak because it is an argument based upon selfishness. (This is a good example of the weakness of "modern values.") Several Qur'anic verses (e.g., 6:151, 17:31) condemn the killing of infants and children from a fear of their becoming economic burdens. Indeed, according to one hadith, the killing of children "lest it should share your food" is the second worst sin, behind only shirk.

Update: This essay was cross-posted at Street Prophets, where it has already been promoted to the Front Page.

Shaitan as the Wolf

I came across this one hadith I was unfamiliar with, and found it of interest:

Transmitted Ahmad. Narrated Mu'adh bin Jabal (r.a.): "Allah's Messnger (s.a.w.) said: 'Verily Satan is the wolf of a man just as the wolf is (the enemy) of a flock. He seizes the solitary sheep going astray from the flock or going aside from the flock. So avoid the branching paths; it is essential for you to remain along with the community.'" (Mishkat [1/184])

The Qur'an and Sunnah of the Prophet (pbuh) warn us against the dangers of bida and internal division (forming sects and denominations). Those who complain that the "gates of ijtihad" need reopening should reconsider their beliefs. To continue the analogy of the hadith, it is better to be alive, even if one is a "herd animal," than dead, being feasted upon by Shaitan.

Wa Allahu 'alim.

Regarding Ijtihad

After writing my Salaam 'alaikum essay and posting it on Street Prophets, I've had a number of questions asked of me in the past few days. I've felt that a number of these responses should also be reposted back here, on my blogs. This first reposting is with regard to the some questions concerning ijtihad (the original questions are in italics):


"I have been advised that there is a significant tradition in Islam of "Ijtihad" or the individual Muslim's responsibility and authority to interpret the Qur'an."

Ijtihad is a much broader concept than just trying to interpret the Qur'an. As I mentioned in a previous comment, Islam is considered by Muslims as a way of life. We try to apply Islamic principles in all aspects of our lives. For us, the means are just as important - and perhaps even more important - than the ends. And so you have a major world religion that's created an enormous corpus of law that's known as Shari'ah.

Ijtihad itself is "the process of making a legal decision by independent interpretation of the legal sources, the Qur'an and the Sunnah." But even here, ijtihad is not the first resort. The basis for Islamic law, called fiqh (pronounced "fee-kay"), is first the Qur'an, then the Sunnah (which includes the various collections of ahadith, or sayings of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)), then qiyas or analogies, and finally ijma or consensus of the scholars. If there is no guidance to answer a question based upon the Qur'an or Sunnah, or through qiyas, only then is ijtihad supposed to be used. But even there, a consensus (or better yet, a unanimous opinion) is sought because Muslims recognize that there are differences of opinion. In such cases, it is better to avoid the extremes and follow the middle path. (Sort of like how figure skating and diving used to be judged: toss out the high and low scores and average or total the remainder.)

In which case, the question becomes, who should be a mujtahid (one who applies ijtahid)? The traditional answer is a scholar of Islamic law, or alim. Liberal Muslims (which I am not) argue that any Muslim should be able to perform ijtahid, but I strongly disagree with this. Muhammad ibn Idris al-Shafi'i (d. 819), who founded the Shafi'i school of thought, recognized the problem of individual laymen trying to perform ijtihad, who would come up with haphazard opinions. IMO, this is exactly the problem the liberal Muslims are recreating in that perhaps 99.99999% of Muslims worldwide are not qualified to be a scholar who can perform ijtahid.

I bring all this up because I'm trying to say that it is not an "individual Muslim's responsibility and authority to interpret the Qur'an." This is the irony that irritates me with the so-called non-Muslim "Insta-Experts" on Islam. It takes a Muslim years and years of education and training to get to a point where he or she can competently perform ijtihad, whereas these people have little or no education or training and yet they think they're qualified to express an opinion. To analogize, this is like deciding who to see when you have a medical problem: do you visit a qualified doctor or do you go to the person who has little or no education or training? (This analogy is applicable to both the non-Muslim "Insta-Experts" and the liberal Muslims.) What makes it worse from an Islamic perspective is that providing wrong advice compounds the problem (sin) onto the person who provided the faulty information. For example, if you asked me, say, if it were all right for you to have pre-marital sex from an Islamic perspective and I said, "yeah, sure, go ahead," and you did, not only would you accrue the sin of zina (sexual activity outside of marriage), but so would I because I gave you the wrong advice. So, once more, it's better to seek information from the qualified source.


"As you noted, different schools of Islamic thought would seem to offer more ot less authoritative jurisprudence (if that is the right word) on matters of Islamic law and teaching. How do individual Muslims approach this possible tension between individual interpretation and scholarly tradition at the practical human level, i.e. do non-scholarly or non-academic Muslims have rules of thumb on such matters, at the real, practical level?"

The basic, orthodox interpretations of the Qur'an, Sunnah, and life in general as a Muslim are well known and long established; after all, we've had 1400 years to work out most of the "bugs." Media for education are numerous. Most of the primary information is taught in classrooms or through various media (books, magazines, videotapes, the Internet, and so on). When answers to specific questions are needed, Muslims can go to numerous sources. Many people will ask questions of their imams or ustaz (religious teacher). In some countries with significant Muslim populations, there may be some sort of authority that can provide guidance. For example, here in Singapore, we can ask questions to MUIS, the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore. And there are numerous sources of information on the Internet who answer specific questions. Of course, with any of these sources (especially the last), it's to our benefit to seek out other opinions (similar to seeking a second opinion from a doctor). Even my ustaz, who is an imam at one of the most important masjids here in Singapore, has told us to go ask other people if we felt uncomfortable in any way with what he tells us.

The problem for many North American Muslims, IMO, is that they don't have a lot of the educational institutions that other, more developed Muslim communities have. They have the books and magazines and the Internet to rely upon - and these are a great help - but I think they lack in terms of the qualified imams and ustazs and educational facilities for both children and adults. Still, despite this very fragmentary approach to educating individual Muslims in their deen (religion), the nice thing from my perspective is that, after praying in Allah (swt) knows how many masjids in five countries and on three continents, and having met Muslims from perhaps two dozen different countries to date, I have found there to be a strong unity of beliefs, interpretations and practices of Islam worldwide.