Accepting imperfections in theological theory

Mirza Tirta Kusuma, Chicago

Islam is not a monolithic religion; it is a religion of multiple interpretations. Although Islam may appear to be monolithic, its form and expression vary from one individual to another and from group to group. Thus, there is no single interpretation for the Koran, as the source of Islam. In addition, there is no concept of "church" in Islam and no one authority can issue a religious edict and expect it to be accepted universally by all Muslims.

So how is Islam, especially sharia here to be understood?

There are a number of factors that can influence the outcome of an individual Muslim's understanding of sharia. In hermeneutics, we know that reading text is not straightforward. The text will disclose its meaning in interactive ways. Text means or produces meaning in many and different ways. In addition insight and enlightenment are provided in various contexts and by various peoples.

Thus, everybody has a right to understand the words he/she hears or reads. He/she has his/her own reflection on the texts. In this case, different intellectual inclinations also influence the effort to understand sharia and thus lead to different interpretations of a particular doctrine.

Thus, no single scriptural trajectory of any teaching should be absolutized. The evolutionary process of interpretation that makes up the texts must continue today in the same manner in which it took place then, in continuity with what went before, preserving the past without embalming it, faithful to the past without being limited by it. We should be aware of the historical context in which Islam grew up, for us to take into consideration when interpreting the doctrine.

Sharia, unlike the Koran, is not devoid of human opinion. Correct knowledge of the history of Islam also indicates that sharia developed centuries ago, and that, due to social and political circumstances, its stipulations have not been amended in accordance with new social conditions. It is for this reason that there are various schools of jurisprudence, which differ from each other on many questions.

Sharia is also not unchangeable. Many of its rules and regulations are no longer applicable to present social problems. Earlier Islamic thinkers, like Ibn Taymiyah, had recognized the necessity for change in view of changing circumstances, and it is for this reason that he came out with a doctrine that religious edicts can change according to changing times.

The above perspective is based on the fact that the Koran was revealed to the Prophet over a period of 23 years. Some verses, therefore, refer to specific events like the campaign at the time of the battle Badr, and specific acts of the Prophet, such as his marriage to Zaynab bint Jahsh. (Q 33: 36).

Moreover, various Koranic prescriptions relate to the practices of pre-Islamic society and were in response to the social circumstances prevalent then, and these practices no longer have the same social implications. Over the centuries Muslims societies have changed and now have new problems, which need new sharia legislation.

Today contradictions within Islam are more fatal; it is a bomb, not an ass, which extremist ideologues may be riding into the future. The extremist' single-minded hubris has transformed a regional problem into a global crisis. And we have been deeply troubled by the devastating effects of theological intolerance, which sapped the community's ability to accommodate plausible theological differences.

If Muslims are not able to accept doctrinal differences among themselves, how will they live in a globalized world, in which cultural and religious differences are norms? Thus, to make sense of a pluralistic world, an authentic Islamic theology of difference is needed. This theology has to be based on the understanding that religious diversity reflects the will of God and that Islam allows different paths to an understanding of divine will. For this new theology to arise a hermeneutical space is required in which critical thinking can take place.

In fact, this effort has been done by Muslim thinker al- Ghazaly (1058-1111). His book entitled Faysal al-tafriqa bayna al-Islam wa al-zandaqa (the Decisive Criterion for Distinguishing Islam from Heresy) was written to refute the tendency of Muslim scholars in his time who condemned their opponents as nonbelievers or heretics.

In his book al-Ghazali defined the boundaries within which competing theologies can coexist in mutual recognition of each other, i.e., as "orthodox," in the sense of passing theological muster. In other words, it is not to decide, who among the theological school is "right", but rather to demonstrate the folly and unfairness of the practice of condemning a doctrine as heresy simply because it goes against one's own theology. Furthermore, al-Ghazali insists even where a doctrine can be justifiably deemed "wrong" or heretical, this does not necessarily constitute nonbelief.

According to al-Ghazali, sacred texts such as the Koran and Hadith are open to interpretation on five different levels: Ontological-existential (dhati), experiential (hissi), conceptual (khayali), intellectual (aqli), and metaphorical (shabahi or majazi).

Nevertheless, it does not mean that all interpretations of a sacred text are of equal value. Some may be misguided or even completely wrong. However, wrong interpretations should not be suppressed as heresy. An interpretation is heretical only if it denies the truth of a sacred text on all the above hermeneutical levels.

Epistemologically, the exegesis of a sacred text constitutes informed opinion (zann) and not absolute truth (haqq), thus no one may claim an exclusive right of interpretation and no single interpretation is definitive. This approach helps preserve alternative voices that keep the process of interpretation open- ended and its spirit conforms to the liberal ideal of freedom of speech by granting to jurists and theologians the right to be wrong.

In conclusion we can say that the denial of ijtihad (individual interpretation) means nothing less than the denial of Allah's continuing, living solicitude and the mission of the Prophet to bring mercy to the world.

Unfortunately, Muslim reformers who wish to reform their societies by making sharia the basis of their legal system often forget that the duty of mercy applies to each and every obligation that is enjoined upon human beings in the Koran. What this means in practice is that when the performance of an obligation calls for severity, it is the duty of Muslims to temper severity with mercy.

The writer is a graduate student of comparative theology, divinity school, University of Chicago, U.S.