A note on conceptual confusions

It is almost a truism to say that Islam is a balancing act, a balanced way and a system of life based on moderation. Of course Islam is the religion of justice and moderation. But what does this mean? What is the conceptual and logical status of terms such as ‘moderation,’ ‘balancing acts,’ and ‘justice?’

When Allah (Almighty and Glorious is He) calls His religion and deen a balanced act and a path of moderation, He does this on the basis of His all-encompassing knowledge and on the basis that He is the creator of the criterion (Al-furqan) according to which we distinguish between what is a balancing act and what is not, what is moderation and what is extreme.

Allah (Almighty and Glorious is He) revealed the criterion through His messengers and through His books to us so that we can guide our life according to the revealed criterion. The criterion is preserved in its purest and final form in the teachings of Islam, in the Quran and in the life and sayings of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah Most High be upon him) and the Ijma of the Ulema of this Ummah.

Allah (Almighty and Glorious is He) revealed the criterion to differentiate between good and evil, moderation and extreme, because it is impossible to discover the criterion through human efforts, through senses, reason and intuition. The senses, reason and intuition has no bearing on the question. This is the basis of the need for the prophethood and divine guidance. If one does not accept that senses, reason and intuition are unable to discover the ultimate truths one in fact denies the need for prophethood and guidance.

Greek philosophers like Plato and Aristotle believed (for example) that the ultimate criterion to distinguish between justice and injustice can be discovered through reason. Aristotle famously held that a right act was ‘mean’ between two extremes and that ‘mean’ can be discovered through a combination of theoretical and practical intellect.

The Christian and Muslim disciples of Plato and Aristotle had great difficulty in reconciling the Platonic and Aristotelian views about the self sufficiency of human intellect with their religious views about the need for prophethood and guidance. In the end they were compelled to propose an arbitrary compromise according to which both philosophers and prophets teach the same truth. The difference however is that the way of messengers is “easy” and open/accessible to the masses while the way of philosophers is difficult and hard to understand for most people. That is how St. Augustine, Aquinas, Al-Farabi, and Ibn Sina claim to reconcile the teachings of the Greek philosophers with Christianity and Islam respectively.

Now our master the Hujjah of Islam Imam Ghazali totally rejected this so called reconciliation. He showed the incoherence (Tahafa) of any such claims. He established beyond doubt that reason was incapable of discovering the criterion (Al-furqan) of what is right and wrong, just and unjust, moderate and extreme. To accept the absurd claims of philosophers is in fact to deny the essence of prophethood and the most basic human need i.e. the need for guidance.

In the light of above it should be clear that Islam is the sole criterion through which we can distinguish between what is good and evil, what is right and wrong, what is just and unjust. This is implied by a universally agreed upon belief among the Ahlussunna wal jamaah that Islam is the truth (Al-Haq). There can be no value neutral criterion to judge whether Islam is just or not, moderate or extreme, because Islam itself defines what is just and unjust, what is moderate and extreme, what is balanced or not, in the first place.

There is no difference of opinion among Ahlussunna wal jamaah on the above in that, unlike Mutazilah (and Shia), they unanimously reject that justice can be defined in any value neutral terms. It is for this reason that Ahlussuna wal jamaah (unlike Mutazilah and Shia) has never included justice among the basic pillars of Islam.

If the above is correct then something like the following can be interpreted in two different ways of which only one can be correct:

A)Islam is the religion of moderation and a balancing act
B)Justice and balance are from the greatest goals of the Shariah.
C)Our scholars have stated that the Shariah came with justice and balance in every way.

The statements above and countless other statements like this are correct if understood within the limit of what we have said above as meaning that the Shariah came to establish balance, justice and moderation in the life of people and that the Shariah itself defines what is just, unjust, balance, etc.

However the above statements are wrong when they are presented as independent principles (Usul) to derive Ahkam, simply because Shariah itself defines what is moderate and what is not and so moderation cannot possibly be a principle of deriving Ahkam (simple logic would suffice to understand it).

If the Shariah itself defines what is moderation and what is not then it is simply nonsense to use the concepts of balance, moderation or justice as independent principles to establish the permissibility or impermissibility of a certain act. If justice means acting according to the will of Allah (Almighty and Glorious is He), if balance means choosing the way Allah (Almighty and Glorious is He)has prescribed for us and His beloved (peace and blessings of Allah Most High be upon him) has lived for us then how on earth can the concepts of justice and balance be treated as principles to establish Ahkam?? Imbalance means deviating from the way of the beloved of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah Most High be upon him), injustice means not obeying the Will of Allah (Almighty and Glorious is He). That is why Islam is the justice and the balance and Kufr is injustice and imbalance par excellence.

However it is not just simple nonsense to treat justice, moderation and balance as independent concepts, it is rather a dangerous ploy as well (intentional or unintentional) to distort the very meaning of Shariah and the deen of Allah (Almighty and Glorious is He). The very fact that a third term is employed in discussing issues rather than establishing the religious edict in a direct way itself points towards the fact that something is fundamentally wrong with this strategy.

Invoking a third term is a dangerous ploy because it imperceptibly and gradually tries to establish the value neutral meaning of justice, balance and moderation and hence changes the very meaning of these terms as they are understood in the religion of Allah (Almighty and Glorious is He). It gradually reinterprets the Shariah of Allah (Almighty and Glorious is He) in the light of these supposedly value neutral concepts.

It should be remembered that the concepts which I have referred to as value neutral are in fact never value neutral. The content of these concepts if not derived from the consensually established meaning of Shariah is filled by the meaning of the term which is prevalent. Considering which civilisation is dominant today, epistemologically and politically, the whole process can only be described as modernization and Westernisation of Islam. The process is part of the campaign to create a moderate Islam (thus intended or not).

The above mentioned danger is not an abstract or empty danger. This is precisely what happened with Christianity and this is God forbid what could happen to Islam if the trend spreads.

It is ironic that in the forefront of the movement leading this are those who claim to hold the banner of traditionalism. But in fact there is no deeper irony here since traditionalism is the flipside of Modernity and Modernity has always used traditionalists to their advantage.

Modernity can only be resisted and eventually overcome on the basis of the principles of Ahlussunna wal jamaah who combine emphasis on tradition and continuity with equal or more emphasis on the transcendent character of Quran, Sunnah, and the Ijma of the best period in the history of Islam (i.e. the Ijma of the first century of Islamic era).